2013-03-27
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a previous member of this parliament, Mr Neville Perkins, who is here to view proceedings. Welcome, Mr Perkins, I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I also welcome into the gallery Mr Andrew Fyles, who is the father of the member for Nightcliff. Welcome. I hope you keep a close eye on your daughter to ensure she is doing the right thing.
Honourable members, also coming into the Speaker’s Gallery will be a group of clients from Alzheimer’s Australia NT, who have not arrived yet. When they do they will be coming through those doors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the report by the Department of the Legislative Assembly, pursuant to paragraphs 8.3 and 10.9(b) of the Remuneration Tribunal Report No 1 of 2011, which contains an annual schedule of members’ travel at government expense, and an annual schedule containing the respective totals of government payments on behalf of each member for satellite and mobile telephones for the year 2012.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the paper be noted.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
ELECTRONIC CONVEYANCING (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 21)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Madam SPEAKER: Attorney-General, before you start, I would just like to welcome some students.
Honourable members, I welcome in the gallery senior Darwin High School students accompanied by Jenny Jenkinson. On behalf of honourable members, I welcome you to parliament. I hope you enjoy your time here and your visit.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Electronic Conveyancing (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2013 will enact the Electronic Conveyancing National Law as a law of the Northern Territory. The Electronic Conveyancing National Law is set out as an appendix to this bill. This bill will ensure the Northern Territory is in a position to participate in a national scheme for electronic settlement, lodgement and processing of conveyancing transactions.
The key objectives sought to be achieved by the legislation and an associated intergovernmental agreement are: that there is a national scheme that permits electronic settlement processes to occur anywhere in Australia, regardless of the place in which the participating jurisdiction where the land is located; that state and Territory registrars will act cooperatively to either operate themselves or, more likely, authorise an independent organisation to operate an electronic lodgement network; that the security of the lodgements and registrations occurring through the electronic network will be maximised by ensuring that only properly authorised persons (subscribers) can access the network on behalf of clients and that the underlying law for registration principles concerning electronic conveyancing is the same in all participating states and territories.
An Australia-wide scheme for electronic conveyancing was endorsed in 2008 by the Council of Australian Governments under the national partnership agreement for a seamless national economy. All Australian states and territories, except the Australian Capital Territory, signed the intergovernmental agreement, thus committing to the implementation of uniform legislation regulating electronic conveyancing. In the case of the Northern Territory, the agreement was signed by my predecessor early in 2012. The Commonwealth government is not a party to the agreement.
A copy of the intergovernmental agreement can be found at the following Internet address: www.arnecc.gov.au/publications.
Under the agreement, each participating jurisdiction agreed to enact the Electronic Conveyancing National Law either through legislation applying model legislation, as enacted in the New South Wales parliament, or as a law of that jurisdiction, or by enacting corresponding legislation substantially similar to the New South Wales legislation. The Northern Territory has chosen to enact corresponding legislation that provides for the same national law as contained in the New South Wales legislation.
Under the intergovernmental agreement, any proposed amendment to the Electronic Conveyancing National Law must be supported by at least 75% of the participating state and territory ministers. If proposed amendments gain the necessary support, clause 10 of the intergovernmental agreement provides that the executive government of each signatory state or territory must take all reasonable steps to secure the agreed change in the law. As long as governments comply with clause 10, this should ensure Electronic Conveyancing National Law is consistent between jurisdictions.
However, the Territory bill provides that any amendments to the national law that are agreed to by the executive government must also be supported by the parliament. This outcome is achieved by clause 5 of the bill. It sets out the Administrator may make regulations that amend the national law. Such amendments must reflect changes agreed to in accordance with the intergovernmental agreement. Regulations made under clause 5 are, like most Northern Territory regulations, subject to the disallowance provisions contained in the Interpretation Act.
Clause 12 of the intergovernmental agreement also allows a state or territory to withdraw from the intergovernmental agreement by giving six months notice. The agreement will continue to be enforced with respect to the remaining signatories.
The legislation adopting the Electronic Conveyancing National Law was passed by the New South Wales parliament on 12 October 2012. Victoria introduced a bill adopting the New South Wales legislation on 14 November 2012. The Victorian legislation was passed by the Victorian Legislative Assembly on 7 February 2013. The Queensland government introduced its legislation on 27 November 2012. It is anticipated that each signatory to the intergovernmental agreement will introduce legislation to adopt the New South Wales legislation or apply the national law within the next 12 months.
The Australian Registrars National Electronic Conveyancing Council, usually known as ARNECC, has been established to oversee the Electronic Conveyancing National Law. The council consists of the Registrar of Titles or equivalent office holder from each signatory jurisdiction. For the Northern Territory, the Registrar-General is the member. The council will have the day-to-day responsibility of administrating electronic conveyancing policy development on behalf of the state or territory governments.
Registrars will also be given the power to operate or authorise the use of the electronic lodgement network so instruments are registered electronically, with the same effect as registration of paper instruments.
The Northern Territory has adopted the Torrens system as a means of acquiring, transferring and disposing of interests in land. The Torrens system of land titles provides certainty of the land through the issuing of a certificate as to the title. The Northern Territory Land Titles Register has been held in electronic form since the early 1980s, with formal legal recognition occurring in the early 1990s.
However, the settlement process for the buying and selling of land leading up to a point where documents are lodged for registration at the Land Titles Office is formalised via a paper exchange of documents between the relevant parties and the financial institutions, the Territory Revenue Office and the Land Titles Office. It is a process that requires the parties to meet one another, usually at the Land Titles Office in Darwin or Alice Springs, for the purpose of exchanging documents and cheques. They then lodge the documents which are checked at the counter by the Deputy Registrar-General. If the documents are assessed as suitable for lodgement, they are formally entered into the electronic title system so the registration can then proceed to occur.
This conveyancing process is finalised by the act of registering the transfer of land with the Land Titles Office, and the transfer being entered electronically in the register.
The Electronic Conveyancing National Law seeks to improve the efficiency of property conveyancing in Australia. The law achieves this by providing a common legal framework which establishes documents to be prepared, lodged and processed in an electronic form. This is, perhaps, the most significant advancement to conveyancing in Australia since the introduction of the Torrens system of title in South Australia in 1858.
Electronic conveyancing removes the need for the manual processing of documentation associated with the exchange of property and allowing land registries, financial institutions, and practitioners to complete the document exchanges electronically. This will provide tangible time and cost benefits to the conveyancing industry and property owners, as well as sellers, as the need for the parties to physically attend the final settlement will no longer be necessary.
The benefits will be seen through the transactions within the Northern Territory when Territorians are involved in transactions with another jurisdiction, as the same information technology system is used for electronic conveyancing and will apply nationally. It is important to note this common legal framework does not derogate from the fundamental principles of the Torrens system of land title such as indefeasibility of title.
The critical issue in electronic conveyancing is ensuring there is public confidence in the security of title. Based on research and legal analysis, electronic conveyancing has fewer risks to the security of title than the risks that exist in the paper environment.
In order to prepare for the introduction of Electronic Conveyancing National Law, the states and territories are developing an electronic conveyancing network to allow for conveyancing in electronic form. The company called National E-Conveyancing Development Limited (NECDL) was formed to create the electronic conveyancing network. This company was formed by the states of Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. The four major financial institutions have also now invested in the company.
The NECDL has entered into a contract with Accenture to design, build, test and deploy the network. The development of the electronic conveyancing network has reached the point where National E-Conveyancing Development Limited is more than halfway through the build of Australia’s first national e-conveyancing platform named Property Exchange Australia or PEXA. Property Exchange Australia is scheduled to be launched during 2013.
Property Exchange Australia is proposed to have the ability to accept the lodgement of documentation concerning the property settlements in one simple transaction. This platform will initially allow Land Title Offices and financial institutions to perform single-party transactions such as stand-alone discharges, mortgages, and refinances electronically. Beginning in 2014, it is anticipated that solicitors and conveyancers will be able to join the exchange, providing the ability to perform multiparty transactions such as online settlements, transfers, notices and caveats. Owing to the very high standards being set for becoming a subscriber it is anticipated that only financial institutions, lawyers, and conveyancing agents will be authorised.
The use of the electronic conveyancing network will not be compulsory, and the current method of paper-based conveyancing will continue to be available for use in Northern Territory for transactions where the parties agree to use paper transactions. Over time, there is a likelihood that financial institutions will seek to ensure that all of their transactions are handled electronically. However, it will be up to them to manage relationships with their own clients concerning matters such as authorisation of digital signatures.
There are some features of the national law. The bill is divided into three main areas. First, Part 2 of the bill provides for (1) the adoption of Electronic Conveyancing National Law; (2) for amendments to the national law to be made by regulation; and (3) provides definitions for generic terms. Second, in the three main areas, Part 4 of the bill provides the consequential amendments to the Northern Territory Land Title Act. Third, the appendix to the bill contains the Electronic Conveyancing National Law.
The key provisions of the national law are as follows and are set out in the appendix. Clause 5 sets out that the object of the act is to promote efficiency in property conveyancing by providing a common framework throughout Australia for the lodgement and processing of documents in an electronic form. Electronic lodgement networks can be operated by either the Registrar-General or by a person approved of by the Registrar-General. It is proposed the electronic lodgement network and operator will be approved of by the Registrar-General.
As mentioned earlier, other states, along with banks, have formed a company that is building an electronic lodgement network. It must, however, be noted that this company is not the only possible provider of the electronic lodgement network.
For the Northern Territory, an electronic lodgement network operator will only be approved after the time when the Land Titles Office is in a position to receive documents electronically. This is expected to be some years into the future. After the electronic lodgement network operator is approved, clauses 7 to 9 will operate so documents for the Land Titles Offices can be lodged and processed electronically and have the same status as paper documents.
Electronic lodgement depends on systems that entitle various trusted persons to sign documents electronically on behalf of their clients. Clauses 10 to 12 provide for authorisations from a citizen to a subscriber. That enables the subscriber to conduct business electronically on behalf of the citizen. These clauses also provide for electronic signatures for subscribers. Subscribers will be people such as lawyers and conveyancers, being persons with relevant technical requirements who will have professional indemnity insurance and who are subject to strong regulatory regimes under legislation such as the Legal Profession Act or the Agents Licensing Act.
Clause 22 provides that the Registrar-General must approve operating requirements. These govern what electronic lodgement network operators must do when providing the electronic lodgement network. Operating agreements will cover the financial standing of the operator, the technical and operating requirements of the network, insurance, and various rules that govern how the operator deals with subscribers.
Clause 23 provides that the Registrar-General must also approve ‘participation rules’. These are rules governing what subscribers must do in conducting electronic transactions. The participation rules will also deal with approvals for a person to act as a subscriber.
Clauses 28 to 31 provide for the right of appeal against decisions of the Registrar-General regarding approvals and related matters concerning the electronic lodgement network. In the case of the Northern Territory, appeals can be made to the Supreme Court.
Clauses 33 to 35 provide the Registrar-General with compliance powers.
Clause 38 provides that no compensation is payable concerning losses or damage arising from good faith actions and omissions by the Registrar-General in the exercise of the Registrar-General’s compliance powers.
Clause 41 provides that Electronic Conveyancing National Law prevails to the extent of the inconsistency with another law of the jurisdiction.
Schedule 1 of the national law provides, in accordance with clause 4 of the national law, for the national uniform interpretation provisions. This is read with clause 6 of the local application provisions in the Northern Territory act which provides that the Interpretation Act does not apply to the interpretation of national law.
The bill also amends section 210 of the Land Title Act so that the Registrar-General can issue directions for the purposes of legislation other than the Land Title Act. In due course, other amendments may also be made to the taxation administration legislation to ensure the electronic conveyancing settlements will also deal with stamp duty payments. Other consequential amendments may also be developed in due course regarding some of the terminology in the Land Title Act that assumes that transactions are occurring in a paper form.
The other amendment I need to mention is that the Law of Property Act is to be amended so it will be clear the requirements in that act regarding the witnessing of documents do not affect the operation of the Electronic Conveyancing National Law.
This bill is a major step in fulfilling the Council of Australian Government’s commitment to creating a national seamless economy. The bill also fulfils the Northern Territory government’s commitments under the intergovernmental agreement for an Electronic Conveyancing National Law. The Electronic Conveyancing National Uniform Legislation Bill 2013 will, in due course, provide cost savings and efficiency gains for all Territorians and will provide a more secure conveyancing system for all participants.
On a national basis, it has been estimated that electronic conveyancing may provide, for the registration process alone, an average saving of up to $380 for the typical four-party transaction of a buyer, seller, and their financial institutions.
Electronic conveyancing will remove the need for bank cheques and the physical attendance of sundry parties at Land Titles Offices. Gone will be the days of conveyancers and bank officers spending their Friday mornings at the Land Titles Office. There will be less chance of a deal falling through because a transaction will have been arranged at a specific time convenient to all.
The advantages are even starker for transactions which involve parties in different jurisdictions. They will no longer have to use local agents or physically transfer documents around the country. It is also anticipated that electronic settlements should also make the whole process more efficient.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
PENALTY UNITS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 24)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Penalty Units Act to take account of recent changes to the way in which the Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes consumer price indices.
Since 1999, fines penalties for most offences have been drafted so the penalty is expressed in penalty units rather than in dollar terms. The purpose is that of providing for routine increases in fines and penalties in accordance with changes in the value of money. Over the period since 1999, the value of a penalty unit has risen from $100 to $141 as set on 1 July 2012.
Section 5 of the Penalty Units Act provides that the value of a penalty unit must be reviewed with each financial year by the minister responsible for the act. The review must also take into account changes in the Consumer Price Index as published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. If the application of a percentage change in the Consumer Price Index is such that the value of a penalty unit would increase by at least $1, section 6 of the Penalty Units Act provides that regulations must be made providing for a new value for a penalty unit.
Under the formula in section 5, the value of a penalty unit is set by reference to the average value of the Consumer Price Index figure for Darwin for each of the four quarters of 2008. This figure is set out in the Penalty Units Act as 161.5.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics has changed the published index reference period for the Consumer Price Index so they are now derived having regard to the value of 100 for the year 2011-12.
Under the new reference, the average value of the Consumer Price Index figure for Darwin, for each of the four quarters in 2008 is 91.3, instead of 161.5, and the CPI figure for Darwin in 2012 is then 101.2.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics has not published a new CPI figure for Darwin in 2012, using its old reference scale. If the current formula in the Penalty Units Act is used then the value of the penalty unit would be $81. This would mean there would be no change in the value of the penalty unit for 2013. If, however, the revised Consumer Price Index for 2008, 91.3, is used, then the value of the penalty unit would be $144.
The policy intent behind the Penalty Units Act is that the deterrent value of fines should be maintained by ensuring the real value of maximum fines reflects changes in the value of money. We are proposing that the Penalty Units Act be amended so the changes in the CPI are measured by the last available set of consumer price indices published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
It would be expected that the revenue earned from fines will also increase in line with inflation if the value of a penalty unit is increased. However, revenue collection is not the main aim of this bill; in fact, it is not the aim of this bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The object of the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Amendment Bill 2013 is to remove the restriction of the person holding or occupying the position of Executive Director, Northern Territory WorkSafe, as the competent authority.
The laws regarding the transport of dangerous goods regulate the transport of flammable, toxic, corrosive, gaseous, infectious and other dangerous goods and substances which, by virtue of their chemical, physical or toxicological properties, can pose a significant risk to human life, property, and the environment when they are transported.
The bill gives effect to section 4 of the Work Health Administration Act and is consistent with other acts administered by NT WorkSafe; namely, the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act and the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
The bill allows the minister to appoint a person as the competent authority and, in the event that such an appointment is not made or is made and later revoked, the competent authority then becomes the Chief Executive Officer of the agency responsible for administering the legislation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, whilst there is no question before the Chair - this has been done through communication with the two Whips - it is a reordering of business motions.
I move that intervening business shall be postponed until after ministerial statements. This has been negotiated between the Whips and there are no surprises in this.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, it delights me to speak on the Northern Territory container deposit scheme and start to right some of the wrongs and provide some further insight into what we, as a government, are doing to protect this scheme.
A simple warning often heard is, ‘Mind you step’. Even children take heed of the warning. It is clear there is a risk if you fail to take action. This is exactly what my colleagues and I did when the former Labor government was rushing the container deposit scheme legislation through this House. We warned of the risk every way we could, but our warnings fell on deaf ears.
Today, speaking on the future of the Northern Territory container deposit scheme, I feel I have been transported back to February two years ago, when I made what would now be considered some obvious observations in regard to the application of the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act to operation of the amendments contained in the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Bill.
However, I first echo the sentiments expressed by the previous Chief Minister when he said:
That was the previous Chief Minister, Mr Terry Mills.
I add my own words to that sentiment by saying while we accept the product stewardship driven by the suppliers of beverage containers has substantial merit and a scheme to deal with littering, to close down the CDS and try to unscramble the egg is not something we in government are in favour of.
Yet, all this was foreseeable and foreseen. In fact, in relation to the passage of the legislation which brought the Territory container deposits, my question to the minister and this government was:
I also said:
With regard to the ruling by the court about the validity of the CDS legislation:
The answer is no, they did not. In doing so, a legal and financial mess has been created. The five container deposit scheme coordinators and the 10 deposit operators have had their businesses bushwhacked, for want of a better term - the promises of the previous government only so much hot air. On all those promises, businesses were working on solutions to the handling and refund problems that first plagued the scheme. In my own example, an hour-long trip to the can man became a 15-minute process from start to finish. Only recently, Revive Recycling opened the iReturn vending machine at the Nightcliff shops. I was looking forward to the opportunity of bringing a new refund centre into operation; however, the future of that idea is in limbo - and all because of the failure to ensure the Territory’s laws were given national endorsement.
I cannot talk about what this government will be doing about CDS into the future without reiterating the failures of the Labor government and the lies which have been peddled in the media about getting COAG exemption under the Mutual Recognition Act. As I have spoken about this publicly, I will now reiterate in the House.
I call on the Opposition Leader to show us the letters of support she claims she received from the states for gaining an exemption from the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act. Despite being categorically warned, the former Labor government, once again, sat on its hands and dithered.
A prominent and respected barrister warned the former Labor government, in advance, that his advice commissioned in 2010 was the container deposit legislation might be struck down if challenged in court. Graham R Nicholson wrote in the advice to the Solicitor for the Northern Territory on 27 September 2010 that:
Mr Nicholson urged the then Labor government to seek an exemption to the Mutual Recognition Act. It is clear they failed to heed this advice. This failed Opposition Leader has the gall to accuse the Country Liberal government of taking too long to pursue the exemption! We now have nearly all the letters of support from the Council of Australian Government members. Where are the letters Labor claims to have? I welcome the Leader of the Opposition to table them here today because that is what she has led the general public to believe.
This government is getting on with the plan to get an exemption from the states. It is getting on with keeping the scheme in operation. From today, for eight weeks, we are funding the deposits - the refunds eager Territorians are paid after collecting and bringing in containers. We have done this for Territorians. They have been let down badly by Labor and by the drink giants. Labor made a mess of setting up the scheme and the legislation, and the drink companies have cut into the cake and kept everything but a few crumbs.
We have called on the beverage industry and its collective representatives to continue their involvement in the scheme while we pursue a COAG exemption, but the major players have pulled out. We asked the industry to maintain the supply chain with the collectors and the depots, to pay back the deposits it has already collected, and to reward the community for their efforts in managing packaging waste. Just like the old slogan, we asked them to ‘do the right thing’. To do the right thing is to continue paying out for deposits.
The quarterly report from my department shows that between 30 million and 45 million approved containers were sold in each of the quarters of the scheme’s operation, which is around 150 million to 160 million containers each year. While impressive, the return rate at collection depots has, over the course of the scheme, slowly climbed to around 40% of containers sold, with 47% of aluminium containers, 28% of PET bottles, and 36% of glass containers redeemed. The CDS has resulted in an overall increase in recycling beverage containers from approximately 13% before the scheme. That is approximately $100 000 per week that will go to families, schools, community organisations, and commercial operators. Sure, the regional centres are the main focus of the redeeming efforts, but I am sure, as with the iReturn vending machine, businesses will identify and deliver operational solutions to the collection, handling, storage, and transport issues from smaller towns and remote communities. It really is time to let the scheme get to work.
In considering the best way forward to bring certainty to the operators and meet the communities’ expectations, the Territory has moved to appeal against the decision of the Federal Court, while moving toward its proposal to COAG in seeking the support of all the states. We are progressing an application for exemption under the Commonwealth mutual recognition legislation and, following on from our consultation period in November and December last year, we have prepared a draft decision regulation impact statement supporting the application. We are waiting on advice from the Commonwealth Office of Best Practice Regulation before finalisation.
The Northern Territory’s application for exemption must be considered by the Standing Council on Environment and Water, then COAG. The Northern Territory is seeking to expedite this process. The next COAG meeting is in April 2013. The Northern Territory has written support from the majority of Australian governments for its application for exemption and anticipates the exemption being granted. It is hoped this decision will be reviewed by May 2013. However, it is unfortunate that the Federal Court decision stands until the process is complete. Of course, that creates uncertainty.
I cannot help remembering the warnings we gave when the scheme was proposed. Alas, our warnings were not heeded. At one stage I said:
We know it has become a mess. However, this government is strong and supports the continuation of the scheme that is operating in the Territory, and is doing all it can to ensure this happens.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House. It is something dear to my heart. As a child, my parents taught me to recycle. We collected cans, crushed them every weekend and took them to the depot at the old Nightcliff Rite Price where they would be weighed in for a small amount of money to put in my money box.
We spent a year living in the United States when my family participated in an exchange teacher program, and I first came across the container deposit scheme, or as it is known, the Oregon Bottle Scheme, where it has been in place since 1971. I still remember as a 10-year-old, I would look for containers to return to the local store for 5 - a nickel, as the Americans call it. At the time, I was more concerned with the lollies or candy I could buy. However, the point is it had us, as young children, looking everywhere for containers and encouraged the concept of recycling.
When the scheme was introduced in the Territory by the previous Labor government, I was pleased a scheme that had been in South Australia for over 30 years, with success, was finally here. It would encourage people to not only recycle their containers, but look at how they could use the scheme to fundraise and, at the same time, clean up our streets, parks, and waterways.
We hoped the beverage industry would embrace the scheme and support it; Territorians wanted it. However, as they had done everywhere else in the world, the big beverage companies challenged the scheme. It was extremely disappointing to me to see the large beverage industry could prevail and win over what Territorians wanted. The decision was, sadly, a victory for big corporations over the community, and has significant impacts for our environment, especially our waterways and national parks. The decision has adversely impacted on Territory schools and community groups which will no longer be able to raise much-needed funds by collecting cans and bottles, particularly the NGO sector which has seen significant cuts in the past months.
I have been involved with the Down Syndrome Association which has been employing two young people who have recently left school to collect containers. They collect cans worth over $2000 a month. These people collect them from people’s homes - someone like me who has decided to donate my cans to charity. It is a small amount I can do. It is a very efficient scheme. They come by your house once every fortnight, take your containers and leave an empty container to collect for the next fortnight, with a little note advising when they will back.
I acknowledge the Down Syndrome Association, particularly John, who has put many volunteer hours into getting that program running. The sign of success is they are going to keep running that program while this is sorted out so they can keep those young people employed. I urge the minister to visit The Patch and see the success of that.
Many people have raised with me why it is unfair the Northern Territory cannot have the same scheme as South Australia simply because we introduced our scheme after South Australia, and that the government’s decision to seek an exemption to the Mutual Recognition Act is the same exemption South Australia has. They do not understand the legislation. It is disgraceful that big business has used legislation to block a popular scheme. Simply, because we introduced our legislation after 1992, the beverage industry decided to use that legislation to block what the community wants.
As the minister stated, we need an exemption from all the states and territories. The opposition has offered its bipartisan support to ensure this happens. States need not support container deposit legislation in their jurisdiction, but they need to recognise the Northern Territory’s rights to have one.
As a government, especially today in Question Time, you keep calling on us to seek briefings yet you block this. Immediately after this decision was handed down I sought a briefing from the Solicitor-General through the minister’s office, but it has been blocked at this stage. We were not seeking a briefing on the Cabinet decision; we were seeking a briefing on the actual process within the court. I have an e-mail to confirm that, which I am happy …
Mr Elferink: Which minister?
Ms FYLES: It was through your office, I believe. Yes, and it was handballed to the Environment minister’s office and back.
Mr Elferink: Really? I will find out about …
Ms FYLES: Happy to chat after, but I might keep going with my speech now.
Mr Elferink: I will find out about that because I am …
Ms FYLES: Yes, thank you, that would be appreciated, because I was trying to understand the process.
Part of my role as the opposition spokesperson for the Environment is explaining to our community what is happening. Many people have been messaging me, approaching me at the markets, wondering what is happening with this scheme. Only a couple of weeks ago I was at Nightcliff for the opening of the iReturn depot, which is a fantastic initiative where you can take your cans to the reverse cycle vending machine. You simply insert them and get a credit note for a number of the shops at the Nightcliff Shopping Centre, or you can donate your returns to charity.
It is interesting explaining to people that because South Australia introduced legislation before 1992 we cannot have the same legislation and have to seek an exemption. Many people ask me why the former government did not do that. They did; they had started the process. When the scheme was introduced on 1 January 2012 an automatic one-year exemption was given. In that time, the scheme was building momentum. In South Australia, we see around 90% recycling rates, and the Territory was well on the way to that.
In the meantime, at the first available opportunity, the beverage industry went to the courts and sought to overturn our scheme.
I remind the government it was elected in August last year, some seven months ago. I know we had letters in place from COAG representatives in case the scheme was challenged. Obviously, you became a minister in the government in August, which is still six months before this decision was made. I feel the ball was dropped there.
As an opposition, we have offered our full support to the government to continue to fight for the Cash for Containers scheme. The way the Territory community has got behind the scheme has been fantastic to see. Looking back at the Parliamentary Record, one of the issues was the CLP never really committed to the Cash for Containers scheme. Perhaps that is partly why focus on this was lost at the end of last year.
The beverage industry - the big end of town from down south and overseas, with no real interest or commitment to the Territory - was surprised in the days after the announcement. On radio they promised much money and support for recycling. We had a scheme which was working and one the community wanted, yet they could not commit to or even mind their manners about it. They had to challenge it.
It is interesting to see how the debate with the beverage industry has centred on recycling. The CLP, in that period of time, quoting the former Chief Minister Henderson in 2001, ‘was squirming from one position to another’. I wonder, with the recent chaos within the government, if that is partly why the ball has been dropped on this scheme.
Dumped Chief Minister, Terry Mills, obviously got it. He understood 80% of Territorians wanted the container deposit legislation scheme and wanted the Northern Territory government, of whatever persuasion, to stand up to the beverage industry. Presumably, he also understood how recycling containers were being enthusiastically embraced by Territory families and groups. Most members in this House would be able to speak about positive schemes similar to the one I have spoken about with the Down Syndrome Association. St Paul’s Catholic Primary School raised quite a bit of money for their school by operating a recycling program. They are easy to run; they are simple within schools and organisations.
Chief Minister Mills was strong in his commitment - or that is what his public statements led us to believe - but behind the scenes white ants were at work. In reviewing our debates on CDL, it is clear at least two voices were highlighting whatever road hump they could find to send signals there was opportunity to undermine the intent of the scheme and the Henderson government, which had legislated for Territorians. The member for Port Darwin picked over every nuance in the legislation to find weaknesses - opportunities for white-anting. He focused on the interface between CDL and the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act.
Regrettably, the big multinational company seized on that glint of light and took the opportunity to challenge our legislation on that basis. The former government had strong legal advice, I understand, from the best legal minds available that, potentially, a legal argument could be pursued. We believed we had sound advice that they would not necessarily be successful. As a parliament, are we going to be scared by every possible threat and not pass legislation …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 students from Adelaide River Primary School accompanied by Mr Tony Clegg. On behalf of members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms FYLES: Thank you, and welcome.
When in government, we were confident the exceptions in section 11 of the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act would be applied to the Cash for Containers scheme. We had the automatic 12-month exemption to the relevant sections of the act to provide time for COAG to apply a permanent solution.
That is why I come back to last August. We had a change of government, yet what happened in the period of time from September/October onwards is interesting. The previous government had measures in place to seek that support. It would be interesting for the minister, in his wrap-up, to let me know what measures were taken once they assumed government. Did they keep running with this?
The Attorney-General, in all the debates I have gone over around this topic previously, spoke about different possible legal avenues. As I said, do we wait and not legislate because of a threat? Since becoming Attorney-General, has he applied himself to fixing the issue, backing up the commitment of the Chief Minister with the CDL scheme in operation; stood up for Territorians, and for the legislation of this parliament?
The government dropped the ball. It did not support the legislation at the start. It dropped the ball when it came to government. You are the government, you are the minister, and you were elected last August to ensure the continuation of this program. The Attorney-General, consequent to the March Federal Court decision, has asked for advice from the NT Solicitor-General on appealing the decision. I have said before I have not been able to obtain a briefing from the Solicitor-General to find out what happened in Sydney. It would be interesting coming into this debate with that full knowledge.
In recent parliamentary debates, the Attorney-General said it is not his intent to dismantle the scheme but make it more efficient. He is now supporting the new Chief Minister who supports the Cash for Containers scheme. I remember reading blogs previously where Chief Minister Giles welcomed this scheme to Alice Springs. I am unsure who supported the Alice Springs Town Council, but I understand they have a glass crushing machine in Alice Springs. It would be good to see who is supporting the right of Territorians to come up with a scheme and keep it going.
The companies went to court, as was their right. We were calling on them to accept the views of Territorians and the decisions of the NT government with bipartisan support. However, big business, the beverage industry, has challenged this scheme everywhere in the world it has been introduced ...
Mr Elferink: That is what we said when you guys introduced the legislation. That is the problem; you did not listen to the threat …
Ms FYLES: I pick up on the interjection from the other side. You have been in government for over seven months. You are the government, you can deliver. You can blame whoever you want, but what Territorians want is for you to stand up and fight for this scheme ...
Members interjecting.
Ms FYLES: I can keep speaking now. Perhaps the reason we have had chaos and not seen commitment to this scheme in the past six months is because of the chaos in the CLP. It is clear there have been long-standing divisions in the CLP, and the former Chief Minister needed as many friends and supporters as he could get ...
Mr Elferink: Who writes this stuff for you?
Ms FYLES: Issues in the Territory digressed while they worried about themselves ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Nightcliff is endeavouring to deliver her contribution to the House. I ask you to remind the member for Port Darwin of Standing Order 51. His continuous interjections are intended to throw the member off her speech and, generally, are unhelpful. If you could remind him ...
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order. I will restrain myself and apply Standing Order 51 to myself if the member restrains herself to the truth.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! That is not a point of order. Please, if you could remind the member for Port Darwin of Standing Order 51, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we all please refrain from too much interjecting, thank you.
Ms FYLES: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I stated before I asked for a briefing from the Solicitor-General and was blocked by the minister’s office from obtaining that briefing. I will take that issue up after this debate. I sent an e-mail, I believe, on the Friday after the decision was made. It seemed to be forthcoming, then blocked. That is for you to work out with your office.
Territorians want this scheme and you are the government. You need to ensure the scheme continues. It is good to see the new Chief Minister - the current Chief Minister, the member for Braitling - has been a long-standing supporter of this scheme which I mentioned before …
Mr Wood: You cannot use the word ‘current’.
Ms FYLES: I am sorry, Gerry.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will let it ride.
Ms FYLES: That is pleasing to me.
I am a mother; I want to encourage my children to recycle just as I have shared my story of recycling while growing up. I have worked with Landcare in the Rapid Creek area and, since this scheme has been in place, there has been significant decrease in the number of containers in the waterways. Some people will never recycle. However, this scheme encourages other members of our community to recycle containers for a small monetary reward. We have seen not-for-profit school groups - everyone here today has talked about the many people from those walking their dogs to whatever. This is a scheme Territorians want to support. We want to see where things are with our government and we want the scheme to continue.
The member for Namatjira has been an enthusiastic supporter. The member for Fong Lim, likewise, has been a great supporter of the concept and, in his own words, ‘committed to develop it to a reality in a workable policy’. Indeed, I recall the member for Fong Lim went to the 2004 federal election supporting a CDL scheme as one of his campaign promises ...
Mr Wood: It is an extreme green policy …
Ms FYLES: I will not paint the member for Fong Lim as a greenie.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A bit of order, please, member for Nelson!
Ms FYLES: The CLP went to the 2008 Territory election supporting the scheme. We need all these supporters to get behind the scheme now. The CDL is working for the Territory. We need the government to ensure the scheme continues, not a half-hearted industry-based stewardship program that does nothing to help families and community groups to get litter off our streets and public spaces.
It was amazing, on the radio a few days after the court decision in Sydney, all of a sudden the beverage industry was offering millions to support this scheme - the same beverage industry that knocked it every way it could; it put up prices. Coca-Cola Amatil has not supported the scheme and has made every effort to prevent it from working.
We need a concerted effort to get the COAG agreement in place. Perhaps in wrapping up the minister can inform the House - I understood all letters of support had been received, but I heard today only some letters have been received. I apologise if it is just me ...
A member interjecting.
Ms FYLES: Okay, there is only one outstanding. I would like to hear that. We have offered our bipartisan support. We need a concerted effort from COAG. We are not asking for anything more than South Australia has. They have the legislation in place, we want the legislation. It does not affect anyone else. The great thing about this legislation is it does not affect people who do not want to participate. It encourages recycling in our community, and we need permanent exemption from the Mutual Recognition Act.
We introduced legislation and should not be in fear of what could be overturned. We need to have a plan and stick with it. Something happened last August and the momentum was lost. The foot was off the pedal, industry read the tea leaves, there was a split in the government, they were focused on themselves, and there was chaos. The big companies took the opportunity from that.
I am pleased to hear letters of support from other states and territories have been forthcoming. The scheme, brought to life with the support of the whole Legislative Assembly, needs to be supported and nurtured for the benefit of Territorians not business.
I put to the new Chief Minister, this is a serious issue. He needs to show his leadership, take charge, and commit all his team to supporting the CDL scheme to eliminate white-anting, and work on behalf of Territorians who see the merit of the scheme and want it to succeed. We need to hear from the government where things are. COAG is not that far away so it would be pleasing to know if those letters are in place. The support has been sought so we can have in place a successful scheme the community wants.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the government announced it will back the scheme for a period of time, a move I welcome. However, you need to ensure, as the government, you are representing our views on this.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I note on 4 March 2013 the Court of Australia made a ruling …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! For clarification, the Opposition Whip has just been over to your Leader of Government Business and government Whip. We were advised we were continuing Cash for Containers as a statement, and that is what has been called. I suspect you were just about to do forced adoption. We are in the midst of Cash for Containers.
Mr Giles: Cash for Containers.
Ms LAWRIE: You are speaking on Cash for Containers? Cool.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much for the clarification, Leader of the Opposition, I am talking on Cash for Containers ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I take up with you directly the comments the member for Greatorex made to me in this Chamber before we started; several witnesses heard it.
Mr TOLLNER: Further to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Why does the Opposition Leader continually have to muckrake? Everything has to be a personal attack with her. Can she focus on something relevant to the parliament?
Ms Walker: Did you not hear what he said to her? Oh, sit down, Dave. You did not hear what he said. It was disgraceful!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Opposition Leader will take this up later with the member. Is that right?
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I want the member for Greatorex to put it on the record.
Mr Conlan: I am not that stupid, you idiot!
Mr Vowles: You are an idiot, mate. Everyone thinks you are an idiot.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The advice I have is the incident occurred before we had started and, therefore, it should be put in writing and taken to the Speaker.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Johnston made some very unparliamentary comments just then. I ask you to ask him to withdraw those comments, and also note he is on a warning.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, could you withdraw the comments. We will do the other through the written ...
Ms Lawrie: Which ones? What are you withdrawing?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: He made derogatory comments after I came in.
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order, are you ruling out the term ‘idiot’ from now on? It has been used frequently. Is that what you are ruling out - ‘idiot’?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could I have the word ‘idiot’ withdrawn, please.
Mr VOWLES: I withdraw, but I am not sure what I am withdrawing from.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I should move on with the statement on the container deposit ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I was about to say that. Could we have the complaint put in writing to the Speaker. I now give the floor to the Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I have the right to pursue the complaint how I choose to. I said I would take it up with the Chief Minister directly, if not in writing to the Speaker. I have the right to pursue it how I deem fit. It would be to the Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Opposition Leader. I would be more than happy to take that and move on with the statement.
On 4 March 2013, the Federal Court of Australia made a ruling in the matter of Coca-Cola Amatil Australia Pty Ltd against the Northern Territory of Australia. The primary legal issue was whether the requirements imposed by Part 2 of the Northern Territory Environmental Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act 2011 on the sale of beverages in containers in the Northern Territory were in conflict with or repugnant to Part 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act, and whether any provisions of the act were invalid. The decision was, sadly, yes and yes. I use the word sadly …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am sorry, Chief Minister.
I notice there are cameras in the room and a stranger on the floor of the House. Can you advise what this is all about? Is it about the intended motion later today?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is about the intended motion. The Speaker gave …
Mr ELFERINK: If so, why are they filming now?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: They are not filming now.
Mr ELFERINK: I apologise to the House.
Mr GILES: I use the word sadly, but it is more than sad, it is tragic because the former Labor government followed a path littered with signs that read ‘caution’, ‘do not step here’, ‘do not proceed’, ‘turn back’. These were signs posted not only by members of this government when in opposition, but also Labor members concerned about the perils of pushing legislation through in order to balance an uncomfortable political equation.
Let me take you back to the 2001-02 budget presented by former Deputy Chief Minister, the former Country Liberal member for Katherine, Hon Mike Reed, on 29 May 2001, which included:
This was a Country Liberals’ policy. At the time, the only container deposit legislation, or CDL, operating in Australia was South Australia’s program. South Australia’s Beverage Container Act became operational in 1977 and was subsequently incorporated into the state’s Environment Protection Act 1993.
In 2001, the New South Wales Minister for Environment commissioned Dr Stuart White of the Institute for Sustainable Futures to undertake a review of options for CDL in NSW. Dr White identified significant constitutional issues relating to the legal capacity of the states and territories to impose charges.
In August 2002, a Centre for Environment Studies report titled Impacts of Implementing Container Deposit Legislation in the ACT summarised:
On 5 March 2002, the new Labor minister for the Environment, the member for Casuarina, in an ABC interview responded, when asked whether a system could be put in place by mid-year, with the comment, ‘By the end of this year we will be going that way’. On 22 May 2002, when asked again by the ABC whether in three or four more months there would be a decision he answered, ‘Certainly’.
However, on the same day, in his ministerial report to the House, the former minister emphasised:
On 10 October 2002, a Matter of Public Importance was raised by the then Speaker, the former Independent member for Braitling, and included the following paragraph:
This is word for word the concern raised by the former member for Braitling more than a decade ago.
The matter of the Mutual Recognition Act was underlined by the former Deputy Leader of the Country Liberals and member for Greatorex, Dr Richard Lim. He said:
The member for Casuarina’s comment at the time, as the minister responsible for driving this legislation - and I am happy to remind him - was as follows:
Way back then the member for Casuarina was saying it may put a spanner in the works.
Also, the issue the Independent member for Braitling raised about the restriction of trade is very important:
The member for Casuarina was clearly aware. The Independent member for Braitling went on in her summary to urge:
In January 2003, a paper was published by EPA Victoria titled Container Deposit Legislation - Financial Impacts. The paper included the following comments:
The Independent member for Braitling introduced a private members’ Container Deposit (Environmental Protection) Bill stating in the House on 26 February 2003:
On 27 May 2003, the Independent member for Nelson asked Hon Dr Burns, by then the minister for the Environment, the following questions. First:
And second:
The former minister for the Environment presented his ministerial report on container deposit legislation in the House on 28 May 2003, clearly stating:
This drew a furious response from the Independent member for Nelson who held the balance of power. He immediately issued a media release accusing the government as follows:
As an aside, I note the member for Nelson continues to echo negative sentiments regardless of who is in government. For example, in his media release dated 17 February 2003 he made the following accusation:
That is absolutely wrong, as I have just outlined above in detail.
On 12 August 2003, the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Karama, threw her two pennies’ worth in. She stated:
She knew back then. The subject grumbled on over the passage of years.
On the 28 November 2007, the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Karama, reiterated that when she said:
On 30 April 2009, the former Minister for Natural Resources and Environment and Heritage stressed in a ministerial statement that:
A Cash for Containers reference committee was established; namely, the members for Nelson and Fannie Bay tasked with ensuring a legally sound scheme. Let me define the words ‘legally sound’. It involves the use of good judgment and, therefore, likely to be effective. However, the member for Nelson in particular enthused that:
That means, in simple terms, the beverages distributors do not have to comply with sections of the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act 2011.
How did we get from 2009 under the auspices of a Cash for Containers reference committee to an adverse legal decision in 2013 - especially as, time and time again, the then shadow minister for environment, minister Chandler, repeatedly counselled the former government to be extremely careful. As he told the House on 30 April 2009:
One of the prime reasons for the push for the container deposit legislation that has led us down the path to today’s quandary was, quite simply, a parliamentary agreement dated 14 August 2009. It was an agreement made between the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and the Independent member for Nelson. It contained the following clause outlining:
Here is the member for Fannie Bay’s contribution to the debate as a supposedly well-informed member of the cash for cans reference committee, charged with the responsibility of steering the scheme design and implementation. As an aside, it has been impossible so far to source either minutes or meeting notes from this dodgy reference committee. I quote the member for Fannie Bay’s comments:
Let us hope the member for Fannie Bay never becomes the shadow Attorney-General because, clearly, he just does not get it. The member for Fannie Bay preferred, as many have done before him, to look to South Australia, overlooking, yet again, that South Australia’s 1977 act pre-dates the Mutual Recognition Act - a simple thing you think you would look at - and that a permanent exemption from the conditions of the Mutual Recognition Act can only be obtained, and should have been obtained, by the former government by the Commonwealth parliament amending Schedule 2 upon request from all the participating jurisdictions that such regulations be made, or by pursuit of clause 4.3.1 within the intergovernmental agreement whether the matter could be referred to Ministerial Council where the determination requires a vote in its favour by at least two-thirds of the members.
A few days after the dust settled from the 2009 motion of no confidence in government brought by the member for Nelson and his subsequent personal agreement with the then Chief Minister, we heard the following pronouncement from the former Treasurer, the member for Karama. This is what she advised the House:
Former Treasurer, my question to you today is: what costs will have to be paid by the Northern Territory government for this failed legislation - the total cost, former Treasurer, owing to the applicants in the court case, to those who engaged in the CDL industry and, for the legal consultancy you commissioned and then ignored - remembering that your budget in 2010 alone includes $625 000 to establish the scheme? The answer is: this debacle has cost the Northern Territory millions and millions of dollars at a time when we are going towards a $5.5bn debt.
Final debates took place at the end of 2010. Passing of the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act occurred in February 2011 and the Cash for Containers scheme commenced on 3 January 2012.
Unfortunately, the minister responsible, the former member for Stuart, continued to view the legislation in extremely simplistic terms. For example, in an ABC interview on 25 November 2010 he said:
In addition, the former Treasurer, current Leader of the Opposition, reported to the House on 15 February 2011 as follows:
However, the former government chose to roll on. Did they ever pause to count the potential cost to the Territory? No. Did the former government ever formally seek the necessary exemption? No.
Minister Chandler sounded a clear alert the following week in a media release which spelt it out as follows:
Labor minister Chris Burns indicated the government was prepared for a legal fight with the beverage industry - he would take them on - but, ‘If the legislation is properly developed court action will not be necessary’, said minister Burns.
Minister Chandler was not pouring scorn on the need for a scheme, instead he stressed:
However, he was judicious on this and many other occasions when he repeatedly cautioned the former government. One example of many was in February 2011 when minister Chandler stated in the House:
A dirty deal.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will leave it there as recent events and comprehensive commentary are covered by my colleagues in their statements - previous and to come. Suffice to say, yet again, the former government must take responsibility for a debacle of its own making. Due diligence was missing, rather than grabbing headlines and making promises. In other words, ensure you get what you are paying for, establishing certainty that the new act, the Northern Territory Environmental Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act 2011, was 100% watertight and valid. It was not.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not at all surprised to see no other member of the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party climb to their feet to defend this. I have some sympathy for the member for Nightcliff who was told to shoulder this burden because far be it from the Leader of the Opposition to defend the muck-up she was directly involved with. One of the great things about being a new member in this House is you come in washed clean of the sins, in many respects, of your forebears. Unfortunately, in running the defence, the member for Nightcliff shrouded herself in the drapery of the former government and tried to run a defence, clearly not having read much of the material dating from that time.
I have instructed my office to ensure the Solicitor-General gives the member for Nightcliff a full and comprehensive briefing in relation to the matter. It was a glitch in the system. I take full responsibility as Attorney-General - it falls on my shoulders. However, having made certain that will occur, I point out what the member for Nightcliff was asking for was a Federal Court of Australia decision which is downloadable off the Internet and available as of 4 March 2013.
There are two components to the member for Nightcliff’s submission. One was a dance around the history of it. The second component was, ‘What are you going to do about it? It is your fault you are not doing anything about it?’ That is, essentially, the argument coming from the other side. We tried to do something about it years ago when members of this political party, the Country Liberals, said in this Chamber, ‘We have some serious reservations about this’. It was eloquently argued by the minister for the Environment and less eloquently stated by myself, but I fumbled my way through the shortcomings of this legislation.
The line trotted out that we did not support CDL cannot be sustained by any reading of the debates of that period. Yes, we asked critical questions but, as pointed out by the member for Nhulunbuy last night, critical questions are what oppositions ask. If the government of the day had responded to some of those critical questions we would not be in the environment we are now. Some of those critical questions were answered with lies. The part that concerns me most is the assertion by not only the minister for the Environment at that time, Karl Hampton, but also the Leader of Government Business at that time, Chris Burns, who both assured this House in no uncertain terms there was a rock-solid constitutional guarantee we were right because they had a constitutional lawyer look at it and it was solid gold and watertight.
A document marked ‘second draft’ by a person who would be a little embarrassed to be called the leading constitutional lawyer in this country, does not constitute a watertight defence. Moreover, if you read the second draft document, of which we are in possession now we are in government, not only does it say ‘second draft’ at the top, even in the second draft stage it says there are real challenges and pitfalls in the area of the Mutual Recognition Act.
I am sure members in this debate will have already heard reference to the Mutual Recognition Act because it is the instrument upon which Coca-Cola Amatil placed the Northern Territory of Australia on trial in Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd v Northern Territory of Australia [2013] FCA154, the case that ruled this regime as being in breach of the operation of the Mutual Recognition Act. I draw honourable members’ attention specifically to paragraphs 36 through 55 where it hands down the judgment. However, the judgment is encapsulated on the front page of the law report which says the following:
This is the judgment the former government said would never, ever see the light of day because they had a constitutional lawyer with rock-solid legal advice saying, ‘It is okay’.
We also got some legal advice at that time. Guess where we got the legal advice from? The packaging industry. The packaging industry contacted the opposition of the day and said, ‘Here is the legal advice; we are pretty comfortable about our position’.
The government at the time tried to make some play out of that; that we were somehow in cahoots with the packaging industry. Of course, the packaging industry also made their legal advice available to the government saying, ‘If you do this, we will pursue this on the strength of our legal advice’. So, we came into this House well-armed with legal advice provided by the packaging industry saying, ‘The packaging industry is walking around town at the moment dishing out legal advice as fast as the photocopier can reproduce it. Let us see your legal advice’. The response from government was, ‘Oh, no, we are keeping that secret. That will be our little secret’. Small wonder they were keeping it secret because, as I suspected at the time, the legal advice was incomplete. What I said at the time, on 18 October 2011, was:
I went on to say:
Who I thought at that time was providing the legal advice, not the micky mouse constitutional lawyer later referred to:
That is, essentially, what was identified by this side of the House. I am vindicated, sadly, in my suspicions that the former government absolutely and manifestly misled this House on the strength of the legal advice they had - unless they had a final legal advice in the records of the filing cabinets emptied before these guys left office which was better than the second draft. I would like to see that legal advice from the members opposite tabled in their defence today.
It was actually consistent with the legal advice Coca-Cola Amatil was saying of, ‘We think we are on the right side of the argument’. It was consistent with the advice I received from the Solicitor-General when I asked, ‘How do you think we will go in court?’ Whilst the argument was put a little more stridently in Coca-Cola Amatil’s legal advice, the truth of the matter is the advice from the former government’s constitutional expert and the Solicitor-General said, ‘There are real problems with this’.
However, the former government persevered and said, ‘It is all going to be micky mouse; do not worry about that’. Then they came back into the House at a later stage saying, ‘Oh, we are now going to fight them in the courts’. Of course, I was asking at the time - and this was as late as … Oh, here it is. I will go back a little.
Mr Hampton, on 24 February 2011, said:
That was the response from the former minister. He is on the record saying they had a wonderful piece of legal advice which would defend us against everything including flood, fire and famine and, ‘Don’t you worry about that’. That was a lie and there is no other way to describe it.
It is interesting the member for Nightcliff asks, ‘What are you guys going to do about it?’ We were trying to do something about it three years ago when this legislation was being pushed through the House. We were trying to say, ‘Whoa, be careful. Answer the questions’.
I did a very unusual thing at the time, something I have never done before or since. I grabbed Karl Hampton, who was the minister, sat in the Speaker’s Gallery and said, ‘Are you sure about this? Are you absolutely rock solid on this stuff?’ ‘Oh, yes, yes, yes’, was the answer. I specifically asked him to go to the back of the Chamber to seek further reassurances in a private discussion, for no other reason than to assure myself the government was on the right track. My misgivings have been justified.
The matter I was concerned about at the time was that the failure of the government to properly prosecute this legislation would make this CDL legislation political cancer in other jurisdictions. The only thing that has truly surprised me in the whole process is the willingness of other jurisdictions to sign up and allow the Territory to be recognised as a self-governing jurisdiction. I take great heart from that because I genuinely am surprised when this invites pressure for CDL in other jurisdictions as well. Good on those other jurisdictions.
Coca-Cola Amatil has won the battle. We have announced an appeal, which means we will be asking more than one judge of the Federal Court to cast an eye over this matter and put it to rest once and for all. Because there is not a great deal of case law which applies to the Mutual Recognition Act, an appeal would be a worthwhile path to go down in an effort to protect this legislation from the area it is exposed in at the moment.
Nevertheless, it is quite possible we will not enjoy victory as the appellant in this matter and the respondents – the beverage companies - may have this decision reinforced. I will not speculate on the success or otherwise of an appeal. Suffice to say, ultimately, the court makes the decision in relation to the application of the Mutual Recognition Act and the potential exemptions under the sections within that act.
However, I hope Coca-Cola Amatil has won the battle and may even win the second battle but, ultimately, will lose the war because this is not about the Northern Territory’s CDL legislation. It never has been about what is happening in the Northern Territory. It is about the beverage companies taking a position, drawing a line in the sand, and trying to kill CDL nationally. With the amount of money and effort that has gone into this on the part of the beverage companies, it is probably not really worth their while to pursue this matter in the Federal Court. If you think about it on a national scale, this is about attempting to prevent this from finding its way into other jurisdictions or, ultimately, there being a national scheme. That is why Coca-Cola Amatil and some of the other proponents - Schweppes Australia and I believe Lion Pty Ltd - are all prepared to spend a great deal of money and effort trying to render this scheme inoperable.
All of this was not only the fault of the former government, but was done in circumstances that can only be described as dishonest and a deliberate attempt to deceive the people of the Northern Territory - and deceive they did because those who were deceived put up hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment into creating the depots and underwriting the system. A great deal of private money went into this. Many people put their futures into this scheme because they sought jobs in this area. Those people will, ultimately, be the victims if we cannot win this battle. Those people will have lost money on the basis they were misled, lied to, by the former government. They were …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I take exception to the word ‘lied’ from the member for Port Darwin, and ask you ask him to withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: I was not referring to any particular member, just government as a whole. Anyway, withdrawn.
Deceived, misled, misrepresented - any number of other synonyms will apply. It was the delivery of a message with a deliberate intent to deceive people so they could win a political fight and have the security of their government maintained by the member for Nelson. That is what this was really about: getting a system out the member for Nelson was always pursuing - and good luck to the member for Nelson. However, despite his best efforts with the former government they started fabricating things, and people were relying on those fabrications. Those fabrications then caused people to invest. People have invested and others have sought jobs in that industry, and those jobs are now under threat. That is what happens when we cannot look beyond this Chamber to the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
I listen to our prayers every morning very carefully and remind myself this is about - I have used the expression on a number of occasions - the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. That does not mean the true welfare of the Labor government staying in power in a hung parliament; it means the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
This circus rolled out by the former government was a betrayal of the truth; a deliberate use of misinformation to mislead Territorians into investing in something that was not legally sound. It all comes down to the one assertion that they had rock-solid legal advice saying it was all mickey mouse, when they had no such legal advice, could produce no such legal advice, and continue to be unable to produce such legal advice. Indeed, when we checked the records, the only legal advice we have is not that strong and would not necessarily resonate sufficiently deeply with me to place so much as a penny of capital into the risky environment the government led Territorians to. Not only did they lead Territorians into a risky environment, they did so by misrepresenting the truth - in fact, fabricating.
That is why the Australian Labor Party cannot be trusted. They try to paint themselves as being a wonderful group of people who are morally upright and righteous bound up in the idea they care. In fact, when stuck with a political problem, the first thing they did was rely on fabrications and untruths, and uttered those things in this House and beyond the boundaries of ...
Ms Walker: That is absolute rubbish, and you know it.
Mr ELFERINK: It is not rubbish. I just quoted from the Parliamentary Record. They said they had rock-solid legal advice. This is the point. The member for Nhulunbuy believes she is so precious and righteous because she is a member of the Labor Party; that in some way absolves them and her from the culpability of the deceit perpetrated on the people who invested in this program. That is shameful and embarrassing. The fact she is even trying to fight it continues to demonstrate she not only tries to deceive Territorians, she continues to deceive herself. Shame on the Australian Labor Party ...
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member to withdraw that. I take exception to it. I am not deceiving Territorians. He is making it up.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, could you withdraw those comments with regard to the member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, she has just denied there was an attempt to deceive Territorians. There was a clear attempt to deceive Territorians and she, by her conduct, has now placed herself in a position where she has shrouded herself in that deceit. I stand by that ...
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, can you please withdraw those words regarding the member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw, Madam Speaker, but reluctantly. I cannot say there is a great deal of faith in it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment for bringing this statement to the House. It is an important statement and provides a mechanism by which we can do two things. The first it to update Territorians on what is happening with CDL. It is important to do that because, in essence, it is a good scheme. The concept is around picking up your rubbish and being able to take it back for some financial gain, as the member for Nhulunbuy likes to point out, and not for profit. The schools and individuals doing it are fantastic.
It also provides an avenue for the truth to be spoken in this House with respect to how we arrived at where we are today. That involves some history and not proud history for the Labor Party, the Northern Territory government at the time. In fact, the longer I am in government and able to access departments and the truth, the more I find myself contemplating a phrase. I need to put that in context and will tell you what the phrase is in a minute.
I am 50 years of age, having been born in 1962. A few people here are older, but most are younger. Nonetheless, I have a good memory which goes back to my childhood. I remember seeing a show on television - for those who remember, it was Laurel and Hardy. Who remembers Laurel and Hardy? Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were a slapstick comedy team who had shows which ran from the 1920s to the 1940s. Those shows were replayed and, as a kid, I thoroughly enjoyed them. This made me think back to one of the most famous lines from Laurel and Hardy which is something like, ‘Well, that is another fine mess you’ve gotten us into, Ollie’. Every time I hear about the failure of the former Labor government I think, ‘That is another fine mess you got us into, Ollie. Thanks very much’. Every time we talk about the budget, CDL, and a whole range of issues in this House, my mind goes back to that.
We have a legacy of the former Labor government. We could probably call them the Laurel and Hardy government - a bit of slapstick comedy happening when they were in government. It would be funny except it is government. The number of things being exposed now which they completely botched is not good government for the Northern Territory - and we are now having to pick up the pieces. We are heading towards $5.5bn worth of debt. That would not be a comedy either, but it is another Laurel and Hardy moment from Labor after 11 years of horrible administration.
It is unbelievable but, in more recent history coming forward from the 1920s and 1940s where Laurel and Hardy and that idea were born, history needs to be correct and not rewritten by the Labor Party in having us all believe they were the saviours of the Cash for Container scheme and everything that goes with it. Clearly, the history is plain. We know the bill passed this House.
The then shadow minister for the Environment, Hon Peter Chandler, said to the minister: ‘Have you sought exemption from the Mutual Recognition Act?’ I am led to believe the answer was, ‘Yes, it is all under control. Yes, got it sorted out’ ...
Mr Elferink: Was that Laurel or Hardy?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I think he was Hardy.
Mr Conlan: Tom and Jerry perhaps.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, Tom and Jerry is another one that comes to mind.
One week after the bill passed, the former minister, Karl Hampton, moved an amendment to the bill, as I understand it, which gave provision for a 12-month holiday on attacking the legislation which, I guess in essence, was a 12-month exemption.
Leaping forward to August or early September 2012, there was an election, a change of government. The Laurel and Hardy Labor government was kicked out, replaced with a real government. The first thing that happens when a new government comes in is the ministers are given briefings from their departments so they can be brought up to speed on what has been happening and what needs to happen to continue the work of government.
The new minister for the Environment, the member for Blain, Terry Mills, received a briefing from his department on what was happening with the exemption. ‘What is happening with CDL?’ he asked, only to be told, ‘Nothing. Nothing is happening with it’. I am sure the minister at the time had a holy cow moment, ‘Now what do we do?’ There we were, early September 2012, put in a position where the former government had done nothing to pursue full exemption from the Mutual Recognition Act. I am sure if the member for Blain had thought about it at the time he would have thought it a Laurel and Hardy moment as well. ‘Another fine mess you have gotten us into, Ollie’.
That is when the work began in earnest. Things were set in place; actions were happening from that time onward to seek the support of the other jurisdictions across Australia for a permanent exemption from the Mutual Recognition Act, something that had not been done before.
Notwithstanding that, the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, recently said during a radio interview the former government had, in fact, been chasing the letters of support. I believe she said there were letters of support. I would have thought, if those letters of support had existed as the Leader of the Opposition said they did, they would have been in a file provided to the new minister by the department. I would not mind betting that file was bare of any such letters. I heard the minister for the Environment earlier issue the challenge to the Leader of the Opposition to stump up, show us the letters. Where are they? I double that challenge. Come on, Leader of the Opposition, show us those letters. Are they in a file somewhere? Apparently, not in the department’s file. Is it possible you might have taken some of those letters from the department’s file and hung on to them? Are they the letters you are alluding to? Is that how you came to be in possession of them - allegedly? It is time you stumped up and answered some questions about it. People deserve to know.
Anyway, that is the government we used to have to deal with in the Northern Territory - Laurel and Hardy. Thank goodness we now have a real government, because we are getting on and governing for the Territory.
Of course, the real impact on all this is on the punters. It is on the people of the Northern Territory who placed their faith in the former government and its ability to do the job. Clearly, they have been let down.
Even from a perspective of Katherine where I come from, MT Bins and Envirobank started Cash for Containers collection depots in the town. They were going along swimmingly. Unfortunately, because the former Labor government did not do its homework or its job properly, both those Cash for Containers places have now closed down. That is jobs lost and damage to the local economy. In the case of MT Bins, it was around $100 000 expenditure on infrastructure, a bailing machine, a new forklift, glass crusher, and a few other things.
That is the nett effect, on a very small scale in Katherine, of the bungled attempt by the former government to bring Cash for Containers legislation to the Northern Territory. That reeks of incompetence on a scale beyond description.
Fortunately, in speaking with one of our Cash for Containers places today, it looks like MT Bins will be opening after Easter now this government has decided to underwrite the cost of Cash for Containers for two months. At least we are doing our bit to keep local businesses open. I hope Envirobank can also reopen its doors in the not-too-distant future.
I am glad I could make a contribution to this debate this afternoon. This is important for the Territory. It is important to keep our streets clean. People would notice the streets are much grubbier than they used to be. In fact, there is an article in the Katherine Times today about the amount of rubbish on the riverbanks of the Katherine River because Cash for Containers has temporarily closed down.
This government will do what it can to ensure CDL, in a form, stays alive. It is critical for the Territory. It is something that, even if you take away the business and environmental benefits, makes people feel good. One of the nice things about living here is the level of good feeling you get that is engendered by living in the Northern Territory. If we were to lose this it would be a tragedy.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for making this statement. I assure Territorians they are rid of the Laurel and Hardy Labor government. You now have a real government that is willing to work, be thorough and competent, and do the right thing for Territorians.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Environment minister for bringing this statement before the House. I also thank him for his bipartisan support for what was a Labor initiative in the previous term of government and something Labor had always committed to. It is something the former CLP government, over more than two decades, always talked about but never delivered.
During the Labor government, we had the greenest government the Northern Territory and Territorians had ever seen. We launched the Cash for Containers scheme and, around that same time, also introduced legislation to ban lightweight single-use plastic bags. That came into effect on 1 September 2011. It is a huge thing to change people’s behaviours around the use of plastic bags and convince people we need to look after the environment, reduce the amount of landfill, and it is possible to have bags you can reuse. I have been amazed since it has been implemented, as I have queued at my local supermarket to do my shopping, that the vast majority of people come with bags. The number of people who may only buy a couple of items and are asked if they want are bag say, ‘No thanks I will be right’, and go out with whatever it is they have purchased in their arms. It is possible to introduce schemes which will make an impact on the environment for a sustainable future.
The Cash for Container scheme, container deposit legislation, was exactly in that same mould. I am a child of South Australia, so it was a scheme I was raised on as a kid in my home town of Clare in South Australia where, on a weekend or after school, if we saw a bottle lying around we would grab it and run to the nearest deli because that would get us 5. A 5 paper bag of mixed lollies was the incentive.
The same principle is in the Northern Territory with the introduction of container deposit legislation. No one denies it was difficult legislation to frame based on what was in South Australia. The real drivers were around recycling containers, reducing landfill, putting 10 back in the pockets of consumers and, importantly, putting the obligation on the beverage manufacturers to take back and have responsibility for the containers in which they sell their products.
There was huge support for the scheme in the lead-up to its introduction, and it is a scheme I am very proud to have been a part of. In those days, the member for Namatjira sat on the government benches as the Environment minister, initially. As she always proudly said, she was not just a minister for the Environment she was a minister of the environment.
The fact the member for Nelson supported the scheme was a bonus. The member for Nelson has never made any bones about the fact it was a scheme he wanted to see in place. I do not believe anyone here denies it is a great scheme. From what I have heard from members opposite, no one is in denial that it is a good scheme.
There is no denying the legislation was problematic. It is incredibly disappointing the legal challenge launched by Coca-Cola Amatil and some of its industry counterparts was successful. I welcomed the leadership on this shown by the former Chief Minister, the member for Blain, when he came out in strong support of the scheme and said unequivocally he would be putting all the Northern Territory’s resources into the case to defend the legislation in the Northern Territory. Of course, we know the outcome is the Northern Territory was unsuccessful. The former Chief Minister said he was not giving up, there would be an appeal and, no doubt, there will need to be legislative changes to ensure the legislation is recognised in its validity within Commonwealth law.
My own electorate in the bush has been one of the most challenging areas trying to get this scheme off the ground. Obviously, South Australia has had similar issues. Some of my constituents are a little doubtful about the ongoing success and viability of the scheme in remote areas. I know there are parts of the Northern Territory where people were determined to ensure it was successful and they would never give up.
One of the first remote places to have a Cash for Container scheme in place was at Aputula, which is Finke River. The Aputula Store had great success. There was clearly recognition you can keep the community clean, bring your containers back, and get 10 back in your pocket. That recycling concept gels with people. Of course, what it means is the streets of our towns and communities are cleaner and rid of those ubiquitous products, particularly from Coca-Cola.
I have never drunk Coca-Cola in my life …
Mr Conlan: You do not know what you are missing.
Ms WALKER: … I cannot stand the taste of it and no one in my family drinks it. Perhaps the member for Greatorex drinks way too much of it given he has been jumping out of his skin. I believe he is slightly hyper, so I suggest you need to drink something other than Coke. In fact, I suggest you boycott it as a number of my friends and family have ...
Mr Conlan: No way, no way.
Ms WALKER: People are very angry with Coca-Cola Amatil muscling in on the Northern Territory. A big global multinational company …
Mr Conlan: Employing millions of people and creating millions of dollars.
Ms WALKER: … determined from the outset to challenge this scheme and ensure it does not work. Clearly, the member for Greatorex thinks Coca-Cola Amatil is a fantastic company and he supports the legal challenge to the Northern Territory they have made, stepping on the toes of Territorians saying, ‘We are going to ensure your desire to recycle, your desire to get 10 even after we have hiked up the prices ...
Mr Conlan: You left the door wide open.
Ms WALKER: The member for Greatorex believes it a good thing Coca-Cola has done. What a shame job that is for him ...
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51. I am trying to listen to the member for Nhulunbuy without interruption.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, if you could tone down your comments please so we can all hear the member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: The challenge from Coca-Cola Amatil is despicable. Many people are very angry about it because they have come in over the top of the will of Territorians. This scheme is in place because it is what Territorians wanted. A Labor government delivered on that desire by creating container deposit legislation so we had something in place.
I go back to the challenges of getting the scheme under way in the bush. Very early in 2012, not long after the legislation was enacted and the scheme a reality, I asked the then minister for the Environment, the member for Stuart, Karl Hampton, to visit my electorate because there were people who were keen to talk to him about it and to bring with him Craig Ingram, project manager within the bureaucracy for the scheme.
We had a day of back-to-back meetings between people at Nhulunbuy and Yirrkala, businesses, and Nhulunbuy Corporation, the equivalent of our town council, the East Arnhem Shire. People wanted to embrace it and were keen to talk about how they could make this work.
One of the incentives to help make it work was the availability of one-off capital grants from the government to enable those who wanted to participate in the scheme - whether they were a commercial operator or not for profit - to have access to funding as an incentive to help establish some of the infrastructure needed.
The infrastructure needed is pretty slim. When I first visited Envirobank in Darwin and another recycling place - I cannot recall the name - it was fairly limited infrastructure: yes, a shed, concrete floor, roof, tables for sorting and big bales for collecting the containers.
I could see it did not necessarily need millions of dollars invested - it did need investment. The other thing that struck me when I visited those two places in Darwin was the number of people employed. These were green jobs. This is not just about recycling; this is about creating green jobs. It is regrettable a number of these places have had to close and jobs have gone. I remain confident, with the challenge to the scheme - an appeal on the legislation and hearing from the other side there is a real commitment to make it work. I applaud that and look forward to seeing these places reopen and jobs reinstated.
During the discussions in Nhulunbuy on the day the minister visited with Mr Craig Ingram, there was much interest in operating the scheme. Setting up a depot is one thing; being in a remote area dealing with the logistics of transportation is an entirely different thing. Obviously, it does not come without its challenges or costs.
Whilst a number of organisations and businesses were quite interested, and people very supportive of the scheme, essentially, it came down to one local businessman who lodged an application and was successful in gaining one of the grants. That was in June of 2012.
He also did the hard yards - because he was a businessman he knew how to move forward on this - drawing up a business plan and dealing with the transportation logistics of how this would work. He was successful in doing a deal with Nhulunbuy Freight Services which operates a road freight system on the Central Arnhem Road in and out of Nhulunbuy. It is approximately a nine- to 10-hour drive from Katherine, most of it on a dirt road, and for around six months of the year the road is impassable. Essentially, those trucks come in throughout the Dry Season and, when they go back out, the opportunity to backload with a cheaper rate is quite attractive. It was a bit of a win/win for the freight company, as well as for the local businessman who was looking to set this venture up.
The other alternative freight access is with the barge. It is a very costly exercise even to back-freight out of Nhulunbuy. We had explored that opportunity with Toll Marine. They were not interested in providing free or discounted freight - as they do quite generously on occasions for not-for-profit organisations to help out the community. Essentially, they regarded this as a commercial venture and, therefore, were not prepared to provide anything other than a commercial rate for back-freighting.
I tried an alternative by going directly through to Pacific Aluminium, as the major employer and consumer of freight services in the region, to ask if they would consider, under their freighting arrangements, to backload under their costs and arrangements, and contract with the barge company to back-freight. They were very interested. Obviously, they produce the world’s most recyclable metal, aluminium, and have a vested interest in the communities in which they operate and to their stakeholders to promote recycling wherever they can. However, again, the issue of a commercial operator versus a not-for-profit or a volunteer organisation came to the fore.
The local businessman, whose name is Mr Broadbent, runs East Arnhem Enterprises, and managed to secure the logistics and the back-freighting through to the Stuart Highway. The next hurdle for him - and I know he pulled his hair out with this - was signing up to contracts and negotiating with each of the five coordinators - the representatives of the different beverage manufacturers. He asked them to consider signing on to a three-month contract, ‘Let us sign on to a three-month contract, on a trial basis, to see how successful this is and then review it after that’. On the strength of that, four of the five signed up. It took a bit of negotiating. The last company to sign up, by which time it was really all too late, was Statewide, the representative for Coca-Cola Amatil. Obviously, towards the end of the Dry Season we were looking to the skies and knowing the Wet Season was upon us and the close-off of the track was coming around very soon.
Another factor also impacted negatively on this. Nhulunbuy was going through an incredibly difficult time - and is only just coming out of that now - with the uncertainty around the future of the community with the gas to Gove and the fact that, without gas to Gove, there was a very real threat the refinery operations would be mothballed, which many people took to understand being closed. You cannot imagine the impact it had on the business community in Nhulunbuy, and the lack of confidence this meant. Our local businesses have just been so strapped as a result of that very difficult time.
For Mr Broadbent, on the verge of opening up his depot, the barriers he came up against within the agency were entirely unhelpful. You can put it down to a change of government and the resettling of a new government with a change of direction and, maybe, some movement within the bureaucracy. We know Craig Ingram had left the agency. However, neither I nor Mr Broadbent could get any sense out of the new government as to why it was that approval for him to proceed with his depot was being held up. His business was, as I said, like other businesses: going through an incredibly tough time. He had put off dozens of staff. He operates quite a large business; he operates community stores as well in some of the homelands, which was why this was such a good fit for his business.
Essentially, because people had been holding on to their containers for months - I had been encouraging them to do so; I still have containers stacked up in my office and around my home, as have other people – and there was a backlog of containers Mr Broadbent did not have the capacity, with the downturn in his business, to have the community roll through his door seeking the money that would be redeemed on all these containers. He just could not afford it. He threw up his arms. He has sitting out in Nhulunbuy a Hydropack automatic tie baler which he purchased, and some of the capital funds went to warehouse signage. I have seen the depot in Nhulunbuy ready to go but unable to do so because of a number of things. It is all still sitting there, and we all hope there will be a resolution to this legal challenge and the scheme will get back up and running. Whether I can hang on to all those empty containers sitting on my back verandah, I am not sure. Maybe I will. That has been the difficulty in Nhulunbuy, but there has been no shortage of goodwill.
One of the other capital grants went to Nhulunbuy Primary School, one of the largest primary schools in the Northern Territory. With that grant money they are setting up a collection point where people can donate their containers. They are setting up with bales. I believe they purchased a trailer quite separate to the scheme which offered $3000 for schools to purchase trailers.
Nhulunbuy, I guess like many remote communities, are mad keen fundraisers. We have many kids in our town, we are a mad keen sporting community, and teams and schoolkids are travelling all the time for various things - whether it is the annual school trip to Canberra, or the touch football competition in Darwin. People are always fundraising. People embraced it as an opportunity to fundraise. Nhulunbuy Primary School was seeking to get people’s donated containers, and they would then take those to the depot that is sitting there waiting to open its doors on the industrial estate in Nhulunbuy. We are just waiting for this challenge ...
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension for the member for Nhulunbuy, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker and member for Nightcliff.
There is a lot of goodwill in Nhulunbuy, driven by fundraising. We all genuinely hope it will get off the ground. It is not just about Nhulunbuy or Yirrkala; it is about those communities within reasonable proximity to Nhulunbuy. There are 26 homelands off the Central Arnhem Road. The community of Gapuwiyak, in the member for Arnhem’s electorate, is only a two-hour drive away. I have spoken with people there who are really keen to be part of it - both people at the community and at the shire. People want to be able to recycle these containers and earn that money.
I spoke a few months with Alastair King, the CEO of the Arnhemland Progress Association because I wanted to touch base. I had spoken with ALPA before the challenge had come through and the Northern Territory government had lost the case about what was happening in those places. I asked ALPA - a large not-for-profit organisation keen to support community development – what they were doing at their community stores. It was very timely I had that conversation, because I had heard there was a reverse vending machine going out to Milingimbi. When I spoke to Alastair he said, ‘Yes, it has just arrived. It has been out there for a couple of weeks’. I would like to table a couple of photographs Alastair King sent to me from the ALPA Store at Milingimbi. The process out there at Milingimbi …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, do you seek leave to table …
Ms WALKER: I am sorry. Can I seek leave, please, Madam Speaker, to table these photographs?
Leave granted.
Ms WALKER: I am sure people have seen these reverse vending machines. It was great to see this one here was very much owned by the community; it has the artwork there of the baru, the crocodile, on it. You can see containers that have been collected lined up in bags. It has actually been driven by - forgive me, I cannot recall his name, he is the Sport and Recreation Officer with the shire at Milingimbi. He saw it as a great activity for the kids to be part of in the program he runs. There is another photograph here of the kids standing around absolutely fascinated watching how this machine works - you feed your containers in, they are crushed, and then you get the credit that accumulates on your card.
The funds raised have gone back into the kids in that community through the sport and recreation programs. The community is as neat as a pin because they have cleaned up all their bottles. Everybody is a winner.
The ALPA Store’s role was they were happy to provide some verandah space on their premises and to allow the reverse vending machine to be plugged into ALPA’s power supply; obviously, it is reliant upon electricity. I saw that as a great community outcome where people are embracing all the things around recycling and have the incentive to make some money out of it as well.
It is all on hold at the moment, and we look forward to seeing it restart. I appreciate the commitment of the Chief Minister and the Environment minister in taking this challenge up to ensure this system works because it is something Territorians want. People are greener than they used to be. Recycling is a good, positive thing which is providing jobs, as I said, but, importantly, it is about creating a sustainable future. We need to be doing more of it in the Northern Territory and in our remote areas and not saying, ‘Wow, it is all too hard because it is too expensive and too far away’. With goodwill and partnerships there are ways to make this work.
The big beverage manufacturers who have resisted this scheme from the start need to take a reality check on what it is consumers want. They have profited enormously out of this scheme with the price hikes and the number of cans which have not been redeemed - that all goes into their pockets. It has been good to see the increase in the number of containers being redeemed, and I believe this scheme will work, will continue to grow, and people will embrace it.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing his statement before the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Brennan for bringing this important issue to the House. I sometimes wonder when the government says it is short on money. I was listening to the Chief Minister give a history of CDL going back through Parliamentary Records and media releases. I know how long it takes me to find something in the Parliamentary Record; obviously, he has some well-paid people in that department because there was some history pulled out of there for that speech.
I will give my bit of history without going back through the Parliamentary Record. The CLP, when I was in local government, was firmly opposed to container deposits. You need to have that on the record so you get an understanding of why this has been such a painfully long, drawn-out battle from beginning to not quite the end - yet. I was on the Territory Anti-litter Committee for quite a number of years. I believe Lorna Woods from KAB, a great supporter of container deposit legislation, was on it as well. We were not allowed to talk about container deposit legislation on those committees because the government had an unwritten agreement that the beverage industry would supply the CLP government at the time $200 000 to not introduce container deposit legislation, which was bumped up to $250 000.
The CLP changed its view towards the end of the 1990s, and that was great to hear. When the Labor Party came in, there was a similar move by the ALP to support container deposit legislation. Unfortunately, the ALP gave in to the beverage industry at that point. That was about 2006.
I remember getting a phone call from somebody who did not explain where he was from asking if I would like to have breakfast at the Atrium. Having been involved in the beverage industry before, and knowing their methodology, I was immediately suspicious the only reason this person might be ringing up around Christmas was because they were coming to the Northern Territory to put pressure on the government not to introduce container deposit legislation which the Chief Minister at the time said she was considering. Not long after, the government said, ‘No, we will not introduce it’.
People can pat themselves on the back; they can also look back and say, ‘We did not always agree with this’. This highlights the amount of pressure - we have had the debate before, member for Brennan - put on members of parliament by the beverage industry before you took your trip to New Zealand. I had a paid trip to South Australia many years ago when I was President of the Litchfield Shire Council. I went there with a New South Wales local government member and it was paid for by the beverage industry in South Australia. When we came back we were so supportive of container deposit legislation we said, ‘Thank you very much for the overnight stay and the airfare’. They were hoping to convince us it was an unworkable option to collect rubbish. We came back totally convinced after that tour.
The general population, especially in Central Australia but not so much in the Top End, has been extremely supportive. The history is there. In Alice Springs, the percentage of people who wanted container deposit legislation was about 90%-plus. Part of the reason is their proximity to South Australia. Sometimes, some of the angst about CDL comes from people from states who have not known this system or are too young to know not so many years ago - in the 1990s, for instance, Coca-Cola had a bottling machine, which is now in the middle of the harbour - you got refunds from Coca-Cola. That was before they changed into a mighty conglomerate which refuses to be part of the system it was at one time.
I asked them why they got rid of the bottling machines at Bishop Street and they said because it caused pollution. I took that with a grain of salt. Anyway, if you go fishing in the harbour you will find that bottling machine still being of some use.
We need to mention, when talking about CDL, the great work people like Damien Ryan have done. Damien Ryan’s leadership with the Alice Springs Council brought forth their own container deposit scheme, where you can receive 5 per container for cans and bottles. He mentioned the figure recently, and it was millions in three years - millions of cans with 5. Even now, with the cash for container scheme partially running, he has been offering 10 for all wine and spirit bottles, and they were pulling in about 7000 bottles. I do not know if it was a day or week, but that signifies some of the issues we have with the abuse of alcohol in some parts of the Territory. He was certainly getting a good return of glass bottles that otherwise would not be returned.
It has had a long history and, sometimes history, depending on your political point of view, gets twisted. The member for Port Darwin, until the day he dies, will go on about the agreement I had with Paul Henderson. Well, good luck! Perhaps when he quotes a prayer he might remember the bit that says, ‘Forgive us our trespasses’. Move on! Life is too short for people to be carrying this burden around for the rest of their lives.
The Chief Minister quoted from the agreement. It said I was asking for a continuation of the promise the government had made in the 2008 election that it would bring in container deposits. The reason I put it in the agreement - not only because I supported it - was because I knew they had fallen apart some years ago under pressure from the industry. I wanted to put it into the agreement so we had a much better chance of it happening. That is what happened and where it comes from. You can say Gerry Wood forced them into the situation. No, I reinforced the promise they made to the electorate, before the agreement, that they would introduce the container deposit scheme.
Much has been said, and the member for Brennan, the minister, reiterated much of what was said in the debate. I remember the debate well. If you read my contribution, which I do not have in front of me, the minister might at least recognise I congratulated the minister on his contribution believing he had a role to scrutinise the existing bill. That is what he did. I did not agree with the statement he made at the time about the stewardship model having substantial merit. To be honest with you - and I will explain that later - I do not believe it has great merit except in a fairly tight focus; that is, litter.
I take the point the minister made - he warned the government. I was on that committee, and the member for Namatjira, for some time, might have been on that committee because this goes back before 2009. We had a committee looking at container deposits and, minister, there was some discussion about whether you would come with us on a trip to South Australia. Without getting into why that did or did not happen, you understand there was a committee at that stage looking at it, and it continued. You would also know I had concerns at the Estimates Committee on how it was running at that stage. I will come back to that later.
I can understand people saying I am part of the reason this might have failed. You can say that, but I also have to rely on people who have a bit more knowledge than me when it comes to the law. I will quote a couple of people in that debate. One was Dr Burns, who said in the debate:
I am presuming he was talking about this bill because two other bills were put up against the government’s version. Both those were knocked on the head because they went against the Constitution in relation to the powers of the Territory to raise tax. The legislation we have is based on the industry version; that is, the industry runs it like the South Australian industry. The minister said:
Then he said:
Also the minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage at the time, Karl Hampton, said:
I understand, minister, you questioned it. I do not want this container deposit scheme to fall over. That is the worst thing to have happened; we have come this far and, all of a sudden, it has collapsed. I understood these things were going to happen and the legislation was okay. People might say, ‘You should have checked it’. When you are given legal advice it is okay - I do not have the ability to get secondary legal advice. You get the advice and take, in good faith, it is the case. I am disappointed certain people in parliament said certain things, and that does not appear to have happened. What I am especially concerned about is there was a promise that, to put it beyond doubt, the government would be seeking a specific exemption through COAG, which is what we are trying to do now.
The criticism the government has of the then government is fair and reasonable, because the promises were made. If people say to me, ‘Well, you are to blame too’ I will accept that. I took what I believed was legal advice they had received which allowed this to continue. It is very disappointing.
Minister, you raised this issue and you must have been aware of it even when you came into government. I am interested to know whether - because it took some time to get this cranked up - the government looked at whether the promises the previous government made had occurred, and, if so, did you start the ball rolling at that stage? It is not clear whether you have done anything. I have been asked this by the media. I said, ‘It is obvious the previous government’s advice was wrong’. What did you do when you got into power? I am interested in what processes you put in.
There is no doubt we can have a great debate about who did what and who is to blame, and that is reasonable enough. I am impressed, minister, that you have tried to resolve this issue. I will be asking a few questions about how that is happening.
I was critical of Labor, especially the department, during the Estimates Committee because one of the big stumbling blocks when the container deposit scheme was operating was the handling fee. We talked about Envirobank, which is one of the depots that kept going quite successfully right through the time of the container scheme operation - but you have to remember it is backed by Carlton United. It has a bit of backing behind it and the handling fee is, perhaps, not such a big problem. However, for poor independent depots it is not enough. It annoys me when I see the Coke website telling the community the cost of this scheme was up to 20, with 10 for deposits. They said it was up to 10 for the handling fee. If that was the case, tell me which member of the depots was getting 10 in the handling fee, or were they just putting it in their pocket? They are charging everyone 10 handling fee, but I am pretty sure the handling fee was somewhere between 4 and 5. Someone has pocketed money and claimed 20 was the cost of the scheme.
It is the handling fee I need sorted out. I remember criticising the government saying, ‘You had the power within the act to stop products being sold until a reasonable agreement had been made with sellers of beverages in the Northern Territory’. I am sure if the government had said, ‘Coke, you are not allowed to sell in the Northern Territory’, Coles and Woolies would have been down their throat in five second telling them to fix it. They did not do that and, unfortunately, there was weakness in how this was run out after the legislation had been improved.
At that time I told a couple of people the department sat on its hands. It had done the hard work, got it up and running, then let it drop. It did not need to be dropped; it needed to be going full bore with plenty of people looking at all the issues to ensure it got through all the problems that occurred, especially with the handling fee.
Minister, where are we now? The beverage industry has taken us to court, as we all know. The Territory lost the case. Coca-Cola, as a wonderful cooperative corporate citizen, led Schweppes, another multinational – which, I believe, is run by a Japanese brewery, and Lion Nathan, which I believe is Mitsubishi – great big companies. Some of the people who direct those companies probably would not even know where Darwin is. Yet, those so-called good corporate citizens or bodies just trampled on the Northern Territory because they do not want a national container deposit scheme.
They have made at least $25.5m since December this year, just in unredeemed deposits. That does not take much to work out. Coke said they got 20, and there were 101 million containers to January. They have retained that money - not Coke alone, but all the beverage industries have retained $25.5m, notwithstanding the money they would have got from the aluminium, the plastic, and the paper.
We know what type of companies they are. We would not be in this state - regardless of whether our legislation was good or bad - if those companies had been cooperative and worked with us. They did not have to take us to court. All right, the legislation was not up to scratch, but you still do not have to take someone to court if you think the system is good.
You said in your statement on the radio recently we had the majority of states and one was in the mail. You then said in the statement we did not have the majority of states, but you showed me one finger in a nice, polite way that must mean the same state, I presume. It is Tasmania, I believe, we are waiting for, so that is good.
I would like, minister, for you to explain what the system is with the Cash for Containers scheme that will allow us to continue. How will it operate? How will businesses get their return? Will the government own the product? Will they get some money back? Alice Springs ran the show and collected all the cans and bottles; they were able to get money back from the product. Is there some chance the government, in setting up this scheme, will have the ability to get some return for what they are doing? Maybe give us an idea when it will start. I believe you issued a media release - and I have spoken to you about it - maybe two weeks ago - and, the next day someone rang me and said, ‘They are not taking Coke cans’. It did not say that in your media release. There was confusion at the beginning, and it would be nice if how this will work was clearer so people are not confused.
It is a great scheme, and many people here have spoken about it. We can talk about whether it is working from a legal point of view, but we know it works well. We were just getting to the point where I believe it was becoming like South Australia; people were starting to get the hang of it. Community groups knew what to do, how to collect it; you had three bins outside the cricket club for cans, bottles, cartons and things. We were getting the feel of how to do it and it was making the place cleaner ...
Ms MANISON: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Wanguri.
It is a great scheme, and I know it could be so much better. If you are going to look at how to make the scheme better later - if we can get through this bad period – a way the government can assist in the rural area, my area, is for some portable Cash for Containers depots. Maybe they could turn up at the tips on the weekend. In the rural area, people drop an enormous number of cans in bins. People do not want to travel to Palmerston so they go bush. If there was a system where they knew on the second Saturday of the month there would be a portable Cash for Containers depot, that would help increase the number of cans.
Of course, we have to up the handling fee. I do not have a problem paying a 10 handling fee if that means people at Yuendumu and other places can bring their containers in. That would be good. We will get this out of the way and, minister, I gather you have some ideas on how to improve it because you have been talking about that. That is the area we have to work on.
Some time ago when I was in local government we did a CD - I still have it somewhere - of how it would work in the Territory. Of course, at that time we were hoping the government could run it, not the industry. That is the only way this will work well - where profits that come out of the scheme are put back into the community. At the moment, they go straight into the pockets of the big companies, which is unfortunate. That also happens in South Australia.
Yes, if we could improve it, it would be great for the Territory. Trucks and barges go out to communities and have to come back. There were always ideas of bringing materials back at a cheaper rate than they were sent there, and getting companies to at least agree to special rates for this type of thing. There is plenty of scope in that area.
The area the government should have made more noise about, regardless of what it thought of the previous government’s attempt to bring this in, was the rip-offs that occurred. Cash for Containers works in South Australia and it does not have a price more expensive than Victoria, Western Australia - or wherever. One of the reasons Cash for Containers could do that is because there is always a certain amount of unredeemed deposits and the companies can put that into the administration and get that levelling of the price. They probably also put some of that price increase right across Australia.
When 30 VB cans are sold in Cloncurry for $53, in Kununurra for $53, and at Northside, Alice Springs a carton is sold for $70 - regardless of whether you think an increase in price might reduce the amount people are drinking - and even in Howard Springs it is $64, and the maximum it should have increased if it was 20 per can would be $6, you have to ask: who is ripping who off? The freight to Kununurra or Cloncurry is evened out through freight contracts. When this came in, 70% of prices in the Northern Territory were the same as South Australia. They are not now. The only place you get close is Coles and Woolies because they absorb it because they need to keep their national pricing system. For the smaller distributors there is a vast difference well above what the cost of Cash for Containers caused.
The government could have done some figures itself. One of the failings of the previous government was it did not do enough background work. I received some background work from them about the cost of the product. Someone should have been out a year before it came in comparing prices to what was happening before container deposit came in, in South Australia and the Northern Territory, and comparing them afterwards to see what the mark-up was.
I am interested to see if some of these companies, like Lion Nathan and Carlton United, will drop their prices to what they were before the container deposit scheme came in. I have not seen any changes yet. A bottle of Coca-Cola still costs $4 for 600 ml - I do not buy it anymore. It would be nice if the government said it would not use Coca-Cola in Parliament House anymore. That would be a nice piece of symbolism.
The other issue, minister, was the amount of money they have retained. The government should have made more noise telling people how much money is being ripped off by the companies. When they take $20.5m out of the system we should tell people these companies, at the same time as jacking our container deposit scheme, are just taking money away. Where is it going? It is probably to shareholders who could not care too much about the Northern Territory.
I am told the CEO of Coke pulls in about $8m. There is about $3m in the bin network they are trying to promote, and the bin network should be called for what it is - a con. It is great for litter, but not great for recycling or reducing landfill because it relies on someone else besides the beverage industry to pick all those cans and bottles out of the bins and separate them from the pies that might go in because people do not always stick to what should be in the bin. They do not always put their bottles in the bottle only bin. Someone has to do that and it is usually the councils, which then have to employ people - and that goes back to the ratepayer.
If it is a place like Yuendumu, it is more likely to end up in landfill because the value of the product is not there. That is what people forget; Cash for Containers puts a value on a product that normally could not be recycled. If you pick a bottle up in Yuendumu, why bother moving it? It would not get you anywhere; you pay to get it wherever it has to go. In Darwin, with Cash for Containers, you can go to Envirobank to see it is crushed. It is now used for paving because its price is very low. At least with Cash for Containers you get it back to the depot, where it can be used for something. That is the difference.
The bin network is simply a way of the industry trying to deflect criticism of what it did. In fact, there were about four or five media releases around the time of the court case.
I am pleased with the statement today. I know the minister is doing his best to bring the Cash for Containers scheme back and have it running better than before. Many people in the community are very pleased to hear what the government has said, even though it does cost them money. I am interested to know the time line, with the court case, COAG, and the period you said this program will continue over. Do you think it will go longer than you expect? I believe you said it is about eight weeks. Do we expect to have an answer within eight weeks? It would be interesting to know.
In summing up, the container deposit scheme is a great program. I am disappointed it has gone down this path. If I have to take some of the blame for it, I do. However, I took on the information given to me. It was quoted in the Parliamentary Record that certain things were going to happen, and our legal advice was sound. Obviously, it was not.
I hope you are successful, minister, in what you are doing and we will get this scheme through. You may be able to give us some feedback, minister - I do not know whether you are going to COAG or one of the committees – of what our chances are of a national scheme. I believe this is the big fear companies have: once we get this up and running properly, others will come in and they will be scared of that.
I believe the only way this scheme will really run the way it is supposed to is if it can be run by governments - I am not saying governments themselves, but perhaps government enterprises - so the money comes back to us, the community, and can be put into landfill programs, beautification programs, and all sorts of things that will help the environment and reduce waste. Unfortunately, while Coca-Cola and their mates put $20.5m in their pockets, it will not happen.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement today, and I wish him well in convincing COAG this scheme is good for the Northern Territory and we should retain it.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I will try to get through as many of the issues raised by the shadow minister and members, as well as the member for Nelson. Today, most people will realise this government announced an appeal against the decision handed down by the Federal Court.
Some questions have been raised. If we have the agreement of states and territories including, at the moment, the federal government in-principle agreement, why do we need to launch an appeal? Unlike the previous government, I am trying to cover off on all areas. I feel confident, given the states and territories support the Northern Territory in having its own legislation in place to deal with environmental initiatives - in this regard, the Cash for Containers scheme.
However, politicians being politicians, governments being governments, and bureaucrats being bureaucrats, there is a risk that could be mitigated in some regard if we also raise an appeal against the decision. Second, we have a limited opportunity to raise that appeal. If we leave it much longer, we will miss that window of opportunity. For me, it is for two reasons. One is to ensure we have all bases covered, because we want this scheme to work.
It is interesting being in this House for a few years now, how history can be rewritten and gone over time and time again. It was interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition say I had dropped the ball on this. In fact, we picked up the ball and are trying to run with it and get a result.
First, to put this to bed completely, yes, years ago there were probably governments of both persuasions which were against container deposit legislation. However, it was a 2008 election promise of the Country Liberals - it was part of our policy - that we would have a cash for cans scheme. It is a policy of this government. I still argue the scheme, and the regulations introduced alongside the legislation, did not quite provide the best model we could have in the Northern Territory. Time and time again we have heard the shadow minister, the member for Nightcliff, mention it was based on South Australia. Repeatedly in this House we have heard the same argument. It is so different to the South Australian model. It is complicated and, therefore, costly. The wider it rolled out across the Territory the more expensive it became to operate. It was inevitable it would get to a point where it was not sustainable when you get outside our more regional areas.
The opposition has been a little tempered in responses today. Obviously, they realise some mistakes were made in getting this legislation in place whilst in government. I was even attacked for going to New Zealand to look at alternatives, and for not going to South Australia to look at the South Australian model. There was an offer by the previous government for me to travel to South Australia. That offer was then taken off the table; they would not allow me to go at that stage. Then, I was attacked for journeying to New Zealand. Questions were raised about who paid for the trip to New Zealand. It was just a muckraking exercise.
I have said before and will say it again: that trip to New Zealand was to look at the product stewardship program which had been showing signs of dramatic improvement over the few years it had been operating. The return rate under the stewardship program had gone from just under 40% to just over 70% in three to four years of operation. That is a voluntary scheme, so to get those kinds of results on something which was not costing the community anything needed to be investigated. There are models that will still provide, at the end of the day, perhaps even better recycling returns than a container deposit scheme can do.
It is paramount for oppositions - I did the same thing in opposition - to question government policy and legislation. I cannot believe the previous government, on learning they were offered a pilot program to run a product stewardship program in the Northern Territory - it fell on deaf ears. An industry came to you and said, ‘We will not charge the government anything, we will run a recycling program, provide a pilot program at no cost to government’ – to not give them the opportunity to do it when you could have held the container deposit legislation above them like the sword of Damocles and said, ‘Okay, we will give you the opportunity, here is 12 or 18 months. Get it right or we will drop the sword; we introduce the scheme’. In that time, the government of the day could have been working on a better model than they eventually came up with.
Since taking government, I have been led to believe had the former government been given another three or four months, they could have got this right; could have ironed out the problems. However, they were set on a deadline to roll this out and that was it. There was no flexibility from the previous government to bend in that area.
I heard the member for Nightcliff talk about the sentimental side behind this scheme. I can remember as a child - I used this in earlier debate - at Christmas time being able to throw bottles into a wheelbarrow and take it down to Turnley’s Milk Bar in Moulamein, NSW and getting a few cents back to buy lollies or a milkshake. It is so easy to talk about stories like that so people can look back into the 1970s to see how things worked. The world has changed since the 1970s.
It was interesting to learn today something I did not know from the member for Nelson; that the old bottle washing machine from Coca-Cola has become a bottom-of-the-harbour scheme - it sits in Darwin Harbour somewhere.
Things have moved - different products on the market, different methods of selling - so we have moved a long way since the days of heavy glass bottles that were washed, sterilised, refilled and sent back out to the market. I am not saying I disagree with that model. It worked fine back then, but we have moved forward a long way.
The member for Nightcliff also said it looks like big business has won here. Had the previous government provided due diligence, there would not be a need to fight big business. Another issued was raised - I believe by the member for Nelson - about the money being made by business. It occurred to me the very people taking the Northern Territory government to court were the ones who were making money out of it. I found that a bizarre situation; companies that could legally gouge prices which were making money on the scheme, were fighting the scheme. I believe it is also very nave to think companies were not fighting on a legal point of view. If you have any idea of how big companies work, they will fight if they know they have any chance of winning.
I am disappointed, as is the member for Nightcliff, that we are in this position. Again, had due diligence been paid we would not be here at all.
The Leader of the Opposition said on a radio interview a few weeks back that they were on the way to securing support from other state governments and the federal government, giving the impression they were working in that space. I can tell you, in the handover provided to the then minister for the Environment, Mr Terry Mills, there was no such evidence letters had been applied for. I would love the Leader of the Opposition to show me the evidence they were working in that space. I believe they - the then Labor government - certainly dropped the ball.
We talked about the model and why the scheme has not stacked up. The perception of the Labor government at the time was they were basing this on South Australia; in South Australia it works. In fact, we know many parts of South Australia were exempt from the legislation because they could not even get it to stack up in South Australia. What made it worse is most people understand that in South Australia there are about eight splits; that is where people, individuals, mums and dads, children take their bottles and cans back and the collectors are only required to split the products into eight different splits. In the Northern Territory, at one stage that was as many as 28, although they have it down to about 21 or 22 today. It points to the actual model being introduced. Because of the complication, the number of splits, you made it a very costly program to run. In a little while I will talk about how we can make changes into the future to streamline.
At Envirobank, yesterday they were saying it was a terrible place to work and today it is a fantastic place to work because one of the things we have done in underwriting the scheme for the next couple of months - we are bypassing the need to go through the super collectors, if you like ...
Mr Wood: The Alice Springs method.
Mr CHANDLER: Absolutely. We are, basically, allowing the collection agencies to reduce the number of splits required - aluminium is aluminium, glass is glass, cardboard is cardboard. The collectors on-sell those products to the market, and the fact they can do it with far fewer splits makes it less complicated.
I would like to think in the coming months if we get through this successfully, if we are exempt from the Mutual Recognition Act, then we can start to move into the space of amending the legislation to make it less complicated. The less complicated and costly we make the scheme the bigger the chance it will have in working in the wider community - the further out it goes. That is what we are looking at.
I will go to the member for Nhulunbuy and some of the issues she mentioned. She said the Labor government was perhaps the greenest government the Northern Territory had. It was green all right - it was damn mouldy. You only have to scratch the surface of how the former Labor government treated our environment. They were fantastic at selling the green initiative, and the message they were green, but when you scratch the surface - the now Chief Minister, who was the Minister for Infrastructure on coming into government, learnt a few things about the incinerator at East Arm port and what damage that was doing to our environment. It was all under the eyes of the previous Labor government. Why did they not do something about it? They covered it up; they did nothing about it. They are good at talking green, but you do not have to scratch the surface too far to discover they are not as green as they make out.
The member for Nhulunbuy spoke about the challenges to get the scheme off the ground. The reason there were challenges was the complication of the scheme. They talk about taking on the big boys like Coca-Cola and the hide they have in taking on Territorians and Territorians’ will. The previous Labor government left the gate open. It is pretty nave to think the big players in town will not take the opportunity when given it. Had the previous government done the right thing and dotted the ‘i’s and crossed the ‘t’s we would not be facing these challenges.
I read some of the things I said during the debate last year - or was it 2010? I cannot remember. I remember what was said on the day such as, ‘I hope we are not here in 12 months debating this legislation. I hope we are not here in 12 months time needing to use more taxpayers’ money to underwrite a scheme’ - which is exactly what we have had to do. The member for Nhulunbuy said the likes of Coca-Cola, Schweppes and Lion Nathan came in against the will of Territorians. They came in because you let them in; you invited them. All Territorians are paying for the previous government’s incompetence.
Member for Nelson, you spoke about the history of previous governments not supporting cash for cans. You are right, even the previous Labor government. I have seen excerpts from the Parliamentary Record from the then member for Johnston, Chris Burns, where he said cash for cans would never work in the Northern Territory unless it was linked to a national scheme. We have come on a journey.
It is CLP policy and the reason we are supporting it today. If we did not support cash for cans - we are in government now - we would let this go through to the keeper. If we seriously did not want to support the cash for cans scheme in the Northern Territory we would allow it to fall over. The reason we are not is because we are very supportive. We have fought about the models; we have discussed uphill and downhill the way to make things better, and that is what we need to do.
You talked about the agreement and the stewardship model - other models that were put up. There has been from 40% to 70% return rate in New Zealand. One of the reasons the stewardship program works well there is it is more contained than it is in the Northern Territory. However, they are not relying on moving products thousands of kilometres which we do in the Northern Territory. Having glass crushing containers and machines in locations close to where the products are is always going to be a winner because you are not left transporting heavy weights over long distances.
You talked about previous advice you were given from the government. That advice was wrong and we have demonstrated that since taking government. It is deplorable for a government to mislead and provide information that is not correct, particularly when you are taking that advice on good faith. I took the advice on good faith. I drilled the minister at the time, ensuring he was certain this legislation would stack up. He was on solid ground he said – rock-solid ground. As we know today, he was not.
You raised the handling fee, another fault of the legislation. It talks about ‘reasonable’. What is reasonable to you may not be reasonable to someone else. We have to be more defined with what that handling fee is if we have any chance of this working into the future.
You talked about operations at the moment. It will be done differently; there will be far less splits - aluminium is aluminium, cardboard, cardboard. We have reduced the number of splits during the time we are underwriting the scheme. We are not going through the super collectors in this regard. They do not want to play the game. We have asked them repeatedly to get on board, to support the program, but they have failed. Basically, we have to underwrite this scheme for the next few months until we get the legislative framework right.
On the issue of why we put the appeal in today, as I said, we are trying to cover off on all areas. I do not want to leave things to chance as the former government did, so we are covering off on both an appeal process as well as going through the COAG agreements. The reason we started it from the 27th was Lion Nathan was no longer going to support the program. Coke, we know, had given up on Territorians on the 18th, but Lion Nathan had the approval through to the 27th. Every other company involved will support the program ongoing, and that includes a rather large national brewer that was quite happy to continue with the program.
Another reason we wanted a slight break in the process is collectors had to do a stocktake as to who is responsible for what. To date, the super collectors are responsible for the money - the beverage industry and the packaging industry are responsible; now, from today, we are responsible. We needed to know, as a government, what stock was on hand. New stock coming in is something we will be paying for.
You are right, member for Nelson, some companies have made quite a bit of money out of this. However, other companies - I will not name them – have shown me facts where they did not put the price up on their products until around February, after the scheme was introduced, and they only put up the price by 10 an item because they realised what was unredeemed would be the money they would use to run the scheme. For one major beverage industry out there, this was cost neutral.
Madam Speaker, this is a failed former Labor scheme we are trying to get right. We have not dropped the ball on this matter - the previous ministers and government dropped the ball. We have picked up the ball and are running with it.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Northern Territory parliament expresses its sorrow and regret:
(b) in supporting the apology made by the federal parliament on behalf of the nation
(c) in offering our sympathies to those Territorians who have suffered from those decisions and policies, and
(d) for those policies, whilst recognising that forced adoption practices did not occur since the Northern Territory formed as a self-governing body politic in 1978.
Today I issue a statement of deep regret concerning past government policies and practices that resulted in the forced removal of children of all racial and ethnic groups from their mothers, and their enforced placement for adoption.
Members will be aware that in 2012 the Australian Senate concluded an inquiry into the Commonwealth’s contribution to former forced adoption policies and practices. In its report, the Senate Community Affairs Committee concluded that policies and practices resulting in forced adoptions were widespread throughout Australia in the post-war period. This occurred when children were given up for adoption because their parents - usually single mothers - were forced to relinquish them or face circumstances in which they were left with no other choice.
In the period from the 1940s until the 1970s, Australian women who bore children out of wedlock were subject to society’s condemnation; to ostracism that seems difficult for us to understand today.
We are aware from Commonwealth records we hold that some young women travelled to and from the Northern Territory to have babies in anonymity. These babies were subsequently placed for adoption and, in a few circumstances, left Australian shores forever with their new adoptive parents.
Conversely, some local young women left the Territory to have babies in secret in other jurisdictions. We sympathise with those Territorians who may have suffered from the decisions and policies of other jurisdictions.
However, the majority of enforced adoptions involved separating Aboriginal children and their families. Analysis of some records by the Office of Children and Families indicates that in earlier times prior to self-government, when Aboriginal children were removed from their families and the court made an ‘in need of care’ finding, it was not uncommon for these children to be committed to the care of the Director of Child Welfare until they reached the age of majority, without any further avenue of review.
Some of these children were subsequently made available for adoption despite the fact parental consent for their adoption was never sought or obtained. This was because of a loophole in the Commonwealth law of the day which permitted wide grounds for the dispensation of parental consent, something that would be completely unacceptable today.
As a result, some Aboriginal families whose children were permanently removed from their care were never told these children were adopted into other families. As a consequence, the bonds between parent and child were legally extinguished forever and the ties that bind kith and kin and country were broken and lost.
These practices have left a legacy of grief, trauma, loss, disconnection and unwarranted shame, guilt and secrecy. We acknowledge that, with deep regret, past practices of forced removal and adoption have caused great pain and suffering to mothers, fathers, the babies who were adopted, and other family members they were separated from.
Mothers who experienced forced adoption practices were not properly informed of their rights, nor provided with the support mothers need. Fathers were excluded from the decision-making process. That was a decision for that time, and we know this was wrong. It should never have happened and will never happen again.
The adopted children, who are now adults, were denied the opportunity to know, grow up with, or be cared for by their birth parents and families of origin. In some instances, where bonding did not occur, they were even the victims of abuse in their new adopted families.
Partly because of the secrecy and coercion involved, we may never know how many women and their babies were separated by forced adoption. Commonwealth welfare records are often incomplete and sometimes non-existent. However, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, during the latter period of Commonwealth administration from 1968 until self-government in 1978, a total of 445 adoptions were finalised in the Northern Territory. This is not an insignificant number. Of course, there is no way of determining the percentage of forced adoptions. However, it is highly improbable the Territory was unaffected by community attitudes and social policies at the time.
At the time these forced adoption practices were taking place, the Territory was under Commonwealth administration. The Senate Community Affairs Committee report recommended a national apology to all those affected by these past practices.
I am pleased to support the Commonwealth government which, on behalf of the nation, has made such a public apology to all those who suffered harm. Such a policy is especially welcome in the case of the Northern Territory.
I am pleased to advise these policies and practices did not continue after self-government in 1978. Not only did the new Territory government close down various children’s institutions such as Retta Dixon Children’s Home and Dundas House, it also briefly imposed a moratorium on adoption practice while policy was revised and the adoption law amended.
Today we live in a completely different world from the one which condoned and connived in the practices of the past. I can advise the House that the NT government is committed to making available appropriate counselling support to anyone facing a pregnancy in challenging circumstances, or who may be experiencing parental difficulties. It does this by funding government and non-government agencies around the Territory to provide various family support services to vulnerable people who may be in distress. The Territory government also supports national initiatives such as the Find and Connect Program which assists people affected by forced adoptions.
In addition, the current Adoption of Children Act entitles parties to an adoption to obtain identifying information about their family origins. In most cases, this is now also possible with respect to historical adoptions that took place under repealed legislation. The current act also permits an open adoption procedure, where birth parents who make the decision to relinquish a child can, if they choose, remain informed about or in contact with that child after the court has formalised an order in favour of the child’s new adoptive parents.
I am pleased to say in the Territory the last vestiges of secrecy in adoption practice ended two decades ago. However, in a more enlightened age, the searchlights of our community concern and modern social services cannot rescue people from the events that have already happened, from the dark practices that changed lives forever.
To all those Northern Territory families, past and present, separated by an adoption that was forced upon them, on behalf of this Assembly, I express our heartfelt sympathy. To all those affected by the policy of enforced adoption, please accept this statement of deepest regret in the spirit in which it is offered.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues on this side of the House in expressing a heartfelt apology to the hundreds and thousands of Australian mothers and their families who endured the pain and suffering of being forced to give their children up for adoption. In particular, I acknowledge the pain of those women and families in the Northern Territory who suffered due to the actions of government and institutions.
The practice of forced adoption reached its peak between the 1950s and 1970s. That is when the state actively supported this activity. That was not very long ago. As a mother of three children, I can only imagine the heartbreak and misery mothers, children, fathers, and other family members have been and are still, going through as a result of forced adoptions.
I cannot even envisage not being able to see my children; not being able to see my child grow up - a child carried in utero for nine months yet never able to hold them, hug them, and be their parent; not even to be giving them their name to carry with them for the rest of their lives.
I acknowledge the pain and suffering for all those who were, and are still, affected by this cruel practice. Reading and listening to the accounts of women who went through this ordeal is harrowing. The psychological damage to the people involved, including nurses, midwives, and social workers who were in the health system at the time, cannot be underestimated.
Up to 250 000 babies were forcibly taken from their mothers during 30 years of forced adoptions. This is more than the entire population of the Northern Territory. I would like you all to take a moment to think about that – the entire Territory population roughly equates to the number of babies who were taken from their mothers without consent. The mothers who suffered this practice were given no choice. They were often tricked into signing adoption papers - and worse.
As stated in the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report into forced adoption:
Denied information, support, and the right to bond with their child, many mothers were powerless. This was a systemic and systematic abuse of the rights of women and children and a denial of the fundamental human need for love. You only have to hear and read the stories to understand how this created enormous grief and feelings of guilt. It is no surprise that, sadly, this practice led to anxiety, depression and, in some cases, suicide.
A mother who gave evidence to the Senate committee shared her anxiety and grief even before the birth of the child she felt pressured to give away:
She went on to say:
Mothers were often made to feel ashamed of the way their child was brought into the world, and this only added to their grief. Moral self-righteousness and the discrimination against single mothers, thankfully, have no place in our society these days, although I acknowledge bigotry endures.
The authorities believed single mothers could not raise a child. Babies were adopted out exclusively to wedded parents. The interest of the child was not paramount. As a human being, how can you take away the right of someone to raise their own flesh and blood? The decision to give birth and raise that child is a choice that should not be stripped away. This was unnatural and unjust. In many cases, the adoptive parents were good people with good intentions, and I do not wish to take away the positive role they played in the lives of adopted children. However, pain and loss of identity so often endured even when a positive family environment existed.
I do not wish to diminish in any way the broader practice of adoption which is an important option for woman. Forced adoption is completely different. It is a world away from legitimate adoption built upon respect and consent.
In providing this heartfelt apology, I wish to refer to the experience of one of our own, someone from Darwin who recently spoke to the ABC. Territorian Nikki Caulfield travelled to Canberra with her mother Gaye to hear the Prime Minister’s apology along with hundreds of mothers and their families. She is a brave woman who shared some of her most intimate and difficult moments with us. Nikki was separated from her 15-year-old mother at birth. The only thing Nikki knew about her mother growing up was her eye colour and the fact she has auburn hair. In her recent interview she said:
Her trauma was exacerbated by her own problems having a child and then, when she eventually did become a mother, she had a difficult time in her relationship with her daughter. As she said:
This intergenerational impact is, unfortunately, one of the saddest legacies of forced adoptions. Not only were the mothers left with a feeling of guilt and shame for the rest of the lives, but their children also felt many effects over time. Children were bullied or teased in the schoolyard when the circumstances of their forced adoption were known leading to social dislocation and long-term psychological damage. Children who were part of forced adoption have suffered through to their adulthood with challenges of a sense of belonging which, in turn, affects their relationships with their own families, partners and children.
Nikki Caulfield is doing us all a great service in sharing the true impact on her and her family. Nikki and Gaye are fortunate to be able to reconnect with each other. Unfortunately, there are many cases where children were not able to reunite with their parents. In some cases, sadly, their mother had passed away.
Injustices were not limited to the time of birth. In many cases, women were institutionalised during their pregnancy and effectively treated like slaves. Ms Evelyn Mundy told the Senate inquiry:
Another matter of great concern is the past practice of closed adoption. This is where the child’s original birth certificate was sealed forever and the child was issued with a different birth certificate to reflect their adoptive parents’ names. These closed adoption practices were commonly used for women who were pregnant out of wedlock, or deemed not to be suitable mothers. This has made the journey for parents and children searching for each other so much harder. In most cases, the father’s name was also not recorded on the birth certificate. This, in turn, leads to the child who later in life is searching for a way of contacting the birth parents assuming the father did not care enough about the child to not be on the birth certificate. Many fathers also had to deal with the emotional turmoil that surrounded the forced adoptions. I also acknowledge that pain today.
It is hard to conceive the authorities would not have thought about the welfare of the mothers when it came to forced adoptions, but the evidence suggests that little regard was given to the health and wellbeing of those who had their children removed. This kind of trauma has proved to have had significant effects on the mental health and the future of these women. We can never change the past or take back the pain the children, the mothers, the fathers, the family members have experienced, and the trauma they live with daily, but we can recognise the impact, show our support to those affected, and make more services available to the hundreds of thousands of people who were subjected to forced adoption practices.
I am glad I am able to make these remarks today. I had been extremely concerned about the mixed messages from the Northern Territory government regarding the expressing of our sorrow and regret today. First the apology was on, and then it was off. I acknowledge the member for Araluen and you, Madam Speaker, for persisting with this important issue and forcing the hand of the Chief Minister.
I remain concerned about the position of the member for Namatjira who, only last week, publicly swore the parliament would not make this apology. I am glad she was overruled and I hope her influence over important matters such as this has come to an end.
Madam Speaker, today I recognise the mistakes of governments and institutions. I acknowledge the pain and pledge my commitment to ensure this chapter in our history will never be forgotten or relived. In expressing our sorrow and regret, I hope our actions here today contribute to the healing process. I offer my heartfelt apology.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I also contribute to this debate today and note the motion is expressed in the following terms, ‘That the Northern Territory parliament expresses its sorrow and regret’.
I start by saying I am personally sorry these practices were engaged in by governments past. Whilst I am nearly 50 years old, I do not recall the moral codes that existed which were used to justify these decisions in times gone by. I do not pretend to second guess what was in the minds of people but there must come a point, when complying with a government policy, where you have to ask, ‘Is this the right thing to do?’ The Leader of the Opposition referred to the nurses who were traumatised by the work they were being asked to do in applying these policies. They were, obviously, policies that caused trauma to the people involved and the government officials who put these policies into practice.
Clearly, as in paragraph (a) of this apology, the pain and suffering of past forced adoption practices is acknowledged. Also, this parliament supports the apology made by the federal parliament on behalf of the nation and expresses its sorrow and regret in offering our sympathies to Territorians who have suffered from those decisions and policies. All of this is something I am happy, as a member of this parliament, to subscribe to. To acknowledge that suffering is an important step, especially for those people who have suffered.
Nevertheless, there is a qualifying statement in this motion before the House and we can legitimately apply it. It is the last paragraph of the motion:
The Chief Minister, quite legitimately and correctly, pointed out these practices were not supported in the Northern Territory after self-government and, in fact, were actively resisted subsequent to the forming of self-government in the Northern Territory.
As a parliament, we are stuck with a difficult choice: do we apologise for, essentially, conduct that was not engaged in by this body politic, thus taking on culpability for what this body politic never engaged in? That has been the matter of some debate in the community.
The words in this statement express the genuine and heartfelt emotions and thoughts of most members in this House; they certainly express mine. We also have to understand, as a body politic we, fortunately, in the past did not engage in these practices.
Nevertheless, I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition and she made a strong and sound case of the culpability associated with these practices in the past, which rests on those former governments which have, rightfully, apologised.
I am guessing at this stage, but when the Northern Territory was under South Australia’s management, these or similar practices were engaged in by the South Australian government in the Northern Territory and, subsequent to 1911 when the Commonwealth took over the Northern Territory as an extension of the Commonwealth’s administration, it is true those policies were continued by the subsequent administration. Fortunately, after 1978, and I suspect largely because of the moral structures which had changed over that time, those practices were never engaged in.
However, these are sad stories to read and hear about. I am saddened that in the past, in the 20th century at a time I was born and am alive, these practices were carried out by bureaucrats who, themselves, were traumatised by what they were required to do as part of the policies of the government of the day.
It was only sitting here a moment ago that I realised my first child - or my wife’s first child by me - would have been illegitimate. I remember reading on my child’s birth certificate that she was illegitimate because she was born out of wedlock. My daughter came to our wedding and was sitting on my hip when we were married in the Catholic church in Alice Springs.
Times have changed and moved on. I have looked at my daughter; she looks real enough - does not look illegitimate to me. We have a great relationship and we, as a family, have a great relationship. My wife, long-suffering as she is, has a great relationship with her daughters - and her husband, I am pleased to report. I could not imagine what her life would have been like if Eleanor, or for that matter young Gwennie, had been taken away at birth because Eleanor was illegitimate.
It is a new age we live in; an age where we are more comfortable with the different choices people make in their relationships. It is hard for me to imagine - as I am sure it is hard for many people to imagine - that my daughter could have been taken away from my wife, before she was my wife, for no other reason that we decided not to live in wedlock.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I express my sorrow and regret with the qualifying statement about the jurisdictional arrangements since 1978. That does not in any way prevent me from recognising the hurt and suffering caused to the people who were the subject of these policies in the past. It is clear from the apologies made in other jurisdictions, and from the Senate inquiry as well as other reports one has read, this was a traumatic policy which has left deep scars. For that, I personally express my sorrow and my regret.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for this motion which shows me his deep appreciation for the issue, and that he has made the statement in good faith and with deep thought for those who have been affected, and continue to be affected, by past policies of governments, churches, and the community.
I acknowledge and know the Territory did not legally exist as it does today, and had no such policies at law. However, there are families and people in the Territory who have been affected by the forced adoption policies and practices, including people in my electorate and their families. That is why I implored the Chief Minister and the government to at least recognise the past practices and what they had done to so many people. The hurt, the trauma, the loss, the disappointment and suffering needs to be acknowledged. While we cannot wind back the clock, we can help people move forward with words of acknowledgement, comfort, sympathy, and strength.
Between the late 1940s and the 1980s, there were an estimated 145 000 adoptions in Australia. The figures for the Territory were 61 in 1969, 68 in 1970 and 54 in 1971. After that time, the adoptions dropped dramatically. I do not know how many of those adoptions were forced. However, there is a very good chance many of them were forced adoptions. There is a very good chance Territory mothers had babies taken from them and were forced to endure years of suffering, if not a lifetime. In the Northern Territory between 1969 and 1980, there were 474 adoptions recorded. Who knows how many of these mothers were forced into giving up their babies and how many were not recorded.
When I was in primary school in Darwin in the 1960s, children just turned up in classes and no details were given as to where they were from. Usually, these were Aboriginal children, but not exclusively. In Grade 5 when I was 10, five Aboriginal boys turned up in my class and we were told they had come to live in Darwin and that was it. At no time would anyone question the authority, especially the church’s authority. Interestingly, I still have contact with one of the fellows today and only recently caught up with him again in Tennant Creek. We do not talk about past things, more the present and the future, but I am sure he was one of those children and babies caught up in these policies.
Although it is difficult to obtain exact statistics from anywhere due to the record-keeping practices in existence at that time, a significant number of women had their babies removed against their will as a result of the forced adoption policies and practices. These women were often young, unmarried and without a family support network. Single mothers were never given the option of keeping their children. Unmarried mothers automatically had their records marked ‘ready for adoption’ even before birth. It was considered shameful to have a baby out of marriage. These women were not even informed there was a 30-day period where they could go back to get their children. They were not listened to; they were completely disempowered.
The profound impact on mothers, children and the future family trauma reverberates throughout their lives. It is what we now refer to as the ripple effect. The loss of a child, the emptiness of a mother, will never be understood by many of us in society who have not had children, like me. We can only imagine their pain and the searching many mothers must have done for many years, if not decades, for the child who was snatched away at birth. Then there are the families who adopted a child only to lose that child when they went in search of their birth mother and, perhaps, never returned to them.
The mothers had one common bond; they had their babies stolen by the authorities. After birth, the mothers were often ostracised and judged harshly by the community. Some never recovered. Some fell into black holes of depression and some committed suicide. Some went through life haunted by the loss. Some were forever traumatised by the belief they had willingly given up their baby when they did not. For their collective pain, I am sorry.
What of the babies? Many suffered terribly at the hands of foster parents, homes, or in convents. Many babies would have gone to loving homes, but how many did not? Many grew up denied the bond that was their birth right. We can only imagine the impact of that, and for that alone, I am sorry.
In this debate sometimes we overlook the fathers who perhaps never knew their child, were denied access, were scorned by society, and not recorded on the birth certificate, despite many of these young men wanting to marry the girl, be responsible, take on the responsibilities and give their child a happy life. For you fathers and men, I am sorry.
On 15 November 2010, the issue of the Commonwealth’s contribution to former adoption policies and practices was referred to the Senate Community Affairs Reference Group Committee for inquiry and report, as we have heard. The inquiry received over 400 submissions and held 10 public hearings. This process gave an opportunity for those women and children who were disempowered to finally have a voice and share their very personal stories of how much of an impact this has had on their lives. If anyone has read the report and the stories of the people, they are harrowing. We, as a country and Territory, must never undertake such practices in the future.
I share a small, albeit brief, story of a Territory family. The woman in the story I have known for many years as she is a friend of my family. Indeed, many in this House will know this woman and I, for one, never gave it a nano-second of thought that she would be an affected mother until recently.
Noelene Owens spoke with me after I spoke out publicly and thanked me for standing up and asking the government to reconsider its position. She had a baby in 1969. She was unwed, she had very elderly parents, and she did not have that social and family support. There were no choices given to her, no options and no indication she would be able to keep the child. She told me when she was in labour staff at the hospital put a pillow on her face. She never saw her baby girl; she just heard a cry and the child was gone. That day, if not the next day, Noelene was taken to a nursing home by an ambulance with other girls who had also given birth in that hospital. They never saw their children and they went to a nursing home for a period of time. She said when she was in the nursing home they gave her different types of medication to help her milk dry up, to help her sleep and, perhaps, also to forget. They were just told they had to get on with life.
Noelene Owens told me for 27 years she searched for her child everywhere. She looked in shopping centres, she searched faces, she looked at faces in magazines thinking it might be her daughter. She looked at things on TV and when there were lost notices for children she looked and wondered whether it was her girl. She wondered what she would look like. Perhaps she would look like her. She said it was the most harrowing period in her life, and incredibly disappointing.
When the daughter was 27, 17 years ago, she wanted to find her birth mother. She had done nursing and wanted to know the health of her mother so she could work out what the health of her children would be. Being a very tenacious person, a little like her mother, she used the Internet as it had just come in and found an aunt who had left an address. When she went to the aunt’s house, she found the elderly lady had moved on, but the people in the house had a forwarding address. She went to the next address and found the aunt. However, the aunt was a little suspicious so would not give her Noelene’s phone number. She rang Noelene and got Noelene to ring her daughter.
Catherine was her name, and she had found her birth mother, and her birth mother had found her daughter. Catherine has five children and two grandchildren, so Noelene is a great-grandmother. She is a happy-go-lucky person like her mother, Noelene. They cannot make up for the lost time they have had, but they have had many years so far, and more into the future. Catherine and her family lived in Darwin and have now gone to Canberra.
The sad thing, as I referred to earlier, is she has no more contact with her adopted family. That is her choice. I am sure they, too, have been shattered by the events of losing an adopted child. For nearly 27 years, they would have loved her. They gave her an education and cared for her.
Catherine Owen’s mother is Noelene Trinne, known for much good work in the Northern Territory and Darwin community, including being a member of the Darwin Chorale. She is an absolutely delightful woman, with an infectious smile, charming and intelligent, and I have not seen a skerrick of resentment to her past pain and suffering. Noelene and Bernie have three other children, Michael, Andrew, and Sarah, and I know them to be a good and decent family.
I say to you, Noelene, and your family, your daughter Catherine and her past adopted family, I am sorry for the trauma and suffering that you went through, and I wish you all the very best in the future, because I know you deserve it.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Goyder for that emotional speech. In recent years, many Australians have become aware of the practices of forced adoption that were carried out in Australian hospitals in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. These stories are heartbreaking. I am moved when I hear stories of mothers giving birth and being forced to sign adoption papers giving up their children whilst still sedated and not knowing what was going on.
The precious time after you give birth is a special bonding time for a mother and child. I look back on those special few hours with my children, wishing time could pause for a little longer, amazed at the little soul before your eyes, yet before the busyness of life with a new baby sets in - such a special time. The practices carried out, which took this time and children away from their mothers and fathers, were wrong.
The pain of separating babies from their mothers and fathers and other family members is unimaginable, yet it happened in our country, in our Territory. Of the 250 000 babies taken, many of the parents were so young themselves. The consequences are far-reaching and forever life-changing. As a society, we need to recognise this pain and help these families in their healing process.
The Australian government, through the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee, thoroughly researched the issues. In fact, due to the large number of submissions and the complex nature of the subject, the committee twice had to seek extensions on the time frame it had to deliver its findings. It has set out a path to begin to assist these families in their long journey.
A nation has recognised the issue. Last week, we saw the federal government formally apologise and say sorry for the forced adoption of babies. Every other state and territory in Australia has said sorry. Now it is time, in this Chamber, for us to recognise and say sorry. Yet, what do we see? Chaos, backflipping, a view that we will apologise, media releases slipped out stating we will not apologise:
Adoption is a matter handled by each state and territory under our law. It is an extremely complex and emotive issue. To categorically say we took no part and do not need to say sorry is not right. The Commonwealth understands its role was only indirect, but it said sorry. Saying sorry is not admitting guilt; it is acknowledging someone has been affected by an action. Sorry is regret; it is to show emotion. It is not about fault or blame.
Saying sorry is an important part of the healing process. I can only imagine the pain and suffering for those involved, caught up in these horrible practices. They need acknowledgment, support and community understanding, not a government minister denying the issue, the timing of governments, and technicalities.
As the Senate committee recommended, we must focus on what we can do to help these people. Saying sorry is a start but we must provide support, ensure our laws allow full access to records and information required by families, many of whom are still putting the puzzle of what happened together.
Madam Speaker, as parliamentarians, we are the representatives of our people. We teach our children to say sorry. We offer sympathy and sorrow when we hear of someone going through pain. There is no need for us to dither. Let us do the right thing our people expect from us. We will never erase the pain but we can offer our thoughts and help them begin to heal by saying sorry. I say sorry!
Ms ANDERSON (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s motion and accept the national apology issued by the federal government on behalf of all of us. The Northern Territory parliament expresses its sorrow and regret for the pain caused by past forced adoption practices. In supporting the apology made by the federal government on behalf of the nation, we offer our sympathy to those Territorians who have suffered from those decisions and policies and for those policies, whilst recognising forced adoption practices have not occurred since the Northern Territory formed a self-governing body politic in 1978.
I join the Chief Minister and this government in expressing sincere sorrow and regret at the pain caused by past forced adoption practices. I offer my sincere sympathy to those Territorians who have suffered from those decisions and policies. I note the policies and actions that caused this pain and suffering occurred before self-government came to the Northern Territory.
I am somewhat appalled at the member opposite for bringing politics to such a delicate issue. On a personal note, and in my capacity as Minister for Children and Families, I am only too aware of suffering caused by the removal of children from their parents. It was done by well-meaning but completely misguided government policy. It is to be regretted. The sadness and pain misguided policy causes is a guide for us in the future. No one should have to go through this loss without every alternative having been considered.
Madam Speaker, for those who suffered, please accept my heartfelt sympathy and my promise that in my position and capacity I will work hard to ensure we work towards humane and considered policy in this complicated and difficult area.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank Nikki Caulfield for bringing this issue to the notice of the Territory and the parliament, and for raising this issue with me which allows me to finish something you might call unfinished business.
In 2001, when we debated the issue of an apology for the Stolen Generations, I made the following statement - it has some little changes I have added but it is, basically, as I spoke at that time. I said:
And not so subtle:
Their fathers and their children also:
Madam Speaker, I apologise for those children who were forcibly taken away from their parents as part of the Stolen Generations, and for those children, mothers and fathers who were affected by the policy of forced adoptions.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the 2013 parliamentary sittings be revised to schedule the sittings for the introduction of the budget to 14 to 16 May 2013 and the Estimates Committee hearings which were to be held from the 11 to 20 June be revised to 18 to 20 June and 25 to 27 June with the Appropriation Bill to be considered in the Assembly on 27 June 2013.
The reason behind having the budgetary process moved, despite what the members opposite say, is largely because we have been forced back into the budget planning process by virtue of the fact the Grants Review Commission has determined to rip out of the Northern Territory budget an income of more than $100m a year ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: I hear the laughter from the members opposite; they think it is a joke. They think it is funny this government loses $100m a year. Frankly, as far as I am concerned, they stand condemned by their laughter. This is the former Treasurer who should know a hit of $100m a year, after the budget process has been commenced, will require a revisiting of the Budget Cabinet process because we have to continue to find savings and ways to manage our way through it. We have the legacy of the former government, whose debt also leaves us with a challenge.
However, it is not that component of the budget planning process which has caused this delay; it is the component which deals with the Grants Review Commission taking out of the Northern Territory over the forward estimates period as much as $500m. That is the size of the hit this Territory’s budget will cop as a result of the determination by the Grants Review Commission and their assessment about disabilities.
They may laugh and chortle, but we have to find a way to live within our means. That is a real challenge considering the legacy items we have to deal with from the former government. Those legacy items are substantial, have been substantial from Day 1, and continue to be substantial. I am distressed that the former Treasurer would laugh. Small wonder this House determined to pass a motion of censure against the former Treasurer for her failure to deal with these issues.
As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, budgetary and fiscal management has to be done responsibly. We have to deal with the legacy items we have been given, as well as with the changing circumstances of the Territory income - something the former Treasurer did not predict because you can look at the Treasury books when she was Treasurer and there is no mention of $100m being ripped out of the system. There was no mention of a predicted readjustment of the disability surrounding Indigeneity in the Grants Review Commission - not a word of it, because she did not know it was coming either. She did not mention it at any stage subsequent to the last election. She did not mention it in February, in January or in December. Why? Because she did not know it was coming, nor did we on this side of the House.
We have to respond to a changed environment. What would her answer be? Clearly, by her laughter, ‘Just keep going and rack another $100m up on the credit card’. That was always the answer of the former Labor government and the way they positioned themselves in relation to how they deal with other people’s money.
We on this side of the House are stuck with that problem and do not simply say, ‘The answer is another $100m on to the credit card; we will just rack it up’. We will go back into the budget process and look again. Unfortunately, we have to look in places where the former government refused to look, to examine, to in any way restrain themselves.
If they had done something in the area of savings and reduced the Territory’s debt to zero - something they were fully capable of - that would have given us a much better position to come from. However, they did not because they thought they could spend all the extra income without having to worry about debt reduction because there would always be a gravy train. Even in the most recent budget books the reference was the usual, ‘We are expecting to reduce debt when the budget or income returns to normal’.
This was a major problem in the former government’s financial management structure. What they called normal was the GST windfall period after the introduction of the GST which was far more abundant than they even imagined in their wildest forward estimates. We live in a different world at the moment and the GST revenue pool has been restrained in its growth.
Moreover, the Indigeneity structure inside the Grants Review Commission’s disabilities has weighed against us because more people in Sydney and Melbourne are identifying as Indigenous. The effect is, with that change, people who live in the suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne will come under the umbrella of the disability of Indigeneity when it comes to the redistribution of the GST revenue. What goes into the bucket for other states comes out of the bucket for our state. I believe - and heard the Treasurer talking about this the other day - it might be time to revisit the measure of Indigeneity in how this rolls out because Indigeneity in Yuendumu is somewhat different to Indigeneity in Sydney.
Nevertheless, it is a clumsy definition which, unfortunately, has cost the Northern Territory government’s GST income over $100m a year over the forward estimates and beyond. Unless this is attended to, that is the new reality. What are we supposed to do? Rack it up on the credit card? That is the answer of the Labor Party. No, we on this side of the House will take it back into a Budget Cabinet process, and we will plan as carefully as we possibly can.
I have just had the minister for the Environment slip the Westpac Economic Update under my nose. It demonstrates what you see with the operation of the federal Labor government which had built itself a rod for its own back by using repeated deficits to fund its response to the GFC - a response I had some concerns about. However, the Westpac Economic Update reveals the Australian government monthly financial statements for January 2013 reveal a $5bn slippage in the federal government’s 2012-13 budget position over the initial seven months of the financial year. This disappointment is centred on a lower than expected company tax and shortfall in resource rent taxes. The results to date suggest a budget deficit for the year 2012-13 of around $7bn to $9bn, a slippage of $8bn to $10bn. In a mid-year economic and fiscal outlook published on 22 October, the government forecast an underlying cash surplus of $1.1bn on the full 2012-13 financial year, and on accruals basis, a fiscal balance of $1.2bn for the financial year.
Subsequently, in a media conference on 20 September, the Treasurer announced a surplus in 2012-13 is unlikely - revenue disappointments etcetera. The answer for the federal Labor government is to put it on the credit card, a rod it built for its own back because when the Labor government in Canberra took over the budget books it had no debt. Now, it has an authorisation of up to $300bn - and look like they are going to use it - which is substantially more than the debt Howard took over from Keating when the Liberal government took over after many years of Labor. That was a $90bn debt situation which the Howard government paid off and now has been returned to a $300bn debt situation in the federal government. The typical answer from the Labor members opposite is laugh - just laugh; do not plan, just rack it up on the credit card. If you follow that to its logical conclusion, you end up doing what the Cyprus government was trying to do; that is, raid people’s bank accounts ...
Ms Lawrie: Seriously!
Mr ELFERINK: Seriously, she says. What is your solution?
Ms Lawrie: Stop lying! Just stop lying!
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, please withdraw those comments.
Mr ELFERINK: What was your solution? What solution did you offer the people of the Northern Territory? Nothing. Not one single statement ...
Ms Lawrie: Sit down! You are making a fool of yourself!
Mr ELFERINK: Read your own budget books! The only answer the Leader of the Opposition had was to stick it on the credit card. She wrote about it ...
Ms Lawrie: Wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: She said ‘wrong’. No, she wrote about it. I draw her attention to her last budget book when she was talking about the accumulation of nett debt to revenue. In the year 2011-12, nett debt to revenue under this former Treasurer was 35%, going up to the next year 48%, going up to the next year 66%, going up to the next year 71%, going up to the next year 74%. That is only the general government sector! Then, we look at the non-financial sector balance sheet, and her debt she left the people of the Northern Territory in the year 2011-12 was $2.8bn, going up to $5.6bn in the forward estimates - up and up and up every year. What was her solution? None. There was no financial strategy worth writing about other than saying, ‘When things improve and we return to normal we will deal with the debt at that stage’. That is not fiscal management; that is sticking your head in the sand. That is in your own budget books.
We brought out a mini-budget and had to start dealing with the challenges the former government left us. Now we have the double whammy of having to plan for a readjustment to the relativities we have been stuck with as a result of the Grants Review Commission’s determinations in relation to Indigeneity.
They laugh and joke and think it is a great laugh. All they care about is trying to score more political points, rather than focusing on the proper fiscal management of the Northern Territory now and into the future.
Madam Speaker, we are moving this motion so we can effectively plan, in very difficult and trying circumstances, for the future and the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot of rubbish spoken in this Chamber, but that sets a new low from the member for Port Darwin; to pretend the delay to the Northern Territory budget and the scrutiny of the budget - that is, the estimates hearings - is because there is a reset in the relativities by the Commonwealth Grants Commission of $107m on Indigeneity. He did not mention the reset of $19m lost through population. He did not mention there is a growth in the GST pool, and the total change in revenue to the Northern Territory is an increase of $23m in the 2012-13 to 2013-14 financial year.
Caught out! I refer you to Table 28 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission report - caught out telling the biggest porkies and furphies I have heard in years. It really took the cake to pretend the CLP has not spent seven months fighting each other – three Treasurers. According to the world and the bubble in which the member for Port Darwin exists, that has had no effect on the budget deliberations. Members of parliament are aware, as is the public, the CLP was so deeply divided, so troubled and chaotic – three ministerial reshuffles and they went into budget Cabinet and there was a meltdown.
On the Monday of Budget Cabinet, the then Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister stormed out and resigned. She got on a plane and flew to Alice Springs – fact. The members of this parliament and the public of the Northern Territory know the now Deputy Chief Minister, the then Health minister, had a meltdown and a disagreement with the former Chief Minister, the member for Blain, and threw his Budget Cabinet folders at him – fact. That is not disputed; it is talked about. For the member for Port Darwin to pretend that catastrophic meltdown in Budget Cabinet had nothing to do with the fact the budget has been delayed is a farce. To then ignore the fact that for six days the member for Katherine was the Treasurer ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: Eight.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection. The member for Katherine said it was eight days. I will pay you that, it was eight days. I have been referring to six days. I am sorry if I ripped you off two days; you can have those two days. The member for Katherine was the Treasurer for eight days.
I have done five budgets. I was a Treasurer for five years. I get the tight critical time lines you have to meet and deliver on if you are going to deliver a budget in time. It is extremely tight. It starts in October, there are more critical time lines in November, more critical time lines in January, and very critical time lines in February and March.
Because of the chaos, the fighting and the shuffling of the ministerial portfolios and with the catastrophic meltdown in the Budget Cabinet, it did not happen; the time lines were not met. They were unable to resolve their irreconcilable differences and get a budget prepared. We have our third Treasurer in seven months who is not even trying to defend the delay to the budget. When explaining the delay to the budget, he did not try the long bow of the Indigeneity relativities reset.
That was a strange long bow created just then by the member for Port Darwin. Extraordinary! That is why we laughed at you, member for Port Darwin, because we have heard some furphies in our time but that one really took the cake. You would not know the honest answer if you had fallen over it. You would get some cred if you had walked into this Chamber and said, ‘We accept our responsibility to deliver a budget that is fully and duly considered and, therefore, we have had no alternative but to delay the budget’. In the public comments at the time of the announcement of the delay of the budget, it was explained in terms that ministers need time to get across their new portfolios; that with the changes the ministers need time. Most people would accept that explanation.
It is still the shadow explanation of the true explanation which is the government was so chaotic for seven months it missed all the critical time lines in preparing the budget, went through three Treasurers, and was ill-prepared and incapable of delivering a budget on time.
Do not fabricate your fantasy, member for Port Darwin, and expect that we would not laugh at you. We will laugh when absolute, patent nonsense is spoken in this Chamber. Do not pretend you know and are the only one who understands the Commonwealth Grants Commission and relativities. How disgracefully insulting is that?
Table 28, Commonwealth Grants Commission report: a reset on the relativity within Indigeneity down $107m; a reset on population down $19m but the growth in the pool available, $149m - that is a nett increase of $23m. You can deal with a nett increase across your forward estimates for a year. Anyone who knows the Commonwealth Grants Commission and relativities - resets happen regularly. There are years where we go up, years where we go down, but we stay the course. One of the tactics I had as Treasurer was to reduce our reliability on the variation in the GST pool and sign up to special purpose payments that had improved formulas for the Territory - a big five-year fight we won – and to national partnerships that provide additional funding in areas of demand growth.
I mention the national partnerships because there are significant national partnerships up for renewal I have grave concerns about. I am watching the way the current Treasurer behaves in his relationship, or lack thereof, with the federal government. What is happening with the national partnership on police funding? Where are the details on that? Where are the new police stations? Is it true the police station identified and intended for Yuendumu is being shifted to a community within the member for Namatjira’s electorate?
I have some very grave concerns about what this government is doing with national partnerships. They are a significant line of funding to the Territory. Yes, they bring with them their own pressures. Yes, there are reward payments which mean you have to lift your game. Elective surgery is a fine example of that.
To move a motion to defer the budget and delay estimates, and pretend it is simply because of a reset of Commonwealth Grants Commissions relativities on Indigeneity, is wrong. I could describe it as attempt to mislead the parliament, but I will not because we did not believe a single word you said, member for Port Darwin. It completely contradicted the statements of the government issued at the time which attributed the delay to the budget to ministers needing to get across their new portfolio responsibilities.
If you had said we have a new Chief Minister, a new Treasurer and, quite reasonably so, they want time to make their budget deliberations, that would have been believable. However, to pretend, as you did in this Chamber, is quite ridiculous. Little wonder you are so often mocked!
I have not done the research but cannot recall a budget of the Northern Territory ever being delayed because of the chaos of a government - because of four ministerial reshuffles and three Treasurers within a short period of time; in seven months.
You have been an unmitigated disgrace as a government. Your behaviour and actions have caused enormous uncertainty in the business sector across the Territory. They do not know what repairs and maintenance and capital works program will be going forward, and are screaming because of the pain inflicted by the cutbacks in existing programs as a result of the mini-budget. They needed the budget for certainty and it has been delayed.
The non-government sector relies incredibly on those service agreements’ funding payments from the Northern Territory government of the day. While they know they have a 5% cut which kicks in on April Fool’s Day - because they were told on Christmas Eve, of all occasions, which says much for the Country Liberals government - they so desperately need to know what their future holds because they need to know what programs they can provide Territorians this year. They will not know for a while longer because the budget has been delayed. The public servants - the 440 already sacked - also would like to know what their budget allocations are across their agencies, but that has been delayed.
Madam Speaker, I have heard some disgraceful explanations in this Chamber to cover disgraceful actions by this disgraceful government, but that one really takes the cake.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Auditor-General’s report to the Legislative Assembly - March 2013.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and the Chief Minister have leave to continue his remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly condemns the government for:
(a) gifting their CLP candidate Tina MacFarlane a water allocation potentially worth millions of dollars
(b) ignoring science, ignoring the environment and gifting the water extraction allocation against the advice of experts, a community advisory group, the ruling of an independent panel and the adjudication of the Supreme Court, and
Water is one of our most precious resources and the community looks to government to use and allocate water supply wisely for community benefit, not individual benefit. This message has been rammed home to us in more recent times with a 40% increase in water rates for domestic users.
We have all seen the enormous damage brought to rivers, streams, wetlands and once productive agricultural lands down south by water allocation policies and practices granted in the 1960s - the Murray Darling comes to mind. There is a suck-it-and-see approach of splashing water around as if there is no tomorrow; that individual landowners can be left to their own devices and be trusted to be mindful of other community interests and use water wisely. We know the consequence of that approach: the tragedy of the lack of interest in the common people kicking in and self-interest reigning to the extent the community and nation as a whole has a monumental problem on its hands.
We have done so much damage to our environment, but water is the one thing - particularly our water allocation from the ground - we can control and not muck up. That is why we need a joint government action, the National Water Initiative, to put some science and common sense into water allocations and use across the country. The Northern Territory signed up to that initiative in 2004 and our government, at the time, took environmental stewardship and its role very seriously, with its intergovernmental obligations under the National Water Initiative agreement.
We accepted, as set out in that agreement, the government has a responsibility to ensure water is allocated and used to achieve socially and economically beneficial outcomes in the manner that is environmentally sustainable. More importantly, we took our obligations to Territorians - especially future generations of Territorians - seriously.
The government of the day and the public service in this area do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. We, as a Territory, need to ensure we protect our water. We accept that water is one of our most precious resources and there are many diverse values attached to water which need to be properly understood. We understand the need for good, reliable science to underpin all water allocations.
We understand the National Water Initiative sought to establish a water trading framework to give proper commercial value to water to ensure its wise use which has enabled the sale and transfer of water rights reflecting its status as a precious resource - which it is. It is there to be used wisely and not a free speculative resource for individual landowners. It is owned by the people.
The government’s claim that the previous government was a political vacuum in respect to water allocations in the Mataranka region is not true. There was a process giving practical effect to the principles of the National Water Initiative. We had a local community group that was planning the use of the water, in particular ‘to be consistent with relevant plans’, and ‘have a transparent and consentable process in place to establish where a proposed activity is approved’.
Those principles were embraced and departmental staff set out to prepare with locals, Indigenous landowners, and expert advisors to establish a water allocation plan for the Tindall limestone aquifer at Mataranka. We know that did not necessarily suit one of the applicants for the water rights in the Mataranka region, the landholders of Stylo Station. Indeed, one of the applicants used her considerable talents to wriggle around and get what she wanted at every opportunity through the planning process: representations to the government; applications for review of departmental decisions on water allocation; an appeal to the Supreme Court for judicial review; representations at a Senate committee on agriculture and related industries; and representation to the Council of Territory Cooperation. Persistence is a great quality and, indeed, a hallmark of the pioneering work in the Territory over the years. However, persistence is not the issue.
The issue is what is right for the community, which looks to the government of the day – of whatever political persuasion - to be fair and considered in handing out water rights and other forms of property rights with an eye to the environment and community benefit, not individual benefit. This is especially so in relation to water. Our environment is so precious. We have caused damage in other areas of the environment but we have a chance to get it right with water.
A draft Mataranka water allocation plan was released in November 2011 setting out a considered, responsible and independent plan for water allocation in the Mataranka region. A plan was developed by public servants who took their role of providing advice without fear or favour seriously. A plan was built on the good work of the nine members of the Mataranka advisory committee that met over 20 times, working through competing interests. That is transparent and accountable.
Using rainfall records from 1900 to 2008, they looked at development and sustainability issues, environmental issues, and considered how consumption of ground water might affect Bitter Springs. They looked at how drawdown on the aquifer could affect sacred springs and soaks important to local Indigenous people. In line with the National Water Initiative, they considered the value of reserving a proportion of the consumption pool for Indigenous economic development, for jobs for some of our most disadvantaged Territorians. They also recognised there were concerns with some of the data they had to work with - irregular data that makes the total data picture unreliable - and there were significant periods of inconsistent record and evaporation data for the Roper catchment and rainfall data. However, they tried a reality that begged a precautionary approach to water allocations. They came up with a 10-year plan to be reviewed after five years. The came to the conclusion, based on information available, that the aquifer recharge was in the order of 130 000 ML per year.
They came up with a consumptive pool of water that could be allocated at 19 500 ML per year. They fairly allocated this to user groups. They allocated 4875 ML for Indigenous economic development. They devised a plan that made available almost four times the water usage being used. However, they also warned of the need to have a precautionary and staged approach to any new water usage, with individual applications above 1000 ML requiring new licences to be staged in accordance with the plan. They had a thought-out plan, a staged, sensible approach to ensure impacts were as forecast and acceptable to ensure those applying for valuable water rights actually use them for their purpose and their community, as well as speculative individual benefit.
They had a plan, they forecast it; they could accommodate things such as the unusual dry Wet Season we have just seen. This was the view of an independent community advisory group, a well thought-out document.
Then last year, after the change of government in August, something happened. The hard-working public servants who worked with the local Mataranka advisory committee and water experts to develop this plan had their employment terminated. Hard-working public servants who were models of fairness were sacked for doing their job, sending a message to the rest of the public service that there is a new sheriff in town and if they do not like your work, you are gone.
The same public servants had their work challenged in front of a review panel. The MacFarlanes went to the Supreme Court asking for a judicial review of the decision-making in relation to their application for 5800 ML of water per annum. The pool was allocated at 19 500 ML per year. The Indigenous Economic Development Group got less than the MacFarlanes wanted. The Supreme Court found no conduct by the public servants was inappropriate, no reason for intervention. The public servants had done their job; there were no administrative flaws.
The draft allocation was thrown to one side, a new controller was appointed, and a reporter asked a question of the Treasurer who admitted the MacFarlanes now had the water they wanted. Reasons for the decision emerged on the NT government website two days ago. New calculations were made, a new result was there. Allegedly, there is more water than first thought - no reason not to give the MacFarlanes what they wanted - no precautionary approach, no incremental increases, no science, just a deal for a mate. For good measure, no strategic reserve to support local Indigenous economic development was given.
Now, instead of a considered belief that the aquifer recharges in the order of 130 000 ML per year, the new Water Controller says it is 180 000 ML per year - just found 50 000 ML overnight. Instead of an average consumption pool of 19 500 ML per year, the new Water Controller says it is 36 000 ML per year. The alarm bells should be ringing. In this decision, the new Water Controller also said that may vary by 2000 ML and 114 000 ML over the next 10 years. It is inconclusive.
The MacFarlanes, through their persistence, their helpful decision-making, now have available an extra 5800 ML per year. Let us put that into perspective. In 2009-10, permitted allocations for water use from the aquifer were: public use, 16 031 ML per year; the nearby community of Jilkminggan had an allocation of 70 ML per year; Ngukurr had an allocation of 60 ML per year; and agriculture, aquaculture, and industry had an allocation of 4848 ML per year. Now, one applicant has more water available to them than was allocated to other agriculture, aquaculture, and industry prior to the development of the water allocation plan. Astounding!
What is also deeply disturbing is we heard nothing of how the impacts would be monitored, who pays for that, or any capacity to quickly change this allocation if it is wrong. There is no plan. It is hard to see that the decisions have been made with public assurances of ongoing monitoring and technical review. The new Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim, agreed with the media that it does not look good. Absolutely correct - it does not look good. Those of us who recall the CLP government of the old days sense dj vu. Water is our most precious resource. It is a sad reflection of this new government; how they do business and allocate community resources.
The other telling thing about this shoddy episode is where the minister responsible, the Minister for Land Resource Management, has sat. It was the Treasurer who confirmed the decision to the public. It did not go to Cabinet, but two days ago the decision appeared on the NTG website. There are so many questions. Presumably, the Minister for Land Resource Management knew what was happening but kept his head down. I ask how this minister reconciles his conduct with the approach to the Assembly:
This is a contentious issue. The public is not happy.
The Amateur Fishermen’s Association said the granting of a large amount of water could have a negative impact on the Roper River:
In the Territory, we have a chance to live and learn from the other states. We do not have to follow their lead.
Madam Speaker, there are many other groups that have raised concerns and I urge the government to consider this.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, I will not say thank you to the member for Nightcliff for bringing on this silly motion, but we will go through the motions, nonetheless, today with no hesitation or trepidation.
I have been looking forward to this debate since notice of this motion was given yesterday. There is almost, for me, an air of excitement with this great opportunity to speak on this very important issue and on this motion.
The reason for that is I will not only have the opportunity to correct the record and some misconceptions about the process for issuing water licences generally, and the MacFarlanes’ licence specifically, but I will show up for the opposition for the bunch of uninformed, ignorant fools they are.
I was initially gobsmacked at the approach which has been taken by the opposition on this matter, but then I had a bit of an epiphany. I had a moment of clarity and the answers I had in my head about the way these fools opposite approached this matter started to coalesce. I will come back to that in a moment.
First, I will deal quickly with a couple of issues raised by the member for Nightcliff. She made reference to the Murray Darling. That can serve no purpose other than to confuse the issue. The last time I looked, the Northern Territory was somewhat different from the states where the Murray Darling flows through, particularly South Australia. Two of the key differences between the Roper River or the Tindall aquifer at Mataranka and the Murray Darling system, is our water here is extracted from the ground whereas, in the Murray Darling, it is extracted from the river. That is ground water versus surface water.
I am advised there are some 180 users of water in the Murray Darling system. I could just about count on one hand, maybe two, the number of users of water in the Mataranka portion of the Tindall limestone aquifer. There is no comparison, and this shows the ignorance of the member for Nightcliff by even bringing it up.
She mentioned the National Water Initiative. I should say at the outset the Water Act of the Northern Territory complies with the National Water Initiative. As I understand it, there is no reference in the National Water Initiative of commercial use for Indigenous folk; it is around cultural use. Perhaps the member for Nightcliff needs to do a little more research.
She also mentioned the rainfall data obtained from 1900 to 2008. I will come back to that later in my speech but, of course, we now know there is far more recent reliable data from which we can draw conclusions about the water in that Tindall aquifer. I notice the member for Nightcliff is going down the old path of Labor - I have seen it in this House over the last four-and-a-half years – of criticising public servants. This afternoon, she made criticisms of the Water Controller and, ultimately, his decisions. More about that will become apparent as the speech goes on.
I said in Question Time this morning I am pleased the member for Nelson took up the offer of a briefing on this matter. He - but not the member for Nightcliff, the shadow minister, who I expected might be more interested - appears to have a genuine interest in the facts. It appears the member for Nelson has the capacity to understand those facts and has today issued a media release detailing his newfound understanding. I have a copy of the media release where the member for Nelson clearly expressed his satisfaction over a number of the issues raised over the past few days in relation to issue of this licence, particularly around there being no political influence in the decision.
It is sad when a new member of parliament is so quickly caught up in the gears and machinery of the poisonous and vitriolic Labor Party. Are you beyond saving, member for Nightcliff? Are you so firmly entangled in the sniping, personal and gutter politics that is the hallmark of Territory Labor? Think for yourself, member for Nightcliff, do not let the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Karama, corral your thoughts.
The issue of licences to extract ground water is enshrined in the Water Act, specifically section 60, but I will come back to that in a moment. First, I will refer to section 18 of the act which refers to the appointment of the Water Controller. Part 3 Administration, Division 1 General Administration, section 18 Controller of Water Resources:
The Chief Executive of the Department of Land Resource Management is, by virtue of the appointment made by me, the Controller of Water Resources.
There is a very good reason to appoint a Water Controller and I will also come back to that in a moment. The Water Act confers powers and responsibilities to the Water Controller which might be for the issue of a waste discharge licence or, in the case of section 60 of the act, the issue of licences to extract ground water. I am happy to refer to the legislation and read it out for the member for Nightcliff so she has an understanding. Section 60, Grant of licence to take ground water:
Let us get down to the nitty gritty. The member for Nightcliff issued a media release on 22 March in which she said:
Second, no minister issues water licences, nor do ministers, to quote you, ‘hand anyone increased water extraction allocations’. There is a rigorous process in applying for water extraction licences which the minister has no involvement nor influence in. Applications are submitted through the NT Department of Land Resource Management and, ultimately, to the Controller of Water. In cases where large water volumes are applied for, such as the MacFarlanes, applications are required to provide a comprehensive business plan to further support their application.
The minister does not get to see the application or the business plan and plays no part in the approval process, hence …
Mr Chandler: You were not involved!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I was not involved. That is why, when I was asked by the member for Nelson if I could table some documents this morning, I was unable to do so because I had never seen them and never had access to them.
Under the act, the Water Controller issues licences for water extraction. While I am on that topic, I refer to the question the member for Nelson asked in yesterday’s Question Time:
Of course, there is much more to the question than that. Member for Nelson, for your edification - and I am sure you understand now, having had the briefing which has instilled some level of understanding - I did not award any water licence to anyone. It is the Water Controller - in this case, the Chief Executive of the department – who does that.
Once a complete application is received, a notice of intention to make a water extraction decision is advertised in the NT News and local regional papers. If I can dig it up I have a bunch of them. There is one notice of intention to make a water extraction licence decision. The notice is sent to landholders in the area where the water is proposed to be taken and used. The notice of intention provides a short summary of the application and invites written comments from the public and local landholders to be provided within 30 days. As soon as practicable after the end of the public comment period, and within 30 days if practicable, a decision must be taken to refuse or grant a licence. This is made by - wait for it! - the Controller of Water Resources. The minister has no role or influence in this decision.
The decision to refuse or grant a licence includes the reasons for the decision, the way in which comments received from the public and local landholders have been taken into account, and how relevant factors as set out in the Water Act have been taken into account. The controller of water then issues a full statement of decision in regard to the granting of the licence, and that statement of decision has been published on the DLRM website and is the same one I tabled this morning in Question Time.
What surprised me about much of this is the member for Nightcliff and, for that matter, the member for Nelson, without researching even the basics of the Water Act, proceeded to make fools of themselves and put on display for all the world to see their ignorance and lack of understanding of the relevant legislation. That is particularly disappointing in the case of the member for Nightcliff, given she is the shadow minister.
I now turn to something I mentioned a little earlier; the reason the minister should appoint a Water Controller. I turn to the Water Act again - and this time I am going to section 30 which relates to the review of decisions by the Water Controller:
That section has two main parts, if I can distil it down for the member for Nightcliff. The first is the person aggrieved by an action or decision made by the Water Controller - that is a very important point to make, the Water Controller - under the act can apply for a review of the decision. Second, the application for review is made to the minister.
To recap, within 30 days of making a decision to refuse or grant a licence, a notice of water extraction licence decision is advertised and also sent to the applicant and local landholders. The notice advises the person who is aggrieved by the decision may apply to the minister to review the decision within 30 days. The minister makes the final determination on any application for review of the decision, subject to the parts of that act where other actions can be taken as well. An independent expert panel may be convened by the minister to provide advice, or the determination may be made by the minister alone. The minister may uphold the licence decision, alter the decision, or ask that the decision be reconsidered.
This is the only time the minister becomes involved in the application process. I thought those members opposite who have been ministers in the past would have at least provided that much advice and information to their colleague, the member for Nightcliff. Instead, they sent her on a fool’s errand chasing a silly motion when she was not armed with anywhere near the facts she needed to prosecute this successfully.
Anyway, ministers do not issue water licences because they are the point of reference for reviews of decisions made by the controller with respect to the issue of licences.
Was the water allocation gifted by the CLP to the MacFarlanes? No, it was not. The use of the word ‘gifted’ in regard to the issue of water extraction licences by the member for Nightcliff is uninformed and reckless. I hope that deals with paragraph (a) of this silly motion by the shadow minister.
Let us turn to paragraph (b) of this silly motion and examine whether science and the environment were ignored, as well as the advice of experts, and if it went against the court ruling. The short answer to that is no. The assessment process in granting a water extracting licence is comprehensive and takes into account analysis of available water resources and potential impacts that may arise from the proposed water use, both in environmental effects and impacts on other water users. In granting this licence, the controller took into account the submissions which were received in response to his notice of intention to make the water extraction licence decision, and all relevant factors as required under section 90 of the Water Act.
Someone might correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think the member for Nightcliff referenced the Water Act of the Northern Territory once in her speech.
To assist the controller in determining the licence application, the department assessed the risk of impact to springs in the adjacent Elsey National Park and the Roper River that may be caused by extracting 5800 ML per year on Mr and Mrs McFarlane’s property. This assessment used the ground water model that is being used to set the sustainable extraction for water allocation plan, using an announced allocation process that accounts for variations in annual recharge into the aquifer and, consequently, the contribution that discharge from the aquifer makes to maintaining springs in Elsey National Park and flows into the Roper River. Modelling showed clearly that the extraction from the proposed licence would need to be restricted in some years to prevent impact to springs and river flows.
In addition, the best advice of the Bureau of Meteorology was used in determining average rainfalls and recharges of the aquifer over a period of 30 to 40 years rather than the previously used gauge of 100 years - or 108 years, as the member for Nightcliff said earlier - which contained, as I understand it, some inferred and rather unreliable and incomplete data.
Improved modelling - that is, the interaction between rainfall events, recharge projections and relationships between surface water and ground water - gave new consumptive pool figures of 36 000 ML, which is a far cry from the old modelling which suggested a consumptive pool of less than 20 000 ML.
For the member for Nightcliff to suggest that, overnight, the Water Controller changed his mind about the size of consumptive pool is just another criticism of public servants by a Labor member in this House. We have seen it happen before ...
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: You should not talk. I pick up on the interjection from the member for Casuarina because I was in the House at the time of the Montara incident when he criticised his own public servants, the people within the Department of Mines and Energy, for mucking up application processes and monitoring of what was going on with paperwork ...
Mr Vatskalis: You have it wrong, mate; you have it wrong. You better look at Hansard.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Careful, member for Casuarina, if you are going to throw sticks and stones across the Chamber. Some of us have a pretty good memory.
In any case, it must also be noted that the consumptive pool is calculated as a very conservative 20% of the total pool which is related to annual recharge figures. That makes the total pool 180 000 ML - which the member for Nightcliff did get right; about the only thing - 80% of which, or 144 000 ML, remains in the ground as the component left for environmental sustainability.
However, annual extraction under the granted licence will be adjusted if necessary through an announced allocation made by the controller that will prevent adverse effects on the security of water supplies in the aquifer and the Roper River and also prevent adverse environmental effects in Elsey National Park and the Roper River. To put that into context, new licences issued can be adjusted annually subject to the previous Wet Season’s rainfall and recharge data.
I am going to repeat that because it is particularly important. It is a new condition that is placed on water extraction licences. I repeat, a new condition. To put that into context, new licences can be adjusted annually subject to the previous Wet Season’s rainfall and recharge data.
Moreover, in considering this particular application, the Water Controller went an enormous step beyond what had been considered before. He also considered the effect this extraction licence might have on the community of Ngukurr, several hundred kilometres downstream. This has never been considered before in determining water licensing for the Tindall limestone aquifer.
The Water Controller considered the potential of cease-to-flow conditions and the possibility of saltwater or brine incursion up the river to Ngukurr. I ask the member for Nightcliff to put her hand on her heart and tell me if that is ignoring science. That is the assertion she is making in this silly motion. You tell me.
The shadow minister also alluded to the minister ignoring the ruling of the Supreme Court. Not true! It is an uninformed assertion to make. First, the minister, as I said before, does not have anything to do with the issue of water licences. Therefore, you could extend that or, by inference, suggest the shadow minister is saying that the Water Controller ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court. Also, not true!
In the case of the MacFarlanes, an application for a ground water extraction licence - I will call it a GWEL because that is easier to say - was received by the Department of Land Resource Management in 2005 - and this goes back to a little history now - to take 5000 ML a year from the Tindall limestone aquifer. An amendment to this application was received in 2008 for 5780 ML per year. A GWEL for 500 ML per year was granted in mid-2010 to allow Mr and Mrs MacFarlane to commence development while more details on resource sustainability were gathered as a part of the water allocation planning process under way in the Mataranka area.
Mr and Mrs MacFarlane lodged an appeal under the Water Act against the decision to grant the licence for an amount less than applied for. The appeal was referred to the Water Resources Review Panel and the minister of the day accepted the panel’s recommendation that the licensing decision be upheld.
Subsequently, Mr and Mrs MacFarlane lodged an action against the licensing decision with the Supreme Court. Prior to the matter going to court, the department made two offers to increase allocations up to 1500 ML per year to settle out of court, but Mr and Mrs MacFarlane rejected both offers. The court ruled against Mr and Mrs MacFarlane and they appealed the decision. The initial appeal hearing has been held, but subject to Mr and Mrs MacFarlane wishing to continue, may not be settled for some time. Just to be clear, Mr and Mrs MacFarlane filed an originating motion with the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on 18 March 2011 in which they claimed that both of the following decisions were made contrary to law:
1. The decision made on 10 August 2010 by the Controller of Water Resources to refuse their application to grant a 10-year water extraction licence for 5779 ML per year and to instead grant a one-year water allocation licence for 500 ML a year, and
2. The decision made by the minister on or about 28 February 2011 to uphold the decision made by the controller on 10 August 2012.
The decision handed down by Justice Kelly in the NT Supreme Court on 6 December 2012 rejected the arguments brought for each claim by Mr and Mrs MacFarlane and dismissed the plaintiff’s action to the court. The court case was about due process and the decision-making powers of the Water Controller and the minister; it was not about determining water allocation for the MacFarlanes.
Once again, member for Nightcliff, you got it wrong. You can see the pattern emerging here. The poor old member for Nightcliff has been handed this pup by her colleagues and told to prosecute this in this parliament. She has been left hung out to dry all because of the Labor opposition’s penchant for wanting to run cheap political agendas.
On 26 October 2012, Mr and Mrs MacFarlane made a new application for 5800 ML per year. This application was treated as a new application and dealt with accordingly. The reason for dealing with the application as a new one was because the Water Controller was following due process and the provisions of the act.
Previous applications and consequent deliberations, even the decisions of the court, are not matters that must be taken into account when the Water Controller considers such applications - and that is enshrined in the legislation.
On 7 November 2012, a notice of intention to make a water extraction licence was published as required under the Water Act. Landowners in the Mataranka area were also given a copy of the notice as required by the act. Eight written submissions were received in response to the notice. The comments consistently raised concerns with the possible granting of a water extraction licence of the quantum sought by Mr and Mrs MacFarlane.
On 15 March 2013, the Controller of Water Resources granted a 10-year term licence to Mr and Mrs MacFarlane allowing them to take up to 5800 ML per year from the two existing production bores, and bores yet to be drilled.
It is also important to note - the member for Nightcliff has being banging on about this precious resource, but I wonder if she knows how much it
costs to sink a production bore to give you between 50 L and 100 L per second? She probably does not. You are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars to sink such a bore. Anyone who suggests the granting of a licence of this quantum immediately means 5800 ML will come pouring out of the ground is an idiot.
The controller visited licence holders in the Mataranka area on 12 March to inform them of his intention to review the draft water allocation plan and inform the community about government’s policy on strategic Indigenous reserves. A notice of the water extraction licence decision was advertised in the NT News on 23 March 2013, and was also advertised today in the Katherine Times.
This government is unashamedly supportive of new and growing agricultural developments in the Northern Territory. If the hypocrites on the other side stopped for a moment to consider their position, they might also be seen to support such pursuits. One only has to go back a little to February this year when I spoke in this parliament to a ministerial statement on the position of the NT around agribusiness and mining in the Asian century. I plucked a couple of quotes out of here. One is from the member for Barkly in which he said:
That is what we are doing. The member for Casuarina said:
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time for the minister, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thanks for your support.
On one hand, there must be terrible conflict and turmoil in the opposition because people such as the members for Barkly and Casuarina are saying they are quite keen to see maximising the opportunities in pastoral, agriculture, and horticulture yet, at the same time, they see an opportunity only to try to score cheap political points. I do not know how they lie straight in bed, to be honest.
I said at the beginning of this speech I was initially gobsmacked at the approach which has been taken by the opposition on this matter. I said I had an epiphany; that moment of clarity when answers to the questions coalesced in my head about the approach taken by these fools opposite. That epiphany, that moment of clarity, is nothing short of an insult to members on the government benches. It is quite clear the indignation coming from the other side of the House is a reflection of how they would have dealt with such matters. They are trying to infer we would have acted in a fashion befitting the very worst practises of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory. Running government by having ministers interfere with the legal and bureaucratic process might be a hallmark of a Labor administration, but I can assure you that is not the way of the Country Liberals.
I am going to finish shortly but, before I do, I will raise one more matter. After 11 years of Labor in this Territory, many people have become accustomed to a constipated, snail-like pace on developments of any kind. The Territory can now get used to the idea of strong and sustained growth and support for all the areas that develop our economy - mining, agriculture and food production, and tourism. That is where our efforts will be redoubled. There will be much more news in the months and years to come about developments in the Territory. The people of the Territory should ready themselves for this. They should ready themselves for the growth and focus we have. Labor should ready itself for this growth and focus as well, because you will be hearing a great deal about it in this parliament. The knockers, the greenies, the naysayers, should all ready themselves for the future growth under a Country Liberals government. That is not a challenge to fight in any way; it is advance notice of many of the great things to come from this Country Liberal government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as for this motion, it will not be supported because it is wrong, wrong, wrong, in so many ways. It is based on ignorance, a lack of research by the shadow minister and, of course, the usual guttersniping politics we are all too familiar with from the Labor opposition. Shame on you, member for Nightcliff.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, in speaking to this motion, I have listened to the minister, essentially, defend what is clearly the indefensible. As I have stated publicly, this matter stinks!
The only thing that changed in October when the new application was submitted is there was a change in government; the Country Liberal Party was in government. New process; new application followed the process - no new evidence, no new science, set aside the framework and get the outcome and the result the CLP wanted for their mate, Tina MacFarlane, the CLP candidate for Lingiari.
An area that is of enormous interest to many landowners, Mataranka, is rich in potential, as you have heard our shadow minister say in debate. It is rich in potential, as you heard when our Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke about the opportunities that abound in the Territory.
We learnt from the mistakes of the past and the southern jurisdictions and ensured we put in place a framework for water allocation. That framework included water allocation plans and management practices. All of that was ignored in the process the CLP followed when they took government in August.
They pretend to have nothing to do with the process because it was the new Water Controller who undertook it and signed it off. Yet, Dave Tollner, just last week, proclaimed it as what they had delivered. Which is it? Is it a process that was undertaken purely by the bureaucracy - hands off, knew nothing about it?
Yet, the announcement proclaiming it to all and sundry as a good thing was from Dave Tollner last week before it was signed off. How does that happen? How does that occur when you have seen the same Dave Tollner support the MacFarlane family at the court? They are close, very close. No doubt, there are close ties with the member for Katherine. They live in the region of the member for Katherine. Under scrutiny, little wonder this is referred to as watermate.
Water, that most precious resource - government has the obligation to allocate water rights for the community benefit not individual benefit. The hypocrisy of these actions is rank when you look at the letter the government has written to NAILSMA denying water rights to the Aboriginal landholders of the trust of the region. At the same time the government was granting water rights to Tina MacFarlane they were denying water rights to the Aboriginal land trust holders of the region. Extraordinary!
One wonders why there is a stench about this: the CLP candidate being given water rights worth millions of dollars after they had been officially rejected, after they had lost a case in the Supreme Court - without the CLP announcing a new policy direction or providing that new policy in writing to other landholders in the region. Did any other landholders other than Tina MacFarlane and her family submit applications for new water rights in October? Was there an announcement? Was there a media release we missed from this minister in October which said, ‘There is a new water allocation policy in the region, put your submissions in?’ No new policy, no announcements. By all means, leave any evidence of any new policy announcements from October of last year. No, they have handed their CLP mate a water allocation worth, potentially, millions of dollars, without other people in the region being afforded the same opportunity under this new policy, setting aside the existing framework which had prevented these rights being allocated previously.
The initial water rights application by Tina MacFarlane for Stylo Station to access additional water from the Tindall limestone aquifer at Mataranka was rejected by the Controller of Water Resources in August 2010. That would be the Controller of Water Resources who was dismissed by the CLP government. The application was rejected because there was no water allocation planned. In other words, there was no real measure of sustainable use and there were genuine concerns about the impact of an increased water take.
Subsequently, a draft water allocation plan was released for discussion but, to this day, there is no final water allocation plan. If the minister was so determined to deliver irrigation to the horticulturalists of the area, why did he not proceed with finalising the water allocation plan, giving everyone the same fair chance at a new application? No, that would not suit, would it, because then Tina MacFarlane would have no advantage.
The controller’s 2010 decision was tested in the Supreme Court in June last year. Last December, the court handed down its judgment upholding the decision to reject the application. Then, we discovered this week that a water extraction licence was granted by the CLP. Funnily enough, it was signed off two days ago even though Dave Tollner confirmed the decision last week. Tina MacFarlane was granted additional water rights of 5600 ML a year, taking the overall water allocation to 10 800 ML a year.
This decision illustrates the point that public servants must be able to front the estimates process so there can be transparency and provide the opportunity for members of parliament to scrutinise their decisions. Sadly, under the cover-up culture of the CLP, we are being prevented from questioning public servants involved in this matter in June during estimates. This is truly a tragedy for accountability and transparency.
Last week, we saw Dave Tollner in the media proudly owning the decision but, today, he is acting like - and the Chief Minister was acting like he knew nothing about it - they had nothing to do with it.
The decision to grant additional water rights to Tina MacFarlane has been met with concern from so many people: traditional owners, other farmers, and AFANT. AFANT is worried about the impact on the Roper. Retired farmer Ian Baker was quoted in media reports as saying:
The CLP has handed a mate the precious natural resources which belong to all Territorians without an announced new policy; without saying, ‘Do not worry, we are stepping outside the water allocation plan framework’. This is not just nepotism or cronyism; this has the stench of corruption. A government making decisions outside of a reset of the policy, outside of a water allocation plan which, ultimately, provides an enormous financial benefit to a mate - if that is not corruption, explain what is ...
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am wondering whether the Leader of the Opposition would like to confirm or clarify that she is accusing the Water Controller of corruption.
Ms LAWRIE: No, I am not accusing the Water Controller at all.
Mr Westra van Holthe: He makes the decisions, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms LAWRIE: You doth protest too much, member for Katherine.
I have nothing but enormous concern and sympathy for the Water Controller of the Northern Territory, who shares the position of the CE of the department. It is an invidious position to be in when you are CE of the department and the Water Controller, which is normally a separate statutory position. I am unaware of any other time when the Water Controller has also been CE of the department.
That is okay because, according to the CLP, this is a normal process. This is all done in normal process - no announced new policy, no consultation with the people of the region saying, ‘By the way, do not worry about the fact there is no sign-off on the water allocation plan, you can come in …
Mr Westra van Holthe: That is not true. The Water Controller visited Mataranka.
Ms LAWRIE: … and put down your new applications because there has been a reset in the policy’.
He visited Mataranka in relation to the application made by the MacFarlanes - picking up on your interjection, member for Katherine – but there was not a visit to Mataranka to say, ‘The government has a new policy. We are not applying the policy of the past of requiring the water allocation plan to be signed off before we can make decisions on such vast quantities of water’ ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: Would it make any difference if I said others in Mataranka had already applied for extra water?
Ms LAWRIE: … splitting hairs on the timing of things. If you want it to look as though it is a fair process - if there is a reset in the policy, which there appears, all of a sudden, to be - let people know. If you will not apply the framework of a water allocation plan in an area where it is critical - the Tindall limestone aquifer - let people know. It is an even playing field. Do not go there after the event, after the fresh application in October by the MacFarlanes and say, ‘We want comment on this one’, and then ignore the comments.
People were against it. They were not saying, ‘That is fantastic. By all means 5800 ML handed over to that station’. No, they said the opposite. The Aboriginal landowners, the other farmers, and AFANT said the opposite. People who know the region, who understand the importance of the Tindall limestone aquifer, are against this decision. How you can go there, member for Katherine, and hold your head up high shows me how thick-skinned you are.
This has been disgraceful. No wonder it is called watermate. We will continue the scrutiny of this. We will continue to expose there was no policy reset, no announcement by the CLP, ‘By the way, water allocation plans are not required to be signed off and certainly will not apply. Do not worry about it - 5800 ML, put your applications in’. What a farce!
The Chief Minister should have intervened and ensured the decision was overturned. He should have immediately asked for an investigation, but did not. He claimed to know nothing - washed his hands of it. Is that leadership? I suspect nothing will happen. The government will not investigate how this could have occurred because another mate has been rewarded for CLP loyalty. It is becoming a very common theme under the CLP government. I suspect you have not heard the last of watermate.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am proud to speak on this motion because it reflects the job of an opposition, which is to scrutinise, ask questions, prosecute an argument, and engage a government in debate. It is becoming quite common now that CLP ministers, in their contributions to debate, immediately start with personal insults. The member for Katherine is definitely one who is ahead of the game in his personal insults. He engaged in personal insults for about 10 minutes.
It is interesting to look at the human behaviour and the body language of what was going on when the Leader of the Opposition was contributing to the debate. The member for Katherine was showing some interesting signs of a guilty conscious, and very nervous behaviour - shuffling papers, moving back and forward, flushed, rushes of blood, picking things off the floor, shifting things around on the desk. He reminded me of a police officer - which he used to be - interviewing a guilty client in an interview room, only he was the client. His body language and behaviour brought back memories of many years of dealing with students trying to get to the fact of the matter. He did not look comfortable in this debate.
It was even more interesting when his solicitor, the member for Port Darwin, shifted in his seat to check out the contract. The member for Port Darwin, the heavy lifter in the government, the smart one in the room, is nervous as well. He checked his colleague’s contract and credentials. As he did, the member for Katherine showed even more radical signs of inhibition and guilty conscious.
Let me build off that. The member for Port Darwin taught me that and used the strategy regularly when he was in opposition. He used it on me a number of times trying to intimidate a junior minister - a new minister. It was great psychology. He picked the wrong person because in my parliamentary work I base myself on common sense and good manners. If you believe in common sense and good manners, underpinned by honesty, you will always get through. The member for Port Darwin is a very experienced player; he taught me that strategy. I found it most interesting when he shifted in his seat; he was very nervous about this minister, the member for Katherine, and he checked out the contract. I believe he shares a real reservation, as does the Leader of the Opposition, that perhaps this is not as straightforward as it seems.
The job of an opposition is to prosecute the argument and engage the government minister in debate. This side of the House has come from working with the NT public sector for 10 years. We made very good relationships with public servants over 10 years. I was very privileged to work as a public servant for 30 years, then as a government member for the previous four years. We stick up for and back the Water Controller.
The member for Katherine spent much time in this motion trying to ridicule the member for Nightcliff by going through the act and the duty statement of a Water Controller. We have no question about that, and we back the Water Controller. If there is another influence, another groundswell of pressure which is coming from a ministerial level, that is where it gets really dodgy.
We are suggesting - and I am suggesting - the culture in the public sector of the Northern Territory is at rock bottom. People are not happy. How do I know this? This is not rumour or innuendo; this is because people talk to me. People I created very good working relationships with over the last four years are talking about a very toxic culture in the public sector. There is fear and intimidation, and people are worried about their jobs. That is spinning off into destroying consumer confidence, which is affecting business confidence, and that is why we debate this new government every step of the way on their fiscal management. These things relate to many human resource issues. In a culture that is toxic, where public sector officials are intimidated and fear the loss of their jobs, there could be elements of pressure brought to bear. That is disgraceful and illegal.
The member for Katherine, doing his best to try to squirm his way through this debate, may need to come clean. He gave himself the opportunity when he said the minister’s job is to review and accept appeals. He has the opportunity to make this right. He can come back to this House and tell the Territory he had appeals. He said eight submissions were made. He did not elaborate on what those eight submissions were or what they said. The word on the street where I live in the bush and where I move amongst the community is people are not happy with the decision by the Water Controller.
Let us separate the Water Controller and go back to the minister. The minister will accept the appeal. The minister has the opportunity to make this right. We will be waiting to see if he exercises that power because I am certain there will be appeals. In respect of any impropriety in this process, what the member for Katherine has done is set up the MacFarlane family for a fall, and that is not right. If the member for Katherine has allowed this process to be done outside correct protocols, then he has set this family up for ridicule and a fall. There will be an appeals process. There is nothing clear around this at the moment except the very nervous minister who reminded me of very nervous students who needed to be guided through a process to tell the truth.
I will talk about this area because it borders the north of the Barkly electorate. The essence of the Mataranka water plan is still in draft form. That does not give me much confidence. Let us talk about water users. The member for Katherine was quick to ridicule, once again, my colleague, the member for Nightcliff, about using the analogy of the Murray Darling.
I come from New South Wales; I grew up in Sydney. As an elected community member, I look back at major disasters within our country which we in the Northern Territory, the last frontier, have the opportunity to avoid. The analogy of the Murray Darling was a good one because governments now are trying to fix very challenging circumstances: a real mess in the sustainability of a major river system.
That river system, ecologically, is joined with aquifer sources of water. If anybody understands the ecology, it is all connected; one does not function without the other. So, the analogy of the Murray Darling was good and, in this sense, we have the opportunity to avoid those issues of major disasters.
The previous Chief Minister talked regularly about planning. In his time as the Chief Minister he regularly reminded this House and Territorians that he would plan for the future. He talked about sustainability, and in this deal sustainability has been thrown out the door. I do not think there is good planning.
Let us talk about some of the existing water users who have been ignored in this decision, and who, I believe, will make substantial appeals. The minister will be dealing with this issue in the correct process.
The pastoral industries of the Mataranka area and the northern Barkly, particularly the Indigenous Land Corporation and their cattle enterprise on Hodgson Downs - the Chief Minister brought it to debate today in Question Time when he said, ‘I do not know anything about this. The first thing I knew about this was I read it in the newspaper. But I am about jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs’. I could not help thinking perhaps what he was saying was everybody should work for the MacFarlanes. I am not sure whether that is what he meant but he talked about jobs, jobs. I can tell him to get down to Hodgson Downs and look at the Indigenous Land Corporation’s cattle enterprise and the incredible work and expansion they have conducted over the last few years. They are setting a really good pace and showing what Indigenous people are doing back on the land, running and growing beef cattle.
There is a whole host of pastoral properties around that area. They are all water users and, as we are seeing in the Northern Territory, they are all growing. Beef will be a very important product for the Northern Territory. It reminds me of a very old station owner who said to me, ‘Don’t you worry, son, if you can grow something and sell it to people to eat then you are in business forever’. I believe that. There is also the example the member for Katherine used - the cultural significance of water. The North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance issued a media release commenting on this decision. Their comment from the media release on the 20 March 2013 stated:
It is not just about culture; it is about economic development. As the Leader of the Opposition said in her contribution to the debate, the North Australian Sea and Land Management Alliance received a letter today from the Water Controller saying the Country Liberal Party government would not be proceeding with the proposed strategic water reserve for Indigenous economic development. They said they would review it in three years – an interesting time frame. They talked about the Mataranka water allocation plan and the proposals. NAILSMA talked about Indigenous economic development in parallel with the cultural significance of the water needs of the Indigenous people of that area.
There is much exploration going on that will generate future mining projects. Exploration and mining needs water. This relates to good planning to avoid disasters. I mention some big projects in the area: Sherwin Iron, Western Desert Resources, and the most recent announcement by the member for Katherine, the Australian Ilmenite Resources Project. That is just over 100 km east of Mataranka in the Barkly electorate.
The mining of ilmenite in that area will develop great prosperity for the Territory, but you are talking about a strip mining operation to a depth of 4 m, with 300 m long and 200 m wide strips. The water will come from the Roper River. It will be pumped 12 km to the site and will use up to 1650 ML per annum. It will pump up to 18 L a second and have a storage capacity of 55 ML - I presume on that site. Under the Water Act, it is exempt from the consumptive pool; it provided very detailed documentation for monitoring and a very detailed water management plan to government. However, once again, this operation is connected because of the ecology of that area with aquifers, rivers, and springs all flowing together. That is an example of a project that is coming online with a big future and of one being well-planned.
We are questioning whether this decision reflects good planning. The oil and gas sector in that part of the Barkly is experiencing incredible exploration at the moment. The Indigenous communities in that part of the Northern Territory such as the community of Jilkminggan - a community I love to visit, particularly the old man, Daylight, who gives me great history lessons about that area - has a plan to build an abattoir – a great plan. They have suffered some setbacks but are not giving up; they are going to ensure their plan comes to fruition and there is an abattoir. An abattoir uses much water. It is not using water at the moment but it will. Let us say the abattoir doubles or triples in size and becomes a premier institution for the area employing Indigenous people - they will require a great deal of water as well.
That is what I mean about planning. Let us not ignore the crabbers, the fishers, the professional fishers, the mango farmers, the tourism operators, the residents of town, and also the further opportunities that come online in that area. We are asking this government to be very serious with its planning. When we talk about Stylo Station, the existing licence was 500 ML, and they have been granted 5800 ML in a new licence, which represents more than double most irrigation licences in the Mataranka region. What about all the other applications coming online? We have just gone through a list of really important projects to grow the Northern Territory.
This decision was made by the Water Controller as the minister reminded us - I am not so sure about that - in a very nervous state as he shifted in the saddle like he was on a fresh horse and had never ridden before. He said it is all kosher. Really? It is about the Katherine region, and in that region we are talking about successful farmers who have water licences of less than half the allocation provided to Stylo Station - successful farmers with broadacre operations, and water licences less than half this licence just granted.
With a licence of this size we are talking significant infrastructure needed to use that water allocation. Perhaps there should have been some reservation in this decision. Perhaps the Water Controller could have said, ‘Let us test you out. Let us use the good old CLP work ethic we hear about’. The Chief Minister said no more sit-down money and talked about work ethic. Let us talk about earning it as you go. Why was this decision not more moderate? Why, all of a sudden, was there a massive increase in a water allocation licence to one entity in a conglomerate of quite diverse industry that will use water into the future - and considerably more water?
It seems not to be a wise decision of government to deliver this massive water licence that is now attracting much negative comment from the neighbours and producers around it. Moderation would be the way to go. There will be an appeals period and that is where this minister might regain some of his confidence, see a little blood leave his forehead and get back into his body. His hands might start to stabilise and he might be able to face the Territory and do the right thing. We will wait to see because, at the moment, we are looking at a back to the 1980s scenario. Prove us wrong, member for Katherine. Let us not say this smacks of the silver circle club, as you guys have form. We do not want to go back to those days; the Territory does not want to back to those days ...
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move …
Mr Elferink: He is not saying anything useful.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr VOWLES: … an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, member for Johnston. I thank the member for Port Darwin for his interest in my contribution, particularly when I witnessed such a wonderful demonstration of the psychology he used against me when in opposition - the nerves of steel as the solicitor examined the dodgy contract as the minister squirmed in his seat. The member for Port Darwin examined that contract with his legal eye and brain. That minister did not get any confidence from that, member for Port Darwin. As a matter of fact, he is feeling very vulnerable because he continually uses the CLP’s great debate tactic of personal insults.
He used the clich of being sold a pup. Maybe he should look at his Deputy Chief Minister. Maybe the Deputy Chief Minister sold him the pup. Maybe the member for Port Darwin will check that contract out and advise his colleagues there is a way to put this right. It will come through an appeals period; I have no doubt about that.
I got my reaction when I mentioned the silver circle club. There would be members in this House, and members of the government, who are not old enough to remember what that was, but I do. It was 30 years later, when I came to Darwin when I was a minister, that members of the business community - people with great reputations; honourable people in the business community - explained what it meant. I was a young school teacher working in the bush and nowhere near the big end of town, but these people were. They explained to me what it really meant in the culture of a government. It was bad news. It, essentially, lost government for the Country Liberal Party, but 10 years later they are back.
Let us hope that old culture is not creeping back in as the minister from Katherine talked about greenies, any knockers, or anybody who wants to debate their policies or way of doing business, in a derogatory sense, and said, ‘We will knock them down. We are going headlong into this. We are going to grow this place, we will develop it’. Times have changed, minister. The Territory is no gangly teenager anymore. The Territory is all grown up and is the capital of northern Australia, with Darwin as the jewel in the crown.
I have been basing my debate on planning. I am saying this decision represents bad planning. It is not looking at all those other interests which are coming online and are growing, and need their fair share under the umbrella of sustainability. Let us say we need moderate increases in this water licence, and an informed and learned approach.
We ask a few questions. Why so much water in this licence with no proven record, only a plan, when across the Katherine region we have documented business interests that can show this government what it means to farm broadacre, to conduct agricultural practices, to maximise their opportunities and use their water allocation? The decision disadvantages other water users, both proven and emerging operators. Why give so much to one entity on a plan without a record? It makes sense to ask questions about that. You have to ask what the evidence base is around this. As the member for Nightcliff asked: what is the science around this, what is it based on?
In the time I have left, I will quote the minister. For Hansard’s benefit, I will give the transcript details. This is a transcript on Monday, 25 March 2013. It was on the ABC Darwin 105.7 Country Hour. This is the member for Katherine, Willem Westra van Holthe, the minister who talked about ‘my Water Controller’. He has said it in this House many times; it seems to be the culture of this government. It is all about ‘my’ rule. The member for Katherine talked about ‘my Water Controller’. He was in a bit of freestyling on the airwaves across the Territory. He was attempting to tell the story. He said:
Madam Speaker, that reflects the behaviour of the minister in the chair today when trying to defend what this opposition is questioning - a fair question, a fair debate. We need to know answers because that is how democracy works. If you come into this House on the premise of common sense and good manners - drop the personal insults, rise to the level of a minister of the Crown and lift your game - and the basis of honesty, then the Territory will definitely benefit and we will not have to go through these general business items where we need to continually strike at the heart of the government to ensure they are telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I feel like I am about to have a sentence passed on me, but I do not believe I will be executed for what I have to say this evening.
In general, I support this motion. I do not support some of what has been put forward and I will give my reasons why. I had concerns there was nepotism in the development of this application for water. I raise that because, if a person puts their name up as a member of a party standing in the federal election, and at the same time gets an application approved by the same party that runs government for a licence three times bigger than anyone else in the Mataranka area, one needs to ask questions.
The questions that need to be asked are: was due process taken when this decision was made, and was there science around it? I raised questions during the week. I issued a number of media releases looking at a range of issues in relation to whether something has been done outside of the norm. Yesterday, I was invited to a briefing - and I took that offer up today - to look at the background to this application and the approval of a 5800 ML water licence for Stylo farm in Mataranka.
From that briefing - a very good briefing from a technical point of view - I found this application has been looked through on its merits. I was concerned today, which is why I raised the question with the minister, that the requirements an applicant has to meet in regard to things like putting out a crop plan over the next two years did not seem to be met. I had been given advice by a constituent who said perhaps this had not even gone to the department of Primary Industry. That is why I asked the question today. At the briefing a 10-year cropping plan was provided which had been approved by the department of Primary Industry. I did not look inside that plan; that is a private matter. There may be other people who would like to analyse whether the crops they intended to grow will be the right ones, but that will be for other people to decide. The information I was after was whether that application fulfilled the requirements the Water Controller must look at before he considered granting this licence.
I do not see the minister had any direct political interference in this decision. That is not to say he may, if he feels this decision is too close to the bone, especially as there is the issue of the same party being in power as the party of the candidate for the Lingiari electorate for the next federal election. If the minister wants to keep that arm’s length from any decision that might have to be made in relation to the appeals - I am sure there will be appeals in relation to this - then the option he spoke about of bringing in an independent panel to make a decision would be a wise one because there is always the opportunity of people saying there is a conflict of interest.
I still have some major concerns. I will go through those concerns and explain why. The Mataranka water plan is still a draft plan and needs to be ratified. This is the draft plan. It has been around for quite a while - November 2011. You would think by now it would have been sorted, but it is still, as far as I know, a draft water plan. The issue we have is the government has made a decision which, to some extent, relies on the figures in this draft water allocation plan. They rely on other figures but they have said there is adequate water for this 5800 ML licence. If you look at the draft water allocation plan, it mentions on page 17 clause 25, Annual extraction limits:
If you put this 5800 ML licence with the figure given at the moment for the rest, you get about 10 000 ML. I will get to that issue a little later.
The plan is not finalised but we are making decisions based on that plan. That needs to be fixed quickly otherwise the government is leaving itself open to issuing more licence applications without a plan to back them up.
The other thing is we have a Mataranka Water Advisory Committee. Last time I saw a list of the people on the water advisory committee, it appears as though it might not be operating. That is the same as the Howard East Water Advisory Committee, about which I asked a question today. The Mataranka committee is made up of a vacant chair - that is not a good sign - Ms Clair O’Brien, Mr Eddie Webber, Mr Garry Riggs, Mr Hamish MacFarlane - who I believe has left - Mr Max Gorringe, Mr Kane Younghusband and Mr Mark Joraslafsky.
The role of the water advisory committee is very interesting. I got on the website the other day and clicked the terms of reference for the water advisory committee. Both the document detailing the functions of the committee and the terms of reference document came from the Department of Land Resource Management site, but they have one major difference in talking about the Mataranka advisory committee and what they have to do. The Terms of Reference said:
The other document looks exactly the same but does not say that. It said:
I do not know which one is correct, but if I take the one that makes sense the Mataranka Water Advisory Committee was meant to give recommendations on conditions around such licences. My understanding is, because the Mataranka Water Advisory Committee has not been operating, it was not involved in this decision.
There is nothing to say the Water Controller has to operate within the framework of the Mataranka Water Advisory Committee, but it seems by not doing that you leave yourself open to a lack of transparency, to some extent, and that is the real problem with this application.
Yes, the Water Controller made a decision and he has the Water Act as the basis for making that decision. At the same time, we have a water advisory committee which is meant to look at the granting of licences to take ground water from the Mataranka area and conditions contained in such licences. What should have happened in this case is a recommendation from that body is made before the Water Controller made a decision.
That is not the case and it concerns me. These water advisory committees are really important in ensuring the community is behind the changes and we do not, all of a sudden, get changes from Darwin about a particular development without community involvement.
The main problem I have with this water allocation is it is far too large. The process is correct, but that does not mean I agree they should have 5800 ML. That is three times the local watermelon grower’s allocation. He does not even have an extension on his water licence which he has been after for many years. The Water Controller said he invites those people to put their applications for more water in. If you were a grower and saw someone who has not been growing anything, even with their 500 ML licence, all of a sudden get a licence 10 times larger than they had, and the people growing crops worth $10m supplying Coles and Woolworths have nothing, you would have to ask why it is so. Instead of picking one licence, why has the government not looked at an even playing field and said to people there who have had their licence applications in for years, ‘Why do we not do the whole lot at once?’ Instead, they have given a farmer a huge increase in water allocation.
The Water Controller said in the reasoning behind this water extraction licence in relation to comments about this application:
That says a great deal about what has not been done properly in relation to this application. The process to get to the point of giving a licence was correct, but the decency should have been afforded in ensuring other growers had the opportunity at that time to also get an increase in their licence. In fact, you now open yourself up to the view that you have permitted one person to have a licence of 5800 ML of water, and you have not finished the water advisory plan.
I will go on further. It said:
I understand the government is saying, ‘We are going to give this water licence out and allow it to be used incrementally’. That has sent out an enormously bad message. It should have been the case – as the member for Barkly said - where you gave them enough to start their business. As the member for Katherine said, the cost of putting down a production bore and getting that into operation is enormous. You will not put down 10 or 20 production bores overnight. Let them put down one or two production bores and use that amount of water first then prove the case they are on the way to expansion. That is what you have done with the other growers in the area. Why have you not done it with these people? I know the Water Controller said they will probably be able to have similar licences. However, you have picked one person and given them a licence allocation three times bigger than the biggest allocation already in Mataranka without having proof there is a track record before you give them such a large amount of water.
The other concern I have with what has emerged is we have done some new figures and we know there is more water than we think because the rainfall figures might not have been right. It is an argument the MacFarlanes used - the rainfall figures were not correct. Regardless of whether you think they were or were not correct, if you think there is a lot of water that does not mean you give it to people. It is not good water management if you have a bucket of water and you give three-quarters of the water to the first person who comes and says, ‘I want some water’. Water is something we should only be giving to people very carefully these days. As I said in today’s Question Time, on the Water Resources website it is to do with transparency, equality and sustainability. If you give people a large amount of water, not only are you going to have people asking you why, you are going to wonder whether the government believes in sustainable development. That is my real concern.
I have seen members on this side jumping up and down with excitement about how they are going to develop the Territory. I thought of Russ Hinze and Joh Bjelke-Petersen for a minute. I thought, by Jove, here we go, back to the 1960s; rip it down, build it up, who care what the future is like. My concern is not that this minister has interfered - from the briefing today I do not believe he has interfered – but that the government will slowly put out this motto ‘the CLP is here for business and development’, and that will permeate through the public service.
It may be that some of those controls we need to ensure we have sustainable development start to get a little slack. I support development in Mataranka, the Sturt Plateau, at Ali Curung, Ti Tree, the Darwin area, Katherine, Ord River - and there are plenty of other places. I promoted primary industry before. As I have always said, when it comes to government it was the poor cousin.
It is not that I am opposed to development of the Mataranka area; I want to ensure it is done in a sustainable manner. I do not want the Russ Hinze, Joh Bjelke-Petersen version of, ‘Well, I am here. Give us a big heap of water and we will go for it’. The Territory has had big stories and big failures. I do not need to tell you about Tipperary, Scott Creek, and even Humpty Doo rice. We have a fairly good legacy of failure when it comes to agricultural development. I would hate someone to say this is all about the extreme greens. It is not all about the extreme greens; it is about using modern science and learning by our past mistakes so when we give our water, we give it out in a proper, transparent and sustainable way.
The decision the Water Controller made is not a sensible one. Yes, there is plenty of water there, no doubt about it. However, that is not the argument; it is about using that water carefully. That is where the government has missed the point. The government is so bent on development it says, ‘We have plenty of water. Let us give them plenty of water and we will have plenty of development’. Yes, just keep a lid on it and ensure we do it right and other people in the Mataranka area are treated equitably. They have not been treated equitably.
A grower I spoke to told me when this was announced he had been approached when this was announced by the Water Controller and he asked, ‘Why have you done this?’ I wrote the answer down somewhere, which, basically, said, ‘We had to get something done about the licences and we had to get development going’. I understand that. That is fair enough, but I hope we are considering how much water we are going to use …
Ms LAWRIE: A point or order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Karama.
I hope that word ‘development’ does not get in the way of careful approach. It does not have to be slow approach, which is what the government is claiming has happened here, and that might be the case. When you are dealing with water management plans and looking at aquifers and getting it right, there is a fair bit of science involved. We need to ensure we have the science right. After all, we have a draft water allocation plan so we must not be too far away from getting a proper water allocation plan. Once you have that done, surely you can make sensible decisions about development in the area.
The other thing I want to talk about is the strategic water reserve, the third part of this motion. The government has made a big mistake. There is an opportunity for people to get off welfare, something the government has spoken about time and time again. I have been talking about it, the member for Namatjira talks about it. There is a great opportunity here for people to get off welfare and start to earn some income by using the water allocated on the Strategic Indigenous Water Reserve.
I will give you a couple of examples. There are three mines down the road. Do you realise that mines do not have to come under the Water Act like domestic? Mines do not come under this, they are separate. It is something that needs to be looked at because, surely, you cannot have one group of people being licenced for water and another group under another regime. Some of those mines are going to need water. There will be a limited amount of water you can pump out of the Roper River. The Aboriginal interests in this area have an opportunity to, perhaps, pipe water from their portion of this aquifer and sell it to the mines. That is one possibility.
The other possibility is in relation to development on Aboriginal land. The minister for Primary Industry issued a media release recently saying he is bringing changes to the Pastoral Land Act to allow the land to be used for more purposes. That is a matter for debate on another day, but that will bring up issues of native title. It might even bring up issues of land rights. An easier way would be to say to some of the traditional owners, ‘I want to farm on your land’. We already have that at Ali Curung. They could go to the traditional owners in the Mataranka area and say, ‘We want to grow watermelons in your area. Can we lease a parcel of land and use your water?’ It is their water; that is part of the Strategic Indigenous Water Reserve. That opens up opportunity for income and employment on their land.
Surely, this is a backward step. I would like to know - maybe I will get a chance tomorrow to ask the minister – if the minister talked to the traditional owners about this decision? Did he talk to the alliance about this decision? Did he talk to the Northern Land Council about this decision? Did he talk to the water advisory committee about this decision? Was it a unilateral decision to say, ‘There will be no water for Aboriginal people in that area’? The Chief Minister said, ‘They will just have to fight for it like everybody else’. The point is they hold a special place in that area.
The Chief Minister has stated there is an opportunity for economic development. These things are going to take time; they are not particularly easy matters to bring to fruition. You have set that back by at least three years. By that time, we might have some bigger 5800 ML applications. Will they have any water? Of course, you can say, ‘They are part of the whole structure and they will be part of the business’, but then we start to lose track that they are traditional owners. If you do not allow that type of argument in your consideration you are doing an injustice if you are talking about helping Aboriginal people get out of the welfare trap.
That is a bad decision. I would like to know who made that decision, who was consulted, and the reasoning behind it. Was the reasoning that we can make the consumptive water allocation bigger so we can hand out bigger licences to other people? I do not know, but it looks a bit suspicious. I would like some more information on that.
In summing up, I have no hesitation in saying I believe the Water Controller has done what is required under the act. This is a new application and I believe the minister has not interfered. However, I believe the decision by the controller was a poor one. It should have been a smaller amount of water - not increments, because I am not sure what happens if a place goes bust and you have all this water allocated to a particular property. Does that mean it is locked up? Is it owned by the bank? If you give a small increment, allow the development to increase over the years - you cannot put down 10 production bores overnight; you will do one bore, two bores, three bores as the years go on. Bring this back to a reasonable level - maybe 1000 ML. You have to put a proper production plan up to see where that goes.
You should at least move on with this water allocation plan before you start to increase other licences too far, although I hope you give those existing licence holders a chance to increase their allocation of water. It is a bad decision from the point of view of not being fair to existing growers. You have done it against the water allocation plan not being completed. At the same time, you have not given those other growers an equal chance to increase their licence capacity. They have been waiting and waiting for an increase. They have helped the Northern Territory economy through their horticultural sales yet are being treated as second-class growers when it comes to this.
The licence application also should have gone through the water advisory committee to let them say what they thought. You have a unilateral decision the community does not seem to be involved in. It may have been involved in the original decision way back. Because the committee appears to be not operating, the community has not been involved in this decision. I know several members on this board are not happy with this decision. They are not into the politics of it; they are into what has happened in their area, and they believe this was put together poorly. They have not spoken about the politics; they have just spoken about the way it was done. They do not believe that amount of water was the right thing - and neither do I.
I partially support what has been put today. It is an opportunity to question the government on this important matter. Growers will be confused about the government’s policy, especially in relation to sustainable agriculture and sustainable water management. I urge the government to make a statement on all the water advisory committees in the Top End especially, because they all seem to be defunct at the moment.
Howard Springs is a classic example. There are big issues in the Howard Springs East bore field because there is such a demand for water; however, we still do not have a water allocation plan. It will be a difficult one - it has not been done. The Berry Springs plan is probably not as hard but just as important, and has not been done. Oolloo is finished, and this one for Tindall is not finished.
Madam Speaker, I hope the minister can get these water allocation plans and water advisory committees back on track so we can make some wise decisions about water allocation in the Northern Territory. We need sustainable agriculture and sustainable use of water. I am not 100% sure the government understands that. Let us see what happens.
Motion negatived.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move:
(1) that the government review the future development of the One Mile Dam, Knuckey Lagoon, 15 Mile and Aboriginal communities within the Darwin, region and
(2) that the review include:
This has been on the Notice Paper for quite some time but is an important area we need to look at. First, I congratulate the minister for getting on the front foot in relation to this. I hope you received a letter from me, minister. It might have gone via Alice Springs - the new person at my electorate office sent it to your post office box in Alice so, hopefully, you received it. I sent you that because I had some concerns - but do not put that in the wrong context. I want to be positive because this is an area that needs some good policies which have to be very inclusive.
I am not here to tell people what they should or should not do. I am trying to initiate something that will start a positive roll of ideas and, perhaps, improve the lot of people who live in these communities. At the moment, for the ones in my electorate, which are Gildorrka and Knuckey Lagoon - Knuckey Lagoon is Milgarri - I do not know where the future lies. What is the future? I hope we can make things better.
Minister, I note you have a Darwin Town Camp Taskforce. We need to get rid of the word ‘camp’. I know Alice Springs uses the word ‘camp’, but it is nearly derogatory. People live in houses in a suburb, a community, a locality. I said in my letter, when I went to Daly River many years ago there used to be top camp, middle camp and bottom camp and Br Howley - some of you might remember him; Francis Xavier might have been a little boy when he was there - did not like that name at all. He said it was derogatory and we got rid of it. I do not know what we called them, but we did not call them bottom camp, top camp.
We need to use the names. It is great the two communities in my electorate now call themselves Milgarri and Gildorrka. The 15 Mile is still called that - many people know it as the 15 Mile and I can live with that. It was then called the Palmerston Indigenous Village, which is clinical. It had about as much feel as going to the dentist. At least they have said what they are about.
We have many issues here. I will give you an example. We have land issues, and we are probably not the only ones with those lands issues. In this case, we have One Mile Dam. People might want to speak about other communities; I am speaking about the ones I have some knowledge of. I will not be talking about One Mile Dam too much, but it is run by the Aboriginal Development Foundation. Gildorrka and Milgarri are run by the Aboriginal Development Foundation. When I say run, they own the land. The houses are run by Yilli Reung. They are the people who get the rent and ensure the houses are being maintained.
The Aboriginal Development Foundation, as far as I know, hardly receives a penny these days. Yilli Reung mows the lawn sometimes. Larrakia Nation might help out from time to time. The owner of the land does not really have much money to do any work. Yilli Reung is meant to maintain the house and is out doing slashing. Sometimes, people from Larrakia Nation help out as well.
Some of the issues are that Yilli Reung might have people living in a house who really should be out - they are not paying their rent or are causing problems. Technically, I am not even sure they can move them out because the question is, ‘Who owns the house?’ In law, if a house is leased it is the leaseholder’s house. Technically, the houses belong to the Aboriginal Development Foundation. Even if Yilli Reung can shift people out of the house, they stand on the land, then, if the Aboriginal Development Foundation wants to kick them off the property, they are the ones who have the say.
You have the issue of who owns what and who controls what. That is an area we have to sort out. ADF has had a perpetual lease or a 99-year lease for a long time but they do not do much anymore. It is not the same as it was many years ago. They might have a truck and do a little work, but they are not the main people involved in the maintenance of these communities. That is one area which needs to be sorted out.
To me, it would make sense to have one owner of the land and the houses, if we are going to have a public housing model. Either the Aboriginal Development Foundation owns the houses and gets all the money to maintain the houses so it has the power to collect rent or move people on etcetera, or Yilli Reung is given the power to own the land and maintain the houses.
The problem is if the Aboriginal Development Foundation does not want to relinquish its lease over the land it is not so easy. That is one of the issues we have. How you deal with the land on these communities is one problem.
The other issue is governance. We have two nice blokes on the Aboriginal Development Foundation Board - Ronnie and Phil. Phil Goodman is at Gildorrka and Ronnie Agnew is at Milgarri. Their work is fairly hard. Some of these communities are not easy places because, unfortunately, there is a fair amount of antisocial behaviour as alcohol is an issue in these areas. These men have not been elected; they went to leadership courses. They have been given the job of being leaders of these communities. If you want people to start having some ownership over these communities, you have to have some form of governance so there is a real belonging – the people who have been appointed or elected have been with the backing of the community. We have not had that; there is no governance structure.
I saw some of the issues that have occurred at Milgarri, Knuckey Lagoon, where there has been violence. Some of that violence has been related to people who have some control over the area. Many of the women have been quite scared about what is happening on the communities - so much so, they took up a petition last year to the previous minister. I also read a police report that was written about some of the violence that occurred there. That is not what we want.
There are many kids in these communities and they are meant to be going to school in the morning. They go to Howard Springs, generally, from where I am. If they are at Knuckey or Milgarri they go to Sacred Heart at Palmerston or – what do you call, the Terrace in Karama …
Ms Lawrie: Manunda.
Mr WOOD: Manunda Terrace in Karama. I will never know why they called a school after a street ...
Ms Lawrie: After a ship. After the Manunda.
Mr WOOD: I know, but there is no suburb called Manunda. At least we have Howard Springs. I know where Howard Springs is.
The kids go to both schools; the buses come around and pick them up. There are kids who are trying to go to school and have a fairly disruptive life.
The other issue, as I said, is antisocial behaviour. There was a big sign saying no grog, no pornography. I had a picture - I sent it to the NT News, and I said, ‘Here is a 44 gallon drum full of VB cans’. So, there is no grog on this community? Well, no one is policing it. If you wonder why there is damage to the playground and some of the houses do not be surprised, there is a great deal of alcohol consumed.
Of course, you have to be careful you do not forget the history of these places. Those two places especially, were set up, as you might say, ‘grog refuges’ to be polite. Mainly people from Daly River, Adelaide River, maybe Port Keats, would have gone to the then Knuckey Lagoon. The 15 Mile would have been Maningrida - maybe some other groups as well. Originally, the 15 Mile community was further over in the bush. When the highway was shifted they were moved again.
Unfortunately, they were moved to a section of land that has no legal access. The Chief Minister, in his role as Minister for Transport, has looked at this. I just dropped off another letter to him because that community has no legal access to anywhere. They are not allowed access to the highway. They, technically, have access to a road that is non-existent. The way they drive out from their community is along a Power and Water easement no council really wants to know. They are in the Palmerston municipality but they are mainly connected by an easement which is in the Litchfield municipality. You have, again, an issue about giving people legal access. With the duplication of Howard Springs Road, I am hoping the government will find some money to ensure there is a proper road to the 15 Mile, or Gildorrka, community so they have all-weather access and are treated like anyone else who has a block of land - there is a gazetted road to that community.
There is a whole range of issues. If I was to stick with the basic reason why I wanted some changes, we need to look at housing, governance and land ownership - whether it is land ownership over the whole community or private land ownership. There are questions as to whether we could sell houses to people. The 15 Mile will be just over the road from Johnston. Sometimes, I must admit, I think I have slipped into a Third World country. You need to go there because the conditions are terrible sometimes. I have been …
Mr Chandler: You should not talk about Howard Springs that way.
Ms Finocchiaro: Calling Johnston a Third World country?
Mr WOOD: The conditions there are terrible …
Mr Chandler: Howard Springs?
Mr WOOD: Yes, in the old houses. You have to go to the old houses. They are terrible ...
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No, you need to have a look. Maybe you have not been there ...
Mr Giles: Where are you talking about, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: Gildorrka. The old houses in Gildorrka are terrible ...
Mr Giles: We thought you were talking about Johnston.
Mr WOOD: I wonder what I could have thought about that. Johnston is only just getting started. Probably the construction site looks a bit Third Worldish.
What I was trying to point out is the contrast. Across the road you have modern suburbs and, over the road, in some cases, you have fairly terrible conditions. I am not putting people down; we need to lift people up and get some changes.
It is not easy because these were grog refuges. That is the way they were designed. There is probably still a fair bit of that type of thinking about people who stay there; that it is a place to drink. They used to go to Casey’s Store and then wander home. The idea was at least they had a place to stay without being a nuisance. The problem now is we have a built a range of modern houses, but the old houses are still there. We have started to create a community but we have no vision as to where we are going.
I notice the minister has her terms of reference for what I will call the Darwin town communities task force. They state:
If I wanted to add something, there has to be something to do with governance.
The only problem I have is, probably from a public service point view, that is quite reasonable but if you were to take that to the community they would not know what you are talking about. I would like to see the people in the community up-front and in it. I have written to the minister saying membership of the task force is made up of the Australian government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs; Northern Territory government departments of Regional Development and Indigenous Advancement, Housing, Lands, Planning and Environment, Treasury and Finance; Aboriginal Development Foundation; Bagot Community; Gwalwa Daraniki Association and Larrakia Nation. What is missing is the need for a place for residents. I know they are brought into it when you say ‘consulting with’, but the residents who live there should be part of this membership.
The other area where there is a mistake is Yilli Rreung has been left out. Yilli Rreung, the major maintainer of these houses, is not one of the members; it is part of an industry reference group. Yet, the Department of Housing is in this. I am unsure how many houses are run by the Department of Housing, but Yilli Rreung maintains the houses at Milgarri and Gildorrka so they need to be part of this as well.
I have also asked the minister if it is possible for me to at least be an observer. I have been trying to see if we could get something done like this for a long time. That is why I thank the minister for getting this task force started. I believe they have had one meeting already, which is important. I do not want to be telling people what to do; I would just like to see what is happening. My biggest concern is in relation to the people who live there, especially many of the women. I do not want to see them left out of these discussions. I want to see them as part of the decision-making process. It should not just be a workshop on paper; it has to come up with some real results if we want to change the lives of the people who live there for the better - and for the kids, especially. There is a great range of opportunities to be discussed within this task force.
I will give you another idea that was put forward. In Alice Springs, they have the visitors’ accommodation. The Chief Minister might know its proper name; Aboriginal Hostels run it. I am impressed by how it runs. The visitors’ accommodation is well run and they were looking at whether there might be an opportunity to put something like that at the 15 Mile. We do not have one in Darwin but we certainly have many visitors. I believe Aboriginal Hostels have shown they can run a pretty good facility. That may not be suitable, but they are just some of the ideas floating around.
The ownership of houses is a real possibility because, if we can sort out the lease arrangements, then there is a chance people could own those houses. Instead of paying rent, they are paying that against the mortgage. That is a real possibility.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not about me shoving this down someone else’s throat; I am asking the government to start the process going so we can see whether we can improve the lives of people who live in those communities.
Mr CHANDLER (Housing): Mr Deputy Speaker, I note on 2 May 2012 this House debated an almost identical motion, also bought to the House by the member for Nelson who stated:
The former Minister for Indigenous Development, and former member for Arnhem, responded:
The former minister provided a great deal of her customary spin, words like ‘key focus’, ‘core business’, ‘aspiration’ and ‘achievable goal’. What the former Labor government said it would do to address disadvantage and what it did were two completely different things. This government, however, does not operate on the motto ‘out of sight, out of mind’. Therefore, for the benefit of the House, let me provide some background and a serious evaluation of the situation relating to these communities.
The Aboriginal Development Foundation holds the special purpose leases with the Northern Territory government over Indigenous communities known as One Mile Dam, Knuckey Lagoon, and 15 Mile Palmerston Indigenous Village. It was originally established with Commonwealth funding in the late 1960s. It was to assist in the Darwin area to access land in the form of special purpose leases for town camps.
On 20 May 1980, a discussion paper titled Darwin Aboriginal Town Camps was published by the then Department of Community Development and states:
In 1981, it was confirmed that only umbrella organisations - for example, the Aboriginal Development Foundation - be issued with title. The Darwin Central Area Heritage Study 1992 recorded the history of One Mile Dam dating back to 1871:
As summarised in the paper titled ‘The long grassers’, a strategic report on indigenous ‘itinerants’ in the Darwin and Palmerston Area:
The 2012 publication titled One Mile Dam by Dr Bill Day described the 3.2 ha lease as follows:
On 26 March 1979, the Northern Territory News included the following report:
This history was confirmed by Mr Bernie Valadian in 2003 at a select committee hearing chaired by the former member for Arafura. The transcript reads as follows:
Sometimes, things just stay the same.
Over the intervening years, there has been a great deal of debate about One Mile Dam, voicing of serious concerns as arguments raged about the overall picture – whether parklands, heritage precincts, a tourism hub with a culturally significant turtle design concept, or centres for aged care and childcare - all set against the reality of overwhelming, ongoing issues faced by residents of uncertainty of tenure and basic living standards.
One such example was reported in Darwin in the Palmerston Sun on 5 May 2004 as follows:
In the paper titled Aboriginal People of Darwin, One Mile Dam, Dr Bill Day stated:
In 2005, the Frances Park Urban Renewable Land Division commenced on the site of the former BP fuel tanks, and CBD development edged ever closer to One Mile Dam.
In 2006, the former Labor government proposed that the Stuart Park tank farm area, which encompasses One Mile Dam, be redeveloped into a green belt. In a letter dated 9 October 2007 addressed to the former federal Senator Mal Brough, David Timber, President of Kumbutjil Association, One Mile Dam Community, stated:
In Question Time on 29 November 2007, the member for Nelson posed a question titled One Mile Dam, Relocation of Residents. An answer was provided by the then Minister for Planning and Lands, the member for Karama, as follows:
That statement was made by the member for Karama on 29 July 2007 - and nothing was done. Surprise! The situation is unsustainable. Nothing is in place for the long-term planning of Darwin, and nothing is solved in the short term for those residing at One Mile Dam.
Let me move on to the Knuckey Lagoon Indigenous Village, previously known as 11 Mile. Mr Bernie Valadian, in attendance at the 2003 select committee hearing, shared some history as follows:
In more recent times, the Knuckey Lagoon community has become known as Milgarri, meaning water lily. The conservation management plan for the reserve noted the reserve itself totals 125 ha. Also of importance are cultural values, including past and contemporary use of the reserve by Aboriginal people.
Other residents around Knuckey Lagoon have also, over the course of recent years, sought proper definition of this area - definition of constraints, potential for rezoning, and opportunities for the future, such as a caravan park. Homeowners have made applications to the Development Consent Authority for consent to subdivide, and there has been a great deal of debate regarding the diverse forms of land use in surrounding areas. Land in the area is zoned R (rural) with a minimum lot size of 8 ha. Adjacent areas, including Berrimah Business Park, are undergoing rapid development. The whole of the Knuckey Lagoon area, including Indigenous residents, needs to be properly considered, not piecemeal without overall direction to provide certainty.
Moving on to Palmerston, as recorded in the report ‘The long grassers’:
Palmerston Indigenous Village, previously known as 15 Mile and now known as Gildorrka, meaning brolga, is 22 km south of Darwin, close to Mitchell Creek, opposite Johnston, a lovely new suburb of Palmerston.
In The Age on the 20 January 2006, the following was reported:
In November 2006, Palmerston Indigenous Village launched its first community plan titled Voice of the Village. It was the result of two years of development and consultation between village residents, Palmerston City Council, and service providers. Former Palmerston Chief Executive Officer, Mr Rodney Donne, noted:
The Palmerston Indigenous Village is constrained by the lack of formal access to the site, lack of service infrastructure, and the dwellings originally constructed to provide temporary shelter not suitable for long-term habitation. Given the strategic location of the site close to Palmerston, resolution of these issues is long overdue.
In the case of all three communities, One Mile Dam, Knuckey Lagoon and Palmerston, it should be noted that numbers of residents staying at any one time fluctuate. Many are transient, using and sometimes abusing shared minimal facilities used by a core group of long-term inhabitants. A range of diverse accommodation options is required given the complexity of the issues raised by residents, itinerants, and visitors to these camps, including interaction between people from different country.
Questions raised by the member for Nelson with regard to big picture planning issues simply emphasise the urgent need for the Northern Territory Planning Commission, which he did not support. The ministerial statement titled Status of Aboriginal Communities in the Northern Territory presented to this House on 1 November 2012 stated:
The former Minister for Local Government now Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, responded to the original motion in May 2012 as follows:
He summarised the way forward by saying:
However, these town camps are prescribed areas formerly regulated by the Northern Territory Emergency Response Act 2007.
The member for Nelson questioned in the May 2012 debate why the Commonwealth was allowed to intervene. How had the intervention occurred on these parcels of land? The former Labor government had no response.
Then the problems of these communities became more complex on 16 July 2012. This was when the new Commonwealth Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012 came into effect, replacing the 2007 act. Part 3 of the new act relating to land reform contains measures relating to town camps and community living areas. Those measures are aimed at facilitating the granting of rights and interests and promoting economic development in those camps and areas. Those measures allow regulations to be made to modify particular laws of the Northern Territory to the extent that those laws apply to town camps or community living areas.
During a second reading speech made by Mr Graham Perrett MP, Labor representative for Moreton, it was stated that:
The second reading speech in the Senate on 29 February 2012 spelt it out:
I note as an aside that a Discussion Paper has now been issued by the Australian government titled Community Living Area Land Reform in the Northern Territory with feedback invited by 12 April 2013.
The former Labor government of the Northern Territory was repeatedly told of the scale of the problems encountered by these communities. Endless reports have been written and commentaries made, but to what end? Just as the former Labor government had failed on the recommendations of the Little Children are Sacred report, leading to the federal government using its executive powers to intervene, once again we find ourselves subject to sweeping impositions on our Northern Territory parliamentary processes.
The Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act states, with regards to the town camps, section 34(1):
Section 34(6) states:
Section 34(8) states:
But, unbelievably, section 34(9) goes on to say:
In other words, the federal government, in an extreme case, could consult with absolutely nobody and still overrule our legitimate Northern Territory government. How on earth did the former Labor government let this happen? It is surely a prime example of the paramount importance for all Territorians of statehood.
Town camps, as has been clearly outlined, have existed for many years, often with Third World conditions in evidence, just as the member for Nelson said. It appears the previous government simply put a fence around town camps, both figuratively and physically. Nothing changed behind the faade; the same problems continued. We must get behind the faade and find solutions to the future. This government wants to address the problems besetting these urban enclaves. In this regard, we have to make the decision to enable long-term residents to take proper ownership of their future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on the issue of home ownership and the empowering leadership, we see resolution of the town camps issue a key. Responsibility to put in place a solution in perpetuity and gain genuine redress is for the long-term residents themselves. This government will take a leadership role and resolve to work through the challenges, and we will be pursuing this issue with the Commonwealth at the earliest opportunity.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, this motion has been pursued before by the Independent member for Nelson and a matter we debated at length over the years when we were in government. There is no doubt, whilst I agree with everything in the motion, critical to any planning around the town camps and any real change in the status and the way the camps are able to provide appropriate housing and services for Territorians, is the need for the Commonwealth to be at the table. We consistently told the member for Nelson that. Whilst this motion calls on the Territory government, the need for the Commonwealth to be at the table in a joint task force is ever present.
Apart from the history speech of the minister, I listened to some of the rhetoric. To say we literally put a fence around the camps and left it at that is wrong. Much more work has to be done with the camps. Over the decade of the Labor government you saw programs, services and improvements in physical aspects of the town camps occur, particularly Bagot, with clinics going in. To pretend nothing happened in a decade, no progress occurred and no intergovernmental actions were taken, is patently wrong.
Is there a great need to do more? Absolutely, there is. I worked alongside minister Malarndirri McCarthy when she worked ardently to get the connection with the people of the town camps, particularly through the ADF, their main representative body, to really look at the options. It is a variety of things because, as you heard from the member for Nelson, each camp has its unique characteristics. They are populated by people often from quite different areas. To say there is a one-size-fits-all approach is missing the point of the people who live in those community areas. A multifaceted approach will be required, but will not be achieved or deliver any real results without the people themselves being true participants in that process.
You quoted comments I made in relation to One Mile Dam in 2007 which still stand. The point I was making about One Mile Dam is you could not find a way forward for One Mile Dam without engaging and consulting, person by person, about their living needs and aspirations, and then work out how any of that could be met more appropriately. People have a strengthened connection to where they have been living. Many generations have been living in the different camps across Darwin.
I agree with the member for Nelson that the term ‘town camps’ has become somewhat a derogatory term. Is there a better term that could be used? Again, I urge caution to ensure people at least are consulted in any renaming of these community living areas. They are not of the one. Knuckey is quite different to Bagot, and the Palmerston Indigenous Village is different again. The point I made of one-size-fits-all - it does not. There are strong people in each of those living areas who have a very clear view on what they would like to see happen; trying different things, by the way - things where people do not acknowledge the effort.
At Palmerston Indigenous Village they have been building a horticultural program creating their own nursery and looking at it as a small business opportunity. Minmarama is quite different again and has entered into a real business opportunity with Territory business in developing some of their land. At Bagot, whilst the population fluctuates, there is a very strong, very active group of residents who have very clear views of what they want to see in improvements of their living conditions and the way services are delivered.
I hope the comments made by the minister in regard to the Chief Minister’s view, where he said it would require a cohesive approach, are borne out. We need a cohesive approach of the Commonwealth government – yes, they are prescribed areas – and the Territory government in its responsibilities in service delivery and the opportunity for housing and, ultimately, the people of the communities themselves. Add to that, at the table you ought to have - or at least by extension - a social subcommittee, because there are non-government organisations which are putting a great deal of investment and effort into working with people in these areas. The Smith Family, for example, has done a tremendous amount of work over the years, particularly at Knuckey Lagoon. Do they have a genuine input to provide in the ongoing servicing of community living areas, because we are dealing with families at risk? Yes, they do, they ought to have a seat at the table - if not the main table, then at least the social services subcommittee.
We can draw upon the experience of the Alice Springs Transformation Plan which showed not only do you need capital to deal with the physical improvements - and when I am talking about physical improvements, quite clearly and obviously, they are not just the houses but the services that go along with the requirements - you also need a large social resource in programs to work and support people who have genuinely been at a degree of risk, and moving in and out of either home communities, or born and raised and growing up in communities but need critical intervention and support in the at-risk services for families.
The member for Nelson talked about the programs of the education links for children. The minister spoke about how Labor had not done anything, but I can point out that whilst these living areas existed under the previous CLP government, there were no dedicated transport links to get the children to school. That was absolutely a Labor initiative. We knew it was critical to get the children linked into the schools closest to them. Whether it was the children traveling to Millner school or, as you have heard, to Manunda Terrace Primary School, that initiative was achieved under the Labor government.
These may sound like small steps, as if we were not doing enough. That will be your political view and, by all means, stay wrapped in the comfort of your political view. I challenge you that sometimes you need to take a broader perspective on what are highly complex issues across tiers of government and people at community level. These are the challenges. As we experienced with the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, it took tiers of government around the table.
Successive federal governments, both Liberal and Labor, have not yet chosen to put the investment into a Darwin transformation plan, a Katherine transformation plan, or a Tennant Creek transformation plan, as they have put into the Alice Springs Transformation Plan. The desire of Labor is what we have seen work in Alice Springs – yes, we still have a journey to take; the job is by no means complete - ought to be applied to Tennant Creek. Julalikari is a strong council. Why would you not have a task force that deals with service delivery with them? What is wrong with Kalano? These are all conversations the Labor government had with the federal government. These have all been on the table in discussions between ministers within the governments. To pretend we did nothing and we said nothing is wrong.
What we did not do was kick the political ball around as though it was just a political football, because what you are dealing with are people who, at the end of the day, have very real hopes and aspirations. I do not think they deserve to be treated in that fashion.
Motions like this are important; they give members the opportunity to focus and shine a light on the issues and challenges we have. I look forward to seeing a cohesive approach, as committed to by the Chief Minister. The cohesion does not come about by playing politics with the people. To raise the Little Children Are Sacred report and pretend the Labor government did nothing is foolish politics and has no place in this debate. You brought it in so I will respond to it.
The Labor government responded to the Little Children are Sacred report, to all of the recommendations, and funded the implementation of the recommendations. Of course, it was followed by a subsequent report, Growing them strong, together, which was responded to and the recommendations were funded. Since then, of course, there has been a major upheaval in Children and Families. The independent committees have been scrapped and there is no line of sight as to what is occurring in the funding of the recommendations. In fact, we know the CLP government has confirmed they are not meeting the recommendations of Growing them strong, together.
Raise the Little Children are Sacred report, minister, but try to at least put it in the context of facts. Yes, it was used as a trigger by the then Liberal government to intervene in the Northern Territory - John Howard and Mal Brough. However, the failings of that intervention - there have been good things in funding and resources; you can go to communities and see some good outcomes in funding, resources, programs and buildings - were fundamental in that they did not consult with the people and bring the people with them in what they wanted to see. The lesson out of that was the evolution, the creation and consultation around local implementation plans. I wonder what the status of those local implementation plans are now under the CLP?
That model of consultation, community by community, to arrive at the local implementation plans perhaps provides a model for addressing these community living areas called town camps - whether they be in Darwin, Katherine or Tennant Creek. It is resource intensive; it takes time. By sitting down with people and having local reference groups decide, with the tiers of government alongside them, what the priorities are and how to move forward, or get on with things such as town plans through consultation, is progress and a model to look at in how to address the issues contained within this motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the minister can play the cheap political football, by all means, if he wishes, but he will not get genuine progress if he does because these are strong people living in the community areas and they will not put up with being treated like that.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the GBD motion put up by my colleague, the member for Nelson. It is not unlike the motion in May last year. On the one hand, I might ask myself why we are going down this road again …
Mr Wood: Nothing happened.
Ms WALKER: Some things did happen because I understand a task force has now been put together; they have only recently met, I believe, with people at Bagot.
The difference is this time I am sitting on the opposition benches. I am moving into an area which is, in some ways, new to me. I have only recently managed to get to some of the communities around Darwin. I have had the opportunity to meet with Colin Tidswell from Yilli Rreung. Some of that was driven by the fact I had the Housing portfolio in shadow Cabinet, which I no longer have - the member for Wanguri is very ably handling that portfolio. I have the shadow portfolio of Indigenous Affairs.
Yes, we keep the portfolio of Indigenous Affairs, even though the new Chief Minister has decided they do not need that portfolio. One of first things he did was axe it, which is a very curious thing to do especially when, the day after, Tony Abbott made a State of the Nation Address at the Sydney Institute talking about the state of Indigenous affairs, nationally, and the fact that, if elected in September, not only would Senator Nigel Scullion have the ministerial responsibility for Indigenous affairs, but he would elevate it to Cabinet. Many people welcomed that vision but, at the same time, it created some controversy because the new Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, his conservative counterpart, had done the opposite - a very curious state of affairs. It is when we come to issues such as town camps that there needs to be a portfolio with that oversight to connect across the different agencies.
The Housing minister has spoken - housing is very much at the heart of the motion and the communities we are talking about around the Darwin area. Without that single go-to responsibility - recognising that Indigenous affairs goes across each of the portfolios in government, it is also about that interface with the Commonwealth. The Opposition Leader has just spoken about - and it was highlighted by the former Minister for Indigenous Affairs in the Northern Territory, Malarndirri McCarthy - the need to engage with the Commonwealth government, to have them at the table, walking hand and hand with the Northern Territory government and with those people at grassroots level who are living in these places. I note in the motion - it is a very important inclusion the member for Nelson has - the review should include the views of residents, amongst other people.
I have re-read the debate from the May Parliamentary Record of last year. It has been interesting to re-read what was said on the floor of this House at that time. I quote from what Malarndirri McCarthy had to say because some things have not changed. She spoke about:
She went on to say:
Forgive me for that rather lengthy quote but that vision and statement remain the same. It is important to recognise these people are at these places because of that connection. It can be over generations, but there is no doubt that connection is there. The issues are population growth and infrastructure, the services that are provided, and employment and opportunities for people who live at these places. It is much more than about housing; it is about a heap of things that intertwine through people’s lives and across different areas of government service delivery, and across different levels of government.
I understand some of the challenges with service delivery and with land tenure. At my meeting with Colin Tidswell a couple of months ago I took pages of notes. One thing I was assured of was residents of these places have a vision. I received a copy of the Bagot vision, a community implementation plan, in June 2012. Clearly, there has to be a starting point: what people know about where they are, where they have been but, importantly, where they want to go.
As the Leader of the Opposition has highlighted, the local implementation plans which are across what Labor termed growth towns, were absolutely critical - a blueprint of the future of those growth towns. I was present and signed off on behalf of the minister on those local implementation plans at Yirrkala and also at Galiwinku, Elcho Island. Those documents have been put together in consultation with the local reference groups - that core group of community members representative of their community, but in consultation and side by side with the local government authority, the shires, as well as the federal government. That is the go-to plan; this is what we want. What is the pathway to get there and how are we going to achieve that? The fact we have a document such as the Bagot vision is critically important.
I have only recently made my first visit to Bagot - been in the Territory for 25 years and confess I have not been to Litchfield Park. The dozens of times I must have driven down that road on the way to the airport or, for whatever reason travelling down that road and driven past Bagot, but have never been inside. It was a real pleasure to visit recently. The members for Johnston and Wanguri came along and we met with Lyle Cooper, Helen Fejo-Frith and Carol Stanislaus, who is the government engagement coordinator. We talked about a number of things regarding that community. They said the single biggest issue they deal with is the need for additional housing, the ongoing maintenance issues associated with housing - which is where a good deal of the $4m allocated by the Northern Territory government has gone in the last year or two to upgrade housing. Some has also gone into street lighting, a really important issue for community safety, and some into infrastructure for sport and rec for young people.
They also spoke about - and I had already heard this through Colin Tidswell at Yilli Rreung - it being a very stable community. People are very proud to be living there. It is their home; they do not want to be relocated anywhere else.
One of the problems they face is visitors coming into town. The issues of visitors has grown much worse since - and what we were told at the meeting came as no surprise - the increased number of visitors correlates directly to the dismantling of the Banned Drinker Register. There are people drifting into Darwin so they can drink, and have much freer access to alcohol now the Banned Drinker Register has gone and access to takeaway alcohol is open slather. The 2500 people or so who were on the BDR are no longer on the BDR and can purchase as much grog as they want. This is a source of enormous frustration for people who are living at Bagot and, no doubt, some of the other communities as well.
I have not got to all of them. I have visited Knuckey Lagoon. I had lined up a visit to One Mile Dam but, on the afternoon I was due to go, the senior man had to attend a medial appointment. I will get to these places.
When we are talking about assisting these communities to support their vision, the social issues that come with alcohol are quite big and very much at the core of the dysfunction we see.
We know that to be especially so in Alice Springs. I heard on the news this morning about stabbings overnight in an Alice Springs town camp. There has been an incredible investment in Alice Springs with the Alice Springs Transformation Plan; federal money which has built numerous houses, repaired many houses, but also invested heavily - as the Opposition Leader pointed out - in upgrading services and that type of infrastructure below the ground you do not see.
I was talking with the Mayor of Alice Springs last week when we were visiting Alice Springs for our Caucus. Damien Ryan and I were talking about the works currently happening in reinvigorating the mall in Alice Springs, and how, as they are digging their way through, finding the services they are coming across do not match what is laid out on their survey drawings.
This is part of the issue in the town camps area of Alice Springs, in understanding exactly where these services are, what state they are in, and the responsibility for investing in them to bring them up to standard. Whilst people will look at the number of new houses and refurbishments - and you get those very obvious visual signs of where money has been spent and what it has delivered - people are less appreciative of money that has to go into essential services to bring them up to standard.
SIHIP at Galiwinku had a considerable sum of money attached to it to deliver 90 new houses and close to 70 refurbishments. Half the money spent on that housing program - which has delivered great benefits to that community, as other communities have received SIHIP housing - was spent on services to bring power and water infrastructure up to an adequate standard to meet the needs of not only the community of Galiwinku but, in particular, the new suburb of Buthan which has been opened.
The Alice Springs transformation package also delivered the visitors centre. I believe that is the name for it - the visitor transit centre?
Mr Wood: No, it has an Aboriginal name.
Ms WALKER: We will call it the visitors centre; it may have another name attached to it. I took the opportunity to go through there not that long after it was opened. It is a beautiful facility. Whilst on one hand some people have talked to me about the big fence around it and that it looks like a prison - I do not think it does - I have had other people say one of the attractions of staying there when people from outlying communities come into Alice Springs for whatever it might be - a football carnival, health, other services they are accessing during their visit - is they actually feel quite safe and secure when they are in that place because there is security and a fence around it. That hostel/visitors centre is a brilliant place, which is a great investment in that community to look after people who are visiting for whatever reason, and providing them with somewhere safe, comfortable, modern, and very affordable.
When I was shown through by the people who worked there, there are different configurations of rooms that can accommodate families or a couple. There are also camping areas and areas where camp fires can be lit, kitchen areas, barbecue areas, and laundry areas. It is a fantastic facility. Perhaps one of the things we need in Darwin is a visitor accommodation centre so people are not drawn into Bagot or other places and where it is, again, like the Alice Springs visitor centre, a place that is secure, comfortable and affordable. That is one of the things Darwin is lacking.
Speaking of the Alice Springs town camps - and forgive me, member for Nelson, I am straying off the set topic here but …
Mr Wood: I can handle it.
Ms WALKER: I am glad you can handle it. We are all aware of some of the issues around the Alice Springs town camps. As the member for Nelson and the Leader of Opposition have said, it is a shame we are stuck on this terminology of town camps and camps. At Galiwinku even the community members talk about middle camp, bottom camp. The language of it suggests something that is constantly moving, not permanent, and that is a shame. It would be ideal to have names for these places that reflect a connection to the place they are on, the cultural element and the cultural ownership and connection with those places. I guess time will tell as to how we go with that.
We know the issues on Alice Springs town camps prompted a few weeks ago - it was described as an emergency summit coordinated and led by Tangentyere. This meeting Tangentyere organised was a very positive move. They invited service providers from the town camps; obviously, the leaders from the Alice Springs town camps Tangentyere services. Police were invited and the minister, Alison Anderson, was also invited to this meeting. This was a summit for people to gather, to talk through the issues but, importantly, as it said in the media release that came out later that day from Tangentyere:
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, member for Nelson.
That meeting fell apart because when the minister arrived there was some argy-bargy over who had been invited to the meeting and who had not. As a result, the minister stormed out of that meeting; she refused to meet with them. It was all about one individual who was not invited to the meeting and who had accepted the explanation from Tangentyere as to why he had not been invited. Nonetheless, she made a huge brouhaha, stormed out of the meeting, and talked to the ABC and whoever else was standing outside from the media waiting. It could be described as nothing more than a dummy spit.
What is interesting for members opposite is they are no longer opposition; they are the government. They are ministers of the Crown. They have their hands on the levers and the capacity to work with people to drive change. That includes sitting down, talking with people, listening to people, but also accepting that sometimes things may not go quite as planned. Storming out like a spoilt child is not the way one expects a minister of the Crown to behave.
When we were in Alice Springs last week, we had the opportunity to meet with Walter Shaw and talk about the summit which was aborted by the minister who stormed out. He is deeply disappointed, as are town camp residents who genuinely were seeking this opportunity to talk with her as the representative of the government. The minister needs to build those bridges and work with people because it is about working with people, listening to the voices, which will get things done.
Regarding listening and working with people, I go back to an issue at Bagot. Shortly before the election the member for Fong Lim, in his Tollner Telegraph newsletter, talked about normalising Bagot. He said they were going to normalise Bagot. They had a plan for the way forward for Bagot which was around subdividing and home ownership. He made one crucial error in this process; he did not talk with anybody from Bagot. Small wonder when news came out he had a considerable crowd of angry people outside his electorate office demanding to talk with him about what his plans for Bagot were and the fact he had not spoken with them. Helen Fejo-Frith from that community was absolutely appalled and said, ‘It is really scary’.
There is a very simple lesson there. It is about talking with people about what it is they want on their communities, in their neighbourhood, and in their town camps. Until we have a government that is prepared to engage with the residents and their representative bodies, we will not make much progress.
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion before the House. It will be interesting to see how the new government - they are the government; they are no longer in a position where they can just sit back and criticise and come up with weird and wonderful plans. They are now at the helm and need to deliver on the many promises they have made, find the solutions, work with people to find those solutions and, importantly, work with their Commonwealth colleagues who are, invariably, the funders of these big programs. They need to work with their federal counterparts - whether they are of the same political party or not is irrelevant - to resolve some of the issues we have, not the least of which is around the town camps in the Darwin Area.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for raising this issue and I welcome the chance to contribute to the debate. The future of town camps in Darwin region is a real concern. This is the second time the member for Nelson has raised this motion in the Northern Territory parliament.
This side of the House supports this motion, as we did in 2012, when the motion was amended to include the Commonwealth government in the review. This issue has a long history and not limited to the three locations mentioned in the wording of this motion. It is also an issue for me, personally, as a local Aboriginal man in the Labor Caucus with strong community links to many of the town communities.
It is important to look closely at the issues of ownership, management, maintenance, access, and services in these communities with the aim of improving the quality of life for residents by improving living standards in these areas. It is also important to improve the relationship between town camp communities and our broader communities - an important relationship that has not always been a good one, but a relationship that is constantly evolving. When we talk about Indigenous disadvantage, people sometimes compartmentalise that to problems in the bush and remote communities. Those in this House would know many Territorians who live in town camps face the same problems, the same stresses, the same overcrowding of houses, the health issues, and the same family dramas.
I will talk about Bagot community in Darwin with which my family has had a long affiliation and where my maternal grandmother lived with my family for many years as a member of the Stolen Generations. I spent many years of my youth at Bagot as my mother also - and very proud of her I am - started her training as an Aboriginal Health Worker in the old Bagot clinic. I have fond memories of Bagot and the many friends I made, the aunties who watched me grow up, pulled me into line if I was running amok around the reserve. For people in this House, I spent every school holiday for many years at Bagot. I looked forward to my school holidays when my mum said she had to go to work at Bagot and I would be in the car waiting. I would have my vegemite sandwich, my toast, or my cornflakes because I was so keen. I would run to the car and get in waiting for my mum to drive me to Bagot because I had so many friends there. I learnt so many things about culture, kinship, and how other people do things. I learnt how to do a dropper, a big torpedo, how to fish, how to spear, how to throw a net - all these things from my mates and lifelong friends I made at Bagot community.
I learnt how to play basketball, play cricket - some of my cricket there, not all of it, member for Nelson, some was at Freds Pass - and soccer as well. I have a close affiliation to Bagot and it is something special to my heart because it had so much to do with my childhood. I still have a few aunties who rock up to my office every week. Sometimes, I feel they are there to check up on me - nothing other than to see how I am going - or they come in and talk to me about some issues I can assist them with.
It is about trust in many of these communities. When people trust you they will come to you with issues. As members of parliament, even for friends or family friends, you have to take that responsibility on to help people when they come to you. I am very proud and humbled that I have kept these relationships and they are very proud of me and what has happened to me, where I am now, and who I represent. It is something for me, as local bloke growing up here, to have people I was friends with when I was a child come into my office and tell me they can trust me and I can help them with something.
As the member for Nhulunbuy mentioned, the member for Nhulunbuy and I visited Bagot community. It was the only one we could get to with the new member for Wanguri. We were happy to have the opportunity to meet with some of the workers and people who are community leaders. I am very proud of one resident who works there and is very passionate, as most people who work and live there are, about the Bagot community.
We had a long discussion and many things were mentioned. One of the major concerns, as the member for Nhulunbuy mentioned, is that old chestnut of housing - the lack of housing at Bagot community. A few houses are down, a few need much maintenance, and that is a massive issue.
The other issue is antisocial behaviour which, as we know in this House, is not a new issue for the Bagot community and other communities around that area. It was relayed to us about the BDR - groups of 20 or 30 people walking in with cartons of beer and other alcohol and running amok. We know the behaviour of people when they are blind drunk or suffering from alcohol abuse - they terrorise the community. This community, over the years, has had to deal with this for a long time.
An interesting thing for me is the age and demographic of the Bagot community. It was mentioned to us many times that there are not many young people at Bagot community after I asked about sport and recreation facilities or programs running. They said that not many young people are there any more which is probably why we are being a bit more boisterous around let us get this right, sort this out and get a vision.
I see they have the 2012 Bagot vision. When people talk about vision about town camps - and I do not like the word, and we need to change that wording - Bagot community has taken the initiative and has a plan. I suggest and hope we speak to the people of Bagot so, if anything happens in their community, we want to learn from them. They know what is needed; that is why they came up with the vision. They have it in that document. We need to work with them. I hope this debate is all about that. It is always a privilege to talk about Bagot community; I can keep going on and on.
In the past, it was mentioned if there are any changes to Bagot there will have to be changes to the lease agreements which could, potentially, cost taxpayers millions of dollars in compensation. Changes for the lease agreements could also be tied up in court for many years. We know they need more houses and more funding for housing maintenance. These are all critical issues at Bagot, and this is what the residents are relaying to us.
The other issue I will talk about is One Mile Dam. It has been mentioned a few times. Not many people know where it is. If anybody has been there, it is a little community. Something needs to be done there. It has deteriorated, run down, a bit of a dump, needs some planning, needs to be sorted, needs to be fixed up and get it back to the beautiful place it used to be in the old days.
There are a couple of old residents there, notably Uncle David Timber who has fought, worked hard and done all he can. It has overtaken him a little and is full of riff-raff. We need to do something agreeable to everybody.
Madam Speaker, I will finish. I want to see all Aboriginal communities be places to be proud of. We should be all proud of all these people. Let us support a review of all the funding that is going into the communities, all the organisations involved, all the government agencies, and get this right.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to talk on this. There are only four minutes left, and I will seek to conclude my remarks at a later stage at that point.
I have listened very carefully to the debate tonight. I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion on. I also particularly thank my colleague, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment for speaking tonight. The reason the minister spoke is it is part of our new regime of having all our ministers responsible for Indigenous affairs. Quite frankly, the motion raised a number of issues which relate to Indigenous affairs.
It was ironic listening to the new member for Johnston give his explanation of what needs to occur. It would cause him great opportunity to reflect on the previous 11 years of his party’s government and what they did in that frame. During that reflection, he will find that not much occurred; nothing has really changed.
There was conversation tonight about the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, and I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about Alice Springs town camps. Quite frankly, when the Leader of the Opposition was in government as Treasurer and deputy leader, nothing changed. We have seen substantial amounts of money flow to the Alice Springs town camps, particularly through the Alice Springs Transformation Plan in conjunction with the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program. To date, we have found many things have not changed; in fact, some areas have become worse.
I was talking to my colleague, Senator Nigel Scullion, the federal shadow minister for Indigenous Affairs, recently along the lines it is a complete waste of money. He was generalising in that conversation, but the point he was making is there have not been many substantial changes.
Earlier today in Question Time, I asked the opposition what their policies were on anything. They have only been in opposition for seven months but, surely, they must have a standing on some policy intent or framework in which they wish to operate. That is not the case. I listened very carefully in this debate to see whether they had any new ideas, visions, or thought bubbles about what they should be doing. The conclusion of the Labor speakers was in the form of the member for Johnston, who talked about the chronic overcrowding and the need for more money for more public and social housing.
We all want to address chronic overcrowding, disadvantage, and the prisms of welfare in which too many people reside. Instead of the member for Johnston talking about more state contributions through the welfare prism, he could have had a much smarter debate.
I had a brief chat with the member for Nelson earlier, and he is quite sincere in wanting to see change in this area. What is required is a new frame of business on how we seek to engage. The minister for Lands and Planning, minister Chandler, mentioned previous comments I made in this Chamber about wanting to work on a consensus-type basis with people to get fundamental change.
Since taking this new role as Chief Minister, I have said I want a new era of economic development. It is about business, development and jobs - that is where we need to go. I am firmly on the record talking about the desire for home ownership for all Territorians but, in this debate, about Indigenous Territorians. Opportunities for reform in this area, whilst not typically required to be mandated, reflect increasing home ownership and providing opportunities for people. That is where I would like to see the future of what are commonly known as town camps - the opportunity for change to bring people back in with the rest of the community, to remove the separatist environment - not from a philosophical position, but a desire to change the welfare nature of many people’s lives in town camps. That is a generalisation. I understand and know that, because there are many good people residing there – many people who work. There needs to be a fundamental shift in the way we look at town camps.
Yesterday, I asked the Leader of the Opposition to have greater policy debate and be more mature about the way we do our business in this Chamber and encouraged her, and the Labor members, to remove the personal attacks and start having that policy debate. I am keen to take that journey, from our side of the Chamber, and encourage the opposition and the Independent member for Nelson to come on the journey of how to provide an opportunity to town camp residents to move to a more equitable future where people can reap the benefits of sustainability in living environments which provide opportunities for every other Northern Territorian and Australian.
When I seek to continue this debate at a later date in another General Business Day, I will provide more comments in that frame. I believe now is an opportunity to set forth a new direction and provide hope to town camp residents and housing associations about how we can work together to provide that sustainability. I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this on.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to conclude my comments at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Reschedule of 2013 Sitting Dates
Continued from earlier this day.Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I realise the Attorney-General or the Treasurer will give us some details on this issue tomorrow at the Public Accounts Committee meeting. My concern is the government is introducing some changes to the Estimates Committee. If we have a system where questioning can go on and on, will that interfere with the days we have set aside? For instance, we have the period from 18 to 20 June and 25 to 27 June 2013. I am wondering how, practically, it works.
The Treasurer wants to introduce changes to the Estimates Committee process which means that, in some cases, we could go on half the night if we need to. I did not know whether that was the intent. If it was the intent by putting these dates on, for instance, does that put any limitations on the proposal he is putting forward? I will leave other questions until tomorrow.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): In closing, Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions - predictable comments from the opposition. However, I hear what you are saying and yes, I will front the Public Accounts Committee tomorrow in an effort to give evidence to demonstrate the government’s intention in this area.
No, we are not trying to truncate the estimates process. The estimates process will still be fulsome; in fact, it will be more flexible in the way scrutiny can be brought to bear. It will enable questions to be asked to exhaustion of ministers within the time frame allotted. It will still be much the same time frame as estimates in the past. However, if there are particular areas of concern, the expectation will be those questions continue to be asked until they are exhausted. That means the members of the opposition, shadow ministers, as well as Independents, will have to do some work in reading the budgets and ensure they are in a position to do the examination they want of the government.
This is a conversation for the Public Accounts Committee. This is not an attempt to truncate the Public Accounts Committee or the estimates process. It will allow for some flexibility, but it will also reflect the doctrines of ministerial responsibility and responsible government. I will discuss that more in the Public Accounts Committee tomorrow when I give evidence before it. I am not sure if I am being summoned or invited. I do not much mind either way ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Either way, I am happy to attend. If you require me to take an oath, I will. If not, I will answer questions honestly and forthrightly.
One thing concerning me is the figure attached to the preparation of the estimates process - $2.4m worth of government time goes into preparing for the estimates process to produce a bunch of folders of which 95%, at least, are never referred to. That is a waste of time and money. It also means you have all those public servants - rank upon rank of public servants - sitting in the room beside the Litchfield Room waiting their turn. If they are really unlucky or lucky, depending on how you take it, there might be a question that finally percolates back to the fourth row of chairs where there is somebody who has an interest in that area and who might be brought up to the table to give evidence. That is also not a productive use of public service time.
The approach will be questions can be fired to the minister, and the minister should be able to answer the general policy-type questions. They will be flanked by the CEO and, possibly, another couple of senior public servants. The minister can then refer the questions to those public servants for more detailed answers if required. We will not have 20 or 30 public servants sitting behind them.
We ask that questions be prepared by all members who want to ask questions. We will get that work done before the estimates process and will answer those questions as they arise. Other questions without notice will be welcome and, hopefully, answered in most instances. Where those questions cannot be answered, the same process of Questions on Notice we have always used will apply.
We can fire it off to the department, ‘Dear Joe Blogs, can you get us an answer to this’, and those answers generally come back within an hour or so. In fact, we often did not move off output groups by the time the answers came back. That will be a much more productive way to do it. It will require shadow ministers, and members of parliament generally who have questions, to better prepare those questions and fire them off to us. Even if you are asking for something global, we can answer that as best we can if that is the area of interest of a member of parliament. There might be a question where you are interested in a specific area with relation to a particular issue. All that research can be done and, hopefully, we can prepare for the estimates process.
What we will not do, as a government, is spend $2.4m and several weeks of public service time dedicated solely to putting files together which are not referred to. That is, in my opinion, a waste of money. This is about a better way to do it.
As I said, I will answer further questions tomorrow in the Public Accounts Committee and deal with the rationale more comprehensively in relation to the determination we have made about how the estimates process should work …
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member opposite said he would answer more questions tomorrow in the Public Accounts Committee. How can we vote on something when we do not have all the answers? What are these questions he will answer in the Public Accounts Committee tomorrow? I would like to know and believe it is reasonable for the parliament to know about these answers tomorrow. What am I voting for? It is reasonable for me …
Madam SPEAKER: You are voting on the motion.
Mr VATSKALIS: Exactly. He is putting a motion in place and …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! May I assist …
Madam SPEAKER: One minute, Leader of Government Business.
Mr VATSKALIS: … he stated he would answer more questions on this motion tomorrow. How are we going to vote today when we do not have all the answers because he will answer the questions tomorrow? It is reasonable to ask that question. I am not trying to be difficult, but there are a number of questions to be raised.
He said he would answer these questions tomorrow and I accept that is fair enough. Is it fair to vote now before we have the answers, or is it better to bring it up tomorrow and the Public Accounts Committee can advise us what the answers are? I am asking for your opinion.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Casuarina, there is a motion before the parliament which has been debated, and the minister has replied. It is now time to put the question that the motion, as debated, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, tonight I adjourn on some unfinished business in the Barkly electorate from the new government. I seek their support on behalf of the constituents for Barkly.
Life in opposition is very different from government where, as an MLA, you had direct access to ministers. The CLP government has returned to a bygone era of Territory politics employing a host of old boys as political advisors, sacking senior public servants and replacing them with mates and, more recently, sacking the CEO and industry representatives on the Power and Water Corporation Board and replacing them with bureaucrats.
Given the dysfunction of the CLP government evidenced by their incessant ministerial changes - three Treasurers in seven months and continual leadership problems - it makes life as an opposition member even more challenging. Currently, I have ministerial correspondence lodged with ministers in the areas of Power and Water; Lands, Planning and the Environment; Transport; Tourism; Regional Development; Corrections; and Infrastructure all awaiting responses on issues raised by Barkly constituents. It seems the revolving door of CLP ministers is one blockage. However, in the absence of a CLP budget now delayed through the government’s instability, Territorians lack the road map of funding support services and infrastructure.
A burning issue for the CLP across the Northern Territory is antisocial behaviour and alcohol abuse. At this stage, the government remains silent on what policy direction and budget allocations they have planned. Minister Tollner, when in charge of Alcohol Policy, wanted a health approach to lock up problem drinkers under the Mental Health Act; minister Elferink wants to lock up drunks under the Criminal Code Act, while the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, advised Territorians to ask problem drinkers nicely to stop drinking.
One thing the CLP has in common is they scrapped Labor’s Enough is Enough alcohol policy, including the Banned Drinker Register, Alcohol Courts and, pending income quarantining of up to 80% of welfare benefits for problem drinkers, refuses to address alcoholism and offending behaviour. The real issue for the CLP is they scrapped the policy and the tools, one of which was a major challenge for problem drinkers through the Banned Drinker Register, in the absence of having any new policy or strategies in place. I was shocked at the way the news reverberated through the bush one day after the 2012 election that the CLP government had scrapped the BDR, and it was game on for anyone and everyone to purchase takeaway alcohol without ID, including the 2500 people placed on the BDR in the 12 months the new policy had run.
Recently, a leaked CLP Cabinet document showed significant funding will be allocated to shires. This is welcome news to the bush; however, we still await the budget allocation and the policy for this new government’s alcohol reform.
I will go to one piece of correspondence I urge the minister to respond to. I will give the chronology on the letter, which was written to Hon David Tollner MLA, Minister for Essential Services in Parliament House, GPO Box 3146, Darwin NT 0801 on 21 September 2012. It said:
Yours sincerely
Since then, there has been a revolving door of ministers within this government, so let us presume that letter was lost in what is chaos on the fifth floor. The letter was redrafted and written again last week, and it will now go to the new Minister for Essential Services.
Essentially, this is an easy issue. It is an existing rebate scheme. The Tennant Creek RSL Sub-Branch needs support from this government, and it would be now fair to say they should be given that subsidy in backdating, which could be credited into the quite large power, water, and sewerage bills they are now struggling to pay.
In the middle of all that, I used a logical, rational strategy I continue to use in the Barkly; that is, advising constituents to invite the government to the Barkly and Tennant Creek, talk to them, and tell them about their issues. During the party’s meeting in Tennant Creek ministers Lambley and Westra van Holthe visited the Tennant Creek RSL Club. I encourage that. The committee members got to talk to these ministers but, unfortunately, it fell on deaf ears. Nothing has been done.
Nobody is asking for favours; this is an existing scheme, minister. This is the Power and Water Corporation Sporting and Recreational Bodies Concession Rebate Scheme.
I ask you once again to please contact the President, Mr Edward Wilson, and advise the sub-branch on how they can be afforded the benefits of this concession scheme. I also ask you to please consider backdating the benefits of this scheme to when they created the new ablution block. They have done a mountain of work there.
Ted and Anne are tireless workers; they have formed a really strong committee. They are very active in their programs now. Anzac Day is coming up and that is one of their major functions, and still they are battling with trying to pay their power, water and sewerage bills. They have this unresolved situation where they increased the facilities in renovation and establishment of a new ablution block and they need the benefits of this scheme.
Regarding my request, I also have outstanding correspondence in the areas of Power and Water, Lands, Planning and Environment, Transport, Tourism, Regional Development, Corrections and Infrastructure, all awaiting responses on issues that have been raised by constituents - your constituents, our constituents, constituents of the Northern Territory.
It reminds me of when the Labor government was in charge. On nights like this, when opposition members would adjourn asking for special help for their constituents, staff on the fifth floor would be busy documenting the information and starting to put the processes in place to ensure things happened. I can remember one member on that side, minister Chandler, was quite liberal in his praise for the work we would do. He would acknowledge his letters, inquiries and lobbying were acknowledged and acted on - not always being solved, but at least it was processed and there was that cross-information.
At the moment, there seems to be a blockage. We have talked about the total dysfunction. The new Chief Minister says he has turned the ship around; the Queen Mary has turned around and is now steaming in the right direction. Let us start to see a bit of efficiency in constituent issues across electorates - real issues where people want answers.
The invitations are out there, of course, always: visit the electorate and talk to the people. You are most welcome in the Barkly. I spread your names around everywhere. Everywhere I go I tell people what you do, the responsibilities you have, and that you should be invited into the electorate. Come 2016, we are all going to sit down together and decide, ‘Would you be judged worthy to continue?’
Madam Speaker, I ask for support in this outstanding correspondence.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I respond to a question asked today by the Opposition Leader surrounding allegations I improperly used my government-provided fuel cards.
On Friday, February 15, I was in Katherine with the member for Stuart who was driving an Assembly-approved hire car. She needed fuel and, because her credit cards were not working, I offered her my government fuel card. The member for Stuart notified the Legislative Assembly the following Monday of this occurrence. The expense of filling the member for Stuart’s vehicle and my vehicle are both met by the Legislative Assembly.
While I am now aware this should have been done differently, the end result was the same and falls a long way short of the personal, grubby and misleading slurs being spread by the Opposition Leader and her party. For the record, member for Barkly and Opposition Leader, the Department of the Legislative Assembly does not yet have a statement I can table in this Chamber.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, tonight I adjourn on several issues. First, I would like to talk about my local schools. It has been fantastic since becoming the local member to visit all the local schools and meet the staff and students. They are terrific schools.
Tonight, in particular, I congratulate the Student Representative Council members and House Captains from some of those schools. First and foremost from St Andrew Lutheran School, the SRC members are: Calista Lay and Les Harris, Selena Mariotti and Kelin Lay, Tiana Gaffney and Dimitrios Syriotis, Gypsy Lay and Vincent Mu. The house captains are: Alicia Rimington and Rhys Walters from the Frilled Necks House, and Caitlin Lyons and Joel Park from the Goannas House.
It was terrific to also have the opportunity to sit down with these student leaders at their school and chat to them. I thank the Principal, Damon Prenzler, for that opportunity.
I acknowledge the newly-elected Wanguri Primary School SRC members who are: William Wetherson, Deklyan Kay, Ethan Lockley, Isobel Dunn, Tamera Cox, Amber Hawkey, Manoli Brannelly, Jayde Chisholm, Chloe Day, Tali Stoddard, Kim Easton, Hannah Pell, Laurel Edwards, and Ronin Wetherspoon.
I acknowledge the new house captains. The captains of Wellington House are Peter Pusterla and Amiee Rodricks and the vice-captains are Jesse Sellers and Jayna McCallum. The Palmerston House captains are William Green and Miah Wallace; the vice-captains are Johnny Martinson and Isobel Dunn. The Victoria House captains are Joshua Schloss and Jaylene Friel, and the vice-captains are Braith Schloss and Paige Maly. The Dundas House captains are Xavier Grant and Kim Layton, and the vice-captains are Liam Breen and Tayla Chisholm.
At Holy Spirit School, the school and house captains have also been elected. Congratulations to the school captains, Amelia Llewellyn and Andrew Caldwell. The house captains for Gsell House are Anthoula Kostopoulos, Munashe Mudzingwa and Tommy Nguyen. For Strele House, the captains are Tylah La France, Richard Sachs and Destiny Batman-Peris. For Angelo House, the captains are Elijah Brown, Isaac Seden-Kurnoth and David Suradi-Lawton. The McAuley House captains are Heath Wilson, Louise Jones and Vincent O’Leary.
Congratulations to you all and I am looking forward to seeing the SRC outcomes at the school.
At Leanyer Primary School, they are still in the process of electing their SRC and house captains. I am looking forward to meeting them soon as well.
Another matter which is close to my heart - and I will not always use adjournments to speak about things I am personally interested in – and I would like to put on the record is some information about the Territory Women’s Football outcomes for the season. I have been impressed with how the competition has built over the years and how we are seeing it grow. We can see the progression from the juniors through to the teenage girls through to the women’s competition. It is fantastic. It is a wonderful sport to play. It teaches a lot about commitment, about being part of a team, and tests you athletically. Girls can now play from AusKick through to junior leagues, and through to the Under 16s into the women’s competition. That is great to see.
Today there was a story in The Age reporting a curtain raiser this year before the Melbourne and Western Bulldogs game featuring a draft competition of the best Victorian female players. That will be 29 June and will be fantastic to see. We are truly making it into a sport for everyone.
I acknowledge the winners of this year’s Women’s Best and Fairest for 2013 which went to Alanah Kelly from Nightcliff; the runner-up was Lisa Roberts from Waratahs and Jennie Attrill from St Mary’s came in third. Alanah Kelly from Nightcliff is a bit of a superstar - she also won the Rising Star Award.
In the Grand Final, I am very pleased to report that Waratahs beat St Mary’s, 89 to 52. The Best on Ground was Lisa Roberts. Nine goals were kicked by Waratah’s Abbey Holmes in the Grand Final, a phenomenal effort. She took off the next day to play in the Under 21 Netball Nationals as well, so, she is a real all-rounder ...
Mr Wood interjecting.
Ms MANISON: And the officials were fantastic.
Commiserations to St Mary’s. There is nothing better than a Waratahs v St Mary’s clash when it comes to the women’s. All the best to captain Danielle Chisholm’s team; they put up a good fight but it just was not their year.
The competition has improved because of the volunteers, players, and officials who put much effort into it to help it grow the way it has. I acknowledge all the clubs, their best and fairest and their coaches who put in so much time. St Mary’s coach is Steve Lolias, assistant coach is Bryan Ahmat, and Kahlisha Rioli who won the Best and Fairest Award.
Waratahs coach is John Dunstone, assistant coach is Bronwyn Evans, and Belinda Evans was Best and Fairest. Nightcliff coach is Tony Potter, and their Best and Fairest Award was won by Alanah Kelly again. Tracy Village coach was Anita Rhook and the Best and Fairest was Sue Nalder. Palmerston coach was Tony Fuller and the Best and Fairest was Kerry White. Darwin Buffaloes - or the Buffettes - coach was Frank Duggan and the Best and Fairest was Kylie Duggan.
It was great to see the girls Under 16 youth competition grow this year. Wanderers, Nightcliff, Darwin, Tiwi, Saints and Palmerston were in the competition. The conditions are modified. It is pretty exciting to watch and this year we saw St Mary’s beat Palmerston 95 to 71. Palmerston was up by one point at three-quarter time and Saints got away. Commiserations to Palmerston, congratulations to Saints. It is great to see the girls having a go, and it ensures we are building an even stronger women’s competition.
I move to another matter I will discuss in my capacity as the shadow for Public and Affordable Housing portfolio. I will talk of some families I have met since being voted into this job, but also my personal experience around the time of the mini-budget and seeing what happened to one of my co-workers.
With the mini-budget we saw some big changes to home ownership, particularly around the scrapping of the First Home Owner Stamp Duty Concession in December. That had a fairly profound impact on some families who lost the dream of owning a house. The first homebuyers concession was a concession of up to $26 730 for the first $540 000 of the property purchase price. That was almost $27 000 worth of savings. That was scrapped in the mini-budget.
We also saw a change to the First Home Owners Grant. Prior to 4 December, people got $7000 on purchases up to $750 000. Instead, the purchase price cap was dropped to $600 000 which meant fewer people could access it. The government said a better deal was in place for people because now they are entitled to $12 000 for an established home in urban areas or $25 000 for new homes. However, when you remove the almost $27 000 in savings in stamp duty, plus the harder criteria to be able to access that funding, it has made it much harder for families.
I will go through this very quickly because I am running short of time. The first example I have of a family who lost their dream of owning a home was one of my co-workers. Her husband is in the Territory Police Force. They had placed an offer on a place in Leanyer. They enrolled their child at a local school and have another baby on the way. They were very excited about their future. On the day of the mini-budget, their dream was destroyed because they had to scramble to find another $37 000 and could not find that money. They lost the home and that dream.
Another lady came to see me. This story moved me a bit as well. She is a cleaner, a lady who works very hard. Her husband is a cleaner. They had placed an offer on a place in Moil. They are currently living with their sister in an overcrowded house. She takes care and helps out with the autistic son. When they found out about the changes to the stamp duty concession they had to find $15 000 more. They could not find that money and lost their house. They now have to save longer to find a deposit to buy a property. They do not want to go through public housing. They want to set up life, do the right thing, and stand on their own two feet. Their daughter has now deferred going to university. She will not go to university so she can work full-time to help her parents get a bigger deposit to buy their home. They were so close and it was taken away from them.
Madam Speaker, I have another example of a family but, unfortunately, I am going to run out of time tonight. With the upcoming budget, I hope with any future changes made to housing and home ownership the government takes the consequences of their actions into account and think about it long and hard before they make the changes.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak of a fine teacher who taught my daughter at St Mary’s Catholic Primary School, a lady by the name of Honor La’Porte. Honor La’Porte began teaching at St Mary’s Catholic Primary School in November 1972 as a teacher of Year 7. Honor and her husband, Alan, moved from Lucknow in the north of India to Perth, then on to Darwin. When she began teaching at St Mary’s, the school’s population was about 350 students and the Principal was Sister Mary St Anne of the Daughters of Our Lady of the Sacred Hearts, the order of nuns which established the school in 1908.
During Honor’s time at St Mary’s the number of students has reached 600. Honor has taught Year 7, Year 2, Year 1, Transition, and in the area of special education. She is especially renowned for her competence as a Transition teacher. St Mary’s has certainly benefited from her contribution as a classroom teacher and at an executive level as Deputy Principal. On at least two occasions, Honor has stepped into the role of principal and, again, been able to make a meaningful contribution.
Honor’s husband, Alan, was involved in St Mary’s community school as a member of the school board.
Their daughter, Alana, attended the school from Transition to Year 7 and continued her high school studies in the Catholic education system. She has since completed a law degree at Charles Darwin University and is employed as an associate at De Silva Hebron.
Honor has established a strong rapport with many Darwin families who expressed their respect and admiration for her contribution to St Mary’s, in particular, the education of many young children. There are many parent requests for Honor to teach their children and she is now, on many occasions, teaching the children of the students she previously taught.
She is also dedicated to fundraising for the school with her organisation of the annual Danceathon - lots of fun and exercise for students and teachers which enables the provision of valuable funds for education needs.
Honor is still teaching at St Mary’s, full of enthusiasm and well versed in the latest curriculum requirements and implementation of up-to-date technology. Honor’s teaching talents, gifts, and professionalism can be best summed up in the following statement expressed by the parents of one of her students:
Mrs Geri never worked to her hours of employment, happily contributing well above what was expected. She was a person the students went to when they needed a hug or an ear to listen. She was always able to help students feel positive about themselves and cope a little better with any difficulties. Parents also sought out Mrs Geri for her advice and support, and sometimes just to have a chat and enjoy her cheerful personality.
She has particularly enjoyed being involved in school and sporting fundraising events and general school social functions involving students, parents, and staff. She was truly able to fill a pastoral role in the school community. Mrs Geri was also a great support to all teaching staff, whilst always willing to find some time to help an unexpected need.
Her recent endeavour was to get on board with recycling, collecting poppers, cans, and bottles, washing them, and taking them to the recycle station. Some of the money raised was sent to the Sudan to assist the work of the sisters of the Order of Daughters of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart.
Mrs Geri was keen to have a vegetable garden established, and this happened as a result of her efforts with recycling. The garden provided opportunities for a number of students to be involved in a very worthwhile project, as well as provided some delightful produce.
The generosity of gifts and words of thanks and appreciation shown by staff, students and parents when Mrs Geri retired at the end of last year was a testimony to the respect and esteem in which she was held. This year, without her, means the school is realising the amazing contribution Mrs Geri made to St Mary’s School community.
I also wish to talk about something particularly concerning to me, having listened to the member for Arnhem’s contribution. Today we heard allegations of corruption and those types of words being used in relation to the use of a fuel card. I have now listened to the explanation by the member for Arnhem and it turns out she filled up the hire car of the member for Stuart – and that is it. On the basis of that, unless there is some other information the opposition knows about, they are prepared to sully a person’s reputation in the most horrible and disgusting terms.
The Leader of the Opposition has form on this because the same stunt was pulled with the new member for Daly where she repeated a series of allegations that, if allowed to stand unchallenged, would have diminished the reputation of the member for Daly substantially in the community and, if uttered outside this House, would have doubtlessly led to a substantial suit for defamation. The use of this parliament to defame people is starting to reach scary proportions.
Today, we heard another attack on the government, based on the water licence being issued to Tina MacFarlane. I listened very carefully to what the opposition had to say, and it is all based on speculation. According to the member for Barkly, if you shuffle or your eyes are too close together, that is a good enough reason to slander a person. During the debate the ABC News came on and I slipped into the lobby to catch the headlines. I saw a public servant, the Water Controller saying, ‘No, no, no, this stuff has been looked at for a long time’.
I pick up on what the member for Nelson had to say. The member for Nelson disagrees with the decision of the Water Controller, but he is not accusing anybody of being corrupt because he does not believe anybody is being corrupt.
Of course, the Labor Party members waltz into this House and throw that word around about people - and they do it about not only members of parliament, but public servants. If the allegations from the Labor Party were correct - and the Leader of the Opposition sailed very close to making this allegation - the Water Controller has to be corrupt.
We heard in a speech from other members opposite the ‘old boys’ are being dragged in. These are respected Territory public servants and we are seeing slanderous attacks being levelled at them in the most unpleasant fashion in this coward’s castle. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition, and any other member opposite who wants to engage in this type of defamation and slander, to stand outside the parliament and repeat any of those allegations. You will thoroughly and richly deserve the law suits that will come in your direction.
We have to be careful with the privilege we have been given as parliamentarians, and the Labor opposition is currently not being careful at all. In fact, they are using that privilege in the most reprehensible fashion. If you have a legitimate concern, by all means raise it in this House, but constantly returning to the lowest nadir - that is a tautology - of gutter politics and using this House to say ‘corrupt’ and ‘sexist’ and all types of things in relation to people’s reputation, both inside this Chamber and out, on the flimsiest of evidence, on speculation, and on guesswork, you are doing the people of the Northern Territory a grave disservice. It will not be long before we start hearing the question, ‘When did you start beating your wife?’ and those types of things being uttered in this House because it will be the place to which the Labor Party will want to take us.
For goodness sake, by all means pursue those things important to the people of the Northern Territory, but stop tarnishing the reputations of the innocent built on the tissue-thin, flimsy misinformation you are doing it on.
Madam Speaker, I know it is part of the strategy, but it is an unhelpful strategy which does nothing to honour this House or the people in it.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will talk tonight about a movement I have been involved with for over 10 years - probably more like 12 or 14 – that is, natural resource management. Some people, like me, still refer to this as Landcare but, as with all things, names change, new schemes start, funding changes and we all get confused as to what is what.
All that aside, I received a copy of the 2013 Natural Resource Management Calendar in January and was hoping to talk on it in February, but did not get to do so. This calendar has a range of spectacular photos in it which were submitted by various Landcare groups across the Territory. For the last 10 years, I have been involved in this movement and have been the Chairman of the Wangamaty Landcare Group at Daly River.
The photos in this calendar for both May and August were submitted by our coordinator, Joye Maddison. It is very good that we got two of them in. May is a special month for Joye, also for me and Rob Lindsay - Rob heads the Malak Malak Landcare Group - as all our birthdays fall in that month. It is good to see that was the first month with our photos.
In getting these photos in the calendar, I see there is recognition for the hard work done by our coordinator, Joye. I place on record my, Rob’s and all the Malak Malak people’s gratitude for the hard work and dedication of Joye.
Our second photo in the calendar was for August, and this photo shows two very senior Malak Malak women, Rita and Frances, who - Gerry might correct me - are both over about 70 years of age. Their role is breeding moths that eat mimosa plants; they have been doing this for several years. As well as mimosa, they do salvinia weeds as well. Both Rita and Frances take this role very seriously. It goes to show, no matter how old one gets and feels, they still have a very productive contribution to make to society. It needs to be placed on record the appreciation we have for people such as these in caring about their country.
The NT Cattlemen’s Association also has two photos included in this and ‘sees natural resource management as fundamental to their lives and livelihood’. I have been involved with this work for over 10 years and agree with the sentiments of the Cattlemen’s Association. I would like all members to recognise this is not a ‘greenie’ movement but a dedicated group of people who simply care for country. Joye, Rob, Frances and Rita - a job well done.
Madam Speaker, I also add why I felt I had to do this tonight. Joye is very sick in hospital at the moment. I send my regards to her. She was medivaced out at the end of last week with pneumonia.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, tonight I will talk about local government. I was hoping to discuss a Matter of Public Importance last night, but I was told there was something else happening and it did not happen. That might reflect the state of the House at the moment when it comes to trying to work out what is on. The adjournment debate will do for the time being.
Since the last sittings, there has been an announcement by the government that it has been putting out options for regional governance in the Northern Territory. I will give my opinion on the views of the government in relation to local government.
I am concerned they are using the word ‘regional’. Anywhere else in Australia a regional council would be a group of councils. I am not sure whether it is a smaller council. I do not think it is; it is the existing councils with a different title, then using the issue of having local authorities underneath them which were boards before.
I am concerned people are not getting enough options. Even though government says there are two options, there is really only one option if you want to look at local government as we know it - as a shire. In Queensland, councils were given an opportunity to see whether they wanted to de-amalgamate. I am not advocating for small councils as there used to be before, but there needs to be an option where you could have a smaller group of councils operating which concentrated on the core functions and not take up all the government agencies.
One of the issues is communities have lost their feeling of ownership. The government is saying, ‘We are going to have regional councils and local authorities’. I am not sure we will not build up new bureaucracies and if you are able to pay these people. Local authorities are going to be the centre of contracting some of these communities with governments and different agencies.
I am concerned we have not given people enough options. I go back to the days of Jack Ah Kit, who put out the option of about 25 councils. That option should be looked at. We do not have that option available for people to give their opinion.
My concern is we have not addressed one of the fundamental issues of local government, especially on Aboriginal communities; that is, rates. You only have to look at the document the government has issued; the total percentage of income to councils is from rates. The figure is $7.2m for eight shires, which works out at $900 000 each. For some of those shires it does not even cover their administration cost. If you take the total waste service charges you might get another $500 000.
The amount of money the government has to put in is something like $51.8m which means these shires have a very small percentage of rates compared to their total operating expenses: the Tiwi Islands 4%, the Roper Gulf Shire 2%, Central Desert Shire 3%. When you come to the municipalities you have Alice Springs 58%, and my council 67%. The difference is the municipals are able to raise money through rates and the shires are not. Part of that is because of the land structure; you cannot rate Aboriginal land trusts.
They are the issues I thought should have been in this paper. The options for change in reforming boundaries or giving new titles will not get back to the core problems local government has. It simply does not have enough money to run itself.
There are issues in regard to roads. The previous government could not come up with the money to provide maintenance of roads in the Northern Territory to local government councils. I do not know where the new government is going with that, but that has been an ongoing issue since the reform of local government and has not yet been solved. Councils do not have the money to maintain all the roads. If the government wants to give all the roads to the councils it will have to come with a package, and that package will be ongoing. It has not happened and should have been part of the discussions.
The other matter is roads and communities on Aboriginal land. If council is to provide services, can it provide services on a road which requires a permit - in other words, a private road? I have raised this before and it needs sorting out. The council’s job is not to provide a service on private property and many of your outstations are on private property. They are not set up as towns, do not have leases, so how can you provide services to that community? I am not saying they should not provide services, but they have no legal framework to do it. Again, these are some of the issues I believe had to be in the options paper.
The other issue is whether councils really need to start again and deal with core functions and not take on all these agencies. This paper says the biggest part, 76%, of shire council income and spending is on non-core services; only a quarter, 24%, of shire council income and spending is on core services. That might sound good, but it means you have to maintain a big bureaucracy to look after that 76%. Is that being done to the detriment of the core services - the roads, the reserves, the rubbish? Does it mean they are not getting enough emphasis from the council because it is more interested in the more glossy side of things; that is, the government agencies and those things?
Council should have the option of saying, ‘As a council, we do not want to take on all those other functions written in the Local Government Act; we simply want to take on the basic functions then, if we want to take something on, we take it at our own speed and when we have the money to do it’.
With the amalgamation of councils the new shires were forced to take on functions. The reason we had a rally for Litchfield around this parliament is because the government was going to force functions on to the council it did not want. Unfortunately, many of the shires did not have people who knew what was happening and able to muster up the forces to say to government, ‘We do not want all these things; these are government responsibilities not local government responsibilities’. They now have to pick up the tab for some of those responsibilities that are not core functions. They are some of the options which should have been put into this paper so people had a chance to look at the issues and see if there are other forms of local government.
I do not believe the regional authority should be around for a long time. That is like having a two-and-a-half tier level of government, and I am not sure you want it. Local governments have to walk first. They were put in a position, when the shires came, of running first. We need to ensure people can get some pride in their community. I am not saying many councils are not working well, but some places do not look crash hot.
I always felt local government was the key to getting pride into a community, where people were so proud of saying, ‘This is my community. Look at the lawns and the trees we have planted, the houses are up to scratch’. We used to try to do that at Nguiu on Bathurst Island. We used to sell plants to people to encourage them to beautify their area.
The option of smaller councils - not the little ones we had before - should be given to people. It may be a way of reducing the bureaucracy instead of having a regional council and a local authority. It may be small enough that each community is close enough to be connected without having to have that duplication of bureaucracy. This needs plenty of discussion.
Madam Speaker, the last issue is I spoke to the Shire Clerk of the Tiwi Islands, and he is very disappointed government members have gone over to the Tiwi Islands but no one has formally visited the Tiwi Shire Council; they all go off to the land council. As we know, that is not particularly good. People take sides when it comes to those two bodies, but when it comes to local government on Bathurst Island, the minister needs to talk to them because they provide all the services. At the moment, they feel as if they are being left out, and they have some major concerns, especially about paying the cost of power and water.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I will not be on my feet for 10 minutes; I have a couple of things I wanted to raise, two of which are purely administrative matters. I do not swamp minister’s offices with letters of request or complaint, but I have sent two to the Minister for Health, neither of which I have received a reply to, which is pretty ordinary.
It has been an absolute shambles on the fifth floor for the past seven months. Hopefully, things will settle down now. We have a new Minister for Health who is probably far more organised and across the portfolio than her predecessor and may well act on this request.
The first letter I wrote was on 25 November last year. I will not read these letters out because they are confidential matters to do with the frustrations of one of my constituents with regard to her nursing registration, and what the Northern Territory government and the Minister for Health may or may not be able to do to support her, knowing health professionals in remote regions can be extremely hard to recruit and retain. This woman has lived out there for many years. She is not housed through government employee housing. She is in a house through her husband’s work. She is really keen to return to work; however, until I get an answer from the Minister for Health she is unable to commit to what other avenues are available to her with regard to her registration. Obviously, being a small town, I know my constituents, and know this individual to be a very competent and skilled nurse who is keen to return to work.
If anyone up there on the fifth floor in the Minister for Health’s office is listening, can I please have a reply to my letter of 25 November? My electorate officer has phoned on a couple of occasions. We have had some feedback about the delays, but four months is getting to the stage of being ridiculous. That is the first letter I am seeking a response to.
The second one is a letter I wrote - I cannot find the copy of the letter on my system, but it is probably dated 14 January. It is to do with important matters around dental health services in Nhulunbuy with regard to a contract arrangement in place with a private dentist for a 12-month period. I have written seeking a review and, hopefully, a continuation of what has been an excellent arrangement between the Northern Territory government and a dentist. However, more than two months has gone by and I have not heard anything about that matter either.
Now the member for Araluen is the Minister for Health I am appealing to her. We are tired of phoning up asking, ‘Where is the response to this letter?’ It is not about me, it is about my constituents.
I was asked recently by the Arafura Times what impact this constant shake-up and reshuffle by this shambles of a government meant for me as a local member. I replied in all honesty, ‘It is very difficult to represent one’s constituents when you constantly have ministers changing seats and fighting with one another, when all you want to do as the local member in representing your constituency is get answers to questions’. I could probably come at six weeks waiting for a response, even perhaps a bit longer, but four months is too long. A little over two months is also too long for my letter in regard to dental health services in Nhulunbuy. Hopefully, someone is still up there and awake in the Minister for Health’s office and can say, ‘Heck, whatever happened to that? Can someone get an answer for the member for Nhulunbuy so her constituents have an answer?’
In the region I represent, people are starting to think the CLP is not particularly interested in them. A number of people have expressed their disappointment at the way the stabbing and the overthrow of the Chief Minister, the member for Blain, occurred. People are genuinely concerned that, with his departure, there is a threat to gas to Gove. I assured them, ‘No, absolutely not’. People have been really shocked by that.
We do not see too much of ministers. A bunch came out a few weeks ago, did a whirlwind tour, held a couple of private meetings, then jumped back on a plane and disappeared. I took the opportunity while the Minister for Health was there - the member for Fong Lim - to chat with him. He spent a couple of days there doing the rounds of the primary healthcare clinics in the region, visiting Gove hospital, and now he is gone. The stakeholder relationships being built are completely out the door. We look forward to the member for Araluen making a trip out to the region to get around to the same stakeholders within health, have a chat with them and see, firsthand, what the needs are.
If I could have responses to those letters it would be really good.
The other thing I want to raise, now we know Budget Cabinet is being pushed out a few weeks because the government is in shambles - they do not have the budget under control at all – is to put in the bid for some of the election commitments made in the electorate of Nhulunbuy. There is a real beauty, the first one up. We wonder what the currency is of this, given we have photographs of two people who are no longer part of the CLP government - I do not even know about the former candidate or what his involvement is; he certainly does not live in Nhulunbuy any longer.
This was a commitment from the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, and the candidate for the CLP in the Nhulunbuy electorate, Allen Fanning. The first one on this long list of what they were going to do is $1.5m towards completion of the Mud Wharf precinct. I have many people asking me, ‘What is the go? $1.5m. When are we going to see that? When are we going to hear about that?’
People voted for the CLP on the strength of the prospect of $1.5m for the current boat ramp facilities at Melville Bay in which, by the way, the former Northern Territory Labor government had invested more than $400 000 and would very much like to invest more. However, nothing will happen there until land tenure issues are sorted before we continue to put government money into an asset that does not have any security of tenure over it. People are asking for an answer.
It was raised at the meeting when we had a few ministers out a couple of weeks ago. Apparently, the member for Katherine who is the responsible minister, ummed and aahed his way through it and said, ‘I do not know about that’, to which the member for Fong Lim chirped in and said, ‘No, an election commitment is an election commitment’. For all those deliberations going on with Budget Cabinet right now, if you can factor in the $1.5m for Nhulunbuy to complete the Mud Wharf precinct it would be fantastic.
I would also like to know what the commitment is to provide financial assistance to install an undercover area at Nhulunbuy pool. We look forward to seeing some investment there, thank you, from the CLP because these are your election commitments. People voted for you on the strength of these commitments.
The other matter was to provide assistance to DigiFM on Elcho Island. DigiFM is a fantastic outfit at Galiwinku. It produces a monthly newspaper, maintains a very comprehensive website and operates a broadcasting service as well. It is primarily funded through federal government money, but if the Northern Territory government has committed to provide assistance then they want to know where that assistance is. I look forward to receiving a reply on that.
The commitment also said, ‘Strengthen services in health and education’. We welcome that. We have not actually seen it; in fact, we have seen quite the opposite. We have seen teachers removed from schools, including our remote schools which need those teachers more than anybody. We have not seen any strengthening in health services. We have actually seen them stripped back, if anything. The medi-hotel, the hostel planned for Gove District Hospital with more than a $5m commitment from the federal government - that has been handed back, so thanks very much for that.
Madam Speaker, we would love to hear government plans to support business developments so more jobs can be created. That is a really important area, but I had word yesterday the position of Indigenous Economic Development Officer has been axed from the East Arnhem region and is due to finish in April with no replacement, which is incredibly disappointing. It is backwards and I do not know how you intend to create jobs - jobs, jobs, jobs as the Chief Minister says - when you are axing those positions.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, in adjournment tonight I give a synopsis on what I have been up to since the last sittings and also wrap up by wishing everyone in my electorate a happy Easter.
Quite a few weeks ago now, I attended the City of Palmerston’s Safe Communities committee meeting. That is an initiative by the City of Palmerston where stakeholders such as me, police, Neighbourhood Watch, Mission Australia, and other key service providers discuss ways in which we can make our community safe. It was very valuable. It was the first time I attended that meeting and I thank all those who attended for their contribution. It was at that meeting I learnt Palmerston has very significant status. I will read from notes provided to me by Ben Dornier, the Director of Corporate and Community Services of the City of Palmerston:
It is very significant to hold that World Health Organisation status, and I commend the City of Palmerston for its efforts in that regard. It should be more widely known in our community we are 1 in 133 communities in the world that hold that status.
I also attended the City of Darwin Australia Day Thank You Reception and spoke on behalf of the Chief Minister. It was an excellent function and I commend the Chair of the Australia Day Council, Roland Chin, for his hard work over the years as Chair. He has now finished his tenure and will be moving on to greener pastures.
It is the time of year when schools have their parent council meetings and I have been invited along to those. I went to Driver Primary School, Durack Primary School, and Gray Primary School’s AGMs and they were excellent. Thank you very much for having me along and for welcoming me to future meetings. I thank the outgoing committees of those parents and friends organisations and welcome the new 2013 committee members. I look forward to working very closely with them over the next 12 months.
As a graduate of the Life Education program with happy healthy Harold which we all know and love, I could not resist the offer given to me by Suzie Spedding from LifeEd to go to Durack Primary School to participate in one of the classes. I joined a Year 2 class at Durack and sat at the back and participated with the students. It was excellent and, in the end, I had a photo with Harold which was really wonderful. The students and the teacher were great, and so were the Life Education staff. It was very enjoyable, a worthy program, and something I support.
Palmerston Power Basketball Club is going from strength to strength thanks to the $75 school sport voucher. It has had an enormous increase of 33% in junior registrations, which is fantastic. It has cut its administration processes and costs significantly because parents are now paying for a full year which, with Palmerston Power, is two full seasons up-front. They are just thrilled. We did some media around it, and it was wonderful to see the tangible benefit of the initiative of our government.
Clean up Australia Day happened on a very soggy morning. I woke up and thought, ‘Gosh, is it cancelled?’, as it was pelting down outside and had rained all night. I got in touch with Pam Robinson, a fierce and determined woman, and the Clean Up Australia Day activities still went ahead, so we went to Durack Lakes. This was organised by the City of Palmerston and a large group attended - 42 in the end – including young children and senior Territorians. We donned ponchos to shield from the rain. Thanks to Heather Malone, Alderman of the City of Palmerston, for lending me a poncho which matched my outfit that day. It was very fortuitous! We got on with the business of picking up rubbish in and around the Durack Lakes area. It was excellent, and well done to Pam. As always, she organised things beautifully and did an excellent job.
Another initiative of the City of Palmerston, the seniors forum, was a well-attended event at the Gray community hall. It is a significant event in the annual calendar for Palmerston seniors. In fact, many seniors from the Darwin region came because they find it such a valuable way in which they can report back to council and government about issues affecting seniors. It was a very worthwhile forum which went for the better part of the day and a great deal of information came from it. I look forward to intermittently joining with the Seniors Advisory Council to keep close to issues affecting our Palmerston seniors.
I also welcome Rob who has just opened Ben and Sarah’s Caf and Bakehouse in Highway House, Palmerston. It is a lovely bakery. He has a full kitchen, bakery area set-up and, of course, the shopfront with chairs and tables out the front in a lovely alfresco area. I popped around to see how he was going and introduced myself. I wish them all the very best of luck. It is excellent to see new business in Palmerston. I hope new business continues to be attracted to our CBD because it brings a more life and community spirit to the area.
Thank you to minister Conlan, who let me speak with Tom and Courts on morning radio for Hot 100 which was an enjoyable experience. They are a wonderful crew. Courts announced live on radio that we are ‘besties’, so I am thrilled about that; I have a new friend in the radio world. The reason I was on radio was to announce two of the hottest acts coming to BassintheGrass this year - Flume and 360. That was very exciting. 360 has been before, but Flume is brand new, one of the hottest acts in the country at the moment. Everyone was very pumped up about the announcement. Thank you to the minister for getting Major Events on to that one. Young Territorians were lobbying you very hard for that act, and we managed to score Flume. It will, no doubt, be an excellent day.
I also went to MacKillop College in the electorate of Brennan. Lauretta, the principal, invited me as I am formerly a Sacred Heart student. They are sister colleges. It was excellent to see their campus and what they have planned for the future. She would like me to become involved with the school so, with the permission of the member for Brennan, I will do that to whatever extent I possibly can.
A few other things have happened. There has been a Probus meeting in Palmerston. Probus recently developed in Palmerston in the last few months.
I talk about seniors to no end in adjournment, but that is because they have such an action-packed calendar during the week. It is almost impossible for me not to go to several seniors’ events each and every week. Speaking of seniors, the Palmerston 50+ club had its annual Easter Hat competition. I missed it just as I missed the Melbourne Cup Hat competition. I am really bummed about that. I have decided I am going to speak with Ann Brown to ensure we match up sittings timetables with all future hat competitions so I can be involved.
I have also just pumped out a newsletter. It is an easy eight pages and, at the back, we have my Happy Easter colouring-in competition. I encourage all Drysdale youths to ensure they get that colouring-in back in for the competition.
Madam Speaker, I wish everyone in Drysdale and residents of the broader Palmerston area, and all Territorians, a very happy and safe Easter. Please heed all police warnings. There is a blitz on this weekend which is for your safety. We want all of you coming back to work and to school on Tuesday morning after the break.
Also, for Durack residents, there was a croc sighting in the lakes yesterday. I do not think that issue is resolved. There is also a low pressure system in the area. Have a safe weekend. It will be wet with those vicious crocs lurking around Durack. I look forward to seeing you all after the break. Again, a very happy and safe Easter.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, a great adjournment, member for Drysdale - live croc reports in parliament. Well done and happy Easter to you as well.
There are a couple of things I want to talk about, but I need to pick up on a couple of things mentioned by the member for Nhulunbuy. Yes, it is disappointing there are a number of things we would love to do, as a government, and a number are yet to be done. What she failed to mention as she read out that very short list of things we have not ticked off yet in Nhulunbuy was we have a $5.5bn debt left to us by the previous government, and that is tracking at $800m in an annual deficit, so, it is very difficult. We would love to do more, but it is difficult to do it under such restrained financial circumstances.
There has been a fair amount of interest shown about a ministerial trip I took as I was conducting business overseas on behalf of the Northern Territory government. I thought this would be an opportunity to highlight to the House and put on the Parliamentary Record some of the business I conducted while overseas on behalf of the Northern Territory. There are several objectives: to gain an understanding of the current Tourism NT resource allocation; how business is achieved in our key international markets; strengthening and developing new airline relationships - very important; strengthening existing and developing new trade partner relationships; and strengthening relationships with Tourism Australia and other state tourism authority partners.
ITB in Berlin is the world’s largest tourism trade event. It is absolutely enormous, with 7000 journalists, 180 000 visitors, 113 000 trade visitors and, in all, 27 halls full of trade and consumers. Each hall is about the size of the Sydney Convention Centre; it is massive. It is like a mini-globe sitting there, and you get a feel of what the world is like, and the competition we face as a Territory and, indeed, Australia. It brings industry’s most prominent figures together to negotiate contracts, develop existing relationships, and set strategies for the future.
At the trade show, as I arrived - I got straight off the jet from Darwin, arrived in Berlin at 9 am and, by 10 am, I was assisting Tourism Australia launch the world’s best jobs. You can check this out on the website. It is Australia.com. In fact, I believe it is even on our Tourism NT website, but I stand corrected. It is going up, at least. It is called The Global Best Jobs In The World Youth Campaign. It is selling NT jobs. There are six overall, and we have an Outback Adventurer. We think that is probably the best of the lot. It is a fantastic experience. It could be anything from flying mail runs or anything to do with the outback; it is called an Outback Adventurer. It is a great job and the campaign has been enormously successful thus far with hundreds of thousands of people already signing up. In fact, after the first days - we launched it in Europe the morning I arrived and within two days we had 120 000 applications already. This is enormously popular.
I also had embassy meetings with Thomas Roth, Deputy Head of Mission at the Australian Embassy in Berlin and in London, Michael Rann, former Premier of South Australia, who is now the Australian High Commissioner to London, with the sole purpose of strengthening those relationships with the Northern Territory. They have not seen much Northern Territory representation. These embassies and High Commissions are greatly underutilised by the states and, in this case, the Northern Territory. There is a wonderful opportunity for us to utilise these High Commissions and embassies to host events and functions and bring people together in a diplomatic, or even a social or business environment. That is what they are there for; to provide that assistance among other things.
I had Tourism Australia meetings in Berlin and London, aviation meetings with Singapore Airlines, Qantas and Emirates. Strengthening relationships with those airlines is crucial. We also need to realise that the Singapore Airlines and SilkAir partnership is the only one-stop air access between Darwin and Europe. It is a wonderful opportunity for the Territory that we have one carrier all the way from Darwin into Singapore through SilkAir, then Singapore Airlines connecting into Germany and the UK. It is fantastic, but we need to ensure we stay in that space and these companies stay.
In London I met with Trailfinders. Trailfinders is a prominent wholesaler for the region and is the largest independently-owned travel company in the UK. It has 28 travel centres. It is the top supplier of business outside Australia into AAT Kings and Ayres Rock Resort. It is vital to the Territory products of Uluru, Ayres Rock Resort and AAT Kings. Overall, if that is not firing, the Territory is not firing. I will have a bit more on Trailfinders in a second.
Recent tourism statistics have shown there has been a 10% decrease in international travellers to the Northern Territory in 2012. This continues, sadly, after 11 years of consecutive decline under the previous government. The failure to strengthen these types of partnerships is no coincidence. I have to stress these are partners of the Northern Territory. We partner with these wholesalers, airlines, travel agencies, and buyers and sellers of tourism. That is how you strengthen these relationships; we literally partner with them. It is a collaborative partnership that forms part of our collaborative marketing budget. We partner with these people, and you have to be out there and be a presence. It is very important that you display a presence from the top; from a ministerial level. It is no coincidence that the lack of ministerial representation internationally has coincided with the lack of international visitation. It is directly related to that.
This particular visit is part of the many initiatives Tourism NT is undertaking to reverse this downward trend in international visitation. We have done reasonably well domestically, but internationally, we have much work to do.
I mentioned Trailfinders. It is about strengthening relationships. “Trailfinders” is one of the biggest players you will find anywhere in the world. I met with the General Manager of “Trailfinders”, Tony Russell. You do not just get a meeting with Tony Russell; he met with us because we had a ministerial delegation. We strengthened that relationship. It is as simple as that. It is as simple as Tony Russell saying, ‘When someone comes into your travel agency to book a holiday and they say, ‘I want a desert experience', it will be, “If you like that, I could recommend South Africa because they have wildlife and the desert, the outback experience, or would you like Australia?”. It is really as simple as that’. If the Northern Territory and Australia is in the mind of the seller then we have a very good chance of getting our product up and that person visiting our shores.
These relationships cannot be underestimated under any circumstances. It is vital to visitation to the Northern Territory. As a result of these relationships we have strengthened, they have reported the NT is tracking ahead of Australia, in general. Client numbers to the Northern Territory in January/February 2013 were up 37%. Room nights in the Northern Territory for January/February 2013 were up 17%. 2013 forward bookings to the Northern Territory are up 37%. 2014 forward bookings are up 67%. So, it is good news and it is a direct result of the relationships we have forged in recent months with our international partners.
In London, we participated in something very exciting and ground-breaking. It was called a Google Plus Hangout or Webinar. It is like a seminar on the web. It was highly successful, using social media to grow awareness of the Northern Territory and, essentially, it worked. We had nine places filled with travel bloggers, and another 24 travel bloggers based in the UK, US, Norway, Sweden and Ireland. Through that, we generated about 336 users who tapped in to listen to Tony Mayell and I talk up the Northern Territory. You can go on YouTube and look at it. If you search for Matt Conlan, you will see this Google Plus Hangout or Webinar. You will see Tony Mayell and I there. You can watch the whole 40-minute interview. We thought it was a great success and I urge you to look at it and see some of we got up to.
Madam Speaker, as anticipated, I have run out of time. You cannot sum up a trip like that in 10 minutes because we got down to work. I thought it was fruitful and very productive. We will start to see the benefits of that trip as evidenced in some of those figures already.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Mr Neville Perkins
Mr Neville Perkins
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a previous member of this parliament, Mr Neville Perkins, who is here to view proceedings. Welcome, Mr Perkins, I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I also welcome into the gallery Mr Andrew Fyles, who is the father of the member for Nightcliff. Welcome. I hope you keep a close eye on your daughter to ensure she is doing the right thing.
Honourable members, also coming into the Speaker’s Gallery will be a group of clients from Alzheimer’s Australia NT, who have not arrived yet. When they do they will be coming through those doors.
Members: Hear, hear!
TABLED PAPER
Annual Schedule Containing Government Payments for Each Member
for Satellite and Mobile Telephones and
Annual Schedule of Member Travel at
Government Expense for Year 2012
Annual Schedule Containing Government Payments for Each Member
for Satellite and Mobile Telephones and
Annual Schedule of Member Travel at
Government Expense for Year 2012
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the report by the Department of the Legislative Assembly, pursuant to paragraphs 8.3 and 10.9(b) of the Remuneration Tribunal Report No 1 of 2011, which contains an annual schedule of members’ travel at government expense, and an annual schedule containing the respective totals of government payments on behalf of each member for satellite and mobile telephones for the year 2012.
MOTION
Note Paper - Annual Schedule Containing Government Payments for Each Member
for Satellite and Mobile Telephones and
Annual Schedule of Member Travel at
Government Expense for Year 2012
Note Paper - Annual Schedule Containing Government Payments for Each Member
for Satellite and Mobile Telephones and
Annual Schedule of Member Travel at
Government Expense for Year 2012
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the paper be noted.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
ELECTRONIC CONVEYANCING (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 21)
Bill presented and read a first time.
______________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Attorney-General, before you start, I would just like to welcome some students.
Honourable members, I welcome in the gallery senior Darwin High School students accompanied by Jenny Jenkinson. On behalf of honourable members, I welcome you to parliament. I hope you enjoy your time here and your visit.
Members: Hear, hear!
______________________
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Electronic Conveyancing (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2013 will enact the Electronic Conveyancing National Law as a law of the Northern Territory. The Electronic Conveyancing National Law is set out as an appendix to this bill. This bill will ensure the Northern Territory is in a position to participate in a national scheme for electronic settlement, lodgement and processing of conveyancing transactions.
The key objectives sought to be achieved by the legislation and an associated intergovernmental agreement are: that there is a national scheme that permits electronic settlement processes to occur anywhere in Australia, regardless of the place in which the participating jurisdiction where the land is located; that state and Territory registrars will act cooperatively to either operate themselves or, more likely, authorise an independent organisation to operate an electronic lodgement network; that the security of the lodgements and registrations occurring through the electronic network will be maximised by ensuring that only properly authorised persons (subscribers) can access the network on behalf of clients and that the underlying law for registration principles concerning electronic conveyancing is the same in all participating states and territories.
An Australia-wide scheme for electronic conveyancing was endorsed in 2008 by the Council of Australian Governments under the national partnership agreement for a seamless national economy. All Australian states and territories, except the Australian Capital Territory, signed the intergovernmental agreement, thus committing to the implementation of uniform legislation regulating electronic conveyancing. In the case of the Northern Territory, the agreement was signed by my predecessor early in 2012. The Commonwealth government is not a party to the agreement.
A copy of the intergovernmental agreement can be found at the following Internet address: www.arnecc.gov.au/publications.
Under the agreement, each participating jurisdiction agreed to enact the Electronic Conveyancing National Law either through legislation applying model legislation, as enacted in the New South Wales parliament, or as a law of that jurisdiction, or by enacting corresponding legislation substantially similar to the New South Wales legislation. The Northern Territory has chosen to enact corresponding legislation that provides for the same national law as contained in the New South Wales legislation.
Under the intergovernmental agreement, any proposed amendment to the Electronic Conveyancing National Law must be supported by at least 75% of the participating state and territory ministers. If proposed amendments gain the necessary support, clause 10 of the intergovernmental agreement provides that the executive government of each signatory state or territory must take all reasonable steps to secure the agreed change in the law. As long as governments comply with clause 10, this should ensure Electronic Conveyancing National Law is consistent between jurisdictions.
However, the Territory bill provides that any amendments to the national law that are agreed to by the executive government must also be supported by the parliament. This outcome is achieved by clause 5 of the bill. It sets out the Administrator may make regulations that amend the national law. Such amendments must reflect changes agreed to in accordance with the intergovernmental agreement. Regulations made under clause 5 are, like most Northern Territory regulations, subject to the disallowance provisions contained in the Interpretation Act.
Clause 12 of the intergovernmental agreement also allows a state or territory to withdraw from the intergovernmental agreement by giving six months notice. The agreement will continue to be enforced with respect to the remaining signatories.
The legislation adopting the Electronic Conveyancing National Law was passed by the New South Wales parliament on 12 October 2012. Victoria introduced a bill adopting the New South Wales legislation on 14 November 2012. The Victorian legislation was passed by the Victorian Legislative Assembly on 7 February 2013. The Queensland government introduced its legislation on 27 November 2012. It is anticipated that each signatory to the intergovernmental agreement will introduce legislation to adopt the New South Wales legislation or apply the national law within the next 12 months.
The Australian Registrars National Electronic Conveyancing Council, usually known as ARNECC, has been established to oversee the Electronic Conveyancing National Law. The council consists of the Registrar of Titles or equivalent office holder from each signatory jurisdiction. For the Northern Territory, the Registrar-General is the member. The council will have the day-to-day responsibility of administrating electronic conveyancing policy development on behalf of the state or territory governments.
Registrars will also be given the power to operate or authorise the use of the electronic lodgement network so instruments are registered electronically, with the same effect as registration of paper instruments.
The Northern Territory has adopted the Torrens system as a means of acquiring, transferring and disposing of interests in land. The Torrens system of land titles provides certainty of the land through the issuing of a certificate as to the title. The Northern Territory Land Titles Register has been held in electronic form since the early 1980s, with formal legal recognition occurring in the early 1990s.
However, the settlement process for the buying and selling of land leading up to a point where documents are lodged for registration at the Land Titles Office is formalised via a paper exchange of documents between the relevant parties and the financial institutions, the Territory Revenue Office and the Land Titles Office. It is a process that requires the parties to meet one another, usually at the Land Titles Office in Darwin or Alice Springs, for the purpose of exchanging documents and cheques. They then lodge the documents which are checked at the counter by the Deputy Registrar-General. If the documents are assessed as suitable for lodgement, they are formally entered into the electronic title system so the registration can then proceed to occur.
This conveyancing process is finalised by the act of registering the transfer of land with the Land Titles Office, and the transfer being entered electronically in the register.
The Electronic Conveyancing National Law seeks to improve the efficiency of property conveyancing in Australia. The law achieves this by providing a common legal framework which establishes documents to be prepared, lodged and processed in an electronic form. This is, perhaps, the most significant advancement to conveyancing in Australia since the introduction of the Torrens system of title in South Australia in 1858.
Electronic conveyancing removes the need for the manual processing of documentation associated with the exchange of property and allowing land registries, financial institutions, and practitioners to complete the document exchanges electronically. This will provide tangible time and cost benefits to the conveyancing industry and property owners, as well as sellers, as the need for the parties to physically attend the final settlement will no longer be necessary.
The benefits will be seen through the transactions within the Northern Territory when Territorians are involved in transactions with another jurisdiction, as the same information technology system is used for electronic conveyancing and will apply nationally. It is important to note this common legal framework does not derogate from the fundamental principles of the Torrens system of land title such as indefeasibility of title.
The critical issue in electronic conveyancing is ensuring there is public confidence in the security of title. Based on research and legal analysis, electronic conveyancing has fewer risks to the security of title than the risks that exist in the paper environment.
In order to prepare for the introduction of Electronic Conveyancing National Law, the states and territories are developing an electronic conveyancing network to allow for conveyancing in electronic form. The company called National E-Conveyancing Development Limited (NECDL) was formed to create the electronic conveyancing network. This company was formed by the states of Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. The four major financial institutions have also now invested in the company.
The NECDL has entered into a contract with Accenture to design, build, test and deploy the network. The development of the electronic conveyancing network has reached the point where National E-Conveyancing Development Limited is more than halfway through the build of Australia’s first national e-conveyancing platform named Property Exchange Australia or PEXA. Property Exchange Australia is scheduled to be launched during 2013.
Property Exchange Australia is proposed to have the ability to accept the lodgement of documentation concerning the property settlements in one simple transaction. This platform will initially allow Land Title Offices and financial institutions to perform single-party transactions such as stand-alone discharges, mortgages, and refinances electronically. Beginning in 2014, it is anticipated that solicitors and conveyancers will be able to join the exchange, providing the ability to perform multiparty transactions such as online settlements, transfers, notices and caveats. Owing to the very high standards being set for becoming a subscriber it is anticipated that only financial institutions, lawyers, and conveyancing agents will be authorised.
The use of the electronic conveyancing network will not be compulsory, and the current method of paper-based conveyancing will continue to be available for use in Northern Territory for transactions where the parties agree to use paper transactions. Over time, there is a likelihood that financial institutions will seek to ensure that all of their transactions are handled electronically. However, it will be up to them to manage relationships with their own clients concerning matters such as authorisation of digital signatures.
There are some features of the national law. The bill is divided into three main areas. First, Part 2 of the bill provides for (1) the adoption of Electronic Conveyancing National Law; (2) for amendments to the national law to be made by regulation; and (3) provides definitions for generic terms. Second, in the three main areas, Part 4 of the bill provides the consequential amendments to the Northern Territory Land Title Act. Third, the appendix to the bill contains the Electronic Conveyancing National Law.
The key provisions of the national law are as follows and are set out in the appendix. Clause 5 sets out that the object of the act is to promote efficiency in property conveyancing by providing a common framework throughout Australia for the lodgement and processing of documents in an electronic form. Electronic lodgement networks can be operated by either the Registrar-General or by a person approved of by the Registrar-General. It is proposed the electronic lodgement network and operator will be approved of by the Registrar-General.
As mentioned earlier, other states, along with banks, have formed a company that is building an electronic lodgement network. It must, however, be noted that this company is not the only possible provider of the electronic lodgement network.
For the Northern Territory, an electronic lodgement network operator will only be approved after the time when the Land Titles Office is in a position to receive documents electronically. This is expected to be some years into the future. After the electronic lodgement network operator is approved, clauses 7 to 9 will operate so documents for the Land Titles Offices can be lodged and processed electronically and have the same status as paper documents.
Electronic lodgement depends on systems that entitle various trusted persons to sign documents electronically on behalf of their clients. Clauses 10 to 12 provide for authorisations from a citizen to a subscriber. That enables the subscriber to conduct business electronically on behalf of the citizen. These clauses also provide for electronic signatures for subscribers. Subscribers will be people such as lawyers and conveyancers, being persons with relevant technical requirements who will have professional indemnity insurance and who are subject to strong regulatory regimes under legislation such as the Legal Profession Act or the Agents Licensing Act.
Clause 22 provides that the Registrar-General must approve operating requirements. These govern what electronic lodgement network operators must do when providing the electronic lodgement network. Operating agreements will cover the financial standing of the operator, the technical and operating requirements of the network, insurance, and various rules that govern how the operator deals with subscribers.
Clause 23 provides that the Registrar-General must also approve ‘participation rules’. These are rules governing what subscribers must do in conducting electronic transactions. The participation rules will also deal with approvals for a person to act as a subscriber.
Clauses 28 to 31 provide for the right of appeal against decisions of the Registrar-General regarding approvals and related matters concerning the electronic lodgement network. In the case of the Northern Territory, appeals can be made to the Supreme Court.
Clauses 33 to 35 provide the Registrar-General with compliance powers.
Clause 38 provides that no compensation is payable concerning losses or damage arising from good faith actions and omissions by the Registrar-General in the exercise of the Registrar-General’s compliance powers.
Clause 41 provides that Electronic Conveyancing National Law prevails to the extent of the inconsistency with another law of the jurisdiction.
Schedule 1 of the national law provides, in accordance with clause 4 of the national law, for the national uniform interpretation provisions. This is read with clause 6 of the local application provisions in the Northern Territory act which provides that the Interpretation Act does not apply to the interpretation of national law.
The bill also amends section 210 of the Land Title Act so that the Registrar-General can issue directions for the purposes of legislation other than the Land Title Act. In due course, other amendments may also be made to the taxation administration legislation to ensure the electronic conveyancing settlements will also deal with stamp duty payments. Other consequential amendments may also be developed in due course regarding some of the terminology in the Land Title Act that assumes that transactions are occurring in a paper form.
The other amendment I need to mention is that the Law of Property Act is to be amended so it will be clear the requirements in that act regarding the witnessing of documents do not affect the operation of the Electronic Conveyancing National Law.
This bill is a major step in fulfilling the Council of Australian Government’s commitment to creating a national seamless economy. The bill also fulfils the Northern Territory government’s commitments under the intergovernmental agreement for an Electronic Conveyancing National Law. The Electronic Conveyancing National Uniform Legislation Bill 2013 will, in due course, provide cost savings and efficiency gains for all Territorians and will provide a more secure conveyancing system for all participants.
On a national basis, it has been estimated that electronic conveyancing may provide, for the registration process alone, an average saving of up to $380 for the typical four-party transaction of a buyer, seller, and their financial institutions.
Electronic conveyancing will remove the need for bank cheques and the physical attendance of sundry parties at Land Titles Offices. Gone will be the days of conveyancers and bank officers spending their Friday mornings at the Land Titles Office. There will be less chance of a deal falling through because a transaction will have been arranged at a specific time convenient to all.
The advantages are even starker for transactions which involve parties in different jurisdictions. They will no longer have to use local agents or physically transfer documents around the country. It is also anticipated that electronic settlements should also make the whole process more efficient.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
PENALTY UNITS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 24)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Penalty Units Act to take account of recent changes to the way in which the Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes consumer price indices.
Since 1999, fines penalties for most offences have been drafted so the penalty is expressed in penalty units rather than in dollar terms. The purpose is that of providing for routine increases in fines and penalties in accordance with changes in the value of money. Over the period since 1999, the value of a penalty unit has risen from $100 to $141 as set on 1 July 2012.
Section 5 of the Penalty Units Act provides that the value of a penalty unit must be reviewed with each financial year by the minister responsible for the act. The review must also take into account changes in the Consumer Price Index as published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. If the application of a percentage change in the Consumer Price Index is such that the value of a penalty unit would increase by at least $1, section 6 of the Penalty Units Act provides that regulations must be made providing for a new value for a penalty unit.
Under the formula in section 5, the value of a penalty unit is set by reference to the average value of the Consumer Price Index figure for Darwin for each of the four quarters of 2008. This figure is set out in the Penalty Units Act as 161.5.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics has changed the published index reference period for the Consumer Price Index so they are now derived having regard to the value of 100 for the year 2011-12.
Under the new reference, the average value of the Consumer Price Index figure for Darwin, for each of the four quarters in 2008 is 91.3, instead of 161.5, and the CPI figure for Darwin in 2012 is then 101.2.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics has not published a new CPI figure for Darwin in 2012, using its old reference scale. If the current formula in the Penalty Units Act is used then the value of the penalty unit would be $81. This would mean there would be no change in the value of the penalty unit for 2013. If, however, the revised Consumer Price Index for 2008, 91.3, is used, then the value of the penalty unit would be $144.
The policy intent behind the Penalty Units Act is that the deterrent value of fines should be maintained by ensuring the real value of maximum fines reflects changes in the value of money. We are proposing that the Penalty Units Act be amended so the changes in the CPI are measured by the last available set of consumer price indices published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
It would be expected that the revenue earned from fines will also increase in line with inflation if the value of a penalty unit is increased. However, revenue collection is not the main aim of this bill; in fact, it is not the aim of this bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS GOODS BY ROAD AND RAIL
(NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 22)
(NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 22)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The object of the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Amendment Bill 2013 is to remove the restriction of the person holding or occupying the position of Executive Director, Northern Territory WorkSafe, as the competent authority.
The laws regarding the transport of dangerous goods regulate the transport of flammable, toxic, corrosive, gaseous, infectious and other dangerous goods and substances which, by virtue of their chemical, physical or toxicological properties, can pose a significant risk to human life, property, and the environment when they are transported.
The bill gives effect to section 4 of the Work Health Administration Act and is consistent with other acts administered by NT WorkSafe; namely, the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act and the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
The bill allows the minister to appoint a person as the competent authority and, in the event that such an appointment is not made or is made and later revoked, the competent authority then becomes the Chief Executive Officer of the agency responsible for administering the legislation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Reorder of Business
Reorder of Business
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, whilst there is no question before the Chair - this has been done through communication with the two Whips - it is a reordering of business motions.
I move that intervening business shall be postponed until after ministerial statements. This has been negotiated between the Whips and there are no surprises in this.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
NT Container Deposit Scheme
NT Container Deposit Scheme
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, it delights me to speak on the Northern Territory container deposit scheme and start to right some of the wrongs and provide some further insight into what we, as a government, are doing to protect this scheme.
A simple warning often heard is, ‘Mind you step’. Even children take heed of the warning. It is clear there is a risk if you fail to take action. This is exactly what my colleagues and I did when the former Labor government was rushing the container deposit scheme legislation through this House. We warned of the risk every way we could, but our warnings fell on deaf ears.
Today, speaking on the future of the Northern Territory container deposit scheme, I feel I have been transported back to February two years ago, when I made what would now be considered some obvious observations in regard to the application of the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act to operation of the amendments contained in the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Bill.
However, I first echo the sentiments expressed by the previous Chief Minister when he said:
- … this is a big blow for the Territory, it’s a real setback. The decision handed down today will have a significant effect on grassroots community members who have enjoyed this scheme, a scheme that we support and a scheme we’ll continue to fight for its survival.
Today, I call upon the beverage industry to keep the scheme going on a voluntary basis so those cans which are in the system can pass through the system and people can at least have that certainty. While those two months are in play, we will continue our efforts through the COAG agenda to see whether we can gain a permanent exemption so this scheme can still operate.
That was the previous Chief Minister, Mr Terry Mills.
I add my own words to that sentiment by saying while we accept the product stewardship driven by the suppliers of beverage containers has substantial merit and a scheme to deal with littering, to close down the CDS and try to unscramble the egg is not something we in government are in favour of.
Yet, all this was foreseeable and foreseen. In fact, in relation to the passage of the legislation which brought the Territory container deposits, my question to the minister and this government was:
- What course of action have you taken to ensure your proposed legislation does not clash with the Commonwealth legislation?
I also said:
- Please mark my words, minister, we will be here in 12 months time debating amendments to this legislation, perhaps even debating why the program has not worked, why we need to budget additional funds to make it work or exempting certain areas of the Northern Territory as it is just not economically viable.
With regard to the ruling by the court about the validity of the CDS legislation:
- I truly hope the minister can provide some insight into these important issues in summing up, or we may well just stop right here. We cannot go any further unless the minister can assure this House he is managing this, he has it all under control, and has anticipated this challenge to his legislation. I am sure he has, and I raise the issue to demonstrate some of the challenges this government must have faced to date. I am certain they have worked tirelessly to cover all the issues before introducing the legislation, or at least I hope so.
The answer is no, they did not. In doing so, a legal and financial mess has been created. The five container deposit scheme coordinators and the 10 deposit operators have had their businesses bushwhacked, for want of a better term - the promises of the previous government only so much hot air. On all those promises, businesses were working on solutions to the handling and refund problems that first plagued the scheme. In my own example, an hour-long trip to the can man became a 15-minute process from start to finish. Only recently, Revive Recycling opened the iReturn vending machine at the Nightcliff shops. I was looking forward to the opportunity of bringing a new refund centre into operation; however, the future of that idea is in limbo - and all because of the failure to ensure the Territory’s laws were given national endorsement.
I cannot talk about what this government will be doing about CDS into the future without reiterating the failures of the Labor government and the lies which have been peddled in the media about getting COAG exemption under the Mutual Recognition Act. As I have spoken about this publicly, I will now reiterate in the House.
I call on the Opposition Leader to show us the letters of support she claims she received from the states for gaining an exemption from the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act. Despite being categorically warned, the former Labor government, once again, sat on its hands and dithered.
A prominent and respected barrister warned the former Labor government, in advance, that his advice commissioned in 2010 was the container deposit legislation might be struck down if challenged in court. Graham R Nicholson wrote in the advice to the Solicitor for the Northern Territory on 27 September 2010 that:
- There is a real and not insubstantial risk that the CD bill as enacted might be struck down if challenged if no exemption is granted under the Mutual Recognitions Act.
Mr Nicholson urged the then Labor government to seek an exemption to the Mutual Recognition Act. It is clear they failed to heed this advice. This failed Opposition Leader has the gall to accuse the Country Liberal government of taking too long to pursue the exemption! We now have nearly all the letters of support from the Council of Australian Government members. Where are the letters Labor claims to have? I welcome the Leader of the Opposition to table them here today because that is what she has led the general public to believe.
This government is getting on with the plan to get an exemption from the states. It is getting on with keeping the scheme in operation. From today, for eight weeks, we are funding the deposits - the refunds eager Territorians are paid after collecting and bringing in containers. We have done this for Territorians. They have been let down badly by Labor and by the drink giants. Labor made a mess of setting up the scheme and the legislation, and the drink companies have cut into the cake and kept everything but a few crumbs.
We have called on the beverage industry and its collective representatives to continue their involvement in the scheme while we pursue a COAG exemption, but the major players have pulled out. We asked the industry to maintain the supply chain with the collectors and the depots, to pay back the deposits it has already collected, and to reward the community for their efforts in managing packaging waste. Just like the old slogan, we asked them to ‘do the right thing’. To do the right thing is to continue paying out for deposits.
The quarterly report from my department shows that between 30 million and 45 million approved containers were sold in each of the quarters of the scheme’s operation, which is around 150 million to 160 million containers each year. While impressive, the return rate at collection depots has, over the course of the scheme, slowly climbed to around 40% of containers sold, with 47% of aluminium containers, 28% of PET bottles, and 36% of glass containers redeemed. The CDS has resulted in an overall increase in recycling beverage containers from approximately 13% before the scheme. That is approximately $100 000 per week that will go to families, schools, community organisations, and commercial operators. Sure, the regional centres are the main focus of the redeeming efforts, but I am sure, as with the iReturn vending machine, businesses will identify and deliver operational solutions to the collection, handling, storage, and transport issues from smaller towns and remote communities. It really is time to let the scheme get to work.
In considering the best way forward to bring certainty to the operators and meet the communities’ expectations, the Territory has moved to appeal against the decision of the Federal Court, while moving toward its proposal to COAG in seeking the support of all the states. We are progressing an application for exemption under the Commonwealth mutual recognition legislation and, following on from our consultation period in November and December last year, we have prepared a draft decision regulation impact statement supporting the application. We are waiting on advice from the Commonwealth Office of Best Practice Regulation before finalisation.
The Northern Territory’s application for exemption must be considered by the Standing Council on Environment and Water, then COAG. The Northern Territory is seeking to expedite this process. The next COAG meeting is in April 2013. The Northern Territory has written support from the majority of Australian governments for its application for exemption and anticipates the exemption being granted. It is hoped this decision will be reviewed by May 2013. However, it is unfortunate that the Federal Court decision stands until the process is complete. Of course, that creates uncertainty.
I cannot help remembering the warnings we gave when the scheme was proposed. Alas, our warnings were not heeded. At one stage I said:
- I hope and I pray this does not turn into an enormous mess.
We know it has become a mess. However, this government is strong and supports the continuation of the scheme that is operating in the Territory, and is doing all it can to ensure this happens.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House. It is something dear to my heart. As a child, my parents taught me to recycle. We collected cans, crushed them every weekend and took them to the depot at the old Nightcliff Rite Price where they would be weighed in for a small amount of money to put in my money box.
We spent a year living in the United States when my family participated in an exchange teacher program, and I first came across the container deposit scheme, or as it is known, the Oregon Bottle Scheme, where it has been in place since 1971. I still remember as a 10-year-old, I would look for containers to return to the local store for 5 - a nickel, as the Americans call it. At the time, I was more concerned with the lollies or candy I could buy. However, the point is it had us, as young children, looking everywhere for containers and encouraged the concept of recycling.
When the scheme was introduced in the Territory by the previous Labor government, I was pleased a scheme that had been in South Australia for over 30 years, with success, was finally here. It would encourage people to not only recycle their containers, but look at how they could use the scheme to fundraise and, at the same time, clean up our streets, parks, and waterways.
We hoped the beverage industry would embrace the scheme and support it; Territorians wanted it. However, as they had done everywhere else in the world, the big beverage companies challenged the scheme. It was extremely disappointing to me to see the large beverage industry could prevail and win over what Territorians wanted. The decision was, sadly, a victory for big corporations over the community, and has significant impacts for our environment, especially our waterways and national parks. The decision has adversely impacted on Territory schools and community groups which will no longer be able to raise much-needed funds by collecting cans and bottles, particularly the NGO sector which has seen significant cuts in the past months.
I have been involved with the Down Syndrome Association which has been employing two young people who have recently left school to collect containers. They collect cans worth over $2000 a month. These people collect them from people’s homes - someone like me who has decided to donate my cans to charity. It is a small amount I can do. It is a very efficient scheme. They come by your house once every fortnight, take your containers and leave an empty container to collect for the next fortnight, with a little note advising when they will back.
I acknowledge the Down Syndrome Association, particularly John, who has put many volunteer hours into getting that program running. The sign of success is they are going to keep running that program while this is sorted out so they can keep those young people employed. I urge the minister to visit The Patch and see the success of that.
Many people have raised with me why it is unfair the Northern Territory cannot have the same scheme as South Australia simply because we introduced our scheme after South Australia, and that the government’s decision to seek an exemption to the Mutual Recognition Act is the same exemption South Australia has. They do not understand the legislation. It is disgraceful that big business has used legislation to block a popular scheme. Simply, because we introduced our legislation after 1992, the beverage industry decided to use that legislation to block what the community wants.
As the minister stated, we need an exemption from all the states and territories. The opposition has offered its bipartisan support to ensure this happens. States need not support container deposit legislation in their jurisdiction, but they need to recognise the Northern Territory’s rights to have one.
As a government, especially today in Question Time, you keep calling on us to seek briefings yet you block this. Immediately after this decision was handed down I sought a briefing from the Solicitor-General through the minister’s office, but it has been blocked at this stage. We were not seeking a briefing on the Cabinet decision; we were seeking a briefing on the actual process within the court. I have an e-mail to confirm that, which I am happy …
Mr Elferink: Which minister?
Ms FYLES: It was through your office, I believe. Yes, and it was handballed to the Environment minister’s office and back.
Mr Elferink: Really? I will find out about …
Ms FYLES: Happy to chat after, but I might keep going with my speech now.
Mr Elferink: I will find out about that because I am …
Ms FYLES: Yes, thank you, that would be appreciated, because I was trying to understand the process.
Part of my role as the opposition spokesperson for the Environment is explaining to our community what is happening. Many people have been messaging me, approaching me at the markets, wondering what is happening with this scheme. Only a couple of weeks ago I was at Nightcliff for the opening of the iReturn depot, which is a fantastic initiative where you can take your cans to the reverse cycle vending machine. You simply insert them and get a credit note for a number of the shops at the Nightcliff Shopping Centre, or you can donate your returns to charity.
It is interesting explaining to people that because South Australia introduced legislation before 1992 we cannot have the same legislation and have to seek an exemption. Many people ask me why the former government did not do that. They did; they had started the process. When the scheme was introduced on 1 January 2012 an automatic one-year exemption was given. In that time, the scheme was building momentum. In South Australia, we see around 90% recycling rates, and the Territory was well on the way to that.
In the meantime, at the first available opportunity, the beverage industry went to the courts and sought to overturn our scheme.
I remind the government it was elected in August last year, some seven months ago. I know we had letters in place from COAG representatives in case the scheme was challenged. Obviously, you became a minister in the government in August, which is still six months before this decision was made. I feel the ball was dropped there.
As an opposition, we have offered our full support to the government to continue to fight for the Cash for Containers scheme. The way the Territory community has got behind the scheme has been fantastic to see. Looking back at the Parliamentary Record, one of the issues was the CLP never really committed to the Cash for Containers scheme. Perhaps that is partly why focus on this was lost at the end of last year.
The beverage industry - the big end of town from down south and overseas, with no real interest or commitment to the Territory - was surprised in the days after the announcement. On radio they promised much money and support for recycling. We had a scheme which was working and one the community wanted, yet they could not commit to or even mind their manners about it. They had to challenge it.
It is interesting to see how the debate with the beverage industry has centred on recycling. The CLP, in that period of time, quoting the former Chief Minister Henderson in 2001, ‘was squirming from one position to another’. I wonder, with the recent chaos within the government, if that is partly why the ball has been dropped on this scheme.
Dumped Chief Minister, Terry Mills, obviously got it. He understood 80% of Territorians wanted the container deposit legislation scheme and wanted the Northern Territory government, of whatever persuasion, to stand up to the beverage industry. Presumably, he also understood how recycling containers were being enthusiastically embraced by Territory families and groups. Most members in this House would be able to speak about positive schemes similar to the one I have spoken about with the Down Syndrome Association. St Paul’s Catholic Primary School raised quite a bit of money for their school by operating a recycling program. They are easy to run; they are simple within schools and organisations.
Chief Minister Mills was strong in his commitment - or that is what his public statements led us to believe - but behind the scenes white ants were at work. In reviewing our debates on CDL, it is clear at least two voices were highlighting whatever road hump they could find to send signals there was opportunity to undermine the intent of the scheme and the Henderson government, which had legislated for Territorians. The member for Port Darwin picked over every nuance in the legislation to find weaknesses - opportunities for white-anting. He focused on the interface between CDL and the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act.
Regrettably, the big multinational company seized on that glint of light and took the opportunity to challenge our legislation on that basis. The former government had strong legal advice, I understand, from the best legal minds available that, potentially, a legal argument could be pursued. We believed we had sound advice that they would not necessarily be successful. As a parliament, are we going to be scared by every possible threat and not pass legislation …
_____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 students from Adelaide River Primary School accompanied by Mr Tony Clegg. On behalf of members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________
Ms FYLES: Thank you, and welcome.
When in government, we were confident the exceptions in section 11 of the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act would be applied to the Cash for Containers scheme. We had the automatic 12-month exemption to the relevant sections of the act to provide time for COAG to apply a permanent solution.
That is why I come back to last August. We had a change of government, yet what happened in the period of time from September/October onwards is interesting. The previous government had measures in place to seek that support. It would be interesting for the minister, in his wrap-up, to let me know what measures were taken once they assumed government. Did they keep running with this?
The Attorney-General, in all the debates I have gone over around this topic previously, spoke about different possible legal avenues. As I said, do we wait and not legislate because of a threat? Since becoming Attorney-General, has he applied himself to fixing the issue, backing up the commitment of the Chief Minister with the CDL scheme in operation; stood up for Territorians, and for the legislation of this parliament?
The government dropped the ball. It did not support the legislation at the start. It dropped the ball when it came to government. You are the government, you are the minister, and you were elected last August to ensure the continuation of this program. The Attorney-General, consequent to the March Federal Court decision, has asked for advice from the NT Solicitor-General on appealing the decision. I have said before I have not been able to obtain a briefing from the Solicitor-General to find out what happened in Sydney. It would be interesting coming into this debate with that full knowledge.
In recent parliamentary debates, the Attorney-General said it is not his intent to dismantle the scheme but make it more efficient. He is now supporting the new Chief Minister who supports the Cash for Containers scheme. I remember reading blogs previously where Chief Minister Giles welcomed this scheme to Alice Springs. I am unsure who supported the Alice Springs Town Council, but I understand they have a glass crushing machine in Alice Springs. It would be good to see who is supporting the right of Territorians to come up with a scheme and keep it going.
The companies went to court, as was their right. We were calling on them to accept the views of Territorians and the decisions of the NT government with bipartisan support. However, big business, the beverage industry, has challenged this scheme everywhere in the world it has been introduced ...
Mr Elferink: That is what we said when you guys introduced the legislation. That is the problem; you did not listen to the threat …
Ms FYLES: I pick up on the interjection from the other side. You have been in government for over seven months. You are the government, you can deliver. You can blame whoever you want, but what Territorians want is for you to stand up and fight for this scheme ...
Members interjecting.
Ms FYLES: I can keep speaking now. Perhaps the reason we have had chaos and not seen commitment to this scheme in the past six months is because of the chaos in the CLP. It is clear there have been long-standing divisions in the CLP, and the former Chief Minister needed as many friends and supporters as he could get ...
Mr Elferink: Who writes this stuff for you?
Ms FYLES: Issues in the Territory digressed while they worried about themselves ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Nightcliff is endeavouring to deliver her contribution to the House. I ask you to remind the member for Port Darwin of Standing Order 51. His continuous interjections are intended to throw the member off her speech and, generally, are unhelpful. If you could remind him ...
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order. I will restrain myself and apply Standing Order 51 to myself if the member restrains herself to the truth.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! That is not a point of order. Please, if you could remind the member for Port Darwin of Standing Order 51, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we all please refrain from too much interjecting, thank you.
Ms FYLES: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I stated before I asked for a briefing from the Solicitor-General and was blocked by the minister’s office from obtaining that briefing. I will take that issue up after this debate. I sent an e-mail, I believe, on the Friday after the decision was made. It seemed to be forthcoming, then blocked. That is for you to work out with your office.
Territorians want this scheme and you are the government. You need to ensure the scheme continues. It is good to see the new Chief Minister - the current Chief Minister, the member for Braitling - has been a long-standing supporter of this scheme which I mentioned before …
Mr Wood: You cannot use the word ‘current’.
Ms FYLES: I am sorry, Gerry.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will let it ride.
Ms FYLES: That is pleasing to me.
I am a mother; I want to encourage my children to recycle just as I have shared my story of recycling while growing up. I have worked with Landcare in the Rapid Creek area and, since this scheme has been in place, there has been significant decrease in the number of containers in the waterways. Some people will never recycle. However, this scheme encourages other members of our community to recycle containers for a small monetary reward. We have seen not-for-profit school groups - everyone here today has talked about the many people from those walking their dogs to whatever. This is a scheme Territorians want to support. We want to see where things are with our government and we want the scheme to continue.
The member for Namatjira has been an enthusiastic supporter. The member for Fong Lim, likewise, has been a great supporter of the concept and, in his own words, ‘committed to develop it to a reality in a workable policy’. Indeed, I recall the member for Fong Lim went to the 2004 federal election supporting a CDL scheme as one of his campaign promises ...
Mr Wood: It is an extreme green policy …
Ms FYLES: I will not paint the member for Fong Lim as a greenie.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A bit of order, please, member for Nelson!
Ms FYLES: The CLP went to the 2008 Territory election supporting the scheme. We need all these supporters to get behind the scheme now. The CDL is working for the Territory. We need the government to ensure the scheme continues, not a half-hearted industry-based stewardship program that does nothing to help families and community groups to get litter off our streets and public spaces.
It was amazing, on the radio a few days after the court decision in Sydney, all of a sudden the beverage industry was offering millions to support this scheme - the same beverage industry that knocked it every way it could; it put up prices. Coca-Cola Amatil has not supported the scheme and has made every effort to prevent it from working.
We need a concerted effort to get the COAG agreement in place. Perhaps in wrapping up the minister can inform the House - I understood all letters of support had been received, but I heard today only some letters have been received. I apologise if it is just me ...
A member interjecting.
Ms FYLES: Okay, there is only one outstanding. I would like to hear that. We have offered our bipartisan support. We need a concerted effort from COAG. We are not asking for anything more than South Australia has. They have the legislation in place, we want the legislation. It does not affect anyone else. The great thing about this legislation is it does not affect people who do not want to participate. It encourages recycling in our community, and we need permanent exemption from the Mutual Recognition Act.
We introduced legislation and should not be in fear of what could be overturned. We need to have a plan and stick with it. Something happened last August and the momentum was lost. The foot was off the pedal, industry read the tea leaves, there was a split in the government, they were focused on themselves, and there was chaos. The big companies took the opportunity from that.
I am pleased to hear letters of support from other states and territories have been forthcoming. The scheme, brought to life with the support of the whole Legislative Assembly, needs to be supported and nurtured for the benefit of Territorians not business.
I put to the new Chief Minister, this is a serious issue. He needs to show his leadership, take charge, and commit all his team to supporting the CDL scheme to eliminate white-anting, and work on behalf of Territorians who see the merit of the scheme and want it to succeed. We need to hear from the government where things are. COAG is not that far away so it would be pleasing to know if those letters are in place. The support has been sought so we can have in place a successful scheme the community wants.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the government announced it will back the scheme for a period of time, a move I welcome. However, you need to ensure, as the government, you are representing our views on this.
Debate suspended.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
NT Container Deposit Scheme
NT Container Deposit Scheme
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I note on 4 March 2013 the Court of Australia made a ruling …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! For clarification, the Opposition Whip has just been over to your Leader of Government Business and government Whip. We were advised we were continuing Cash for Containers as a statement, and that is what has been called. I suspect you were just about to do forced adoption. We are in the midst of Cash for Containers.
Mr Giles: Cash for Containers.
Ms LAWRIE: You are speaking on Cash for Containers? Cool.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much for the clarification, Leader of the Opposition, I am talking on Cash for Containers ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I take up with you directly the comments the member for Greatorex made to me in this Chamber before we started; several witnesses heard it.
Mr TOLLNER: Further to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Why does the Opposition Leader continually have to muckrake? Everything has to be a personal attack with her. Can she focus on something relevant to the parliament?
Ms Walker: Did you not hear what he said to her? Oh, sit down, Dave. You did not hear what he said. It was disgraceful!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Opposition Leader will take this up later with the member. Is that right?
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I want the member for Greatorex to put it on the record.
Mr Conlan: I am not that stupid, you idiot!
Mr Vowles: You are an idiot, mate. Everyone thinks you are an idiot.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The advice I have is the incident occurred before we had started and, therefore, it should be put in writing and taken to the Speaker.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Johnston made some very unparliamentary comments just then. I ask you to ask him to withdraw those comments, and also note he is on a warning.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, could you withdraw the comments. We will do the other through the written ...
Ms Lawrie: Which ones? What are you withdrawing?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: He made derogatory comments after I came in.
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order, are you ruling out the term ‘idiot’ from now on? It has been used frequently. Is that what you are ruling out - ‘idiot’?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could I have the word ‘idiot’ withdrawn, please.
Mr VOWLES: I withdraw, but I am not sure what I am withdrawing from.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I should move on with the statement on the container deposit ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I was about to say that. Could we have the complaint put in writing to the Speaker. I now give the floor to the Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I have the right to pursue the complaint how I choose to. I said I would take it up with the Chief Minister directly, if not in writing to the Speaker. I have the right to pursue it how I deem fit. It would be to the Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Opposition Leader. I would be more than happy to take that and move on with the statement.
On 4 March 2013, the Federal Court of Australia made a ruling in the matter of Coca-Cola Amatil Australia Pty Ltd against the Northern Territory of Australia. The primary legal issue was whether the requirements imposed by Part 2 of the Northern Territory Environmental Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act 2011 on the sale of beverages in containers in the Northern Territory were in conflict with or repugnant to Part 2 of the Mutual Recognition Act, and whether any provisions of the act were invalid. The decision was, sadly, yes and yes. I use the word sadly …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am sorry, Chief Minister.
I notice there are cameras in the room and a stranger on the floor of the House. Can you advise what this is all about? Is it about the intended motion later today?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is about the intended motion. The Speaker gave …
Mr ELFERINK: If so, why are they filming now?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: They are not filming now.
Mr ELFERINK: I apologise to the House.
Mr GILES: I use the word sadly, but it is more than sad, it is tragic because the former Labor government followed a path littered with signs that read ‘caution’, ‘do not step here’, ‘do not proceed’, ‘turn back’. These were signs posted not only by members of this government when in opposition, but also Labor members concerned about the perils of pushing legislation through in order to balance an uncomfortable political equation.
Let me take you back to the 2001-02 budget presented by former Deputy Chief Minister, the former Country Liberal member for Katherine, Hon Mike Reed, on 29 May 2001, which included:
- … $100 000 through the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment to enable Keep Australia Beautiful and Landcare NT to jointly undertake a community assessment of container deposit legislation.
…
Should the report demonstrate strong community support, it may be expected that government could proceed to the introduction of container deposit legislation in the Territory.
This was a Country Liberals’ policy. At the time, the only container deposit legislation, or CDL, operating in Australia was South Australia’s program. South Australia’s Beverage Container Act became operational in 1977 and was subsequently incorporated into the state’s Environment Protection Act 1993.
In 2001, the New South Wales Minister for Environment commissioned Dr Stuart White of the Institute for Sustainable Futures to undertake a review of options for CDL in NSW. Dr White identified significant constitutional issues relating to the legal capacity of the states and territories to impose charges.
In August 2002, a Centre for Environment Studies report titled Impacts of Implementing Container Deposit Legislation in the ACT summarised:
- … the Government should participate only as a part of a compatible scheme in NSW or as part of a national CDL scheme ...
On 5 March 2002, the new Labor minister for the Environment, the member for Casuarina, in an ABC interview responded, when asked whether a system could be put in place by mid-year, with the comment, ‘By the end of this year we will be going that way’. On 22 May 2002, when asked again by the ABC whether in three or four more months there would be a decision he answered, ‘Certainly’.
However, on the same day, in his ministerial report to the House, the former minister emphasised:
- … if container deposit legislation is to be introduced further information needs to be sought on the legal implications, the financial implications in both establishment and operation, regional issues, operational issues and relevant features of the South Australian model ...
On 10 October 2002, a Matter of Public Importance was raised by the then Speaker, the former Independent member for Braitling, and included the following paragraph:
- … concern was expressed from several quarters when we were developing this draft legislation, including Parliamentary Counsel, that the proposed legislation would breach the Constitution by creating excise or tax and could breach the Commonwealth’s Mutual Recognition Act.
…
This is word for word the concern raised by the former member for Braitling more than a decade ago.
The matter of the Mutual Recognition Act was underlined by the former Deputy Leader of the Country Liberals and member for Greatorex, Dr Richard Lim. He said:
- … it is a significant hurdle to the possibility of introducing CDL in the Territory. It appears that we might have to look at a national level of agreement to allow this to be enacted - not only in the Territory but across the country ...
The member for Casuarina’s comment at the time, as the minister responsible for driving this legislation - and I am happy to remind him - was as follows:
- It certainly interests me because it may put a spanner in the works.
Way back then the member for Casuarina was saying it may put a spanner in the works.
Also, the issue the Independent member for Braitling raised about the restriction of trade is very important:
- If the opponents of this scheme are successful with their arguments, the whole system goes down.
The member for Casuarina was clearly aware. The Independent member for Braitling went on in her summary to urge:
- Another alternative is to lobby the federal government for national container deposit legislation, and support for national legislation is growing across Australia. I would urge the Chief Minister to support those other Premiers who are trying to get the matter on the COAG agenda.
In January 2003, a paper was published by EPA Victoria titled Container Deposit Legislation - Financial Impacts. The paper included the following comments:
- The use of economic devices to achieve policy objectives is common.
...
The success of an economic instrument depends on how well it is designed.
The Independent member for Braitling introduced a private members’ Container Deposit (Environmental Protection) Bill stating in the House on 26 February 2003:
- I have waited to see if the government is going to make a commitment to implementing CDL by introducing their own version.
On 27 May 2003, the Independent member for Nelson asked Hon Dr Burns, by then the minister for the Environment, the following questions. First:
- … why your government abandoned container deposit legislation earlier this year after a briefing was given to me by departmental officers which indicated such legislation was possible?
And second:
- … could you please report on the recent meeting you attended where, I believe, a national container deposit legislation proposal was on the agenda, detailing your government’s views at that meeting in respect of CDL in the Northern Territory and/or a national CDL scheme?
- Indeed, I did attend a meeting of state, territory and Commonwealth environment and heritage ministers in Melbourne last Friday. Certainly, CDL was on the agenda …
…
The South Australian Minister for the Environment, John Hill, in response to a question, actually admitted to the assembled ministers that the South Australian model of CDL was, indeed, very vulnerable to challenge on taxation issues. In fact, he pointed to a previous case which had exposed that vulnerability. That indicated to me the importance of a national approach. That was a consensus of opinion of all the state and territory ministers around the table that, because the taxation issues are implicit in CDL, without a national approach to CDL it just would not work.
The former minister for the Environment presented his ministerial report on container deposit legislation in the House on 28 May 2003, clearly stating:
- We have examined the options carefully and have concluded that the only practical means of successfully implementing CDL is through a uniform national approach ... In short, the Territory government is not prepared to expose itself to the likely legal, taxation and competition policy challenges that could arise from the introduction of CDL.
…
… it has become patently clear that the model preferred by the Territory community could only be implemented through a national system involving the Commonwealth and other states and territories.
This drew a furious response from the Independent member for Nelson who held the balance of power. He immediately issued a media release accusing the government as follows:
- The Territory government has been bought off by the beverage industry for $0.5m.
As an aside, I note the member for Nelson continues to echo negative sentiments regardless of who is in government. For example, in his media release dated 17 February 2003 he made the following accusation:
- … that the Northern Territory government who, in opposition, were ambivalent of their support for cash for containers.
That is absolutely wrong, as I have just outlined above in detail.
On 12 August 2003, the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Karama, threw her two pennies’ worth in. She stated:
It is my view that CDL will only work if it is a national scheme.
She knew back then. The subject grumbled on over the passage of years.
On the 28 November 2007, the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Karama, reiterated that when she said:
- It is a national scheme that will work for the Territory.
On 30 April 2009, the former Minister for Natural Resources and Environment and Heritage stressed in a ministerial statement that:
- … government will have three important design criteria in mind. We want a CDL system that is legally sound, financially sound and capable of implementation in both urban and remote parts of the Territory.
A Cash for Containers reference committee was established; namely, the members for Nelson and Fannie Bay tasked with ensuring a legally sound scheme. Let me define the words ‘legally sound’. It involves the use of good judgment and, therefore, likely to be effective. However, the member for Nelson in particular enthused that:
- We need to change labels and there should be discussion about how that would happen. We are going to start the scheme up regardless. So we are going to have to introduce legislation which says if you want to sell a product in the Northern Territory you must have a label, and that is it. Of course there will be some flak from the industry but it is not that difficult to change a label.
- First and foremost, it is important to focus on what are the relevant goods which attract the mutual recognition principle in a particular case ... It is beverages in containers which the applicants produce or import and lawfully sell in jurisdictions other than the Northern Territory, and wish to continue to sell in the Northern Territory.
That means, in simple terms, the beverages distributors do not have to comply with sections of the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act 2011.
How did we get from 2009 under the auspices of a Cash for Containers reference committee to an adverse legal decision in 2013 - especially as, time and time again, the then shadow minister for environment, minister Chandler, repeatedly counselled the former government to be extremely careful. As he told the House on 30 April 2009:
- … there are many concerns to be addressed, many hurdles to cross and much to learn and evaluate before a successful model can be introduced, none more so than this government’s propensity to run the gauntlet with its headline-grabbing policy well before any real work, or even proof of delivery, has been demonstrated.
One of the prime reasons for the push for the container deposit legislation that has led us down the path to today’s quandary was, quite simply, a parliamentary agreement dated 14 August 2009. It was an agreement made between the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and the Independent member for Nelson. It contained the following clause outlining:
- Continued commitment to the implementation of the Container Deposit Scheme.
Here is the member for Fannie Bay’s contribution to the debate as a supposedly well-informed member of the cash for cans reference committee, charged with the responsibility of steering the scheme design and implementation. As an aside, it has been impossible so far to source either minutes or meeting notes from this dodgy reference committee. I quote the member for Fannie Bay’s comments:
- We do not need to solve every little problem when we are developing the policy. If we get the policy right and the framework right it will work. If we make the overall scheme work, then it will work. If South Australians can do it, certainly Territorians can.
Let us hope the member for Fannie Bay never becomes the shadow Attorney-General because, clearly, he just does not get it. The member for Fannie Bay preferred, as many have done before him, to look to South Australia, overlooking, yet again, that South Australia’s 1977 act pre-dates the Mutual Recognition Act - a simple thing you think you would look at - and that a permanent exemption from the conditions of the Mutual Recognition Act can only be obtained, and should have been obtained, by the former government by the Commonwealth parliament amending Schedule 2 upon request from all the participating jurisdictions that such regulations be made, or by pursuit of clause 4.3.1 within the intergovernmental agreement whether the matter could be referred to Ministerial Council where the determination requires a vote in its favour by at least two-thirds of the members.
A few days after the dust settled from the 2009 motion of no confidence in government brought by the member for Nelson and his subsequent personal agreement with the then Chief Minister, we heard the following pronouncement from the former Treasurer, the member for Karama. This is what she advised the House:
- As for the Cash for Containers Scheme, we have happy hunting grounds elsewhere in Australia looking at how that is done, how that is put together. My interest in this is as Treasurer because, at the end of the day, I know that any scheme needs to be well thought through, well analysed, and as cost-effective as you can make it and not an economic burden on people.
Former Treasurer, my question to you today is: what costs will have to be paid by the Northern Territory government for this failed legislation - the total cost, former Treasurer, owing to the applicants in the court case, to those who engaged in the CDL industry and, for the legal consultancy you commissioned and then ignored - remembering that your budget in 2010 alone includes $625 000 to establish the scheme? The answer is: this debacle has cost the Northern Territory millions and millions of dollars at a time when we are going towards a $5.5bn debt.
Final debates took place at the end of 2010. Passing of the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act occurred in February 2011 and the Cash for Containers scheme commenced on 3 January 2012.
Unfortunately, the minister responsible, the former member for Stuart, continued to view the legislation in extremely simplistic terms. For example, in an ABC interview on 25 November 2010 he said:
- Industry will now be forced to repackage every single bottle, can and cardboard carton that they sell in the Territory. The beverage industry are going to become good corporate citizens on this and they will come on board.
In addition, the former Treasurer, current Leader of the Opposition, reported to the House on 15 February 2011 as follows:
- … in my capacity as Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister, I met with Coca-Cola Amatil last year, at their request, to discuss the Cash for Containers scheme. In the meeting I made it very clear to Coca-Cola Amatil that the government was committed to the introduction of Cash for Containers scheme and, of course, they made it very clear that they were very opposed to our scheme.
However, the former government chose to roll on. Did they ever pause to count the potential cost to the Territory? No. Did the former government ever formally seek the necessary exemption? No.
Minister Chandler sounded a clear alert the following week in a media release which spelt it out as follows:
- The government has failed to release costings, there is no business case, no regulations to underpin the legislation and no modelling detailing how much the scheme will ultimately cost consumers. There are also issues associated with the Mutual Recognition Act.
Labor minister Chris Burns indicated the government was prepared for a legal fight with the beverage industry - he would take them on - but, ‘If the legislation is properly developed court action will not be necessary’, said minister Burns.
Minister Chandler was not pouring scorn on the need for a scheme, instead he stressed:
- The container deposit legislation is Country Liberals’ policy and has been on our platform for years, way before Labor.
However, he was judicious on this and many other occasions when he repeatedly cautioned the former government. One example of many was in February 2011 when minister Chandler stated in the House:
- … I sincerely do not think this minister understands the program … He has been lumped with introducing this legislation whether he likes it or not, due to a previous commitment and a deal with the member for Nelson.
A dirty deal.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will leave it there as recent events and comprehensive commentary are covered by my colleagues in their statements - previous and to come. Suffice to say, yet again, the former government must take responsibility for a debacle of its own making. Due diligence was missing, rather than grabbing headlines and making promises. In other words, ensure you get what you are paying for, establishing certainty that the new act, the Northern Territory Environmental Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act 2011, was 100% watertight and valid. It was not.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not at all surprised to see no other member of the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party climb to their feet to defend this. I have some sympathy for the member for Nightcliff who was told to shoulder this burden because far be it from the Leader of the Opposition to defend the muck-up she was directly involved with. One of the great things about being a new member in this House is you come in washed clean of the sins, in many respects, of your forebears. Unfortunately, in running the defence, the member for Nightcliff shrouded herself in the drapery of the former government and tried to run a defence, clearly not having read much of the material dating from that time.
I have instructed my office to ensure the Solicitor-General gives the member for Nightcliff a full and comprehensive briefing in relation to the matter. It was a glitch in the system. I take full responsibility as Attorney-General - it falls on my shoulders. However, having made certain that will occur, I point out what the member for Nightcliff was asking for was a Federal Court of Australia decision which is downloadable off the Internet and available as of 4 March 2013.
There are two components to the member for Nightcliff’s submission. One was a dance around the history of it. The second component was, ‘What are you going to do about it? It is your fault you are not doing anything about it?’ That is, essentially, the argument coming from the other side. We tried to do something about it years ago when members of this political party, the Country Liberals, said in this Chamber, ‘We have some serious reservations about this’. It was eloquently argued by the minister for the Environment and less eloquently stated by myself, but I fumbled my way through the shortcomings of this legislation.
The line trotted out that we did not support CDL cannot be sustained by any reading of the debates of that period. Yes, we asked critical questions but, as pointed out by the member for Nhulunbuy last night, critical questions are what oppositions ask. If the government of the day had responded to some of those critical questions we would not be in the environment we are now. Some of those critical questions were answered with lies. The part that concerns me most is the assertion by not only the minister for the Environment at that time, Karl Hampton, but also the Leader of Government Business at that time, Chris Burns, who both assured this House in no uncertain terms there was a rock-solid constitutional guarantee we were right because they had a constitutional lawyer look at it and it was solid gold and watertight.
A document marked ‘second draft’ by a person who would be a little embarrassed to be called the leading constitutional lawyer in this country, does not constitute a watertight defence. Moreover, if you read the second draft document, of which we are in possession now we are in government, not only does it say ‘second draft’ at the top, even in the second draft stage it says there are real challenges and pitfalls in the area of the Mutual Recognition Act.
I am sure members in this debate will have already heard reference to the Mutual Recognition Act because it is the instrument upon which Coca-Cola Amatil placed the Northern Territory of Australia on trial in Coca-Cola Amatil (Aust) Pty Ltd v Northern Territory of Australia [2013] FCA154, the case that ruled this regime as being in breach of the operation of the Mutual Recognition Act. I draw honourable members’ attention specifically to paragraphs 36 through 55 where it hands down the judgment. However, the judgment is encapsulated on the front page of the law report which says the following:
- THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1. On and from 4 January 2013 beverages in regulated containers within the meaning of the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act 2001 (NT) which are produced in, or imported into, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria or Western Australia may lawfully be sold in the Northern Territory without the need to comply with ss 13 or 14 of that Act.
This is the judgment the former government said would never, ever see the light of day because they had a constitutional lawyer with rock-solid legal advice saying, ‘It is okay’.
We also got some legal advice at that time. Guess where we got the legal advice from? The packaging industry. The packaging industry contacted the opposition of the day and said, ‘Here is the legal advice; we are pretty comfortable about our position’.
The government at the time tried to make some play out of that; that we were somehow in cahoots with the packaging industry. Of course, the packaging industry also made their legal advice available to the government saying, ‘If you do this, we will pursue this on the strength of our legal advice’. So, we came into this House well-armed with legal advice provided by the packaging industry saying, ‘The packaging industry is walking around town at the moment dishing out legal advice as fast as the photocopier can reproduce it. Let us see your legal advice’. The response from government was, ‘Oh, no, we are keeping that secret. That will be our little secret’. Small wonder they were keeping it secret because, as I suspected at the time, the legal advice was incomplete. What I said at the time, on 18 October 2011, was:
- The argument that we are not going to show our hand is incongruous and inconsistent with the processes this government will go down should it find itself in the court over this issue.
I went on to say:
- That is why I am starting to believe the Solicitor-General …
Who I thought at that time was providing the legal advice, not the micky mouse constitutional lawyer later referred to:
- That is why I am starting to believe the Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory has not provided legal advice, or that the legal advice has not been as comprehensive as it could have been. I do not know because we are not allowed to look at the legal advice. It has come down to a case of: ‘Trust us, we are the government, we know what we are doing’.
That is, essentially, what was identified by this side of the House. I am vindicated, sadly, in my suspicions that the former government absolutely and manifestly misled this House on the strength of the legal advice they had - unless they had a final legal advice in the records of the filing cabinets emptied before these guys left office which was better than the second draft. I would like to see that legal advice from the members opposite tabled in their defence today.
It was actually consistent with the legal advice Coca-Cola Amatil was saying of, ‘We think we are on the right side of the argument’. It was consistent with the advice I received from the Solicitor-General when I asked, ‘How do you think we will go in court?’ Whilst the argument was put a little more stridently in Coca-Cola Amatil’s legal advice, the truth of the matter is the advice from the former government’s constitutional expert and the Solicitor-General said, ‘There are real problems with this’.
However, the former government persevered and said, ‘It is all going to be micky mouse; do not worry about that’. Then they came back into the House at a later stage saying, ‘Oh, we are now going to fight them in the courts’. Of course, I was asking at the time - and this was as late as … Oh, here it is. I will go back a little.
Mr Hampton, on 24 February 2011, said:
- … we sought advice from one of the most senior constitutional law experts in Australia. I will again go over the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, and ensure we have on the public record the issues he raised about legal liability of the scheme we are proposing.
That was the response from the former minister. He is on the record saying they had a wonderful piece of legal advice which would defend us against everything including flood, fire and famine and, ‘Don’t you worry about that’. That was a lie and there is no other way to describe it.
It is interesting the member for Nightcliff asks, ‘What are you guys going to do about it?’ We were trying to do something about it three years ago when this legislation was being pushed through the House. We were trying to say, ‘Whoa, be careful. Answer the questions’.
I did a very unusual thing at the time, something I have never done before or since. I grabbed Karl Hampton, who was the minister, sat in the Speaker’s Gallery and said, ‘Are you sure about this? Are you absolutely rock solid on this stuff?’ ‘Oh, yes, yes, yes’, was the answer. I specifically asked him to go to the back of the Chamber to seek further reassurances in a private discussion, for no other reason than to assure myself the government was on the right track. My misgivings have been justified.
The matter I was concerned about at the time was that the failure of the government to properly prosecute this legislation would make this CDL legislation political cancer in other jurisdictions. The only thing that has truly surprised me in the whole process is the willingness of other jurisdictions to sign up and allow the Territory to be recognised as a self-governing jurisdiction. I take great heart from that because I genuinely am surprised when this invites pressure for CDL in other jurisdictions as well. Good on those other jurisdictions.
Coca-Cola Amatil has won the battle. We have announced an appeal, which means we will be asking more than one judge of the Federal Court to cast an eye over this matter and put it to rest once and for all. Because there is not a great deal of case law which applies to the Mutual Recognition Act, an appeal would be a worthwhile path to go down in an effort to protect this legislation from the area it is exposed in at the moment.
Nevertheless, it is quite possible we will not enjoy victory as the appellant in this matter and the respondents – the beverage companies - may have this decision reinforced. I will not speculate on the success or otherwise of an appeal. Suffice to say, ultimately, the court makes the decision in relation to the application of the Mutual Recognition Act and the potential exemptions under the sections within that act.
However, I hope Coca-Cola Amatil has won the battle and may even win the second battle but, ultimately, will lose the war because this is not about the Northern Territory’s CDL legislation. It never has been about what is happening in the Northern Territory. It is about the beverage companies taking a position, drawing a line in the sand, and trying to kill CDL nationally. With the amount of money and effort that has gone into this on the part of the beverage companies, it is probably not really worth their while to pursue this matter in the Federal Court. If you think about it on a national scale, this is about attempting to prevent this from finding its way into other jurisdictions or, ultimately, there being a national scheme. That is why Coca-Cola Amatil and some of the other proponents - Schweppes Australia and I believe Lion Pty Ltd - are all prepared to spend a great deal of money and effort trying to render this scheme inoperable.
All of this was not only the fault of the former government, but was done in circumstances that can only be described as dishonest and a deliberate attempt to deceive the people of the Northern Territory - and deceive they did because those who were deceived put up hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment into creating the depots and underwriting the system. A great deal of private money went into this. Many people put their futures into this scheme because they sought jobs in this area. Those people will, ultimately, be the victims if we cannot win this battle. Those people will have lost money on the basis they were misled, lied to, by the former government. They were …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I take exception to the word ‘lied’ from the member for Port Darwin, and ask you ask him to withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: I was not referring to any particular member, just government as a whole. Anyway, withdrawn.
Deceived, misled, misrepresented - any number of other synonyms will apply. It was the delivery of a message with a deliberate intent to deceive people so they could win a political fight and have the security of their government maintained by the member for Nelson. That is what this was really about: getting a system out the member for Nelson was always pursuing - and good luck to the member for Nelson. However, despite his best efforts with the former government they started fabricating things, and people were relying on those fabrications. Those fabrications then caused people to invest. People have invested and others have sought jobs in that industry, and those jobs are now under threat. That is what happens when we cannot look beyond this Chamber to the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
I listen to our prayers every morning very carefully and remind myself this is about - I have used the expression on a number of occasions - the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. That does not mean the true welfare of the Labor government staying in power in a hung parliament; it means the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
This circus rolled out by the former government was a betrayal of the truth; a deliberate use of misinformation to mislead Territorians into investing in something that was not legally sound. It all comes down to the one assertion that they had rock-solid legal advice saying it was all mickey mouse, when they had no such legal advice, could produce no such legal advice, and continue to be unable to produce such legal advice. Indeed, when we checked the records, the only legal advice we have is not that strong and would not necessarily resonate sufficiently deeply with me to place so much as a penny of capital into the risky environment the government led Territorians to. Not only did they lead Territorians into a risky environment, they did so by misrepresenting the truth - in fact, fabricating.
That is why the Australian Labor Party cannot be trusted. They try to paint themselves as being a wonderful group of people who are morally upright and righteous bound up in the idea they care. In fact, when stuck with a political problem, the first thing they did was rely on fabrications and untruths, and uttered those things in this House and beyond the boundaries of ...
Ms Walker: That is absolute rubbish, and you know it.
Mr ELFERINK: It is not rubbish. I just quoted from the Parliamentary Record. They said they had rock-solid legal advice. This is the point. The member for Nhulunbuy believes she is so precious and righteous because she is a member of the Labor Party; that in some way absolves them and her from the culpability of the deceit perpetrated on the people who invested in this program. That is shameful and embarrassing. The fact she is even trying to fight it continues to demonstrate she not only tries to deceive Territorians, she continues to deceive herself. Shame on the Australian Labor Party ...
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member to withdraw that. I take exception to it. I am not deceiving Territorians. He is making it up.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, could you withdraw those comments with regard to the member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, she has just denied there was an attempt to deceive Territorians. There was a clear attempt to deceive Territorians and she, by her conduct, has now placed herself in a position where she has shrouded herself in that deceit. I stand by that ...
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, can you please withdraw those words regarding the member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw, Madam Speaker, but reluctantly. I cannot say there is a great deal of faith in it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment for bringing this statement to the House. It is an important statement and provides a mechanism by which we can do two things. The first it to update Territorians on what is happening with CDL. It is important to do that because, in essence, it is a good scheme. The concept is around picking up your rubbish and being able to take it back for some financial gain, as the member for Nhulunbuy likes to point out, and not for profit. The schools and individuals doing it are fantastic.
It also provides an avenue for the truth to be spoken in this House with respect to how we arrived at where we are today. That involves some history and not proud history for the Labor Party, the Northern Territory government at the time. In fact, the longer I am in government and able to access departments and the truth, the more I find myself contemplating a phrase. I need to put that in context and will tell you what the phrase is in a minute.
I am 50 years of age, having been born in 1962. A few people here are older, but most are younger. Nonetheless, I have a good memory which goes back to my childhood. I remember seeing a show on television - for those who remember, it was Laurel and Hardy. Who remembers Laurel and Hardy? Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were a slapstick comedy team who had shows which ran from the 1920s to the 1940s. Those shows were replayed and, as a kid, I thoroughly enjoyed them. This made me think back to one of the most famous lines from Laurel and Hardy which is something like, ‘Well, that is another fine mess you’ve gotten us into, Ollie’. Every time I hear about the failure of the former Labor government I think, ‘That is another fine mess you got us into, Ollie. Thanks very much’. Every time we talk about the budget, CDL, and a whole range of issues in this House, my mind goes back to that.
We have a legacy of the former Labor government. We could probably call them the Laurel and Hardy government - a bit of slapstick comedy happening when they were in government. It would be funny except it is government. The number of things being exposed now which they completely botched is not good government for the Northern Territory - and we are now having to pick up the pieces. We are heading towards $5.5bn worth of debt. That would not be a comedy either, but it is another Laurel and Hardy moment from Labor after 11 years of horrible administration.
It is unbelievable but, in more recent history coming forward from the 1920s and 1940s where Laurel and Hardy and that idea were born, history needs to be correct and not rewritten by the Labor Party in having us all believe they were the saviours of the Cash for Container scheme and everything that goes with it. Clearly, the history is plain. We know the bill passed this House.
The then shadow minister for the Environment, Hon Peter Chandler, said to the minister: ‘Have you sought exemption from the Mutual Recognition Act?’ I am led to believe the answer was, ‘Yes, it is all under control. Yes, got it sorted out’ ...
Mr Elferink: Was that Laurel or Hardy?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I think he was Hardy.
Mr Conlan: Tom and Jerry perhaps.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, Tom and Jerry is another one that comes to mind.
One week after the bill passed, the former minister, Karl Hampton, moved an amendment to the bill, as I understand it, which gave provision for a 12-month holiday on attacking the legislation which, I guess in essence, was a 12-month exemption.
Leaping forward to August or early September 2012, there was an election, a change of government. The Laurel and Hardy Labor government was kicked out, replaced with a real government. The first thing that happens when a new government comes in is the ministers are given briefings from their departments so they can be brought up to speed on what has been happening and what needs to happen to continue the work of government.
The new minister for the Environment, the member for Blain, Terry Mills, received a briefing from his department on what was happening with the exemption. ‘What is happening with CDL?’ he asked, only to be told, ‘Nothing. Nothing is happening with it’. I am sure the minister at the time had a holy cow moment, ‘Now what do we do?’ There we were, early September 2012, put in a position where the former government had done nothing to pursue full exemption from the Mutual Recognition Act. I am sure if the member for Blain had thought about it at the time he would have thought it a Laurel and Hardy moment as well. ‘Another fine mess you have gotten us into, Ollie’.
That is when the work began in earnest. Things were set in place; actions were happening from that time onward to seek the support of the other jurisdictions across Australia for a permanent exemption from the Mutual Recognition Act, something that had not been done before.
Notwithstanding that, the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, recently said during a radio interview the former government had, in fact, been chasing the letters of support. I believe she said there were letters of support. I would have thought, if those letters of support had existed as the Leader of the Opposition said they did, they would have been in a file provided to the new minister by the department. I would not mind betting that file was bare of any such letters. I heard the minister for the Environment earlier issue the challenge to the Leader of the Opposition to stump up, show us the letters. Where are they? I double that challenge. Come on, Leader of the Opposition, show us those letters. Are they in a file somewhere? Apparently, not in the department’s file. Is it possible you might have taken some of those letters from the department’s file and hung on to them? Are they the letters you are alluding to? Is that how you came to be in possession of them - allegedly? It is time you stumped up and answered some questions about it. People deserve to know.
Anyway, that is the government we used to have to deal with in the Northern Territory - Laurel and Hardy. Thank goodness we now have a real government, because we are getting on and governing for the Territory.
Of course, the real impact on all this is on the punters. It is on the people of the Northern Territory who placed their faith in the former government and its ability to do the job. Clearly, they have been let down.
Even from a perspective of Katherine where I come from, MT Bins and Envirobank started Cash for Containers collection depots in the town. They were going along swimmingly. Unfortunately, because the former Labor government did not do its homework or its job properly, both those Cash for Containers places have now closed down. That is jobs lost and damage to the local economy. In the case of MT Bins, it was around $100 000 expenditure on infrastructure, a bailing machine, a new forklift, glass crusher, and a few other things.
That is the nett effect, on a very small scale in Katherine, of the bungled attempt by the former government to bring Cash for Containers legislation to the Northern Territory. That reeks of incompetence on a scale beyond description.
Fortunately, in speaking with one of our Cash for Containers places today, it looks like MT Bins will be opening after Easter now this government has decided to underwrite the cost of Cash for Containers for two months. At least we are doing our bit to keep local businesses open. I hope Envirobank can also reopen its doors in the not-too-distant future.
I am glad I could make a contribution to this debate this afternoon. This is important for the Territory. It is important to keep our streets clean. People would notice the streets are much grubbier than they used to be. In fact, there is an article in the Katherine Times today about the amount of rubbish on the riverbanks of the Katherine River because Cash for Containers has temporarily closed down.
This government will do what it can to ensure CDL, in a form, stays alive. It is critical for the Territory. It is something that, even if you take away the business and environmental benefits, makes people feel good. One of the nice things about living here is the level of good feeling you get that is engendered by living in the Northern Territory. If we were to lose this it would be a tragedy.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for making this statement. I assure Territorians they are rid of the Laurel and Hardy Labor government. You now have a real government that is willing to work, be thorough and competent, and do the right thing for Territorians.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Environment minister for bringing this statement before the House. I also thank him for his bipartisan support for what was a Labor initiative in the previous term of government and something Labor had always committed to. It is something the former CLP government, over more than two decades, always talked about but never delivered.
During the Labor government, we had the greenest government the Northern Territory and Territorians had ever seen. We launched the Cash for Containers scheme and, around that same time, also introduced legislation to ban lightweight single-use plastic bags. That came into effect on 1 September 2011. It is a huge thing to change people’s behaviours around the use of plastic bags and convince people we need to look after the environment, reduce the amount of landfill, and it is possible to have bags you can reuse. I have been amazed since it has been implemented, as I have queued at my local supermarket to do my shopping, that the vast majority of people come with bags. The number of people who may only buy a couple of items and are asked if they want are bag say, ‘No thanks I will be right’, and go out with whatever it is they have purchased in their arms. It is possible to introduce schemes which will make an impact on the environment for a sustainable future.
The Cash for Container scheme, container deposit legislation, was exactly in that same mould. I am a child of South Australia, so it was a scheme I was raised on as a kid in my home town of Clare in South Australia where, on a weekend or after school, if we saw a bottle lying around we would grab it and run to the nearest deli because that would get us 5. A 5 paper bag of mixed lollies was the incentive.
The same principle is in the Northern Territory with the introduction of container deposit legislation. No one denies it was difficult legislation to frame based on what was in South Australia. The real drivers were around recycling containers, reducing landfill, putting 10 back in the pockets of consumers and, importantly, putting the obligation on the beverage manufacturers to take back and have responsibility for the containers in which they sell their products.
There was huge support for the scheme in the lead-up to its introduction, and it is a scheme I am very proud to have been a part of. In those days, the member for Namatjira sat on the government benches as the Environment minister, initially. As she always proudly said, she was not just a minister for the Environment she was a minister of the environment.
The fact the member for Nelson supported the scheme was a bonus. The member for Nelson has never made any bones about the fact it was a scheme he wanted to see in place. I do not believe anyone here denies it is a great scheme. From what I have heard from members opposite, no one is in denial that it is a good scheme.
There is no denying the legislation was problematic. It is incredibly disappointing the legal challenge launched by Coca-Cola Amatil and some of its industry counterparts was successful. I welcomed the leadership on this shown by the former Chief Minister, the member for Blain, when he came out in strong support of the scheme and said unequivocally he would be putting all the Northern Territory’s resources into the case to defend the legislation in the Northern Territory. Of course, we know the outcome is the Northern Territory was unsuccessful. The former Chief Minister said he was not giving up, there would be an appeal and, no doubt, there will need to be legislative changes to ensure the legislation is recognised in its validity within Commonwealth law.
My own electorate in the bush has been one of the most challenging areas trying to get this scheme off the ground. Obviously, South Australia has had similar issues. Some of my constituents are a little doubtful about the ongoing success and viability of the scheme in remote areas. I know there are parts of the Northern Territory where people were determined to ensure it was successful and they would never give up.
One of the first remote places to have a Cash for Container scheme in place was at Aputula, which is Finke River. The Aputula Store had great success. There was clearly recognition you can keep the community clean, bring your containers back, and get 10 back in your pocket. That recycling concept gels with people. Of course, what it means is the streets of our towns and communities are cleaner and rid of those ubiquitous products, particularly from Coca-Cola.
I have never drunk Coca-Cola in my life …
Mr Conlan: You do not know what you are missing.
Ms WALKER: … I cannot stand the taste of it and no one in my family drinks it. Perhaps the member for Greatorex drinks way too much of it given he has been jumping out of his skin. I believe he is slightly hyper, so I suggest you need to drink something other than Coke. In fact, I suggest you boycott it as a number of my friends and family have ...
Mr Conlan: No way, no way.
Ms WALKER: People are very angry with Coca-Cola Amatil muscling in on the Northern Territory. A big global multinational company …
Mr Conlan: Employing millions of people and creating millions of dollars.
Ms WALKER: … determined from the outset to challenge this scheme and ensure it does not work. Clearly, the member for Greatorex thinks Coca-Cola Amatil is a fantastic company and he supports the legal challenge to the Northern Territory they have made, stepping on the toes of Territorians saying, ‘We are going to ensure your desire to recycle, your desire to get 10 even after we have hiked up the prices ...
Mr Conlan: You left the door wide open.
Ms WALKER: The member for Greatorex believes it a good thing Coca-Cola has done. What a shame job that is for him ...
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51. I am trying to listen to the member for Nhulunbuy without interruption.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, if you could tone down your comments please so we can all hear the member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: The challenge from Coca-Cola Amatil is despicable. Many people are very angry about it because they have come in over the top of the will of Territorians. This scheme is in place because it is what Territorians wanted. A Labor government delivered on that desire by creating container deposit legislation so we had something in place.
I go back to the challenges of getting the scheme under way in the bush. Very early in 2012, not long after the legislation was enacted and the scheme a reality, I asked the then minister for the Environment, the member for Stuart, Karl Hampton, to visit my electorate because there were people who were keen to talk to him about it and to bring with him Craig Ingram, project manager within the bureaucracy for the scheme.
We had a day of back-to-back meetings between people at Nhulunbuy and Yirrkala, businesses, and Nhulunbuy Corporation, the equivalent of our town council, the East Arnhem Shire. People wanted to embrace it and were keen to talk about how they could make this work.
One of the incentives to help make it work was the availability of one-off capital grants from the government to enable those who wanted to participate in the scheme - whether they were a commercial operator or not for profit - to have access to funding as an incentive to help establish some of the infrastructure needed.
The infrastructure needed is pretty slim. When I first visited Envirobank in Darwin and another recycling place - I cannot recall the name - it was fairly limited infrastructure: yes, a shed, concrete floor, roof, tables for sorting and big bales for collecting the containers.
I could see it did not necessarily need millions of dollars invested - it did need investment. The other thing that struck me when I visited those two places in Darwin was the number of people employed. These were green jobs. This is not just about recycling; this is about creating green jobs. It is regrettable a number of these places have had to close and jobs have gone. I remain confident, with the challenge to the scheme - an appeal on the legislation and hearing from the other side there is a real commitment to make it work. I applaud that and look forward to seeing these places reopen and jobs reinstated.
During the discussions in Nhulunbuy on the day the minister visited with Mr Craig Ingram, there was much interest in operating the scheme. Setting up a depot is one thing; being in a remote area dealing with the logistics of transportation is an entirely different thing. Obviously, it does not come without its challenges or costs.
Whilst a number of organisations and businesses were quite interested, and people very supportive of the scheme, essentially, it came down to one local businessman who lodged an application and was successful in gaining one of the grants. That was in June of 2012.
He also did the hard yards - because he was a businessman he knew how to move forward on this - drawing up a business plan and dealing with the transportation logistics of how this would work. He was successful in doing a deal with Nhulunbuy Freight Services which operates a road freight system on the Central Arnhem Road in and out of Nhulunbuy. It is approximately a nine- to 10-hour drive from Katherine, most of it on a dirt road, and for around six months of the year the road is impassable. Essentially, those trucks come in throughout the Dry Season and, when they go back out, the opportunity to backload with a cheaper rate is quite attractive. It was a bit of a win/win for the freight company, as well as for the local businessman who was looking to set this venture up.
The other alternative freight access is with the barge. It is a very costly exercise even to back-freight out of Nhulunbuy. We had explored that opportunity with Toll Marine. They were not interested in providing free or discounted freight - as they do quite generously on occasions for not-for-profit organisations to help out the community. Essentially, they regarded this as a commercial venture and, therefore, were not prepared to provide anything other than a commercial rate for back-freighting.
I tried an alternative by going directly through to Pacific Aluminium, as the major employer and consumer of freight services in the region, to ask if they would consider, under their freighting arrangements, to backload under their costs and arrangements, and contract with the barge company to back-freight. They were very interested. Obviously, they produce the world’s most recyclable metal, aluminium, and have a vested interest in the communities in which they operate and to their stakeholders to promote recycling wherever they can. However, again, the issue of a commercial operator versus a not-for-profit or a volunteer organisation came to the fore.
The local businessman, whose name is Mr Broadbent, runs East Arnhem Enterprises, and managed to secure the logistics and the back-freighting through to the Stuart Highway. The next hurdle for him - and I know he pulled his hair out with this - was signing up to contracts and negotiating with each of the five coordinators - the representatives of the different beverage manufacturers. He asked them to consider signing on to a three-month contract, ‘Let us sign on to a three-month contract, on a trial basis, to see how successful this is and then review it after that’. On the strength of that, four of the five signed up. It took a bit of negotiating. The last company to sign up, by which time it was really all too late, was Statewide, the representative for Coca-Cola Amatil. Obviously, towards the end of the Dry Season we were looking to the skies and knowing the Wet Season was upon us and the close-off of the track was coming around very soon.
Another factor also impacted negatively on this. Nhulunbuy was going through an incredibly difficult time - and is only just coming out of that now - with the uncertainty around the future of the community with the gas to Gove and the fact that, without gas to Gove, there was a very real threat the refinery operations would be mothballed, which many people took to understand being closed. You cannot imagine the impact it had on the business community in Nhulunbuy, and the lack of confidence this meant. Our local businesses have just been so strapped as a result of that very difficult time.
For Mr Broadbent, on the verge of opening up his depot, the barriers he came up against within the agency were entirely unhelpful. You can put it down to a change of government and the resettling of a new government with a change of direction and, maybe, some movement within the bureaucracy. We know Craig Ingram had left the agency. However, neither I nor Mr Broadbent could get any sense out of the new government as to why it was that approval for him to proceed with his depot was being held up. His business was, as I said, like other businesses: going through an incredibly tough time. He had put off dozens of staff. He operates quite a large business; he operates community stores as well in some of the homelands, which was why this was such a good fit for his business.
Essentially, because people had been holding on to their containers for months - I had been encouraging them to do so; I still have containers stacked up in my office and around my home, as have other people – and there was a backlog of containers Mr Broadbent did not have the capacity, with the downturn in his business, to have the community roll through his door seeking the money that would be redeemed on all these containers. He just could not afford it. He threw up his arms. He has sitting out in Nhulunbuy a Hydropack automatic tie baler which he purchased, and some of the capital funds went to warehouse signage. I have seen the depot in Nhulunbuy ready to go but unable to do so because of a number of things. It is all still sitting there, and we all hope there will be a resolution to this legal challenge and the scheme will get back up and running. Whether I can hang on to all those empty containers sitting on my back verandah, I am not sure. Maybe I will. That has been the difficulty in Nhulunbuy, but there has been no shortage of goodwill.
One of the other capital grants went to Nhulunbuy Primary School, one of the largest primary schools in the Northern Territory. With that grant money they are setting up a collection point where people can donate their containers. They are setting up with bales. I believe they purchased a trailer quite separate to the scheme which offered $3000 for schools to purchase trailers.
Nhulunbuy, I guess like many remote communities, are mad keen fundraisers. We have many kids in our town, we are a mad keen sporting community, and teams and schoolkids are travelling all the time for various things - whether it is the annual school trip to Canberra, or the touch football competition in Darwin. People are always fundraising. People embraced it as an opportunity to fundraise. Nhulunbuy Primary School was seeking to get people’s donated containers, and they would then take those to the depot that is sitting there waiting to open its doors on the industrial estate in Nhulunbuy. We are just waiting for this challenge ...
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension for the member for Nhulunbuy, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker and member for Nightcliff.
There is a lot of goodwill in Nhulunbuy, driven by fundraising. We all genuinely hope it will get off the ground. It is not just about Nhulunbuy or Yirrkala; it is about those communities within reasonable proximity to Nhulunbuy. There are 26 homelands off the Central Arnhem Road. The community of Gapuwiyak, in the member for Arnhem’s electorate, is only a two-hour drive away. I have spoken with people there who are really keen to be part of it - both people at the community and at the shire. People want to be able to recycle these containers and earn that money.
I spoke a few months with Alastair King, the CEO of the Arnhemland Progress Association because I wanted to touch base. I had spoken with ALPA before the challenge had come through and the Northern Territory government had lost the case about what was happening in those places. I asked ALPA - a large not-for-profit organisation keen to support community development – what they were doing at their community stores. It was very timely I had that conversation, because I had heard there was a reverse vending machine going out to Milingimbi. When I spoke to Alastair he said, ‘Yes, it has just arrived. It has been out there for a couple of weeks’. I would like to table a couple of photographs Alastair King sent to me from the ALPA Store at Milingimbi. The process out there at Milingimbi …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, do you seek leave to table …
Ms WALKER: I am sorry. Can I seek leave, please, Madam Speaker, to table these photographs?
Leave granted.
Ms WALKER: I am sure people have seen these reverse vending machines. It was great to see this one here was very much owned by the community; it has the artwork there of the baru, the crocodile, on it. You can see containers that have been collected lined up in bags. It has actually been driven by - forgive me, I cannot recall his name, he is the Sport and Recreation Officer with the shire at Milingimbi. He saw it as a great activity for the kids to be part of in the program he runs. There is another photograph here of the kids standing around absolutely fascinated watching how this machine works - you feed your containers in, they are crushed, and then you get the credit that accumulates on your card.
The funds raised have gone back into the kids in that community through the sport and recreation programs. The community is as neat as a pin because they have cleaned up all their bottles. Everybody is a winner.
The ALPA Store’s role was they were happy to provide some verandah space on their premises and to allow the reverse vending machine to be plugged into ALPA’s power supply; obviously, it is reliant upon electricity. I saw that as a great community outcome where people are embracing all the things around recycling and have the incentive to make some money out of it as well.
It is all on hold at the moment, and we look forward to seeing it restart. I appreciate the commitment of the Chief Minister and the Environment minister in taking this challenge up to ensure this system works because it is something Territorians want. People are greener than they used to be. Recycling is a good, positive thing which is providing jobs, as I said, but, importantly, it is about creating a sustainable future. We need to be doing more of it in the Northern Territory and in our remote areas and not saying, ‘Wow, it is all too hard because it is too expensive and too far away’. With goodwill and partnerships there are ways to make this work.
The big beverage manufacturers who have resisted this scheme from the start need to take a reality check on what it is consumers want. They have profited enormously out of this scheme with the price hikes and the number of cans which have not been redeemed - that all goes into their pockets. It has been good to see the increase in the number of containers being redeemed, and I believe this scheme will work, will continue to grow, and people will embrace it.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing his statement before the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Brennan for bringing this important issue to the House. I sometimes wonder when the government says it is short on money. I was listening to the Chief Minister give a history of CDL going back through Parliamentary Records and media releases. I know how long it takes me to find something in the Parliamentary Record; obviously, he has some well-paid people in that department because there was some history pulled out of there for that speech.
I will give my bit of history without going back through the Parliamentary Record. The CLP, when I was in local government, was firmly opposed to container deposits. You need to have that on the record so you get an understanding of why this has been such a painfully long, drawn-out battle from beginning to not quite the end - yet. I was on the Territory Anti-litter Committee for quite a number of years. I believe Lorna Woods from KAB, a great supporter of container deposit legislation, was on it as well. We were not allowed to talk about container deposit legislation on those committees because the government had an unwritten agreement that the beverage industry would supply the CLP government at the time $200 000 to not introduce container deposit legislation, which was bumped up to $250 000.
The CLP changed its view towards the end of the 1990s, and that was great to hear. When the Labor Party came in, there was a similar move by the ALP to support container deposit legislation. Unfortunately, the ALP gave in to the beverage industry at that point. That was about 2006.
I remember getting a phone call from somebody who did not explain where he was from asking if I would like to have breakfast at the Atrium. Having been involved in the beverage industry before, and knowing their methodology, I was immediately suspicious the only reason this person might be ringing up around Christmas was because they were coming to the Northern Territory to put pressure on the government not to introduce container deposit legislation which the Chief Minister at the time said she was considering. Not long after, the government said, ‘No, we will not introduce it’.
People can pat themselves on the back; they can also look back and say, ‘We did not always agree with this’. This highlights the amount of pressure - we have had the debate before, member for Brennan - put on members of parliament by the beverage industry before you took your trip to New Zealand. I had a paid trip to South Australia many years ago when I was President of the Litchfield Shire Council. I went there with a New South Wales local government member and it was paid for by the beverage industry in South Australia. When we came back we were so supportive of container deposit legislation we said, ‘Thank you very much for the overnight stay and the airfare’. They were hoping to convince us it was an unworkable option to collect rubbish. We came back totally convinced after that tour.
The general population, especially in Central Australia but not so much in the Top End, has been extremely supportive. The history is there. In Alice Springs, the percentage of people who wanted container deposit legislation was about 90%-plus. Part of the reason is their proximity to South Australia. Sometimes, some of the angst about CDL comes from people from states who have not known this system or are too young to know not so many years ago - in the 1990s, for instance, Coca-Cola had a bottling machine, which is now in the middle of the harbour - you got refunds from Coca-Cola. That was before they changed into a mighty conglomerate which refuses to be part of the system it was at one time.
I asked them why they got rid of the bottling machines at Bishop Street and they said because it caused pollution. I took that with a grain of salt. Anyway, if you go fishing in the harbour you will find that bottling machine still being of some use.
We need to mention, when talking about CDL, the great work people like Damien Ryan have done. Damien Ryan’s leadership with the Alice Springs Council brought forth their own container deposit scheme, where you can receive 5 per container for cans and bottles. He mentioned the figure recently, and it was millions in three years - millions of cans with 5. Even now, with the cash for container scheme partially running, he has been offering 10 for all wine and spirit bottles, and they were pulling in about 7000 bottles. I do not know if it was a day or week, but that signifies some of the issues we have with the abuse of alcohol in some parts of the Territory. He was certainly getting a good return of glass bottles that otherwise would not be returned.
It has had a long history and, sometimes history, depending on your political point of view, gets twisted. The member for Port Darwin, until the day he dies, will go on about the agreement I had with Paul Henderson. Well, good luck! Perhaps when he quotes a prayer he might remember the bit that says, ‘Forgive us our trespasses’. Move on! Life is too short for people to be carrying this burden around for the rest of their lives.
The Chief Minister quoted from the agreement. It said I was asking for a continuation of the promise the government had made in the 2008 election that it would bring in container deposits. The reason I put it in the agreement - not only because I supported it - was because I knew they had fallen apart some years ago under pressure from the industry. I wanted to put it into the agreement so we had a much better chance of it happening. That is what happened and where it comes from. You can say Gerry Wood forced them into the situation. No, I reinforced the promise they made to the electorate, before the agreement, that they would introduce the container deposit scheme.
Much has been said, and the member for Brennan, the minister, reiterated much of what was said in the debate. I remember the debate well. If you read my contribution, which I do not have in front of me, the minister might at least recognise I congratulated the minister on his contribution believing he had a role to scrutinise the existing bill. That is what he did. I did not agree with the statement he made at the time about the stewardship model having substantial merit. To be honest with you - and I will explain that later - I do not believe it has great merit except in a fairly tight focus; that is, litter.
I take the point the minister made - he warned the government. I was on that committee, and the member for Namatjira, for some time, might have been on that committee because this goes back before 2009. We had a committee looking at container deposits and, minister, there was some discussion about whether you would come with us on a trip to South Australia. Without getting into why that did or did not happen, you understand there was a committee at that stage looking at it, and it continued. You would also know I had concerns at the Estimates Committee on how it was running at that stage. I will come back to that later.
I can understand people saying I am part of the reason this might have failed. You can say that, but I also have to rely on people who have a bit more knowledge than me when it comes to the law. I will quote a couple of people in that debate. One was Dr Burns, who said in the debate:
- Government has received highly credentialed legal advice that the scheme in this bill successfully avoids being a tax, nor does it conflict with section 92 of the Australian Constitution or section 49 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 regarding discrimination against interstate trade.
I am presuming he was talking about this bill because two other bills were put up against the government’s version. Both those were knocked on the head because they went against the Constitution in relation to the powers of the Territory to raise tax. The legislation we have is based on the industry version; that is, the industry runs it like the South Australian industry. The minister said:
- The bill has been designed to conform to the statutory exemptions available under the mutual recognition legislation. But, to put it beyond doubt, government will be seeking a specific exemption through COAG.
Then he said:
- That specific exemption, as I understand it, has been secured for the South Australian CDL scheme.
If, by chance, that specific exemption is not approved, the view of government is that the bill is safe anyway through the general statutory exemptions and the mutual recognition legislation ...
Also the minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage at the time, Karl Hampton, said:
- … to put it beyond doubt, government will be seeking a specific exemption through COAG.
- If, by chance, that specific exemption is not approved, the view of government is that the bill is safe anyway through a general statutory exemptions in the mutual recognition legislation itself.
I understand, minister, you questioned it. I do not want this container deposit scheme to fall over. That is the worst thing to have happened; we have come this far and, all of a sudden, it has collapsed. I understood these things were going to happen and the legislation was okay. People might say, ‘You should have checked it’. When you are given legal advice it is okay - I do not have the ability to get secondary legal advice. You get the advice and take, in good faith, it is the case. I am disappointed certain people in parliament said certain things, and that does not appear to have happened. What I am especially concerned about is there was a promise that, to put it beyond doubt, the government would be seeking a specific exemption through COAG, which is what we are trying to do now.
The criticism the government has of the then government is fair and reasonable, because the promises were made. If people say to me, ‘Well, you are to blame too’ I will accept that. I took what I believed was legal advice they had received which allowed this to continue. It is very disappointing.
Minister, you raised this issue and you must have been aware of it even when you came into government. I am interested to know whether - because it took some time to get this cranked up - the government looked at whether the promises the previous government made had occurred, and, if so, did you start the ball rolling at that stage? It is not clear whether you have done anything. I have been asked this by the media. I said, ‘It is obvious the previous government’s advice was wrong’. What did you do when you got into power? I am interested in what processes you put in.
There is no doubt we can have a great debate about who did what and who is to blame, and that is reasonable enough. I am impressed, minister, that you have tried to resolve this issue. I will be asking a few questions about how that is happening.
I was critical of Labor, especially the department, during the Estimates Committee because one of the big stumbling blocks when the container deposit scheme was operating was the handling fee. We talked about Envirobank, which is one of the depots that kept going quite successfully right through the time of the container scheme operation - but you have to remember it is backed by Carlton United. It has a bit of backing behind it and the handling fee is, perhaps, not such a big problem. However, for poor independent depots it is not enough. It annoys me when I see the Coke website telling the community the cost of this scheme was up to 20, with 10 for deposits. They said it was up to 10 for the handling fee. If that was the case, tell me which member of the depots was getting 10 in the handling fee, or were they just putting it in their pocket? They are charging everyone 10 handling fee, but I am pretty sure the handling fee was somewhere between 4 and 5. Someone has pocketed money and claimed 20 was the cost of the scheme.
It is the handling fee I need sorted out. I remember criticising the government saying, ‘You had the power within the act to stop products being sold until a reasonable agreement had been made with sellers of beverages in the Northern Territory’. I am sure if the government had said, ‘Coke, you are not allowed to sell in the Northern Territory’, Coles and Woolies would have been down their throat in five second telling them to fix it. They did not do that and, unfortunately, there was weakness in how this was run out after the legislation had been improved.
At that time I told a couple of people the department sat on its hands. It had done the hard work, got it up and running, then let it drop. It did not need to be dropped; it needed to be going full bore with plenty of people looking at all the issues to ensure it got through all the problems that occurred, especially with the handling fee.
Minister, where are we now? The beverage industry has taken us to court, as we all know. The Territory lost the case. Coca-Cola, as a wonderful cooperative corporate citizen, led Schweppes, another multinational – which, I believe, is run by a Japanese brewery, and Lion Nathan, which I believe is Mitsubishi – great big companies. Some of the people who direct those companies probably would not even know where Darwin is. Yet, those so-called good corporate citizens or bodies just trampled on the Northern Territory because they do not want a national container deposit scheme.
They have made at least $25.5m since December this year, just in unredeemed deposits. That does not take much to work out. Coke said they got 20, and there were 101 million containers to January. They have retained that money - not Coke alone, but all the beverage industries have retained $25.5m, notwithstanding the money they would have got from the aluminium, the plastic, and the paper.
We know what type of companies they are. We would not be in this state - regardless of whether our legislation was good or bad - if those companies had been cooperative and worked with us. They did not have to take us to court. All right, the legislation was not up to scratch, but you still do not have to take someone to court if you think the system is good.
You said in your statement on the radio recently we had the majority of states and one was in the mail. You then said in the statement we did not have the majority of states, but you showed me one finger in a nice, polite way that must mean the same state, I presume. It is Tasmania, I believe, we are waiting for, so that is good.
I would like, minister, for you to explain what the system is with the Cash for Containers scheme that will allow us to continue. How will it operate? How will businesses get their return? Will the government own the product? Will they get some money back? Alice Springs ran the show and collected all the cans and bottles; they were able to get money back from the product. Is there some chance the government, in setting up this scheme, will have the ability to get some return for what they are doing? Maybe give us an idea when it will start. I believe you issued a media release - and I have spoken to you about it - maybe two weeks ago - and, the next day someone rang me and said, ‘They are not taking Coke cans’. It did not say that in your media release. There was confusion at the beginning, and it would be nice if how this will work was clearer so people are not confused.
It is a great scheme, and many people here have spoken about it. We can talk about whether it is working from a legal point of view, but we know it works well. We were just getting to the point where I believe it was becoming like South Australia; people were starting to get the hang of it. Community groups knew what to do, how to collect it; you had three bins outside the cricket club for cans, bottles, cartons and things. We were getting the feel of how to do it and it was making the place cleaner ...
Ms MANISON: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Wanguri.
It is a great scheme, and I know it could be so much better. If you are going to look at how to make the scheme better later - if we can get through this bad period – a way the government can assist in the rural area, my area, is for some portable Cash for Containers depots. Maybe they could turn up at the tips on the weekend. In the rural area, people drop an enormous number of cans in bins. People do not want to travel to Palmerston so they go bush. If there was a system where they knew on the second Saturday of the month there would be a portable Cash for Containers depot, that would help increase the number of cans.
Of course, we have to up the handling fee. I do not have a problem paying a 10 handling fee if that means people at Yuendumu and other places can bring their containers in. That would be good. We will get this out of the way and, minister, I gather you have some ideas on how to improve it because you have been talking about that. That is the area we have to work on.
Some time ago when I was in local government we did a CD - I still have it somewhere - of how it would work in the Territory. Of course, at that time we were hoping the government could run it, not the industry. That is the only way this will work well - where profits that come out of the scheme are put back into the community. At the moment, they go straight into the pockets of the big companies, which is unfortunate. That also happens in South Australia.
Yes, if we could improve it, it would be great for the Territory. Trucks and barges go out to communities and have to come back. There were always ideas of bringing materials back at a cheaper rate than they were sent there, and getting companies to at least agree to special rates for this type of thing. There is plenty of scope in that area.
The area the government should have made more noise about, regardless of what it thought of the previous government’s attempt to bring this in, was the rip-offs that occurred. Cash for Containers works in South Australia and it does not have a price more expensive than Victoria, Western Australia - or wherever. One of the reasons Cash for Containers could do that is because there is always a certain amount of unredeemed deposits and the companies can put that into the administration and get that levelling of the price. They probably also put some of that price increase right across Australia.
When 30 VB cans are sold in Cloncurry for $53, in Kununurra for $53, and at Northside, Alice Springs a carton is sold for $70 - regardless of whether you think an increase in price might reduce the amount people are drinking - and even in Howard Springs it is $64, and the maximum it should have increased if it was 20 per can would be $6, you have to ask: who is ripping who off? The freight to Kununurra or Cloncurry is evened out through freight contracts. When this came in, 70% of prices in the Northern Territory were the same as South Australia. They are not now. The only place you get close is Coles and Woolies because they absorb it because they need to keep their national pricing system. For the smaller distributors there is a vast difference well above what the cost of Cash for Containers caused.
The government could have done some figures itself. One of the failings of the previous government was it did not do enough background work. I received some background work from them about the cost of the product. Someone should have been out a year before it came in comparing prices to what was happening before container deposit came in, in South Australia and the Northern Territory, and comparing them afterwards to see what the mark-up was.
I am interested to see if some of these companies, like Lion Nathan and Carlton United, will drop their prices to what they were before the container deposit scheme came in. I have not seen any changes yet. A bottle of Coca-Cola still costs $4 for 600 ml - I do not buy it anymore. It would be nice if the government said it would not use Coca-Cola in Parliament House anymore. That would be a nice piece of symbolism.
The other issue, minister, was the amount of money they have retained. The government should have made more noise telling people how much money is being ripped off by the companies. When they take $20.5m out of the system we should tell people these companies, at the same time as jacking our container deposit scheme, are just taking money away. Where is it going? It is probably to shareholders who could not care too much about the Northern Territory.
I am told the CEO of Coke pulls in about $8m. There is about $3m in the bin network they are trying to promote, and the bin network should be called for what it is - a con. It is great for litter, but not great for recycling or reducing landfill because it relies on someone else besides the beverage industry to pick all those cans and bottles out of the bins and separate them from the pies that might go in because people do not always stick to what should be in the bin. They do not always put their bottles in the bottle only bin. Someone has to do that and it is usually the councils, which then have to employ people - and that goes back to the ratepayer.
If it is a place like Yuendumu, it is more likely to end up in landfill because the value of the product is not there. That is what people forget; Cash for Containers puts a value on a product that normally could not be recycled. If you pick a bottle up in Yuendumu, why bother moving it? It would not get you anywhere; you pay to get it wherever it has to go. In Darwin, with Cash for Containers, you can go to Envirobank to see it is crushed. It is now used for paving because its price is very low. At least with Cash for Containers you get it back to the depot, where it can be used for something. That is the difference.
The bin network is simply a way of the industry trying to deflect criticism of what it did. In fact, there were about four or five media releases around the time of the court case.
I am pleased with the statement today. I know the minister is doing his best to bring the Cash for Containers scheme back and have it running better than before. Many people in the community are very pleased to hear what the government has said, even though it does cost them money. I am interested to know the time line, with the court case, COAG, and the period you said this program will continue over. Do you think it will go longer than you expect? I believe you said it is about eight weeks. Do we expect to have an answer within eight weeks? It would be interesting to know.
In summing up, the container deposit scheme is a great program. I am disappointed it has gone down this path. If I have to take some of the blame for it, I do. However, I took on the information given to me. It was quoted in the Parliamentary Record that certain things were going to happen, and our legal advice was sound. Obviously, it was not.
I hope you are successful, minister, in what you are doing and we will get this scheme through. You may be able to give us some feedback, minister - I do not know whether you are going to COAG or one of the committees – of what our chances are of a national scheme. I believe this is the big fear companies have: once we get this up and running properly, others will come in and they will be scared of that.
I believe the only way this scheme will really run the way it is supposed to is if it can be run by governments - I am not saying governments themselves, but perhaps government enterprises - so the money comes back to us, the community, and can be put into landfill programs, beautification programs, and all sorts of things that will help the environment and reduce waste. Unfortunately, while Coca-Cola and their mates put $20.5m in their pockets, it will not happen.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement today, and I wish him well in convincing COAG this scheme is good for the Northern Territory and we should retain it.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I will try to get through as many of the issues raised by the shadow minister and members, as well as the member for Nelson. Today, most people will realise this government announced an appeal against the decision handed down by the Federal Court.
Some questions have been raised. If we have the agreement of states and territories including, at the moment, the federal government in-principle agreement, why do we need to launch an appeal? Unlike the previous government, I am trying to cover off on all areas. I feel confident, given the states and territories support the Northern Territory in having its own legislation in place to deal with environmental initiatives - in this regard, the Cash for Containers scheme.
However, politicians being politicians, governments being governments, and bureaucrats being bureaucrats, there is a risk that could be mitigated in some regard if we also raise an appeal against the decision. Second, we have a limited opportunity to raise that appeal. If we leave it much longer, we will miss that window of opportunity. For me, it is for two reasons. One is to ensure we have all bases covered, because we want this scheme to work.
It is interesting being in this House for a few years now, how history can be rewritten and gone over time and time again. It was interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition say I had dropped the ball on this. In fact, we picked up the ball and are trying to run with it and get a result.
First, to put this to bed completely, yes, years ago there were probably governments of both persuasions which were against container deposit legislation. However, it was a 2008 election promise of the Country Liberals - it was part of our policy - that we would have a cash for cans scheme. It is a policy of this government. I still argue the scheme, and the regulations introduced alongside the legislation, did not quite provide the best model we could have in the Northern Territory. Time and time again we have heard the shadow minister, the member for Nightcliff, mention it was based on South Australia. Repeatedly in this House we have heard the same argument. It is so different to the South Australian model. It is complicated and, therefore, costly. The wider it rolled out across the Territory the more expensive it became to operate. It was inevitable it would get to a point where it was not sustainable when you get outside our more regional areas.
The opposition has been a little tempered in responses today. Obviously, they realise some mistakes were made in getting this legislation in place whilst in government. I was even attacked for going to New Zealand to look at alternatives, and for not going to South Australia to look at the South Australian model. There was an offer by the previous government for me to travel to South Australia. That offer was then taken off the table; they would not allow me to go at that stage. Then, I was attacked for journeying to New Zealand. Questions were raised about who paid for the trip to New Zealand. It was just a muckraking exercise.
I have said before and will say it again: that trip to New Zealand was to look at the product stewardship program which had been showing signs of dramatic improvement over the few years it had been operating. The return rate under the stewardship program had gone from just under 40% to just over 70% in three to four years of operation. That is a voluntary scheme, so to get those kinds of results on something which was not costing the community anything needed to be investigated. There are models that will still provide, at the end of the day, perhaps even better recycling returns than a container deposit scheme can do.
It is paramount for oppositions - I did the same thing in opposition - to question government policy and legislation. I cannot believe the previous government, on learning they were offered a pilot program to run a product stewardship program in the Northern Territory - it fell on deaf ears. An industry came to you and said, ‘We will not charge the government anything, we will run a recycling program, provide a pilot program at no cost to government’ – to not give them the opportunity to do it when you could have held the container deposit legislation above them like the sword of Damocles and said, ‘Okay, we will give you the opportunity, here is 12 or 18 months. Get it right or we will drop the sword; we introduce the scheme’. In that time, the government of the day could have been working on a better model than they eventually came up with.
Since taking government, I have been led to believe had the former government been given another three or four months, they could have got this right; could have ironed out the problems. However, they were set on a deadline to roll this out and that was it. There was no flexibility from the previous government to bend in that area.
I heard the member for Nightcliff talk about the sentimental side behind this scheme. I can remember as a child - I used this in earlier debate - at Christmas time being able to throw bottles into a wheelbarrow and take it down to Turnley’s Milk Bar in Moulamein, NSW and getting a few cents back to buy lollies or a milkshake. It is so easy to talk about stories like that so people can look back into the 1970s to see how things worked. The world has changed since the 1970s.
It was interesting to learn today something I did not know from the member for Nelson; that the old bottle washing machine from Coca-Cola has become a bottom-of-the-harbour scheme - it sits in Darwin Harbour somewhere.
Things have moved - different products on the market, different methods of selling - so we have moved a long way since the days of heavy glass bottles that were washed, sterilised, refilled and sent back out to the market. I am not saying I disagree with that model. It worked fine back then, but we have moved forward a long way.
The member for Nightcliff also said it looks like big business has won here. Had the previous government provided due diligence, there would not be a need to fight big business. Another issued was raised - I believe by the member for Nelson - about the money being made by business. It occurred to me the very people taking the Northern Territory government to court were the ones who were making money out of it. I found that a bizarre situation; companies that could legally gouge prices which were making money on the scheme, were fighting the scheme. I believe it is also very nave to think companies were not fighting on a legal point of view. If you have any idea of how big companies work, they will fight if they know they have any chance of winning.
I am disappointed, as is the member for Nightcliff, that we are in this position. Again, had due diligence been paid we would not be here at all.
The Leader of the Opposition said on a radio interview a few weeks back that they were on the way to securing support from other state governments and the federal government, giving the impression they were working in that space. I can tell you, in the handover provided to the then minister for the Environment, Mr Terry Mills, there was no such evidence letters had been applied for. I would love the Leader of the Opposition to show me the evidence they were working in that space. I believe they - the then Labor government - certainly dropped the ball.
We talked about the model and why the scheme has not stacked up. The perception of the Labor government at the time was they were basing this on South Australia; in South Australia it works. In fact, we know many parts of South Australia were exempt from the legislation because they could not even get it to stack up in South Australia. What made it worse is most people understand that in South Australia there are about eight splits; that is where people, individuals, mums and dads, children take their bottles and cans back and the collectors are only required to split the products into eight different splits. In the Northern Territory, at one stage that was as many as 28, although they have it down to about 21 or 22 today. It points to the actual model being introduced. Because of the complication, the number of splits, you made it a very costly program to run. In a little while I will talk about how we can make changes into the future to streamline.
At Envirobank, yesterday they were saying it was a terrible place to work and today it is a fantastic place to work because one of the things we have done in underwriting the scheme for the next couple of months - we are bypassing the need to go through the super collectors, if you like ...
Mr Wood: The Alice Springs method.
Mr CHANDLER: Absolutely. We are, basically, allowing the collection agencies to reduce the number of splits required - aluminium is aluminium, glass is glass, cardboard is cardboard. The collectors on-sell those products to the market, and the fact they can do it with far fewer splits makes it less complicated.
I would like to think in the coming months if we get through this successfully, if we are exempt from the Mutual Recognition Act, then we can start to move into the space of amending the legislation to make it less complicated. The less complicated and costly we make the scheme the bigger the chance it will have in working in the wider community - the further out it goes. That is what we are looking at.
I will go to the member for Nhulunbuy and some of the issues she mentioned. She said the Labor government was perhaps the greenest government the Northern Territory had. It was green all right - it was damn mouldy. You only have to scratch the surface of how the former Labor government treated our environment. They were fantastic at selling the green initiative, and the message they were green, but when you scratch the surface - the now Chief Minister, who was the Minister for Infrastructure on coming into government, learnt a few things about the incinerator at East Arm port and what damage that was doing to our environment. It was all under the eyes of the previous Labor government. Why did they not do something about it? They covered it up; they did nothing about it. They are good at talking green, but you do not have to scratch the surface too far to discover they are not as green as they make out.
The member for Nhulunbuy spoke about the challenges to get the scheme off the ground. The reason there were challenges was the complication of the scheme. They talk about taking on the big boys like Coca-Cola and the hide they have in taking on Territorians and Territorians’ will. The previous Labor government left the gate open. It is pretty nave to think the big players in town will not take the opportunity when given it. Had the previous government done the right thing and dotted the ‘i’s and crossed the ‘t’s we would not be facing these challenges.
I read some of the things I said during the debate last year - or was it 2010? I cannot remember. I remember what was said on the day such as, ‘I hope we are not here in 12 months debating this legislation. I hope we are not here in 12 months time needing to use more taxpayers’ money to underwrite a scheme’ - which is exactly what we have had to do. The member for Nhulunbuy said the likes of Coca-Cola, Schweppes and Lion Nathan came in against the will of Territorians. They came in because you let them in; you invited them. All Territorians are paying for the previous government’s incompetence.
Member for Nelson, you spoke about the history of previous governments not supporting cash for cans. You are right, even the previous Labor government. I have seen excerpts from the Parliamentary Record from the then member for Johnston, Chris Burns, where he said cash for cans would never work in the Northern Territory unless it was linked to a national scheme. We have come on a journey.
It is CLP policy and the reason we are supporting it today. If we did not support cash for cans - we are in government now - we would let this go through to the keeper. If we seriously did not want to support the cash for cans scheme in the Northern Territory we would allow it to fall over. The reason we are not is because we are very supportive. We have fought about the models; we have discussed uphill and downhill the way to make things better, and that is what we need to do.
You talked about the agreement and the stewardship model - other models that were put up. There has been from 40% to 70% return rate in New Zealand. One of the reasons the stewardship program works well there is it is more contained than it is in the Northern Territory. However, they are not relying on moving products thousands of kilometres which we do in the Northern Territory. Having glass crushing containers and machines in locations close to where the products are is always going to be a winner because you are not left transporting heavy weights over long distances.
You talked about previous advice you were given from the government. That advice was wrong and we have demonstrated that since taking government. It is deplorable for a government to mislead and provide information that is not correct, particularly when you are taking that advice on good faith. I took the advice on good faith. I drilled the minister at the time, ensuring he was certain this legislation would stack up. He was on solid ground he said – rock-solid ground. As we know today, he was not.
You raised the handling fee, another fault of the legislation. It talks about ‘reasonable’. What is reasonable to you may not be reasonable to someone else. We have to be more defined with what that handling fee is if we have any chance of this working into the future.
You talked about operations at the moment. It will be done differently; there will be far less splits - aluminium is aluminium, cardboard, cardboard. We have reduced the number of splits during the time we are underwriting the scheme. We are not going through the super collectors in this regard. They do not want to play the game. We have asked them repeatedly to get on board, to support the program, but they have failed. Basically, we have to underwrite this scheme for the next few months until we get the legislative framework right.
On the issue of why we put the appeal in today, as I said, we are trying to cover off on all areas. I do not want to leave things to chance as the former government did, so we are covering off on both an appeal process as well as going through the COAG agreements. The reason we started it from the 27th was Lion Nathan was no longer going to support the program. Coke, we know, had given up on Territorians on the 18th, but Lion Nathan had the approval through to the 27th. Every other company involved will support the program ongoing, and that includes a rather large national brewer that was quite happy to continue with the program.
Another reason we wanted a slight break in the process is collectors had to do a stocktake as to who is responsible for what. To date, the super collectors are responsible for the money - the beverage industry and the packaging industry are responsible; now, from today, we are responsible. We needed to know, as a government, what stock was on hand. New stock coming in is something we will be paying for.
You are right, member for Nelson, some companies have made quite a bit of money out of this. However, other companies - I will not name them – have shown me facts where they did not put the price up on their products until around February, after the scheme was introduced, and they only put up the price by 10 an item because they realised what was unredeemed would be the money they would use to run the scheme. For one major beverage industry out there, this was cost neutral.
Madam Speaker, this is a failed former Labor scheme we are trying to get right. We have not dropped the ball on this matter - the previous ministers and government dropped the ball. We have picked up the ball and are running with it.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MOTION
Forced Adoption Policies and Practices
Forced Adoption Policies and Practices
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Northern Territory parliament expresses its sorrow and regret:
(b) in supporting the apology made by the federal parliament on behalf of the nation
(c) in offering our sympathies to those Territorians who have suffered from those decisions and policies, and
(d) for those policies, whilst recognising that forced adoption practices did not occur since the Northern Territory formed as a self-governing body politic in 1978.
Today I issue a statement of deep regret concerning past government policies and practices that resulted in the forced removal of children of all racial and ethnic groups from their mothers, and their enforced placement for adoption.
Members will be aware that in 2012 the Australian Senate concluded an inquiry into the Commonwealth’s contribution to former forced adoption policies and practices. In its report, the Senate Community Affairs Committee concluded that policies and practices resulting in forced adoptions were widespread throughout Australia in the post-war period. This occurred when children were given up for adoption because their parents - usually single mothers - were forced to relinquish them or face circumstances in which they were left with no other choice.
In the period from the 1940s until the 1970s, Australian women who bore children out of wedlock were subject to society’s condemnation; to ostracism that seems difficult for us to understand today.
We are aware from Commonwealth records we hold that some young women travelled to and from the Northern Territory to have babies in anonymity. These babies were subsequently placed for adoption and, in a few circumstances, left Australian shores forever with their new adoptive parents.
Conversely, some local young women left the Territory to have babies in secret in other jurisdictions. We sympathise with those Territorians who may have suffered from the decisions and policies of other jurisdictions.
However, the majority of enforced adoptions involved separating Aboriginal children and their families. Analysis of some records by the Office of Children and Families indicates that in earlier times prior to self-government, when Aboriginal children were removed from their families and the court made an ‘in need of care’ finding, it was not uncommon for these children to be committed to the care of the Director of Child Welfare until they reached the age of majority, without any further avenue of review.
Some of these children were subsequently made available for adoption despite the fact parental consent for their adoption was never sought or obtained. This was because of a loophole in the Commonwealth law of the day which permitted wide grounds for the dispensation of parental consent, something that would be completely unacceptable today.
As a result, some Aboriginal families whose children were permanently removed from their care were never told these children were adopted into other families. As a consequence, the bonds between parent and child were legally extinguished forever and the ties that bind kith and kin and country were broken and lost.
These practices have left a legacy of grief, trauma, loss, disconnection and unwarranted shame, guilt and secrecy. We acknowledge that, with deep regret, past practices of forced removal and adoption have caused great pain and suffering to mothers, fathers, the babies who were adopted, and other family members they were separated from.
Mothers who experienced forced adoption practices were not properly informed of their rights, nor provided with the support mothers need. Fathers were excluded from the decision-making process. That was a decision for that time, and we know this was wrong. It should never have happened and will never happen again.
The adopted children, who are now adults, were denied the opportunity to know, grow up with, or be cared for by their birth parents and families of origin. In some instances, where bonding did not occur, they were even the victims of abuse in their new adopted families.
Partly because of the secrecy and coercion involved, we may never know how many women and their babies were separated by forced adoption. Commonwealth welfare records are often incomplete and sometimes non-existent. However, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, during the latter period of Commonwealth administration from 1968 until self-government in 1978, a total of 445 adoptions were finalised in the Northern Territory. This is not an insignificant number. Of course, there is no way of determining the percentage of forced adoptions. However, it is highly improbable the Territory was unaffected by community attitudes and social policies at the time.
At the time these forced adoption practices were taking place, the Territory was under Commonwealth administration. The Senate Community Affairs Committee report recommended a national apology to all those affected by these past practices.
I am pleased to support the Commonwealth government which, on behalf of the nation, has made such a public apology to all those who suffered harm. Such a policy is especially welcome in the case of the Northern Territory.
I am pleased to advise these policies and practices did not continue after self-government in 1978. Not only did the new Territory government close down various children’s institutions such as Retta Dixon Children’s Home and Dundas House, it also briefly imposed a moratorium on adoption practice while policy was revised and the adoption law amended.
Today we live in a completely different world from the one which condoned and connived in the practices of the past. I can advise the House that the NT government is committed to making available appropriate counselling support to anyone facing a pregnancy in challenging circumstances, or who may be experiencing parental difficulties. It does this by funding government and non-government agencies around the Territory to provide various family support services to vulnerable people who may be in distress. The Territory government also supports national initiatives such as the Find and Connect Program which assists people affected by forced adoptions.
In addition, the current Adoption of Children Act entitles parties to an adoption to obtain identifying information about their family origins. In most cases, this is now also possible with respect to historical adoptions that took place under repealed legislation. The current act also permits an open adoption procedure, where birth parents who make the decision to relinquish a child can, if they choose, remain informed about or in contact with that child after the court has formalised an order in favour of the child’s new adoptive parents.
I am pleased to say in the Territory the last vestiges of secrecy in adoption practice ended two decades ago. However, in a more enlightened age, the searchlights of our community concern and modern social services cannot rescue people from the events that have already happened, from the dark practices that changed lives forever.
To all those Northern Territory families, past and present, separated by an adoption that was forced upon them, on behalf of this Assembly, I express our heartfelt sympathy. To all those affected by the policy of enforced adoption, please accept this statement of deepest regret in the spirit in which it is offered.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues on this side of the House in expressing a heartfelt apology to the hundreds and thousands of Australian mothers and their families who endured the pain and suffering of being forced to give their children up for adoption. In particular, I acknowledge the pain of those women and families in the Northern Territory who suffered due to the actions of government and institutions.
The practice of forced adoption reached its peak between the 1950s and 1970s. That is when the state actively supported this activity. That was not very long ago. As a mother of three children, I can only imagine the heartbreak and misery mothers, children, fathers, and other family members have been and are still, going through as a result of forced adoptions.
I cannot even envisage not being able to see my children; not being able to see my child grow up - a child carried in utero for nine months yet never able to hold them, hug them, and be their parent; not even to be giving them their name to carry with them for the rest of their lives.
I acknowledge the pain and suffering for all those who were, and are still, affected by this cruel practice. Reading and listening to the accounts of women who went through this ordeal is harrowing. The psychological damage to the people involved, including nurses, midwives, and social workers who were in the health system at the time, cannot be underestimated.
Up to 250 000 babies were forcibly taken from their mothers during 30 years of forced adoptions. This is more than the entire population of the Northern Territory. I would like you all to take a moment to think about that – the entire Territory population roughly equates to the number of babies who were taken from their mothers without consent. The mothers who suffered this practice were given no choice. They were often tricked into signing adoption papers - and worse.
As stated in the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report into forced adoption:
- … accounts ranged from experiences of being physically shackled to beds, to social workers failing to advise mothers of government payments that may have been available to support them to keep their child.
Denied information, support, and the right to bond with their child, many mothers were powerless. This was a systemic and systematic abuse of the rights of women and children and a denial of the fundamental human need for love. You only have to hear and read the stories to understand how this created enormous grief and feelings of guilt. It is no surprise that, sadly, this practice led to anxiety, depression and, in some cases, suicide.
A mother who gave evidence to the Senate committee shared her anxiety and grief even before the birth of the child she felt pressured to give away:
- I’d lie in bed every night with my arms wrapped around my baby inside of me knowing that I would never hold him after birth. I’d feel his feet and hand through my own stomach as he moved around, knowing that I wasn’t ever going to feel them after he was born.
She went on to say:
- I’d talk to him and tell him that I would find him again one day and that I and his father loved him and always would. I’d pray to God every night for him to send [someone] to get me out of there and show me a way to keep my baby, but no one did. I’d think of running away, but where would I run to, who would I run to? It was clear to me that no one in my family was going to help me.
Mothers were often made to feel ashamed of the way their child was brought into the world, and this only added to their grief. Moral self-righteousness and the discrimination against single mothers, thankfully, have no place in our society these days, although I acknowledge bigotry endures.
The authorities believed single mothers could not raise a child. Babies were adopted out exclusively to wedded parents. The interest of the child was not paramount. As a human being, how can you take away the right of someone to raise their own flesh and blood? The decision to give birth and raise that child is a choice that should not be stripped away. This was unnatural and unjust. In many cases, the adoptive parents were good people with good intentions, and I do not wish to take away the positive role they played in the lives of adopted children. However, pain and loss of identity so often endured even when a positive family environment existed.
I do not wish to diminish in any way the broader practice of adoption which is an important option for woman. Forced adoption is completely different. It is a world away from legitimate adoption built upon respect and consent.
In providing this heartfelt apology, I wish to refer to the experience of one of our own, someone from Darwin who recently spoke to the ABC. Territorian Nikki Caulfield travelled to Canberra with her mother Gaye to hear the Prime Minister’s apology along with hundreds of mothers and their families. She is a brave woman who shared some of her most intimate and difficult moments with us. Nikki was separated from her 15-year-old mother at birth. The only thing Nikki knew about her mother growing up was her eye colour and the fact she has auburn hair. In her recent interview she said:
- I spent years trying to figure out ‘what is auburn?’ … As soon as I was allowed to, I dyed my hair just about every kind of red possible.
Her trauma was exacerbated by her own problems having a child and then, when she eventually did become a mother, she had a difficult time in her relationship with her daughter. As she said:
- It’s made it really hard for me to connect with my own daughter because that bonding is something I never had.
This intergenerational impact is, unfortunately, one of the saddest legacies of forced adoptions. Not only were the mothers left with a feeling of guilt and shame for the rest of the lives, but their children also felt many effects over time. Children were bullied or teased in the schoolyard when the circumstances of their forced adoption were known leading to social dislocation and long-term psychological damage. Children who were part of forced adoption have suffered through to their adulthood with challenges of a sense of belonging which, in turn, affects their relationships with their own families, partners and children.
Nikki Caulfield is doing us all a great service in sharing the true impact on her and her family. Nikki and Gaye are fortunate to be able to reconnect with each other. Unfortunately, there are many cases where children were not able to reunite with their parents. In some cases, sadly, their mother had passed away.
Injustices were not limited to the time of birth. In many cases, women were institutionalised during their pregnancy and effectively treated like slaves. Ms Evelyn Mundy told the Senate inquiry:
- When I was at Elim [a maternity home in Hobart] I worked and never saw any money. They reckoned there was a wage. I do not think anyone saw it. I cleaned floors, I was working in the laundry and I was also working in the labour ward, cleaning up after the mothers had their babies. I saw some terrible things happen in there. Every time I hear something about adoptions, it comes back to me. It tears me apart … If only people knew what really happened in there. These people are right: it was a terrible place. It was a house of horrors.
Another matter of great concern is the past practice of closed adoption. This is where the child’s original birth certificate was sealed forever and the child was issued with a different birth certificate to reflect their adoptive parents’ names. These closed adoption practices were commonly used for women who were pregnant out of wedlock, or deemed not to be suitable mothers. This has made the journey for parents and children searching for each other so much harder. In most cases, the father’s name was also not recorded on the birth certificate. This, in turn, leads to the child who later in life is searching for a way of contacting the birth parents assuming the father did not care enough about the child to not be on the birth certificate. Many fathers also had to deal with the emotional turmoil that surrounded the forced adoptions. I also acknowledge that pain today.
It is hard to conceive the authorities would not have thought about the welfare of the mothers when it came to forced adoptions, but the evidence suggests that little regard was given to the health and wellbeing of those who had their children removed. This kind of trauma has proved to have had significant effects on the mental health and the future of these women. We can never change the past or take back the pain the children, the mothers, the fathers, the family members have experienced, and the trauma they live with daily, but we can recognise the impact, show our support to those affected, and make more services available to the hundreds of thousands of people who were subjected to forced adoption practices.
I am glad I am able to make these remarks today. I had been extremely concerned about the mixed messages from the Northern Territory government regarding the expressing of our sorrow and regret today. First the apology was on, and then it was off. I acknowledge the member for Araluen and you, Madam Speaker, for persisting with this important issue and forcing the hand of the Chief Minister.
I remain concerned about the position of the member for Namatjira who, only last week, publicly swore the parliament would not make this apology. I am glad she was overruled and I hope her influence over important matters such as this has come to an end.
Madam Speaker, today I recognise the mistakes of governments and institutions. I acknowledge the pain and pledge my commitment to ensure this chapter in our history will never be forgotten or relived. In expressing our sorrow and regret, I hope our actions here today contribute to the healing process. I offer my heartfelt apology.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I also contribute to this debate today and note the motion is expressed in the following terms, ‘That the Northern Territory parliament expresses its sorrow and regret’.
I start by saying I am personally sorry these practices were engaged in by governments past. Whilst I am nearly 50 years old, I do not recall the moral codes that existed which were used to justify these decisions in times gone by. I do not pretend to second guess what was in the minds of people but there must come a point, when complying with a government policy, where you have to ask, ‘Is this the right thing to do?’ The Leader of the Opposition referred to the nurses who were traumatised by the work they were being asked to do in applying these policies. They were, obviously, policies that caused trauma to the people involved and the government officials who put these policies into practice.
Clearly, as in paragraph (a) of this apology, the pain and suffering of past forced adoption practices is acknowledged. Also, this parliament supports the apology made by the federal parliament on behalf of the nation and expresses its sorrow and regret in offering our sympathies to Territorians who have suffered from those decisions and policies. All of this is something I am happy, as a member of this parliament, to subscribe to. To acknowledge that suffering is an important step, especially for those people who have suffered.
Nevertheless, there is a qualifying statement in this motion before the House and we can legitimately apply it. It is the last paragraph of the motion:
- for those policies, whilst recognising that forced adoption practices did not occur since the Northern Territory formed as a self-governing body politic in 1978.
The Chief Minister, quite legitimately and correctly, pointed out these practices were not supported in the Northern Territory after self-government and, in fact, were actively resisted subsequent to the forming of self-government in the Northern Territory.
As a parliament, we are stuck with a difficult choice: do we apologise for, essentially, conduct that was not engaged in by this body politic, thus taking on culpability for what this body politic never engaged in? That has been the matter of some debate in the community.
The words in this statement express the genuine and heartfelt emotions and thoughts of most members in this House; they certainly express mine. We also have to understand, as a body politic we, fortunately, in the past did not engage in these practices.
Nevertheless, I listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition and she made a strong and sound case of the culpability associated with these practices in the past, which rests on those former governments which have, rightfully, apologised.
I am guessing at this stage, but when the Northern Territory was under South Australia’s management, these or similar practices were engaged in by the South Australian government in the Northern Territory and, subsequent to 1911 when the Commonwealth took over the Northern Territory as an extension of the Commonwealth’s administration, it is true those policies were continued by the subsequent administration. Fortunately, after 1978, and I suspect largely because of the moral structures which had changed over that time, those practices were never engaged in.
However, these are sad stories to read and hear about. I am saddened that in the past, in the 20th century at a time I was born and am alive, these practices were carried out by bureaucrats who, themselves, were traumatised by what they were required to do as part of the policies of the government of the day.
It was only sitting here a moment ago that I realised my first child - or my wife’s first child by me - would have been illegitimate. I remember reading on my child’s birth certificate that she was illegitimate because she was born out of wedlock. My daughter came to our wedding and was sitting on my hip when we were married in the Catholic church in Alice Springs.
Times have changed and moved on. I have looked at my daughter; she looks real enough - does not look illegitimate to me. We have a great relationship and we, as a family, have a great relationship. My wife, long-suffering as she is, has a great relationship with her daughters - and her husband, I am pleased to report. I could not imagine what her life would have been like if Eleanor, or for that matter young Gwennie, had been taken away at birth because Eleanor was illegitimate.
It is a new age we live in; an age where we are more comfortable with the different choices people make in their relationships. It is hard for me to imagine - as I am sure it is hard for many people to imagine - that my daughter could have been taken away from my wife, before she was my wife, for no other reason that we decided not to live in wedlock.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I express my sorrow and regret with the qualifying statement about the jurisdictional arrangements since 1978. That does not in any way prevent me from recognising the hurt and suffering caused to the people who were the subject of these policies in the past. It is clear from the apologies made in other jurisdictions, and from the Senate inquiry as well as other reports one has read, this was a traumatic policy which has left deep scars. For that, I personally express my sorrow and my regret.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for this motion which shows me his deep appreciation for the issue, and that he has made the statement in good faith and with deep thought for those who have been affected, and continue to be affected, by past policies of governments, churches, and the community.
I acknowledge and know the Territory did not legally exist as it does today, and had no such policies at law. However, there are families and people in the Territory who have been affected by the forced adoption policies and practices, including people in my electorate and their families. That is why I implored the Chief Minister and the government to at least recognise the past practices and what they had done to so many people. The hurt, the trauma, the loss, the disappointment and suffering needs to be acknowledged. While we cannot wind back the clock, we can help people move forward with words of acknowledgement, comfort, sympathy, and strength.
Between the late 1940s and the 1980s, there were an estimated 145 000 adoptions in Australia. The figures for the Territory were 61 in 1969, 68 in 1970 and 54 in 1971. After that time, the adoptions dropped dramatically. I do not know how many of those adoptions were forced. However, there is a very good chance many of them were forced adoptions. There is a very good chance Territory mothers had babies taken from them and were forced to endure years of suffering, if not a lifetime. In the Northern Territory between 1969 and 1980, there were 474 adoptions recorded. Who knows how many of these mothers were forced into giving up their babies and how many were not recorded.
When I was in primary school in Darwin in the 1960s, children just turned up in classes and no details were given as to where they were from. Usually, these were Aboriginal children, but not exclusively. In Grade 5 when I was 10, five Aboriginal boys turned up in my class and we were told they had come to live in Darwin and that was it. At no time would anyone question the authority, especially the church’s authority. Interestingly, I still have contact with one of the fellows today and only recently caught up with him again in Tennant Creek. We do not talk about past things, more the present and the future, but I am sure he was one of those children and babies caught up in these policies.
Although it is difficult to obtain exact statistics from anywhere due to the record-keeping practices in existence at that time, a significant number of women had their babies removed against their will as a result of the forced adoption policies and practices. These women were often young, unmarried and without a family support network. Single mothers were never given the option of keeping their children. Unmarried mothers automatically had their records marked ‘ready for adoption’ even before birth. It was considered shameful to have a baby out of marriage. These women were not even informed there was a 30-day period where they could go back to get their children. They were not listened to; they were completely disempowered.
The profound impact on mothers, children and the future family trauma reverberates throughout their lives. It is what we now refer to as the ripple effect. The loss of a child, the emptiness of a mother, will never be understood by many of us in society who have not had children, like me. We can only imagine their pain and the searching many mothers must have done for many years, if not decades, for the child who was snatched away at birth. Then there are the families who adopted a child only to lose that child when they went in search of their birth mother and, perhaps, never returned to them.
The mothers had one common bond; they had their babies stolen by the authorities. After birth, the mothers were often ostracised and judged harshly by the community. Some never recovered. Some fell into black holes of depression and some committed suicide. Some went through life haunted by the loss. Some were forever traumatised by the belief they had willingly given up their baby when they did not. For their collective pain, I am sorry.
What of the babies? Many suffered terribly at the hands of foster parents, homes, or in convents. Many babies would have gone to loving homes, but how many did not? Many grew up denied the bond that was their birth right. We can only imagine the impact of that, and for that alone, I am sorry.
In this debate sometimes we overlook the fathers who perhaps never knew their child, were denied access, were scorned by society, and not recorded on the birth certificate, despite many of these young men wanting to marry the girl, be responsible, take on the responsibilities and give their child a happy life. For you fathers and men, I am sorry.
On 15 November 2010, the issue of the Commonwealth’s contribution to former adoption policies and practices was referred to the Senate Community Affairs Reference Group Committee for inquiry and report, as we have heard. The inquiry received over 400 submissions and held 10 public hearings. This process gave an opportunity for those women and children who were disempowered to finally have a voice and share their very personal stories of how much of an impact this has had on their lives. If anyone has read the report and the stories of the people, they are harrowing. We, as a country and Territory, must never undertake such practices in the future.
I share a small, albeit brief, story of a Territory family. The woman in the story I have known for many years as she is a friend of my family. Indeed, many in this House will know this woman and I, for one, never gave it a nano-second of thought that she would be an affected mother until recently.
Noelene Owens spoke with me after I spoke out publicly and thanked me for standing up and asking the government to reconsider its position. She had a baby in 1969. She was unwed, she had very elderly parents, and she did not have that social and family support. There were no choices given to her, no options and no indication she would be able to keep the child. She told me when she was in labour staff at the hospital put a pillow on her face. She never saw her baby girl; she just heard a cry and the child was gone. That day, if not the next day, Noelene was taken to a nursing home by an ambulance with other girls who had also given birth in that hospital. They never saw their children and they went to a nursing home for a period of time. She said when she was in the nursing home they gave her different types of medication to help her milk dry up, to help her sleep and, perhaps, also to forget. They were just told they had to get on with life.
Noelene Owens told me for 27 years she searched for her child everywhere. She looked in shopping centres, she searched faces, she looked at faces in magazines thinking it might be her daughter. She looked at things on TV and when there were lost notices for children she looked and wondered whether it was her girl. She wondered what she would look like. Perhaps she would look like her. She said it was the most harrowing period in her life, and incredibly disappointing.
When the daughter was 27, 17 years ago, she wanted to find her birth mother. She had done nursing and wanted to know the health of her mother so she could work out what the health of her children would be. Being a very tenacious person, a little like her mother, she used the Internet as it had just come in and found an aunt who had left an address. When she went to the aunt’s house, she found the elderly lady had moved on, but the people in the house had a forwarding address. She went to the next address and found the aunt. However, the aunt was a little suspicious so would not give her Noelene’s phone number. She rang Noelene and got Noelene to ring her daughter.
Catherine was her name, and she had found her birth mother, and her birth mother had found her daughter. Catherine has five children and two grandchildren, so Noelene is a great-grandmother. She is a happy-go-lucky person like her mother, Noelene. They cannot make up for the lost time they have had, but they have had many years so far, and more into the future. Catherine and her family lived in Darwin and have now gone to Canberra.
The sad thing, as I referred to earlier, is she has no more contact with her adopted family. That is her choice. I am sure they, too, have been shattered by the events of losing an adopted child. For nearly 27 years, they would have loved her. They gave her an education and cared for her.
Catherine Owen’s mother is Noelene Trinne, known for much good work in the Northern Territory and Darwin community, including being a member of the Darwin Chorale. She is an absolutely delightful woman, with an infectious smile, charming and intelligent, and I have not seen a skerrick of resentment to her past pain and suffering. Noelene and Bernie have three other children, Michael, Andrew, and Sarah, and I know them to be a good and decent family.
I say to you, Noelene, and your family, your daughter Catherine and her past adopted family, I am sorry for the trauma and suffering that you went through, and I wish you all the very best in the future, because I know you deserve it.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Goyder for that emotional speech. In recent years, many Australians have become aware of the practices of forced adoption that were carried out in Australian hospitals in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. These stories are heartbreaking. I am moved when I hear stories of mothers giving birth and being forced to sign adoption papers giving up their children whilst still sedated and not knowing what was going on.
The precious time after you give birth is a special bonding time for a mother and child. I look back on those special few hours with my children, wishing time could pause for a little longer, amazed at the little soul before your eyes, yet before the busyness of life with a new baby sets in - such a special time. The practices carried out, which took this time and children away from their mothers and fathers, were wrong.
The pain of separating babies from their mothers and fathers and other family members is unimaginable, yet it happened in our country, in our Territory. Of the 250 000 babies taken, many of the parents were so young themselves. The consequences are far-reaching and forever life-changing. As a society, we need to recognise this pain and help these families in their healing process.
The Australian government, through the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee, thoroughly researched the issues. In fact, due to the large number of submissions and the complex nature of the subject, the committee twice had to seek extensions on the time frame it had to deliver its findings. It has set out a path to begin to assist these families in their long journey.
A nation has recognised the issue. Last week, we saw the federal government formally apologise and say sorry for the forced adoption of babies. Every other state and territory in Australia has said sorry. Now it is time, in this Chamber, for us to recognise and say sorry. Yet, what do we see? Chaos, backflipping, a view that we will apologise, media releases slipped out stating we will not apologise:
- … the government decided against making a separate apology. It is our view that it would be inappropriate and, indeed, disingenuous.
Adoption is a matter handled by each state and territory under our law. It is an extremely complex and emotive issue. To categorically say we took no part and do not need to say sorry is not right. The Commonwealth understands its role was only indirect, but it said sorry. Saying sorry is not admitting guilt; it is acknowledging someone has been affected by an action. Sorry is regret; it is to show emotion. It is not about fault or blame.
Saying sorry is an important part of the healing process. I can only imagine the pain and suffering for those involved, caught up in these horrible practices. They need acknowledgment, support and community understanding, not a government minister denying the issue, the timing of governments, and technicalities.
As the Senate committee recommended, we must focus on what we can do to help these people. Saying sorry is a start but we must provide support, ensure our laws allow full access to records and information required by families, many of whom are still putting the puzzle of what happened together.
Madam Speaker, as parliamentarians, we are the representatives of our people. We teach our children to say sorry. We offer sympathy and sorrow when we hear of someone going through pain. There is no need for us to dither. Let us do the right thing our people expect from us. We will never erase the pain but we can offer our thoughts and help them begin to heal by saying sorry. I say sorry!
Ms ANDERSON (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s motion and accept the national apology issued by the federal government on behalf of all of us. The Northern Territory parliament expresses its sorrow and regret for the pain caused by past forced adoption practices. In supporting the apology made by the federal government on behalf of the nation, we offer our sympathy to those Territorians who have suffered from those decisions and policies and for those policies, whilst recognising forced adoption practices have not occurred since the Northern Territory formed a self-governing body politic in 1978.
I join the Chief Minister and this government in expressing sincere sorrow and regret at the pain caused by past forced adoption practices. I offer my sincere sympathy to those Territorians who have suffered from those decisions and policies. I note the policies and actions that caused this pain and suffering occurred before self-government came to the Northern Territory.
I am somewhat appalled at the member opposite for bringing politics to such a delicate issue. On a personal note, and in my capacity as Minister for Children and Families, I am only too aware of suffering caused by the removal of children from their parents. It was done by well-meaning but completely misguided government policy. It is to be regretted. The sadness and pain misguided policy causes is a guide for us in the future. No one should have to go through this loss without every alternative having been considered.
Madam Speaker, for those who suffered, please accept my heartfelt sympathy and my promise that in my position and capacity I will work hard to ensure we work towards humane and considered policy in this complicated and difficult area.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank Nikki Caulfield for bringing this issue to the notice of the Territory and the parliament, and for raising this issue with me which allows me to finish something you might call unfinished business.
In 2001, when we debated the issue of an apology for the Stolen Generations, I made the following statement - it has some little changes I have added but it is, basically, as I spoke at that time. I said:
- Shouldn’t we also be careful that in saying sorry to one group of people in an effort to right an injustice of the past, we do no create an injustice to other groups that also should be recognised as part of a stolen generation? For instance, there were others who were affected by a period in our history when the removal of children was a common practice in attempts to solve a perceived problem. I speak here specifically of those mothers whose children were removed by subtle ...
And not so subtle:
- … pressure, based on the stigma of bearing a child out of wedlock. It was not the done thing to have a child when you were not married; it was a shame job. How many of these women were grief-stricken at the loss of their child?
- Those people …
Their fathers and their children also:
- … deserve an apology ...
Madam Speaker, I apologise for those children who were forcibly taken away from their parents as part of the Stolen Generations, and for those children, mothers and fathers who were affected by the policy of forced adoptions.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Reschedule of 2013 Sitting Dates
Reschedule of 2013 Sitting Dates
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the 2013 parliamentary sittings be revised to schedule the sittings for the introduction of the budget to 14 to 16 May 2013 and the Estimates Committee hearings which were to be held from the 11 to 20 June be revised to 18 to 20 June and 25 to 27 June with the Appropriation Bill to be considered in the Assembly on 27 June 2013.
The reason behind having the budgetary process moved, despite what the members opposite say, is largely because we have been forced back into the budget planning process by virtue of the fact the Grants Review Commission has determined to rip out of the Northern Territory budget an income of more than $100m a year ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: I hear the laughter from the members opposite; they think it is a joke. They think it is funny this government loses $100m a year. Frankly, as far as I am concerned, they stand condemned by their laughter. This is the former Treasurer who should know a hit of $100m a year, after the budget process has been commenced, will require a revisiting of the Budget Cabinet process because we have to continue to find savings and ways to manage our way through it. We have the legacy of the former government, whose debt also leaves us with a challenge.
However, it is not that component of the budget planning process which has caused this delay; it is the component which deals with the Grants Review Commission taking out of the Northern Territory over the forward estimates period as much as $500m. That is the size of the hit this Territory’s budget will cop as a result of the determination by the Grants Review Commission and their assessment about disabilities.
They may laugh and chortle, but we have to find a way to live within our means. That is a real challenge considering the legacy items we have to deal with from the former government. Those legacy items are substantial, have been substantial from Day 1, and continue to be substantial. I am distressed that the former Treasurer would laugh. Small wonder this House determined to pass a motion of censure against the former Treasurer for her failure to deal with these issues.
As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, budgetary and fiscal management has to be done responsibly. We have to deal with the legacy items we have been given, as well as with the changing circumstances of the Territory income - something the former Treasurer did not predict because you can look at the Treasury books when she was Treasurer and there is no mention of $100m being ripped out of the system. There was no mention of a predicted readjustment of the disability surrounding Indigeneity in the Grants Review Commission - not a word of it, because she did not know it was coming either. She did not mention it at any stage subsequent to the last election. She did not mention it in February, in January or in December. Why? Because she did not know it was coming, nor did we on this side of the House.
We have to respond to a changed environment. What would her answer be? Clearly, by her laughter, ‘Just keep going and rack another $100m up on the credit card’. That was always the answer of the former Labor government and the way they positioned themselves in relation to how they deal with other people’s money.
We on this side of the House are stuck with that problem and do not simply say, ‘The answer is another $100m on to the credit card; we will just rack it up’. We will go back into the budget process and look again. Unfortunately, we have to look in places where the former government refused to look, to examine, to in any way restrain themselves.
If they had done something in the area of savings and reduced the Territory’s debt to zero - something they were fully capable of - that would have given us a much better position to come from. However, they did not because they thought they could spend all the extra income without having to worry about debt reduction because there would always be a gravy train. Even in the most recent budget books the reference was the usual, ‘We are expecting to reduce debt when the budget or income returns to normal’.
This was a major problem in the former government’s financial management structure. What they called normal was the GST windfall period after the introduction of the GST which was far more abundant than they even imagined in their wildest forward estimates. We live in a different world at the moment and the GST revenue pool has been restrained in its growth.
Moreover, the Indigeneity structure inside the Grants Review Commission’s disabilities has weighed against us because more people in Sydney and Melbourne are identifying as Indigenous. The effect is, with that change, people who live in the suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne will come under the umbrella of the disability of Indigeneity when it comes to the redistribution of the GST revenue. What goes into the bucket for other states comes out of the bucket for our state. I believe - and heard the Treasurer talking about this the other day - it might be time to revisit the measure of Indigeneity in how this rolls out because Indigeneity in Yuendumu is somewhat different to Indigeneity in Sydney.
Nevertheless, it is a clumsy definition which, unfortunately, has cost the Northern Territory government’s GST income over $100m a year over the forward estimates and beyond. Unless this is attended to, that is the new reality. What are we supposed to do? Rack it up on the credit card? That is the answer of the Labor Party. No, we on this side of the House will take it back into a Budget Cabinet process, and we will plan as carefully as we possibly can.
I have just had the minister for the Environment slip the Westpac Economic Update under my nose. It demonstrates what you see with the operation of the federal Labor government which had built itself a rod for its own back by using repeated deficits to fund its response to the GFC - a response I had some concerns about. However, the Westpac Economic Update reveals the Australian government monthly financial statements for January 2013 reveal a $5bn slippage in the federal government’s 2012-13 budget position over the initial seven months of the financial year. This disappointment is centred on a lower than expected company tax and shortfall in resource rent taxes. The results to date suggest a budget deficit for the year 2012-13 of around $7bn to $9bn, a slippage of $8bn to $10bn. In a mid-year economic and fiscal outlook published on 22 October, the government forecast an underlying cash surplus of $1.1bn on the full 2012-13 financial year, and on accruals basis, a fiscal balance of $1.2bn for the financial year.
Subsequently, in a media conference on 20 September, the Treasurer announced a surplus in 2012-13 is unlikely - revenue disappointments etcetera. The answer for the federal Labor government is to put it on the credit card, a rod it built for its own back because when the Labor government in Canberra took over the budget books it had no debt. Now, it has an authorisation of up to $300bn - and look like they are going to use it - which is substantially more than the debt Howard took over from Keating when the Liberal government took over after many years of Labor. That was a $90bn debt situation which the Howard government paid off and now has been returned to a $300bn debt situation in the federal government. The typical answer from the Labor members opposite is laugh - just laugh; do not plan, just rack it up on the credit card. If you follow that to its logical conclusion, you end up doing what the Cyprus government was trying to do; that is, raid people’s bank accounts ...
Ms Lawrie: Seriously!
Mr ELFERINK: Seriously, she says. What is your solution?
Ms Lawrie: Stop lying! Just stop lying!
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, please withdraw those comments.
Mr ELFERINK: What was your solution? What solution did you offer the people of the Northern Territory? Nothing. Not one single statement ...
Ms Lawrie: Sit down! You are making a fool of yourself!
Mr ELFERINK: Read your own budget books! The only answer the Leader of the Opposition had was to stick it on the credit card. She wrote about it ...
Ms Lawrie: Wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: She said ‘wrong’. No, she wrote about it. I draw her attention to her last budget book when she was talking about the accumulation of nett debt to revenue. In the year 2011-12, nett debt to revenue under this former Treasurer was 35%, going up to the next year 48%, going up to the next year 66%, going up to the next year 71%, going up to the next year 74%. That is only the general government sector! Then, we look at the non-financial sector balance sheet, and her debt she left the people of the Northern Territory in the year 2011-12 was $2.8bn, going up to $5.6bn in the forward estimates - up and up and up every year. What was her solution? None. There was no financial strategy worth writing about other than saying, ‘When things improve and we return to normal we will deal with the debt at that stage’. That is not fiscal management; that is sticking your head in the sand. That is in your own budget books.
We brought out a mini-budget and had to start dealing with the challenges the former government left us. Now we have the double whammy of having to plan for a readjustment to the relativities we have been stuck with as a result of the Grants Review Commission’s determinations in relation to Indigeneity.
They laugh and joke and think it is a great laugh. All they care about is trying to score more political points, rather than focusing on the proper fiscal management of the Northern Territory now and into the future.
Madam Speaker, we are moving this motion so we can effectively plan, in very difficult and trying circumstances, for the future and the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot of rubbish spoken in this Chamber, but that sets a new low from the member for Port Darwin; to pretend the delay to the Northern Territory budget and the scrutiny of the budget - that is, the estimates hearings - is because there is a reset in the relativities by the Commonwealth Grants Commission of $107m on Indigeneity. He did not mention the reset of $19m lost through population. He did not mention there is a growth in the GST pool, and the total change in revenue to the Northern Territory is an increase of $23m in the 2012-13 to 2013-14 financial year.
Caught out! I refer you to Table 28 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission report - caught out telling the biggest porkies and furphies I have heard in years. It really took the cake to pretend the CLP has not spent seven months fighting each other – three Treasurers. According to the world and the bubble in which the member for Port Darwin exists, that has had no effect on the budget deliberations. Members of parliament are aware, as is the public, the CLP was so deeply divided, so troubled and chaotic – three ministerial reshuffles and they went into budget Cabinet and there was a meltdown.
On the Monday of Budget Cabinet, the then Treasurer and Deputy Chief Minister stormed out and resigned. She got on a plane and flew to Alice Springs – fact. The members of this parliament and the public of the Northern Territory know the now Deputy Chief Minister, the then Health minister, had a meltdown and a disagreement with the former Chief Minister, the member for Blain, and threw his Budget Cabinet folders at him – fact. That is not disputed; it is talked about. For the member for Port Darwin to pretend that catastrophic meltdown in Budget Cabinet had nothing to do with the fact the budget has been delayed is a farce. To then ignore the fact that for six days the member for Katherine was the Treasurer ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: Eight.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection. The member for Katherine said it was eight days. I will pay you that, it was eight days. I have been referring to six days. I am sorry if I ripped you off two days; you can have those two days. The member for Katherine was the Treasurer for eight days.
I have done five budgets. I was a Treasurer for five years. I get the tight critical time lines you have to meet and deliver on if you are going to deliver a budget in time. It is extremely tight. It starts in October, there are more critical time lines in November, more critical time lines in January, and very critical time lines in February and March.
Because of the chaos, the fighting and the shuffling of the ministerial portfolios and with the catastrophic meltdown in the Budget Cabinet, it did not happen; the time lines were not met. They were unable to resolve their irreconcilable differences and get a budget prepared. We have our third Treasurer in seven months who is not even trying to defend the delay to the budget. When explaining the delay to the budget, he did not try the long bow of the Indigeneity relativities reset.
That was a strange long bow created just then by the member for Port Darwin. Extraordinary! That is why we laughed at you, member for Port Darwin, because we have heard some furphies in our time but that one really took the cake. You would not know the honest answer if you had fallen over it. You would get some cred if you had walked into this Chamber and said, ‘We accept our responsibility to deliver a budget that is fully and duly considered and, therefore, we have had no alternative but to delay the budget’. In the public comments at the time of the announcement of the delay of the budget, it was explained in terms that ministers need time to get across their new portfolios; that with the changes the ministers need time. Most people would accept that explanation.
It is still the shadow explanation of the true explanation which is the government was so chaotic for seven months it missed all the critical time lines in preparing the budget, went through three Treasurers, and was ill-prepared and incapable of delivering a budget on time.
Do not fabricate your fantasy, member for Port Darwin, and expect that we would not laugh at you. We will laugh when absolute, patent nonsense is spoken in this Chamber. Do not pretend you know and are the only one who understands the Commonwealth Grants Commission and relativities. How disgracefully insulting is that?
Table 28, Commonwealth Grants Commission report: a reset on the relativity within Indigeneity down $107m; a reset on population down $19m but the growth in the pool available, $149m - that is a nett increase of $23m. You can deal with a nett increase across your forward estimates for a year. Anyone who knows the Commonwealth Grants Commission and relativities - resets happen regularly. There are years where we go up, years where we go down, but we stay the course. One of the tactics I had as Treasurer was to reduce our reliability on the variation in the GST pool and sign up to special purpose payments that had improved formulas for the Territory - a big five-year fight we won – and to national partnerships that provide additional funding in areas of demand growth.
I mention the national partnerships because there are significant national partnerships up for renewal I have grave concerns about. I am watching the way the current Treasurer behaves in his relationship, or lack thereof, with the federal government. What is happening with the national partnership on police funding? Where are the details on that? Where are the new police stations? Is it true the police station identified and intended for Yuendumu is being shifted to a community within the member for Namatjira’s electorate?
I have some very grave concerns about what this government is doing with national partnerships. They are a significant line of funding to the Territory. Yes, they bring with them their own pressures. Yes, there are reward payments which mean you have to lift your game. Elective surgery is a fine example of that.
To move a motion to defer the budget and delay estimates, and pretend it is simply because of a reset of Commonwealth Grants Commissions relativities on Indigeneity, is wrong. I could describe it as attempt to mislead the parliament, but I will not because we did not believe a single word you said, member for Port Darwin. It completely contradicted the statements of the government issued at the time which attributed the delay to the budget to ministers needing to get across their new portfolio responsibilities.
If you had said we have a new Chief Minister, a new Treasurer and, quite reasonably so, they want time to make their budget deliberations, that would have been believable. However, to pretend, as you did in this Chamber, is quite ridiculous. Little wonder you are so often mocked!
I have not done the research but cannot recall a budget of the Northern Territory ever being delayed because of the chaos of a government - because of four ministerial reshuffles and three Treasurers within a short period of time; in seven months.
You have been an unmitigated disgrace as a government. Your behaviour and actions have caused enormous uncertainty in the business sector across the Territory. They do not know what repairs and maintenance and capital works program will be going forward, and are screaming because of the pain inflicted by the cutbacks in existing programs as a result of the mini-budget. They needed the budget for certainty and it has been delayed.
The non-government sector relies incredibly on those service agreements’ funding payments from the Northern Territory government of the day. While they know they have a 5% cut which kicks in on April Fool’s Day - because they were told on Christmas Eve, of all occasions, which says much for the Country Liberals government - they so desperately need to know what their future holds because they need to know what programs they can provide Territorians this year. They will not know for a while longer because the budget has been delayed. The public servants - the 440 already sacked - also would like to know what their budget allocations are across their agencies, but that has been delayed.
Madam Speaker, I have heard some disgraceful explanations in this Chamber to cover disgraceful actions by this disgraceful government, but that one really takes the cake.
Motion agreed to.
TABLED PAPER
Auditor-General’s Report to the Legislative Assembly - March 2013
Auditor-General’s Report to the Legislative Assembly - March 2013
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Auditor-General’s report to the Legislative Assembly - March 2013.
MOTION
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s Report to the Legislative Assembly - March 2013
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s Report to the Legislative Assembly - March 2013
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report, and the Chief Minister have leave to continue his remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Tindall Aquifer Water Allocation
Tindall Aquifer Water Allocation
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly condemns the government for:
(a) gifting their CLP candidate Tina MacFarlane a water allocation potentially worth millions of dollars
(b) ignoring science, ignoring the environment and gifting the water extraction allocation against the advice of experts, a community advisory group, the ruling of an independent panel and the adjudication of the Supreme Court, and
Water is one of our most precious resources and the community looks to government to use and allocate water supply wisely for community benefit, not individual benefit. This message has been rammed home to us in more recent times with a 40% increase in water rates for domestic users.
We have all seen the enormous damage brought to rivers, streams, wetlands and once productive agricultural lands down south by water allocation policies and practices granted in the 1960s - the Murray Darling comes to mind. There is a suck-it-and-see approach of splashing water around as if there is no tomorrow; that individual landowners can be left to their own devices and be trusted to be mindful of other community interests and use water wisely. We know the consequence of that approach: the tragedy of the lack of interest in the common people kicking in and self-interest reigning to the extent the community and nation as a whole has a monumental problem on its hands.
We have done so much damage to our environment, but water is the one thing - particularly our water allocation from the ground - we can control and not muck up. That is why we need a joint government action, the National Water Initiative, to put some science and common sense into water allocations and use across the country. The Northern Territory signed up to that initiative in 2004 and our government, at the time, took environmental stewardship and its role very seriously, with its intergovernmental obligations under the National Water Initiative agreement.
We accepted, as set out in that agreement, the government has a responsibility to ensure water is allocated and used to achieve socially and economically beneficial outcomes in the manner that is environmentally sustainable. More importantly, we took our obligations to Territorians - especially future generations of Territorians - seriously.
The government of the day and the public service in this area do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. We, as a Territory, need to ensure we protect our water. We accept that water is one of our most precious resources and there are many diverse values attached to water which need to be properly understood. We understand the need for good, reliable science to underpin all water allocations.
We understand the National Water Initiative sought to establish a water trading framework to give proper commercial value to water to ensure its wise use which has enabled the sale and transfer of water rights reflecting its status as a precious resource - which it is. It is there to be used wisely and not a free speculative resource for individual landowners. It is owned by the people.
The government’s claim that the previous government was a political vacuum in respect to water allocations in the Mataranka region is not true. There was a process giving practical effect to the principles of the National Water Initiative. We had a local community group that was planning the use of the water, in particular ‘to be consistent with relevant plans’, and ‘have a transparent and consentable process in place to establish where a proposed activity is approved’.
Those principles were embraced and departmental staff set out to prepare with locals, Indigenous landowners, and expert advisors to establish a water allocation plan for the Tindall limestone aquifer at Mataranka. We know that did not necessarily suit one of the applicants for the water rights in the Mataranka region, the landholders of Stylo Station. Indeed, one of the applicants used her considerable talents to wriggle around and get what she wanted at every opportunity through the planning process: representations to the government; applications for review of departmental decisions on water allocation; an appeal to the Supreme Court for judicial review; representations at a Senate committee on agriculture and related industries; and representation to the Council of Territory Cooperation. Persistence is a great quality and, indeed, a hallmark of the pioneering work in the Territory over the years. However, persistence is not the issue.
The issue is what is right for the community, which looks to the government of the day – of whatever political persuasion - to be fair and considered in handing out water rights and other forms of property rights with an eye to the environment and community benefit, not individual benefit. This is especially so in relation to water. Our environment is so precious. We have caused damage in other areas of the environment but we have a chance to get it right with water.
A draft Mataranka water allocation plan was released in November 2011 setting out a considered, responsible and independent plan for water allocation in the Mataranka region. A plan was developed by public servants who took their role of providing advice without fear or favour seriously. A plan was built on the good work of the nine members of the Mataranka advisory committee that met over 20 times, working through competing interests. That is transparent and accountable.
Using rainfall records from 1900 to 2008, they looked at development and sustainability issues, environmental issues, and considered how consumption of ground water might affect Bitter Springs. They looked at how drawdown on the aquifer could affect sacred springs and soaks important to local Indigenous people. In line with the National Water Initiative, they considered the value of reserving a proportion of the consumption pool for Indigenous economic development, for jobs for some of our most disadvantaged Territorians. They also recognised there were concerns with some of the data they had to work with - irregular data that makes the total data picture unreliable - and there were significant periods of inconsistent record and evaporation data for the Roper catchment and rainfall data. However, they tried a reality that begged a precautionary approach to water allocations. They came up with a 10-year plan to be reviewed after five years. The came to the conclusion, based on information available, that the aquifer recharge was in the order of 130 000 ML per year.
They came up with a consumptive pool of water that could be allocated at 19 500 ML per year. They fairly allocated this to user groups. They allocated 4875 ML for Indigenous economic development. They devised a plan that made available almost four times the water usage being used. However, they also warned of the need to have a precautionary and staged approach to any new water usage, with individual applications above 1000 ML requiring new licences to be staged in accordance with the plan. They had a thought-out plan, a staged, sensible approach to ensure impacts were as forecast and acceptable to ensure those applying for valuable water rights actually use them for their purpose and their community, as well as speculative individual benefit.
They had a plan, they forecast it; they could accommodate things such as the unusual dry Wet Season we have just seen. This was the view of an independent community advisory group, a well thought-out document.
Then last year, after the change of government in August, something happened. The hard-working public servants who worked with the local Mataranka advisory committee and water experts to develop this plan had their employment terminated. Hard-working public servants who were models of fairness were sacked for doing their job, sending a message to the rest of the public service that there is a new sheriff in town and if they do not like your work, you are gone.
The same public servants had their work challenged in front of a review panel. The MacFarlanes went to the Supreme Court asking for a judicial review of the decision-making in relation to their application for 5800 ML of water per annum. The pool was allocated at 19 500 ML per year. The Indigenous Economic Development Group got less than the MacFarlanes wanted. The Supreme Court found no conduct by the public servants was inappropriate, no reason for intervention. The public servants had done their job; there were no administrative flaws.
The draft allocation was thrown to one side, a new controller was appointed, and a reporter asked a question of the Treasurer who admitted the MacFarlanes now had the water they wanted. Reasons for the decision emerged on the NT government website two days ago. New calculations were made, a new result was there. Allegedly, there is more water than first thought - no reason not to give the MacFarlanes what they wanted - no precautionary approach, no incremental increases, no science, just a deal for a mate. For good measure, no strategic reserve to support local Indigenous economic development was given.
Now, instead of a considered belief that the aquifer recharges in the order of 130 000 ML per year, the new Water Controller says it is 180 000 ML per year - just found 50 000 ML overnight. Instead of an average consumption pool of 19 500 ML per year, the new Water Controller says it is 36 000 ML per year. The alarm bells should be ringing. In this decision, the new Water Controller also said that may vary by 2000 ML and 114 000 ML over the next 10 years. It is inconclusive.
The MacFarlanes, through their persistence, their helpful decision-making, now have available an extra 5800 ML per year. Let us put that into perspective. In 2009-10, permitted allocations for water use from the aquifer were: public use, 16 031 ML per year; the nearby community of Jilkminggan had an allocation of 70 ML per year; Ngukurr had an allocation of 60 ML per year; and agriculture, aquaculture, and industry had an allocation of 4848 ML per year. Now, one applicant has more water available to them than was allocated to other agriculture, aquaculture, and industry prior to the development of the water allocation plan. Astounding!
What is also deeply disturbing is we heard nothing of how the impacts would be monitored, who pays for that, or any capacity to quickly change this allocation if it is wrong. There is no plan. It is hard to see that the decisions have been made with public assurances of ongoing monitoring and technical review. The new Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim, agreed with the media that it does not look good. Absolutely correct - it does not look good. Those of us who recall the CLP government of the old days sense dj vu. Water is our most precious resource. It is a sad reflection of this new government; how they do business and allocate community resources.
The other telling thing about this shoddy episode is where the minister responsible, the Minister for Land Resource Management, has sat. It was the Treasurer who confirmed the decision to the public. It did not go to Cabinet, but two days ago the decision appeared on the NTG website. There are so many questions. Presumably, the Minister for Land Resource Management knew what was happening but kept his head down. I ask how this minister reconciles his conduct with the approach to the Assembly:
- … the new government’s approach is to be open, honest, accountable and proactive when it comes to community engagement, particularly where there are contentious issues to be addressed.
This is a contentious issue. The public is not happy.
The Amateur Fishermen’s Association said the granting of a large amount of water could have a negative impact on the Roper River:
- We are really concerned about the government allocating water when there are formal processes being put in place that aren’t being followed.
What we know from the experience in southern states, is that once you over-allocate systems it’s very difficult to claw back water.
In the Territory, we have a chance to live and learn from the other states. We do not have to follow their lead.
Madam Speaker, there are many other groups that have raised concerns and I urge the government to consider this.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, I will not say thank you to the member for Nightcliff for bringing on this silly motion, but we will go through the motions, nonetheless, today with no hesitation or trepidation.
I have been looking forward to this debate since notice of this motion was given yesterday. There is almost, for me, an air of excitement with this great opportunity to speak on this very important issue and on this motion.
The reason for that is I will not only have the opportunity to correct the record and some misconceptions about the process for issuing water licences generally, and the MacFarlanes’ licence specifically, but I will show up for the opposition for the bunch of uninformed, ignorant fools they are.
I was initially gobsmacked at the approach which has been taken by the opposition on this matter, but then I had a bit of an epiphany. I had a moment of clarity and the answers I had in my head about the way these fools opposite approached this matter started to coalesce. I will come back to that in a moment.
First, I will deal quickly with a couple of issues raised by the member for Nightcliff. She made reference to the Murray Darling. That can serve no purpose other than to confuse the issue. The last time I looked, the Northern Territory was somewhat different from the states where the Murray Darling flows through, particularly South Australia. Two of the key differences between the Roper River or the Tindall aquifer at Mataranka and the Murray Darling system, is our water here is extracted from the ground whereas, in the Murray Darling, it is extracted from the river. That is ground water versus surface water.
I am advised there are some 180 users of water in the Murray Darling system. I could just about count on one hand, maybe two, the number of users of water in the Mataranka portion of the Tindall limestone aquifer. There is no comparison, and this shows the ignorance of the member for Nightcliff by even bringing it up.
She mentioned the National Water Initiative. I should say at the outset the Water Act of the Northern Territory complies with the National Water Initiative. As I understand it, there is no reference in the National Water Initiative of commercial use for Indigenous folk; it is around cultural use. Perhaps the member for Nightcliff needs to do a little more research.
She also mentioned the rainfall data obtained from 1900 to 2008. I will come back to that later in my speech but, of course, we now know there is far more recent reliable data from which we can draw conclusions about the water in that Tindall aquifer. I notice the member for Nightcliff is going down the old path of Labor - I have seen it in this House over the last four-and-a-half years – of criticising public servants. This afternoon, she made criticisms of the Water Controller and, ultimately, his decisions. More about that will become apparent as the speech goes on.
I said in Question Time this morning I am pleased the member for Nelson took up the offer of a briefing on this matter. He - but not the member for Nightcliff, the shadow minister, who I expected might be more interested - appears to have a genuine interest in the facts. It appears the member for Nelson has the capacity to understand those facts and has today issued a media release detailing his newfound understanding. I have a copy of the media release where the member for Nelson clearly expressed his satisfaction over a number of the issues raised over the past few days in relation to issue of this licence, particularly around there being no political influence in the decision.
It is sad when a new member of parliament is so quickly caught up in the gears and machinery of the poisonous and vitriolic Labor Party. Are you beyond saving, member for Nightcliff? Are you so firmly entangled in the sniping, personal and gutter politics that is the hallmark of Territory Labor? Think for yourself, member for Nightcliff, do not let the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Karama, corral your thoughts.
The issue of licences to extract ground water is enshrined in the Water Act, specifically section 60, but I will come back to that in a moment. First, I will refer to section 18 of the act which refers to the appointment of the Water Controller. Part 3 Administration, Division 1 General Administration, section 18 Controller of Water Resources:
- The Minister may, in writing, appoint a person to be the Controller of Water Resources.
The Chief Executive of the Department of Land Resource Management is, by virtue of the appointment made by me, the Controller of Water Resources.
There is a very good reason to appoint a Water Controller and I will also come back to that in a moment. The Water Act confers powers and responsibilities to the Water Controller which might be for the issue of a waste discharge licence or, in the case of section 60 of the act, the issue of licences to extract ground water. I am happy to refer to the legislation and read it out for the member for Nightcliff so she has an understanding. Section 60, Grant of licence to take ground water:
- (1) Subject to this Act, the Controller may, of his or her own motion or on application in the prescribed manner and form, grant to a person a licence in the prescribed form to take water from a bore.
- (2) A licence may be granted under subsection (1) subject to such terms and conditions, if any, as are specified in the licence document.
- Subject to subsection (4), a licence shall be granted for such period, not exceeding 10 years, as is specified in the licence document.
- The Controller may, where in the opinion of the Minister there are special circumstances that justify so granting the licence, grant a licence for such period exceeding 10 years as is specified in the licence document.
Let us get down to the nitty gritty. The member for Nightcliff issued a media release on 22 March in which she said:
- The decision by Dave Tollner and the CLP to hand CLP candidate Tina MacFarlane an increased water extraction allocation smacks of cronyism said the shadow Environment Spokesperson, Natasha Fyles.
Second, no minister issues water licences, nor do ministers, to quote you, ‘hand anyone increased water extraction allocations’. There is a rigorous process in applying for water extraction licences which the minister has no involvement nor influence in. Applications are submitted through the NT Department of Land Resource Management and, ultimately, to the Controller of Water. In cases where large water volumes are applied for, such as the MacFarlanes, applications are required to provide a comprehensive business plan to further support their application.
The minister does not get to see the application or the business plan and plays no part in the approval process, hence …
Mr Chandler: You were not involved!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I was not involved. That is why, when I was asked by the member for Nelson if I could table some documents this morning, I was unable to do so because I had never seen them and never had access to them.
Under the act, the Water Controller issues licences for water extraction. While I am on that topic, I refer to the question the member for Nelson asked in yesterday’s Question Time:
- You awarded a 5800 ML water licence from the Tindall aquifer to Stylo farm …
Of course, there is much more to the question than that. Member for Nelson, for your edification - and I am sure you understand now, having had the briefing which has instilled some level of understanding - I did not award any water licence to anyone. It is the Water Controller - in this case, the Chief Executive of the department – who does that.
Once a complete application is received, a notice of intention to make a water extraction decision is advertised in the NT News and local regional papers. If I can dig it up I have a bunch of them. There is one notice of intention to make a water extraction licence decision. The notice is sent to landholders in the area where the water is proposed to be taken and used. The notice of intention provides a short summary of the application and invites written comments from the public and local landholders to be provided within 30 days. As soon as practicable after the end of the public comment period, and within 30 days if practicable, a decision must be taken to refuse or grant a licence. This is made by - wait for it! - the Controller of Water Resources. The minister has no role or influence in this decision.
The decision to refuse or grant a licence includes the reasons for the decision, the way in which comments received from the public and local landholders have been taken into account, and how relevant factors as set out in the Water Act have been taken into account. The controller of water then issues a full statement of decision in regard to the granting of the licence, and that statement of decision has been published on the DLRM website and is the same one I tabled this morning in Question Time.
What surprised me about much of this is the member for Nightcliff and, for that matter, the member for Nelson, without researching even the basics of the Water Act, proceeded to make fools of themselves and put on display for all the world to see their ignorance and lack of understanding of the relevant legislation. That is particularly disappointing in the case of the member for Nightcliff, given she is the shadow minister.
I now turn to something I mentioned a little earlier; the reason the minister should appoint a Water Controller. I turn to the Water Act again - and this time I am going to section 30 which relates to the review of decisions by the Water Controller:
- Division 3 Review of certain actions and decisions
30 Application for review
- (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person aggrieved by an action or decision under this Act (other than section 93(3)) of the Controller, or under section 5(6) of the Minister, may apply to the Minister to review the matter.
That section has two main parts, if I can distil it down for the member for Nightcliff. The first is the person aggrieved by an action or decision made by the Water Controller - that is a very important point to make, the Water Controller - under the act can apply for a review of the decision. Second, the application for review is made to the minister.
To recap, within 30 days of making a decision to refuse or grant a licence, a notice of water extraction licence decision is advertised and also sent to the applicant and local landholders. The notice advises the person who is aggrieved by the decision may apply to the minister to review the decision within 30 days. The minister makes the final determination on any application for review of the decision, subject to the parts of that act where other actions can be taken as well. An independent expert panel may be convened by the minister to provide advice, or the determination may be made by the minister alone. The minister may uphold the licence decision, alter the decision, or ask that the decision be reconsidered.
This is the only time the minister becomes involved in the application process. I thought those members opposite who have been ministers in the past would have at least provided that much advice and information to their colleague, the member for Nightcliff. Instead, they sent her on a fool’s errand chasing a silly motion when she was not armed with anywhere near the facts she needed to prosecute this successfully.
Anyway, ministers do not issue water licences because they are the point of reference for reviews of decisions made by the controller with respect to the issue of licences.
Was the water allocation gifted by the CLP to the MacFarlanes? No, it was not. The use of the word ‘gifted’ in regard to the issue of water extraction licences by the member for Nightcliff is uninformed and reckless. I hope that deals with paragraph (a) of this silly motion by the shadow minister.
Let us turn to paragraph (b) of this silly motion and examine whether science and the environment were ignored, as well as the advice of experts, and if it went against the court ruling. The short answer to that is no. The assessment process in granting a water extracting licence is comprehensive and takes into account analysis of available water resources and potential impacts that may arise from the proposed water use, both in environmental effects and impacts on other water users. In granting this licence, the controller took into account the submissions which were received in response to his notice of intention to make the water extraction licence decision, and all relevant factors as required under section 90 of the Water Act.
Someone might correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think the member for Nightcliff referenced the Water Act of the Northern Territory once in her speech.
To assist the controller in determining the licence application, the department assessed the risk of impact to springs in the adjacent Elsey National Park and the Roper River that may be caused by extracting 5800 ML per year on Mr and Mrs McFarlane’s property. This assessment used the ground water model that is being used to set the sustainable extraction for water allocation plan, using an announced allocation process that accounts for variations in annual recharge into the aquifer and, consequently, the contribution that discharge from the aquifer makes to maintaining springs in Elsey National Park and flows into the Roper River. Modelling showed clearly that the extraction from the proposed licence would need to be restricted in some years to prevent impact to springs and river flows.
In addition, the best advice of the Bureau of Meteorology was used in determining average rainfalls and recharges of the aquifer over a period of 30 to 40 years rather than the previously used gauge of 100 years - or 108 years, as the member for Nightcliff said earlier - which contained, as I understand it, some inferred and rather unreliable and incomplete data.
Improved modelling - that is, the interaction between rainfall events, recharge projections and relationships between surface water and ground water - gave new consumptive pool figures of 36 000 ML, which is a far cry from the old modelling which suggested a consumptive pool of less than 20 000 ML.
For the member for Nightcliff to suggest that, overnight, the Water Controller changed his mind about the size of consumptive pool is just another criticism of public servants by a Labor member in this House. We have seen it happen before ...
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: You should not talk. I pick up on the interjection from the member for Casuarina because I was in the House at the time of the Montara incident when he criticised his own public servants, the people within the Department of Mines and Energy, for mucking up application processes and monitoring of what was going on with paperwork ...
Mr Vatskalis: You have it wrong, mate; you have it wrong. You better look at Hansard.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Careful, member for Casuarina, if you are going to throw sticks and stones across the Chamber. Some of us have a pretty good memory.
In any case, it must also be noted that the consumptive pool is calculated as a very conservative 20% of the total pool which is related to annual recharge figures. That makes the total pool 180 000 ML - which the member for Nightcliff did get right; about the only thing - 80% of which, or 144 000 ML, remains in the ground as the component left for environmental sustainability.
However, annual extraction under the granted licence will be adjusted if necessary through an announced allocation made by the controller that will prevent adverse effects on the security of water supplies in the aquifer and the Roper River and also prevent adverse environmental effects in Elsey National Park and the Roper River. To put that into context, new licences issued can be adjusted annually subject to the previous Wet Season’s rainfall and recharge data.
I am going to repeat that because it is particularly important. It is a new condition that is placed on water extraction licences. I repeat, a new condition. To put that into context, new licences can be adjusted annually subject to the previous Wet Season’s rainfall and recharge data.
Moreover, in considering this particular application, the Water Controller went an enormous step beyond what had been considered before. He also considered the effect this extraction licence might have on the community of Ngukurr, several hundred kilometres downstream. This has never been considered before in determining water licensing for the Tindall limestone aquifer.
The Water Controller considered the potential of cease-to-flow conditions and the possibility of saltwater or brine incursion up the river to Ngukurr. I ask the member for Nightcliff to put her hand on her heart and tell me if that is ignoring science. That is the assertion she is making in this silly motion. You tell me.
The shadow minister also alluded to the minister ignoring the ruling of the Supreme Court. Not true! It is an uninformed assertion to make. First, the minister, as I said before, does not have anything to do with the issue of water licences. Therefore, you could extend that or, by inference, suggest the shadow minister is saying that the Water Controller ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court. Also, not true!
In the case of the MacFarlanes, an application for a ground water extraction licence - I will call it a GWEL because that is easier to say - was received by the Department of Land Resource Management in 2005 - and this goes back to a little history now - to take 5000 ML a year from the Tindall limestone aquifer. An amendment to this application was received in 2008 for 5780 ML per year. A GWEL for 500 ML per year was granted in mid-2010 to allow Mr and Mrs MacFarlane to commence development while more details on resource sustainability were gathered as a part of the water allocation planning process under way in the Mataranka area.
Mr and Mrs MacFarlane lodged an appeal under the Water Act against the decision to grant the licence for an amount less than applied for. The appeal was referred to the Water Resources Review Panel and the minister of the day accepted the panel’s recommendation that the licensing decision be upheld.
Subsequently, Mr and Mrs MacFarlane lodged an action against the licensing decision with the Supreme Court. Prior to the matter going to court, the department made two offers to increase allocations up to 1500 ML per year to settle out of court, but Mr and Mrs MacFarlane rejected both offers. The court ruled against Mr and Mrs MacFarlane and they appealed the decision. The initial appeal hearing has been held, but subject to Mr and Mrs MacFarlane wishing to continue, may not be settled for some time. Just to be clear, Mr and Mrs MacFarlane filed an originating motion with the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on 18 March 2011 in which they claimed that both of the following decisions were made contrary to law:
1. The decision made on 10 August 2010 by the Controller of Water Resources to refuse their application to grant a 10-year water extraction licence for 5779 ML per year and to instead grant a one-year water allocation licence for 500 ML a year, and
2. The decision made by the minister on or about 28 February 2011 to uphold the decision made by the controller on 10 August 2012.
The decision handed down by Justice Kelly in the NT Supreme Court on 6 December 2012 rejected the arguments brought for each claim by Mr and Mrs MacFarlane and dismissed the plaintiff’s action to the court. The court case was about due process and the decision-making powers of the Water Controller and the minister; it was not about determining water allocation for the MacFarlanes.
Once again, member for Nightcliff, you got it wrong. You can see the pattern emerging here. The poor old member for Nightcliff has been handed this pup by her colleagues and told to prosecute this in this parliament. She has been left hung out to dry all because of the Labor opposition’s penchant for wanting to run cheap political agendas.
On 26 October 2012, Mr and Mrs MacFarlane made a new application for 5800 ML per year. This application was treated as a new application and dealt with accordingly. The reason for dealing with the application as a new one was because the Water Controller was following due process and the provisions of the act.
Previous applications and consequent deliberations, even the decisions of the court, are not matters that must be taken into account when the Water Controller considers such applications - and that is enshrined in the legislation.
On 7 November 2012, a notice of intention to make a water extraction licence was published as required under the Water Act. Landowners in the Mataranka area were also given a copy of the notice as required by the act. Eight written submissions were received in response to the notice. The comments consistently raised concerns with the possible granting of a water extraction licence of the quantum sought by Mr and Mrs MacFarlane.
On 15 March 2013, the Controller of Water Resources granted a 10-year term licence to Mr and Mrs MacFarlane allowing them to take up to 5800 ML per year from the two existing production bores, and bores yet to be drilled.
It is also important to note - the member for Nightcliff has being banging on about this precious resource, but I wonder if she knows how much it
costs to sink a production bore to give you between 50 L and 100 L per second? She probably does not. You are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars to sink such a bore. Anyone who suggests the granting of a licence of this quantum immediately means 5800 ML will come pouring out of the ground is an idiot.
The controller visited licence holders in the Mataranka area on 12 March to inform them of his intention to review the draft water allocation plan and inform the community about government’s policy on strategic Indigenous reserves. A notice of the water extraction licence decision was advertised in the NT News on 23 March 2013, and was also advertised today in the Katherine Times.
This government is unashamedly supportive of new and growing agricultural developments in the Northern Territory. If the hypocrites on the other side stopped for a moment to consider their position, they might also be seen to support such pursuits. One only has to go back a little to February this year when I spoke in this parliament to a ministerial statement on the position of the NT around agribusiness and mining in the Asian century. I plucked a couple of quotes out of here. One is from the member for Barkly in which he said:
- I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House and congratulate him, because he is in the driving seat of what is the future of real prosperity in the Northern Territory. Decision-making at a party level, a political level, and at an individual level, will be very important in maximising the opportunities in the pastoral, agricultural, and horticultural sectors.
That is what we are doing. The member for Casuarina said:
- The Ord is a significant development but, at the same time, we should not forget the areas we have in the Territory around Katherine, around Mataranka, even south of Tennant Creek and Alice Springs that can be developed.
…
Things can grow on land. If Israelis can grow lettuce in the desert, think what we can grow in our rich land which has water and a workforce where the land is available ...
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time for the minister, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thanks for your support.
On one hand, there must be terrible conflict and turmoil in the opposition because people such as the members for Barkly and Casuarina are saying they are quite keen to see maximising the opportunities in pastoral, agriculture, and horticulture yet, at the same time, they see an opportunity only to try to score cheap political points. I do not know how they lie straight in bed, to be honest.
I said at the beginning of this speech I was initially gobsmacked at the approach which has been taken by the opposition on this matter. I said I had an epiphany; that moment of clarity when answers to the questions coalesced in my head about the approach taken by these fools opposite. That epiphany, that moment of clarity, is nothing short of an insult to members on the government benches. It is quite clear the indignation coming from the other side of the House is a reflection of how they would have dealt with such matters. They are trying to infer we would have acted in a fashion befitting the very worst practises of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory. Running government by having ministers interfere with the legal and bureaucratic process might be a hallmark of a Labor administration, but I can assure you that is not the way of the Country Liberals.
I am going to finish shortly but, before I do, I will raise one more matter. After 11 years of Labor in this Territory, many people have become accustomed to a constipated, snail-like pace on developments of any kind. The Territory can now get used to the idea of strong and sustained growth and support for all the areas that develop our economy - mining, agriculture and food production, and tourism. That is where our efforts will be redoubled. There will be much more news in the months and years to come about developments in the Territory. The people of the Territory should ready themselves for this. They should ready themselves for the growth and focus we have. Labor should ready itself for this growth and focus as well, because you will be hearing a great deal about it in this parliament. The knockers, the greenies, the naysayers, should all ready themselves for the future growth under a Country Liberals government. That is not a challenge to fight in any way; it is advance notice of many of the great things to come from this Country Liberal government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as for this motion, it will not be supported because it is wrong, wrong, wrong, in so many ways. It is based on ignorance, a lack of research by the shadow minister and, of course, the usual guttersniping politics we are all too familiar with from the Labor opposition. Shame on you, member for Nightcliff.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, in speaking to this motion, I have listened to the minister, essentially, defend what is clearly the indefensible. As I have stated publicly, this matter stinks!
The only thing that changed in October when the new application was submitted is there was a change in government; the Country Liberal Party was in government. New process; new application followed the process - no new evidence, no new science, set aside the framework and get the outcome and the result the CLP wanted for their mate, Tina MacFarlane, the CLP candidate for Lingiari.
An area that is of enormous interest to many landowners, Mataranka, is rich in potential, as you have heard our shadow minister say in debate. It is rich in potential, as you heard when our Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke about the opportunities that abound in the Territory.
We learnt from the mistakes of the past and the southern jurisdictions and ensured we put in place a framework for water allocation. That framework included water allocation plans and management practices. All of that was ignored in the process the CLP followed when they took government in August.
They pretend to have nothing to do with the process because it was the new Water Controller who undertook it and signed it off. Yet, Dave Tollner, just last week, proclaimed it as what they had delivered. Which is it? Is it a process that was undertaken purely by the bureaucracy - hands off, knew nothing about it?
Yet, the announcement proclaiming it to all and sundry as a good thing was from Dave Tollner last week before it was signed off. How does that happen? How does that occur when you have seen the same Dave Tollner support the MacFarlane family at the court? They are close, very close. No doubt, there are close ties with the member for Katherine. They live in the region of the member for Katherine. Under scrutiny, little wonder this is referred to as watermate.
Water, that most precious resource - government has the obligation to allocate water rights for the community benefit not individual benefit. The hypocrisy of these actions is rank when you look at the letter the government has written to NAILSMA denying water rights to the Aboriginal landholders of the trust of the region. At the same time the government was granting water rights to Tina MacFarlane they were denying water rights to the Aboriginal land trust holders of the region. Extraordinary!
One wonders why there is a stench about this: the CLP candidate being given water rights worth millions of dollars after they had been officially rejected, after they had lost a case in the Supreme Court - without the CLP announcing a new policy direction or providing that new policy in writing to other landholders in the region. Did any other landholders other than Tina MacFarlane and her family submit applications for new water rights in October? Was there an announcement? Was there a media release we missed from this minister in October which said, ‘There is a new water allocation policy in the region, put your submissions in?’ No new policy, no announcements. By all means, leave any evidence of any new policy announcements from October of last year. No, they have handed their CLP mate a water allocation worth, potentially, millions of dollars, without other people in the region being afforded the same opportunity under this new policy, setting aside the existing framework which had prevented these rights being allocated previously.
The initial water rights application by Tina MacFarlane for Stylo Station to access additional water from the Tindall limestone aquifer at Mataranka was rejected by the Controller of Water Resources in August 2010. That would be the Controller of Water Resources who was dismissed by the CLP government. The application was rejected because there was no water allocation planned. In other words, there was no real measure of sustainable use and there were genuine concerns about the impact of an increased water take.
Subsequently, a draft water allocation plan was released for discussion but, to this day, there is no final water allocation plan. If the minister was so determined to deliver irrigation to the horticulturalists of the area, why did he not proceed with finalising the water allocation plan, giving everyone the same fair chance at a new application? No, that would not suit, would it, because then Tina MacFarlane would have no advantage.
The controller’s 2010 decision was tested in the Supreme Court in June last year. Last December, the court handed down its judgment upholding the decision to reject the application. Then, we discovered this week that a water extraction licence was granted by the CLP. Funnily enough, it was signed off two days ago even though Dave Tollner confirmed the decision last week. Tina MacFarlane was granted additional water rights of 5600 ML a year, taking the overall water allocation to 10 800 ML a year.
This decision illustrates the point that public servants must be able to front the estimates process so there can be transparency and provide the opportunity for members of parliament to scrutinise their decisions. Sadly, under the cover-up culture of the CLP, we are being prevented from questioning public servants involved in this matter in June during estimates. This is truly a tragedy for accountability and transparency.
Last week, we saw Dave Tollner in the media proudly owning the decision but, today, he is acting like - and the Chief Minister was acting like he knew nothing about it - they had nothing to do with it.
The decision to grant additional water rights to Tina MacFarlane has been met with concern from so many people: traditional owners, other farmers, and AFANT. AFANT is worried about the impact on the Roper. Retired farmer Ian Baker was quoted in media reports as saying:
- ‘To give that amount of water to one, single individual with no proven worth is really bad policy’ ...
‘5800 megalitres is more than double than what all of our big, successful horticultural farmers have got’.
The CLP has handed a mate the precious natural resources which belong to all Territorians without an announced new policy; without saying, ‘Do not worry, we are stepping outside the water allocation plan framework’. This is not just nepotism or cronyism; this has the stench of corruption. A government making decisions outside of a reset of the policy, outside of a water allocation plan which, ultimately, provides an enormous financial benefit to a mate - if that is not corruption, explain what is ...
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am wondering whether the Leader of the Opposition would like to confirm or clarify that she is accusing the Water Controller of corruption.
Ms LAWRIE: No, I am not accusing the Water Controller at all.
Mr Westra van Holthe: He makes the decisions, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms LAWRIE: You doth protest too much, member for Katherine.
I have nothing but enormous concern and sympathy for the Water Controller of the Northern Territory, who shares the position of the CE of the department. It is an invidious position to be in when you are CE of the department and the Water Controller, which is normally a separate statutory position. I am unaware of any other time when the Water Controller has also been CE of the department.
That is okay because, according to the CLP, this is a normal process. This is all done in normal process - no announced new policy, no consultation with the people of the region saying, ‘By the way, do not worry about the fact there is no sign-off on the water allocation plan, you can come in …
Mr Westra van Holthe: That is not true. The Water Controller visited Mataranka.
Ms LAWRIE: … and put down your new applications because there has been a reset in the policy’.
He visited Mataranka in relation to the application made by the MacFarlanes - picking up on your interjection, member for Katherine – but there was not a visit to Mataranka to say, ‘The government has a new policy. We are not applying the policy of the past of requiring the water allocation plan to be signed off before we can make decisions on such vast quantities of water’ ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: Would it make any difference if I said others in Mataranka had already applied for extra water?
Ms LAWRIE: … splitting hairs on the timing of things. If you want it to look as though it is a fair process - if there is a reset in the policy, which there appears, all of a sudden, to be - let people know. If you will not apply the framework of a water allocation plan in an area where it is critical - the Tindall limestone aquifer - let people know. It is an even playing field. Do not go there after the event, after the fresh application in October by the MacFarlanes and say, ‘We want comment on this one’, and then ignore the comments.
People were against it. They were not saying, ‘That is fantastic. By all means 5800 ML handed over to that station’. No, they said the opposite. The Aboriginal landowners, the other farmers, and AFANT said the opposite. People who know the region, who understand the importance of the Tindall limestone aquifer, are against this decision. How you can go there, member for Katherine, and hold your head up high shows me how thick-skinned you are.
This has been disgraceful. No wonder it is called watermate. We will continue the scrutiny of this. We will continue to expose there was no policy reset, no announcement by the CLP, ‘By the way, water allocation plans are not required to be signed off and certainly will not apply. Do not worry about it - 5800 ML, put your applications in’. What a farce!
The Chief Minister should have intervened and ensured the decision was overturned. He should have immediately asked for an investigation, but did not. He claimed to know nothing - washed his hands of it. Is that leadership? I suspect nothing will happen. The government will not investigate how this could have occurred because another mate has been rewarded for CLP loyalty. It is becoming a very common theme under the CLP government. I suspect you have not heard the last of watermate.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am proud to speak on this motion because it reflects the job of an opposition, which is to scrutinise, ask questions, prosecute an argument, and engage a government in debate. It is becoming quite common now that CLP ministers, in their contributions to debate, immediately start with personal insults. The member for Katherine is definitely one who is ahead of the game in his personal insults. He engaged in personal insults for about 10 minutes.
It is interesting to look at the human behaviour and the body language of what was going on when the Leader of the Opposition was contributing to the debate. The member for Katherine was showing some interesting signs of a guilty conscious, and very nervous behaviour - shuffling papers, moving back and forward, flushed, rushes of blood, picking things off the floor, shifting things around on the desk. He reminded me of a police officer - which he used to be - interviewing a guilty client in an interview room, only he was the client. His body language and behaviour brought back memories of many years of dealing with students trying to get to the fact of the matter. He did not look comfortable in this debate.
It was even more interesting when his solicitor, the member for Port Darwin, shifted in his seat to check out the contract. The member for Port Darwin, the heavy lifter in the government, the smart one in the room, is nervous as well. He checked his colleague’s contract and credentials. As he did, the member for Katherine showed even more radical signs of inhibition and guilty conscious.
Let me build off that. The member for Port Darwin taught me that and used the strategy regularly when he was in opposition. He used it on me a number of times trying to intimidate a junior minister - a new minister. It was great psychology. He picked the wrong person because in my parliamentary work I base myself on common sense and good manners. If you believe in common sense and good manners, underpinned by honesty, you will always get through. The member for Port Darwin is a very experienced player; he taught me that strategy. I found it most interesting when he shifted in his seat; he was very nervous about this minister, the member for Katherine, and he checked out the contract. I believe he shares a real reservation, as does the Leader of the Opposition, that perhaps this is not as straightforward as it seems.
The job of an opposition is to prosecute the argument and engage the government minister in debate. This side of the House has come from working with the NT public sector for 10 years. We made very good relationships with public servants over 10 years. I was very privileged to work as a public servant for 30 years, then as a government member for the previous four years. We stick up for and back the Water Controller.
The member for Katherine spent much time in this motion trying to ridicule the member for Nightcliff by going through the act and the duty statement of a Water Controller. We have no question about that, and we back the Water Controller. If there is another influence, another groundswell of pressure which is coming from a ministerial level, that is where it gets really dodgy.
We are suggesting - and I am suggesting - the culture in the public sector of the Northern Territory is at rock bottom. People are not happy. How do I know this? This is not rumour or innuendo; this is because people talk to me. People I created very good working relationships with over the last four years are talking about a very toxic culture in the public sector. There is fear and intimidation, and people are worried about their jobs. That is spinning off into destroying consumer confidence, which is affecting business confidence, and that is why we debate this new government every step of the way on their fiscal management. These things relate to many human resource issues. In a culture that is toxic, where public sector officials are intimidated and fear the loss of their jobs, there could be elements of pressure brought to bear. That is disgraceful and illegal.
The member for Katherine, doing his best to try to squirm his way through this debate, may need to come clean. He gave himself the opportunity when he said the minister’s job is to review and accept appeals. He has the opportunity to make this right. He can come back to this House and tell the Territory he had appeals. He said eight submissions were made. He did not elaborate on what those eight submissions were or what they said. The word on the street where I live in the bush and where I move amongst the community is people are not happy with the decision by the Water Controller.
Let us separate the Water Controller and go back to the minister. The minister will accept the appeal. The minister has the opportunity to make this right. We will be waiting to see if he exercises that power because I am certain there will be appeals. In respect of any impropriety in this process, what the member for Katherine has done is set up the MacFarlane family for a fall, and that is not right. If the member for Katherine has allowed this process to be done outside correct protocols, then he has set this family up for ridicule and a fall. There will be an appeals process. There is nothing clear around this at the moment except the very nervous minister who reminded me of very nervous students who needed to be guided through a process to tell the truth.
I will talk about this area because it borders the north of the Barkly electorate. The essence of the Mataranka water plan is still in draft form. That does not give me much confidence. Let us talk about water users. The member for Katherine was quick to ridicule, once again, my colleague, the member for Nightcliff, about using the analogy of the Murray Darling.
I come from New South Wales; I grew up in Sydney. As an elected community member, I look back at major disasters within our country which we in the Northern Territory, the last frontier, have the opportunity to avoid. The analogy of the Murray Darling was a good one because governments now are trying to fix very challenging circumstances: a real mess in the sustainability of a major river system.
That river system, ecologically, is joined with aquifer sources of water. If anybody understands the ecology, it is all connected; one does not function without the other. So, the analogy of the Murray Darling was good and, in this sense, we have the opportunity to avoid those issues of major disasters.
The previous Chief Minister talked regularly about planning. In his time as the Chief Minister he regularly reminded this House and Territorians that he would plan for the future. He talked about sustainability, and in this deal sustainability has been thrown out the door. I do not think there is good planning.
Let us talk about some of the existing water users who have been ignored in this decision, and who, I believe, will make substantial appeals. The minister will be dealing with this issue in the correct process.
The pastoral industries of the Mataranka area and the northern Barkly, particularly the Indigenous Land Corporation and their cattle enterprise on Hodgson Downs - the Chief Minister brought it to debate today in Question Time when he said, ‘I do not know anything about this. The first thing I knew about this was I read it in the newspaper. But I am about jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs’. I could not help thinking perhaps what he was saying was everybody should work for the MacFarlanes. I am not sure whether that is what he meant but he talked about jobs, jobs. I can tell him to get down to Hodgson Downs and look at the Indigenous Land Corporation’s cattle enterprise and the incredible work and expansion they have conducted over the last few years. They are setting a really good pace and showing what Indigenous people are doing back on the land, running and growing beef cattle.
There is a whole host of pastoral properties around that area. They are all water users and, as we are seeing in the Northern Territory, they are all growing. Beef will be a very important product for the Northern Territory. It reminds me of a very old station owner who said to me, ‘Don’t you worry, son, if you can grow something and sell it to people to eat then you are in business forever’. I believe that. There is also the example the member for Katherine used - the cultural significance of water. The North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance issued a media release commenting on this decision. Their comment from the media release on the 20 March 2013 stated:
- NAILSMA today formally released an Indigenous water policy position on the Strategic Indigenous Reserve reaffirming the rights of Indigenous people to a share of the water on their traditional lands.
It is not just about culture; it is about economic development. As the Leader of the Opposition said in her contribution to the debate, the North Australian Sea and Land Management Alliance received a letter today from the Water Controller saying the Country Liberal Party government would not be proceeding with the proposed strategic water reserve for Indigenous economic development. They said they would review it in three years – an interesting time frame. They talked about the Mataranka water allocation plan and the proposals. NAILSMA talked about Indigenous economic development in parallel with the cultural significance of the water needs of the Indigenous people of that area.
There is much exploration going on that will generate future mining projects. Exploration and mining needs water. This relates to good planning to avoid disasters. I mention some big projects in the area: Sherwin Iron, Western Desert Resources, and the most recent announcement by the member for Katherine, the Australian Ilmenite Resources Project. That is just over 100 km east of Mataranka in the Barkly electorate.
The mining of ilmenite in that area will develop great prosperity for the Territory, but you are talking about a strip mining operation to a depth of 4 m, with 300 m long and 200 m wide strips. The water will come from the Roper River. It will be pumped 12 km to the site and will use up to 1650 ML per annum. It will pump up to 18 L a second and have a storage capacity of 55 ML - I presume on that site. Under the Water Act, it is exempt from the consumptive pool; it provided very detailed documentation for monitoring and a very detailed water management plan to government. However, once again, this operation is connected because of the ecology of that area with aquifers, rivers, and springs all flowing together. That is an example of a project that is coming online with a big future and of one being well-planned.
We are questioning whether this decision reflects good planning. The oil and gas sector in that part of the Barkly is experiencing incredible exploration at the moment. The Indigenous communities in that part of the Northern Territory such as the community of Jilkminggan - a community I love to visit, particularly the old man, Daylight, who gives me great history lessons about that area - has a plan to build an abattoir – a great plan. They have suffered some setbacks but are not giving up; they are going to ensure their plan comes to fruition and there is an abattoir. An abattoir uses much water. It is not using water at the moment but it will. Let us say the abattoir doubles or triples in size and becomes a premier institution for the area employing Indigenous people - they will require a great deal of water as well.
That is what I mean about planning. Let us not ignore the crabbers, the fishers, the professional fishers, the mango farmers, the tourism operators, the residents of town, and also the further opportunities that come online in that area. We are asking this government to be very serious with its planning. When we talk about Stylo Station, the existing licence was 500 ML, and they have been granted 5800 ML in a new licence, which represents more than double most irrigation licences in the Mataranka region. What about all the other applications coming online? We have just gone through a list of really important projects to grow the Northern Territory.
This decision was made by the Water Controller as the minister reminded us - I am not so sure about that - in a very nervous state as he shifted in the saddle like he was on a fresh horse and had never ridden before. He said it is all kosher. Really? It is about the Katherine region, and in that region we are talking about successful farmers who have water licences of less than half the allocation provided to Stylo Station - successful farmers with broadacre operations, and water licences less than half this licence just granted.
With a licence of this size we are talking significant infrastructure needed to use that water allocation. Perhaps there should have been some reservation in this decision. Perhaps the Water Controller could have said, ‘Let us test you out. Let us use the good old CLP work ethic we hear about’. The Chief Minister said no more sit-down money and talked about work ethic. Let us talk about earning it as you go. Why was this decision not more moderate? Why, all of a sudden, was there a massive increase in a water allocation licence to one entity in a conglomerate of quite diverse industry that will use water into the future - and considerably more water?
It seems not to be a wise decision of government to deliver this massive water licence that is now attracting much negative comment from the neighbours and producers around it. Moderation would be the way to go. There will be an appeals period and that is where this minister might regain some of his confidence, see a little blood leave his forehead and get back into his body. His hands might start to stabilise and he might be able to face the Territory and do the right thing. We will wait to see because, at the moment, we are looking at a back to the 1980s scenario. Prove us wrong, member for Katherine. Let us not say this smacks of the silver circle club, as you guys have form. We do not want to go back to those days; the Territory does not want to back to those days ...
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move …
Mr Elferink: He is not saying anything useful.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin!
Mr VOWLES: … an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, member for Johnston. I thank the member for Port Darwin for his interest in my contribution, particularly when I witnessed such a wonderful demonstration of the psychology he used against me when in opposition - the nerves of steel as the solicitor examined the dodgy contract as the minister squirmed in his seat. The member for Port Darwin examined that contract with his legal eye and brain. That minister did not get any confidence from that, member for Port Darwin. As a matter of fact, he is feeling very vulnerable because he continually uses the CLP’s great debate tactic of personal insults.
He used the clich of being sold a pup. Maybe he should look at his Deputy Chief Minister. Maybe the Deputy Chief Minister sold him the pup. Maybe the member for Port Darwin will check that contract out and advise his colleagues there is a way to put this right. It will come through an appeals period; I have no doubt about that.
I got my reaction when I mentioned the silver circle club. There would be members in this House, and members of the government, who are not old enough to remember what that was, but I do. It was 30 years later, when I came to Darwin when I was a minister, that members of the business community - people with great reputations; honourable people in the business community - explained what it meant. I was a young school teacher working in the bush and nowhere near the big end of town, but these people were. They explained to me what it really meant in the culture of a government. It was bad news. It, essentially, lost government for the Country Liberal Party, but 10 years later they are back.
Let us hope that old culture is not creeping back in as the minister from Katherine talked about greenies, any knockers, or anybody who wants to debate their policies or way of doing business, in a derogatory sense, and said, ‘We will knock them down. We are going headlong into this. We are going to grow this place, we will develop it’. Times have changed, minister. The Territory is no gangly teenager anymore. The Territory is all grown up and is the capital of northern Australia, with Darwin as the jewel in the crown.
I have been basing my debate on planning. I am saying this decision represents bad planning. It is not looking at all those other interests which are coming online and are growing, and need their fair share under the umbrella of sustainability. Let us say we need moderate increases in this water licence, and an informed and learned approach.
We ask a few questions. Why so much water in this licence with no proven record, only a plan, when across the Katherine region we have documented business interests that can show this government what it means to farm broadacre, to conduct agricultural practices, to maximise their opportunities and use their water allocation? The decision disadvantages other water users, both proven and emerging operators. Why give so much to one entity on a plan without a record? It makes sense to ask questions about that. You have to ask what the evidence base is around this. As the member for Nightcliff asked: what is the science around this, what is it based on?
In the time I have left, I will quote the minister. For Hansard’s benefit, I will give the transcript details. This is a transcript on Monday, 25 March 2013. It was on the ABC Darwin 105.7 Country Hour. This is the member for Katherine, Willem Westra van Holthe, the minister who talked about ‘my Water Controller’. He has said it in this House many times; it seems to be the culture of this government. It is all about ‘my’ rule. The member for Katherine talked about ‘my Water Controller’. He was in a bit of freestyling on the airwaves across the Territory. He was attempting to tell the story. He said:
- There is absolutely nothing suss at all. And, look, I have heard, you know, the opposition spokesman, Natasha Fyles, has come out and said, you know, this reeks of cronyism. There has been absolutely no political influence in this decision and I can put hand on heart when I say that. Um, this is a water licence application that was dealt with on its merits. Um, the consumptive pool is large enough to cope with it. And, look, what we want to do, this is, unashamedly I will say this much, um, this government is pro-development. We want to see agricultural developments get up and running, and unless people are willing to apply for water licences, put the investment in that is required around developing that licence, um, and start some agriculture, um, development then nothing is going to happen. Um, we are committed to getting agricultural development happening in the Northern Territory just as we are committed to having, um, serving our pastoralists well as well.
Madam Speaker, that reflects the behaviour of the minister in the chair today when trying to defend what this opposition is questioning - a fair question, a fair debate. We need to know answers because that is how democracy works. If you come into this House on the premise of common sense and good manners - drop the personal insults, rise to the level of a minister of the Crown and lift your game - and the basis of honesty, then the Territory will definitely benefit and we will not have to go through these general business items where we need to continually strike at the heart of the government to ensure they are telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I feel like I am about to have a sentence passed on me, but I do not believe I will be executed for what I have to say this evening.
In general, I support this motion. I do not support some of what has been put forward and I will give my reasons why. I had concerns there was nepotism in the development of this application for water. I raise that because, if a person puts their name up as a member of a party standing in the federal election, and at the same time gets an application approved by the same party that runs government for a licence three times bigger than anyone else in the Mataranka area, one needs to ask questions.
The questions that need to be asked are: was due process taken when this decision was made, and was there science around it? I raised questions during the week. I issued a number of media releases looking at a range of issues in relation to whether something has been done outside of the norm. Yesterday, I was invited to a briefing - and I took that offer up today - to look at the background to this application and the approval of a 5800 ML water licence for Stylo farm in Mataranka.
From that briefing - a very good briefing from a technical point of view - I found this application has been looked through on its merits. I was concerned today, which is why I raised the question with the minister, that the requirements an applicant has to meet in regard to things like putting out a crop plan over the next two years did not seem to be met. I had been given advice by a constituent who said perhaps this had not even gone to the department of Primary Industry. That is why I asked the question today. At the briefing a 10-year cropping plan was provided which had been approved by the department of Primary Industry. I did not look inside that plan; that is a private matter. There may be other people who would like to analyse whether the crops they intended to grow will be the right ones, but that will be for other people to decide. The information I was after was whether that application fulfilled the requirements the Water Controller must look at before he considered granting this licence.
I do not see the minister had any direct political interference in this decision. That is not to say he may, if he feels this decision is too close to the bone, especially as there is the issue of the same party being in power as the party of the candidate for the Lingiari electorate for the next federal election. If the minister wants to keep that arm’s length from any decision that might have to be made in relation to the appeals - I am sure there will be appeals in relation to this - then the option he spoke about of bringing in an independent panel to make a decision would be a wise one because there is always the opportunity of people saying there is a conflict of interest.
I still have some major concerns. I will go through those concerns and explain why. The Mataranka water plan is still a draft plan and needs to be ratified. This is the draft plan. It has been around for quite a while - November 2011. You would think by now it would have been sorted, but it is still, as far as I know, a draft water plan. The issue we have is the government has made a decision which, to some extent, relies on the figures in this draft water allocation plan. They rely on other figures but they have said there is adequate water for this 5800 ML licence. If you look at the draft water allocation plan, it mentions on page 17 clause 25, Annual extraction limits:
- (a) The maximum annual extraction limit (the consumptive pool) under this Plan is 19 500 ML/year. This includes any extraction that is authorised to take place without a licence ...
If you put this 5800 ML licence with the figure given at the moment for the rest, you get about 10 000 ML. I will get to that issue a little later.
The plan is not finalised but we are making decisions based on that plan. That needs to be fixed quickly otherwise the government is leaving itself open to issuing more licence applications without a plan to back them up.
The other thing is we have a Mataranka Water Advisory Committee. Last time I saw a list of the people on the water advisory committee, it appears as though it might not be operating. That is the same as the Howard East Water Advisory Committee, about which I asked a question today. The Mataranka committee is made up of a vacant chair - that is not a good sign - Ms Clair O’Brien, Mr Eddie Webber, Mr Garry Riggs, Mr Hamish MacFarlane - who I believe has left - Mr Max Gorringe, Mr Kane Younghusband and Mr Mark Joraslafsky.
The role of the water advisory committee is very interesting. I got on the website the other day and clicked the terms of reference for the water advisory committee. Both the document detailing the functions of the committee and the terms of reference document came from the Department of Land Resource Management site, but they have one major difference in talking about the Mataranka advisory committee and what they have to do. The Terms of Reference said:
- The terms are as follows:
…
Recommendations for granting licences to take groundwater from the Mataranka Area, and the conditions contained in such licences.
The other document looks exactly the same but does not say that. It said:
- Recommend framework for the granting of licences to take groundwater from Mataranka Area.
I do not know which one is correct, but if I take the one that makes sense the Mataranka Water Advisory Committee was meant to give recommendations on conditions around such licences. My understanding is, because the Mataranka Water Advisory Committee has not been operating, it was not involved in this decision.
There is nothing to say the Water Controller has to operate within the framework of the Mataranka Water Advisory Committee, but it seems by not doing that you leave yourself open to a lack of transparency, to some extent, and that is the real problem with this application.
Yes, the Water Controller made a decision and he has the Water Act as the basis for making that decision. At the same time, we have a water advisory committee which is meant to look at the granting of licences to take ground water from the Mataranka area and conditions contained in such licences. What should have happened in this case is a recommendation from that body is made before the Water Controller made a decision.
That is not the case and it concerns me. These water advisory committees are really important in ensuring the community is behind the changes and we do not, all of a sudden, get changes from Darwin about a particular development without community involvement.
The main problem I have with this water allocation is it is far too large. The process is correct, but that does not mean I agree they should have 5800 ML. That is three times the local watermelon grower’s allocation. He does not even have an extension on his water licence which he has been after for many years. The Water Controller said he invites those people to put their applications for more water in. If you were a grower and saw someone who has not been growing anything, even with their 500 ML licence, all of a sudden get a licence 10 times larger than they had, and the people growing crops worth $10m supplying Coles and Woolworths have nothing, you would have to ask why it is so. Instead of picking one licence, why has the government not looked at an even playing field and said to people there who have had their licence applications in for years, ‘Why do we not do the whole lot at once?’ Instead, they have given a farmer a huge increase in water allocation.
The Water Controller said in the reasoning behind this water extraction licence in relation to comments about this application:
- The submission dated 20 November 2012 was not in favour of the application being granted, and expressed the view that entitlements under licences of the scale anticipated in this application should be progressively approved in line with the required development targets. This submission also expressed the view that granting the application before completing water allocation planning for the aquifer would be contrary to the good faith shown by current irrigators in the planning process over a long period and warned against disadvantaging current irrigators as a result of granting this licence.
That says a great deal about what has not been done properly in relation to this application. The process to get to the point of giving a licence was correct, but the decency should have been afforded in ensuring other growers had the opportunity at that time to also get an increase in their licence. In fact, you now open yourself up to the view that you have permitted one person to have a licence of 5800 ML of water, and you have not finished the water advisory plan.
I will go on further. It said:
- In accounting for this submission, the granted licence includes conditions that are intended to ensure that staged development and uptake of progressively increasing annual water entitlements will occur, and the licence holder will be required to account for failure to achieve the staged development and associated water usage that the licence specifically permits.
I understand the government is saying, ‘We are going to give this water licence out and allow it to be used incrementally’. That has sent out an enormously bad message. It should have been the case – as the member for Barkly said - where you gave them enough to start their business. As the member for Katherine said, the cost of putting down a production bore and getting that into operation is enormous. You will not put down 10 or 20 production bores overnight. Let them put down one or two production bores and use that amount of water first then prove the case they are on the way to expansion. That is what you have done with the other growers in the area. Why have you not done it with these people? I know the Water Controller said they will probably be able to have similar licences. However, you have picked one person and given them a licence allocation three times bigger than the biggest allocation already in Mataranka without having proof there is a track record before you give them such a large amount of water.
The other concern I have with what has emerged is we have done some new figures and we know there is more water than we think because the rainfall figures might not have been right. It is an argument the MacFarlanes used - the rainfall figures were not correct. Regardless of whether you think they were or were not correct, if you think there is a lot of water that does not mean you give it to people. It is not good water management if you have a bucket of water and you give three-quarters of the water to the first person who comes and says, ‘I want some water’. Water is something we should only be giving to people very carefully these days. As I said in today’s Question Time, on the Water Resources website it is to do with transparency, equality and sustainability. If you give people a large amount of water, not only are you going to have people asking you why, you are going to wonder whether the government believes in sustainable development. That is my real concern.
I have seen members on this side jumping up and down with excitement about how they are going to develop the Territory. I thought of Russ Hinze and Joh Bjelke-Petersen for a minute. I thought, by Jove, here we go, back to the 1960s; rip it down, build it up, who care what the future is like. My concern is not that this minister has interfered - from the briefing today I do not believe he has interfered – but that the government will slowly put out this motto ‘the CLP is here for business and development’, and that will permeate through the public service.
It may be that some of those controls we need to ensure we have sustainable development start to get a little slack. I support development in Mataranka, the Sturt Plateau, at Ali Curung, Ti Tree, the Darwin area, Katherine, Ord River - and there are plenty of other places. I promoted primary industry before. As I have always said, when it comes to government it was the poor cousin.
It is not that I am opposed to development of the Mataranka area; I want to ensure it is done in a sustainable manner. I do not want the Russ Hinze, Joh Bjelke-Petersen version of, ‘Well, I am here. Give us a big heap of water and we will go for it’. The Territory has had big stories and big failures. I do not need to tell you about Tipperary, Scott Creek, and even Humpty Doo rice. We have a fairly good legacy of failure when it comes to agricultural development. I would hate someone to say this is all about the extreme greens. It is not all about the extreme greens; it is about using modern science and learning by our past mistakes so when we give our water, we give it out in a proper, transparent and sustainable way.
The decision the Water Controller made is not a sensible one. Yes, there is plenty of water there, no doubt about it. However, that is not the argument; it is about using that water carefully. That is where the government has missed the point. The government is so bent on development it says, ‘We have plenty of water. Let us give them plenty of water and we will have plenty of development’. Yes, just keep a lid on it and ensure we do it right and other people in the Mataranka area are treated equitably. They have not been treated equitably.
A grower I spoke to told me when this was announced he had been approached when this was announced by the Water Controller and he asked, ‘Why have you done this?’ I wrote the answer down somewhere, which, basically, said, ‘We had to get something done about the licences and we had to get development going’. I understand that. That is fair enough, but I hope we are considering how much water we are going to use …
Ms LAWRIE: A point or order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Karama.
I hope that word ‘development’ does not get in the way of careful approach. It does not have to be slow approach, which is what the government is claiming has happened here, and that might be the case. When you are dealing with water management plans and looking at aquifers and getting it right, there is a fair bit of science involved. We need to ensure we have the science right. After all, we have a draft water allocation plan so we must not be too far away from getting a proper water allocation plan. Once you have that done, surely you can make sensible decisions about development in the area.
The other thing I want to talk about is the strategic water reserve, the third part of this motion. The government has made a big mistake. There is an opportunity for people to get off welfare, something the government has spoken about time and time again. I have been talking about it, the member for Namatjira talks about it. There is a great opportunity here for people to get off welfare and start to earn some income by using the water allocated on the Strategic Indigenous Water Reserve.
I will give you a couple of examples. There are three mines down the road. Do you realise that mines do not have to come under the Water Act like domestic? Mines do not come under this, they are separate. It is something that needs to be looked at because, surely, you cannot have one group of people being licenced for water and another group under another regime. Some of those mines are going to need water. There will be a limited amount of water you can pump out of the Roper River. The Aboriginal interests in this area have an opportunity to, perhaps, pipe water from their portion of this aquifer and sell it to the mines. That is one possibility.
The other possibility is in relation to development on Aboriginal land. The minister for Primary Industry issued a media release recently saying he is bringing changes to the Pastoral Land Act to allow the land to be used for more purposes. That is a matter for debate on another day, but that will bring up issues of native title. It might even bring up issues of land rights. An easier way would be to say to some of the traditional owners, ‘I want to farm on your land’. We already have that at Ali Curung. They could go to the traditional owners in the Mataranka area and say, ‘We want to grow watermelons in your area. Can we lease a parcel of land and use your water?’ It is their water; that is part of the Strategic Indigenous Water Reserve. That opens up opportunity for income and employment on their land.
Surely, this is a backward step. I would like to know - maybe I will get a chance tomorrow to ask the minister – if the minister talked to the traditional owners about this decision? Did he talk to the alliance about this decision? Did he talk to the Northern Land Council about this decision? Did he talk to the water advisory committee about this decision? Was it a unilateral decision to say, ‘There will be no water for Aboriginal people in that area’? The Chief Minister said, ‘They will just have to fight for it like everybody else’. The point is they hold a special place in that area.
The Chief Minister has stated there is an opportunity for economic development. These things are going to take time; they are not particularly easy matters to bring to fruition. You have set that back by at least three years. By that time, we might have some bigger 5800 ML applications. Will they have any water? Of course, you can say, ‘They are part of the whole structure and they will be part of the business’, but then we start to lose track that they are traditional owners. If you do not allow that type of argument in your consideration you are doing an injustice if you are talking about helping Aboriginal people get out of the welfare trap.
That is a bad decision. I would like to know who made that decision, who was consulted, and the reasoning behind it. Was the reasoning that we can make the consumptive water allocation bigger so we can hand out bigger licences to other people? I do not know, but it looks a bit suspicious. I would like some more information on that.
In summing up, I have no hesitation in saying I believe the Water Controller has done what is required under the act. This is a new application and I believe the minister has not interfered. However, I believe the decision by the controller was a poor one. It should have been a smaller amount of water - not increments, because I am not sure what happens if a place goes bust and you have all this water allocated to a particular property. Does that mean it is locked up? Is it owned by the bank? If you give a small increment, allow the development to increase over the years - you cannot put down 10 production bores overnight; you will do one bore, two bores, three bores as the years go on. Bring this back to a reasonable level - maybe 1000 ML. You have to put a proper production plan up to see where that goes.
You should at least move on with this water allocation plan before you start to increase other licences too far, although I hope you give those existing licence holders a chance to increase their allocation of water. It is a bad decision from the point of view of not being fair to existing growers. You have done it against the water allocation plan not being completed. At the same time, you have not given those other growers an equal chance to increase their licence capacity. They have been waiting and waiting for an increase. They have helped the Northern Territory economy through their horticultural sales yet are being treated as second-class growers when it comes to this.
The licence application also should have gone through the water advisory committee to let them say what they thought. You have a unilateral decision the community does not seem to be involved in. It may have been involved in the original decision way back. Because the committee appears to be not operating, the community has not been involved in this decision. I know several members on this board are not happy with this decision. They are not into the politics of it; they are into what has happened in their area, and they believe this was put together poorly. They have not spoken about the politics; they have just spoken about the way it was done. They do not believe that amount of water was the right thing - and neither do I.
I partially support what has been put today. It is an opportunity to question the government on this important matter. Growers will be confused about the government’s policy, especially in relation to sustainable agriculture and sustainable water management. I urge the government to make a statement on all the water advisory committees in the Top End especially, because they all seem to be defunct at the moment.
Howard Springs is a classic example. There are big issues in the Howard Springs East bore field because there is such a demand for water; however, we still do not have a water allocation plan. It will be a difficult one - it has not been done. The Berry Springs plan is probably not as hard but just as important, and has not been done. Oolloo is finished, and this one for Tindall is not finished.
Madam Speaker, I hope the minister can get these water allocation plans and water advisory committees back on track so we can make some wise decisions about water allocation in the Northern Territory. We need sustainable agriculture and sustainable use of water. I am not 100% sure the government understands that. Let us see what happens.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Future of One Mile Dam, Knuckey Lagoon, 15 Mile and Aboriginal Communities
in the Darwin Region
Future of One Mile Dam, Knuckey Lagoon, 15 Mile and Aboriginal Communities
in the Darwin Region
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move:
(1) that the government review the future development of the One Mile Dam, Knuckey Lagoon, 15 Mile and Aboriginal communities within the Darwin, region and
(2) that the review include:
(c) home ownership, and
(d) governance including local government
This has been on the Notice Paper for quite some time but is an important area we need to look at. First, I congratulate the minister for getting on the front foot in relation to this. I hope you received a letter from me, minister. It might have gone via Alice Springs - the new person at my electorate office sent it to your post office box in Alice so, hopefully, you received it. I sent you that because I had some concerns - but do not put that in the wrong context. I want to be positive because this is an area that needs some good policies which have to be very inclusive.
I am not here to tell people what they should or should not do. I am trying to initiate something that will start a positive roll of ideas and, perhaps, improve the lot of people who live in these communities. At the moment, for the ones in my electorate, which are Gildorrka and Knuckey Lagoon - Knuckey Lagoon is Milgarri - I do not know where the future lies. What is the future? I hope we can make things better.
Minister, I note you have a Darwin Town Camp Taskforce. We need to get rid of the word ‘camp’. I know Alice Springs uses the word ‘camp’, but it is nearly derogatory. People live in houses in a suburb, a community, a locality. I said in my letter, when I went to Daly River many years ago there used to be top camp, middle camp and bottom camp and Br Howley - some of you might remember him; Francis Xavier might have been a little boy when he was there - did not like that name at all. He said it was derogatory and we got rid of it. I do not know what we called them, but we did not call them bottom camp, top camp.
We need to use the names. It is great the two communities in my electorate now call themselves Milgarri and Gildorrka. The 15 Mile is still called that - many people know it as the 15 Mile and I can live with that. It was then called the Palmerston Indigenous Village, which is clinical. It had about as much feel as going to the dentist. At least they have said what they are about.
We have many issues here. I will give you an example. We have land issues, and we are probably not the only ones with those lands issues. In this case, we have One Mile Dam. People might want to speak about other communities; I am speaking about the ones I have some knowledge of. I will not be talking about One Mile Dam too much, but it is run by the Aboriginal Development Foundation. Gildorrka and Milgarri are run by the Aboriginal Development Foundation. When I say run, they own the land. The houses are run by Yilli Reung. They are the people who get the rent and ensure the houses are being maintained.
The Aboriginal Development Foundation, as far as I know, hardly receives a penny these days. Yilli Reung mows the lawn sometimes. Larrakia Nation might help out from time to time. The owner of the land does not really have much money to do any work. Yilli Reung is meant to maintain the house and is out doing slashing. Sometimes, people from Larrakia Nation help out as well.
Some of the issues are that Yilli Reung might have people living in a house who really should be out - they are not paying their rent or are causing problems. Technically, I am not even sure they can move them out because the question is, ‘Who owns the house?’ In law, if a house is leased it is the leaseholder’s house. Technically, the houses belong to the Aboriginal Development Foundation. Even if Yilli Reung can shift people out of the house, they stand on the land, then, if the Aboriginal Development Foundation wants to kick them off the property, they are the ones who have the say.
You have the issue of who owns what and who controls what. That is an area we have to sort out. ADF has had a perpetual lease or a 99-year lease for a long time but they do not do much anymore. It is not the same as it was many years ago. They might have a truck and do a little work, but they are not the main people involved in the maintenance of these communities. That is one area which needs to be sorted out.
To me, it would make sense to have one owner of the land and the houses, if we are going to have a public housing model. Either the Aboriginal Development Foundation owns the houses and gets all the money to maintain the houses so it has the power to collect rent or move people on etcetera, or Yilli Reung is given the power to own the land and maintain the houses.
The problem is if the Aboriginal Development Foundation does not want to relinquish its lease over the land it is not so easy. That is one of the issues we have. How you deal with the land on these communities is one problem.
The other issue is governance. We have two nice blokes on the Aboriginal Development Foundation Board - Ronnie and Phil. Phil Goodman is at Gildorrka and Ronnie Agnew is at Milgarri. Their work is fairly hard. Some of these communities are not easy places because, unfortunately, there is a fair amount of antisocial behaviour as alcohol is an issue in these areas. These men have not been elected; they went to leadership courses. They have been given the job of being leaders of these communities. If you want people to start having some ownership over these communities, you have to have some form of governance so there is a real belonging – the people who have been appointed or elected have been with the backing of the community. We have not had that; there is no governance structure.
I saw some of the issues that have occurred at Milgarri, Knuckey Lagoon, where there has been violence. Some of that violence has been related to people who have some control over the area. Many of the women have been quite scared about what is happening on the communities - so much so, they took up a petition last year to the previous minister. I also read a police report that was written about some of the violence that occurred there. That is not what we want.
There are many kids in these communities and they are meant to be going to school in the morning. They go to Howard Springs, generally, from where I am. If they are at Knuckey or Milgarri they go to Sacred Heart at Palmerston or – what do you call, the Terrace in Karama …
Ms Lawrie: Manunda.
Mr WOOD: Manunda Terrace in Karama. I will never know why they called a school after a street ...
Ms Lawrie: After a ship. After the Manunda.
Mr WOOD: I know, but there is no suburb called Manunda. At least we have Howard Springs. I know where Howard Springs is.
The kids go to both schools; the buses come around and pick them up. There are kids who are trying to go to school and have a fairly disruptive life.
The other issue, as I said, is antisocial behaviour. There was a big sign saying no grog, no pornography. I had a picture - I sent it to the NT News, and I said, ‘Here is a 44 gallon drum full of VB cans’. So, there is no grog on this community? Well, no one is policing it. If you wonder why there is damage to the playground and some of the houses do not be surprised, there is a great deal of alcohol consumed.
Of course, you have to be careful you do not forget the history of these places. Those two places especially, were set up, as you might say, ‘grog refuges’ to be polite. Mainly people from Daly River, Adelaide River, maybe Port Keats, would have gone to the then Knuckey Lagoon. The 15 Mile would have been Maningrida - maybe some other groups as well. Originally, the 15 Mile community was further over in the bush. When the highway was shifted they were moved again.
Unfortunately, they were moved to a section of land that has no legal access. The Chief Minister, in his role as Minister for Transport, has looked at this. I just dropped off another letter to him because that community has no legal access to anywhere. They are not allowed access to the highway. They, technically, have access to a road that is non-existent. The way they drive out from their community is along a Power and Water easement no council really wants to know. They are in the Palmerston municipality but they are mainly connected by an easement which is in the Litchfield municipality. You have, again, an issue about giving people legal access. With the duplication of Howard Springs Road, I am hoping the government will find some money to ensure there is a proper road to the 15 Mile, or Gildorrka, community so they have all-weather access and are treated like anyone else who has a block of land - there is a gazetted road to that community.
There is a whole range of issues. If I was to stick with the basic reason why I wanted some changes, we need to look at housing, governance and land ownership - whether it is land ownership over the whole community or private land ownership. There are questions as to whether we could sell houses to people. The 15 Mile will be just over the road from Johnston. Sometimes, I must admit, I think I have slipped into a Third World country. You need to go there because the conditions are terrible sometimes. I have been …
Mr Chandler: You should not talk about Howard Springs that way.
Ms Finocchiaro: Calling Johnston a Third World country?
Mr WOOD: The conditions there are terrible …
Mr Chandler: Howard Springs?
Mr WOOD: Yes, in the old houses. You have to go to the old houses. They are terrible ...
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: No, you need to have a look. Maybe you have not been there ...
Mr Giles: Where are you talking about, Gerry?
Mr WOOD: Gildorrka. The old houses in Gildorrka are terrible ...
Mr Giles: We thought you were talking about Johnston.
Mr WOOD: I wonder what I could have thought about that. Johnston is only just getting started. Probably the construction site looks a bit Third Worldish.
What I was trying to point out is the contrast. Across the road you have modern suburbs and, over the road, in some cases, you have fairly terrible conditions. I am not putting people down; we need to lift people up and get some changes.
It is not easy because these were grog refuges. That is the way they were designed. There is probably still a fair bit of that type of thinking about people who stay there; that it is a place to drink. They used to go to Casey’s Store and then wander home. The idea was at least they had a place to stay without being a nuisance. The problem now is we have a built a range of modern houses, but the old houses are still there. We have started to create a community but we have no vision as to where we are going.
I notice the minister has her terms of reference for what I will call the Darwin town communities task force. They state:
- 1. Operate as a key advisory group to the Northern Territory Government for issues in relation to service delivery …
2. Support the alignment of agreed strategies and options with other relevant work being undertaken in and for town camps, including optimising coordination of available services and facilities.
4. Engage with relevant organisations to develop robust, affordable and sustainable responses to the current shortcoming with the delivery of services …
5. Consult with relevant NGOs, residents … community groups, committees, Northern Territory (NT) and Australian Government departments and officers in the development of preferred, fully costed options for consideration by the NT and Australian Governments.
6. Support taskforce participants to access expert advice and technical expertise.
7. Identify policy matters that may need to be addressed in the development and delivery of preferred options.
8. Support the work of the taskforce within agencies by actively facilitating progress through intra-agency processes.
9. Monitor the implementation and impact of strategies.
10. Act as advocates for improved service delivery to Darwin town camps.
If I wanted to add something, there has to be something to do with governance.
The only problem I have is, probably from a public service point view, that is quite reasonable but if you were to take that to the community they would not know what you are talking about. I would like to see the people in the community up-front and in it. I have written to the minister saying membership of the task force is made up of the Australian government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs; Northern Territory government departments of Regional Development and Indigenous Advancement, Housing, Lands, Planning and Environment, Treasury and Finance; Aboriginal Development Foundation; Bagot Community; Gwalwa Daraniki Association and Larrakia Nation. What is missing is the need for a place for residents. I know they are brought into it when you say ‘consulting with’, but the residents who live there should be part of this membership.
The other area where there is a mistake is Yilli Rreung has been left out. Yilli Rreung, the major maintainer of these houses, is not one of the members; it is part of an industry reference group. Yet, the Department of Housing is in this. I am unsure how many houses are run by the Department of Housing, but Yilli Rreung maintains the houses at Milgarri and Gildorrka so they need to be part of this as well.
I have also asked the minister if it is possible for me to at least be an observer. I have been trying to see if we could get something done like this for a long time. That is why I thank the minister for getting this task force started. I believe they have had one meeting already, which is important. I do not want to be telling people what to do; I would just like to see what is happening. My biggest concern is in relation to the people who live there, especially many of the women. I do not want to see them left out of these discussions. I want to see them as part of the decision-making process. It should not just be a workshop on paper; it has to come up with some real results if we want to change the lives of the people who live there for the better - and for the kids, especially. There is a great range of opportunities to be discussed within this task force.
I will give you another idea that was put forward. In Alice Springs, they have the visitors’ accommodation. The Chief Minister might know its proper name; Aboriginal Hostels run it. I am impressed by how it runs. The visitors’ accommodation is well run and they were looking at whether there might be an opportunity to put something like that at the 15 Mile. We do not have one in Darwin but we certainly have many visitors. I believe Aboriginal Hostels have shown they can run a pretty good facility. That may not be suitable, but they are just some of the ideas floating around.
The ownership of houses is a real possibility because, if we can sort out the lease arrangements, then there is a chance people could own those houses. Instead of paying rent, they are paying that against the mortgage. That is a real possibility.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not about me shoving this down someone else’s throat; I am asking the government to start the process going so we can see whether we can improve the lives of people who live in those communities.
Mr CHANDLER (Housing): Mr Deputy Speaker, I note on 2 May 2012 this House debated an almost identical motion, also bought to the House by the member for Nelson who stated:
- I wanted to give a fairly broad history of these communities and sat down with Bernie Valadian CEO of the Aboriginal Development Foundation …
Bernie tells me the Aboriginal Development Foundation is an association made up of Aboriginal people from three town camps and Adelaide River, and they have representatives on the board. He said they meet regularly and focus on one community each meeting.
The former Minister for Indigenous Development, and former member for Arnhem, responded:
- It is timely given we are currently reviewing our joint government arrangements with the Commonwealth in the context of the end of the Northern Territory Emergency Response intervention and negotiation of a new 10-year funding agreement to address Indigenous disadvantage in the Northern Territory.
The former minister provided a great deal of her customary spin, words like ‘key focus’, ‘core business’, ‘aspiration’ and ‘achievable goal’. What the former Labor government said it would do to address disadvantage and what it did were two completely different things. This government, however, does not operate on the motto ‘out of sight, out of mind’. Therefore, for the benefit of the House, let me provide some background and a serious evaluation of the situation relating to these communities.
The Aboriginal Development Foundation holds the special purpose leases with the Northern Territory government over Indigenous communities known as One Mile Dam, Knuckey Lagoon, and 15 Mile Palmerston Indigenous Village. It was originally established with Commonwealth funding in the late 1960s. It was to assist in the Darwin area to access land in the form of special purpose leases for town camps.
On 20 May 1980, a discussion paper titled Darwin Aboriginal Town Camps was published by the then Department of Community Development and states:
- Although Aboriginals have camped in Darwin since the town was established, few Europeans with the power to influence decision-making processes have developed more than a vague understanding of the Aboriginal campers’ situation from an Aboriginal point of view.
In 1981, it was confirmed that only umbrella organisations - for example, the Aboriginal Development Foundation - be issued with title. The Darwin Central Area Heritage Study 1992 recorded the history of One Mile Dam dating back to 1871:
- Once called Donald Flat, it appears to have been initially built to water the first formal garden site.
As summarised in the paper titled ‘The long grassers’, a strategic report on indigenous ‘itinerants’ in the Darwin and Palmerston Area:
- Railway Dam Camp or One Mile, which has recorded use as a campsite by Aboriginal people since the early 1900s, was granted a Special Purpose Lease in 1978 … after which the Aboriginal Development Foundation established some basic housing and infrastructure.
The 2012 publication titled One Mile Dam by Dr Bill Day described the 3.2 ha lease as follows:
The area has been registered as Site 5073-115 by the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, who describe the site as ‘a spring area close to the Darwin CBD, off Dinah Beach Road ...
On 26 March 1979, the Northern Territory News included the following report:
- A special purpose lease to Darwin’s old railway dam was given to local Aborigines this morning. The lease, made out to the Aboriginal Development Foundation, was handed over by the Minister for Lands and Housing, Mr Marshall Perron. … He said … It will provide a permanent place for Aboriginal people to stay when they come to Darwin’.
This history was confirmed by Mr Bernie Valadian in 2003 at a select committee hearing chaired by the former member for Arafura. The transcript reads as follows:
- When we first started up the organisation there was a very big need then back in the early 1970s and the 1960s and what you are facing today. A lot of young folk - a lot of people used to come in from out of town, remote areas, and use the town parks for the same purposes they are doing today. The parks were mainly the Darwin CBD and the nearby community suburbs.
So, we applied for special purpose leases of land around the Darwin area and put in a number of areas. The government of the day found it very difficult to issue land because they did not think this was the right thing, but they knew there was a problem.
Sometimes, things just stay the same.
- So, we ended up getting areas of land such as the One Mile Dam or Railway Dam. We got Knuckey Lagoon at Berrimah. We got an area of land much later on at Palmerston. So, applying for land, we eventually got special purpose leases. Once we got those lands, we then set about applying for funds to develop.
Over the intervening years, there has been a great deal of debate about One Mile Dam, voicing of serious concerns as arguments raged about the overall picture – whether parklands, heritage precincts, a tourism hub with a culturally significant turtle design concept, or centres for aged care and childcare - all set against the reality of overwhelming, ongoing issues faced by residents of uncertainty of tenure and basic living standards.
One such example was reported in Darwin in the Palmerston Sun on 5 May 2004 as follows:
- Mr Timber last week launched the Kumbutjil Association to represent the community’s estimated 100 residents. He said the residents had lost faith in the Aboriginal Development Foundation, the holder of the special purpose leases to the land.
In the paper titled Aboriginal People of Darwin, One Mile Dam, Dr Bill Day stated:
- It was also reported, ‘On October 6 the same year, the Kumbutjil Association unanimously passed a motion of no confidence in … its manager, Bernie Valadian. According to Timber, “We just didn’t have any confidence in the ADF anymore because of the neglect that we’ve suffered for a long time”’.
In 2005, the Frances Park Urban Renewable Land Division commenced on the site of the former BP fuel tanks, and CBD development edged ever closer to One Mile Dam.
In 2006, the former Labor government proposed that the Stuart Park tank farm area, which encompasses One Mile Dam, be redeveloped into a green belt. In a letter dated 9 October 2007 addressed to the former federal Senator Mal Brough, David Timber, President of Kumbutjil Association, One Mile Dam Community, stated:
- We hear that Larrakia Nation is now planning with the NT government to use our land for something else again without involving us. Ever since the land was assigned to us we have been living here in uncertainty.
In Question Time on 29 November 2007, the member for Nelson posed a question titled One Mile Dam, Relocation of Residents. An answer was provided by the then Minister for Planning and Lands, the member for Karama, as follows:
- We will be sitting down and talking to the residents of One Mile Dam.
We are at the start of the next tranche of consultation. It is very important to sit down with people who live in that area and find out what their housing needs are if they were to move. It is very early days at the start of consultation with the residents of the One Mile Dam to find out what their personal circumstances are and what they require if they were to move.
That statement was made by the member for Karama on 29 July 2007 - and nothing was done. Surprise! The situation is unsustainable. Nothing is in place for the long-term planning of Darwin, and nothing is solved in the short term for those residing at One Mile Dam.
Let me move on to the Knuckey Lagoon Indigenous Village, previously known as 11 Mile. Mr Bernie Valadian, in attendance at the 2003 select committee hearing, shared some history as follows:
- Many years ago, Knuckey Lagoon was an area where the station owners would drop their people at Berrimah in the Wet Season, so that was a staging camp.
- In 1980 an area of land adjacent to the Reserve was granted to the Aboriginal Development Foundation to provide hostel type accommodation for Aboriginal people.
Knuckey Lagoons are known to Aboriginal people as ‘Muddie’, meaning barramundi and the area is referred to as Barramundi Dreaming ...
In more recent times, the Knuckey Lagoon community has become known as Milgarri, meaning water lily. The conservation management plan for the reserve noted the reserve itself totals 125 ha. Also of importance are cultural values, including past and contemporary use of the reserve by Aboriginal people.
Other residents around Knuckey Lagoon have also, over the course of recent years, sought proper definition of this area - definition of constraints, potential for rezoning, and opportunities for the future, such as a caravan park. Homeowners have made applications to the Development Consent Authority for consent to subdivide, and there has been a great deal of debate regarding the diverse forms of land use in surrounding areas. Land in the area is zoned R (rural) with a minimum lot size of 8 ha. Adjacent areas, including Berrimah Business Park, are undergoing rapid development. The whole of the Knuckey Lagoon area, including Indigenous residents, needs to be properly considered, not piecemeal without overall direction to provide certainty.
Moving on to Palmerston, as recorded in the report ‘The long grassers’:
- In 1979 … the Aboriginal Liaison Unit committee on Itinerants found that there was a need for … additional camping sites in Darwin. … the Aboriginal Development Foundation lodged applications for two new areas … 15 Mile camp near Palmerston, and an area near Casuarina Hospital. Only 15 Mile was successful.
Palmerston Indigenous Village, previously known as 15 Mile and now known as Gildorrka, meaning brolga, is 22 km south of Darwin, close to Mitchell Creek, opposite Johnston, a lovely new suburb of Palmerston.
In The Age on the 20 January 2006, the following was reported:
- For years 15 Mile camp has been known as a place for itinerant Aboriginals, but some residents have lived there for more than two decades.
In November 2006, Palmerston Indigenous Village launched its first community plan titled Voice of the Village. It was the result of two years of development and consultation between village residents, Palmerston City Council, and service providers. Former Palmerston Chief Executive Officer, Mr Rodney Donne, noted:
Issues affecting village residents include lack of sustainable housing and facilities, access to health services, lack of transport, lack of activities for young people and related issues such as substance abuse and petty crime.
The Palmerston Indigenous Village is constrained by the lack of formal access to the site, lack of service infrastructure, and the dwellings originally constructed to provide temporary shelter not suitable for long-term habitation. Given the strategic location of the site close to Palmerston, resolution of these issues is long overdue.
In the case of all three communities, One Mile Dam, Knuckey Lagoon and Palmerston, it should be noted that numbers of residents staying at any one time fluctuate. Many are transient, using and sometimes abusing shared minimal facilities used by a core group of long-term inhabitants. A range of diverse accommodation options is required given the complexity of the issues raised by residents, itinerants, and visitors to these camps, including interaction between people from different country.
Questions raised by the member for Nelson with regard to big picture planning issues simply emphasise the urgent need for the Northern Territory Planning Commission, which he did not support. The ministerial statement titled Status of Aboriginal Communities in the Northern Territory presented to this House on 1 November 2012 stated:
- This government respects the importance of cultural connections to land.
The former Minister for Local Government now Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, responded to the original motion in May 2012 as follows:
- I reiterate the Country Liberals are committed to acknowledging the cultural connection to land.
He summarised the way forward by saying:
- A cohesive approach with the organisations rather than an attack-based approach to try to change things is the way forward ...
However, these town camps are prescribed areas formerly regulated by the Northern Territory Emergency Response Act 2007.
The member for Nelson questioned in the May 2012 debate why the Commonwealth was allowed to intervene. How had the intervention occurred on these parcels of land? The former Labor government had no response.
Then the problems of these communities became more complex on 16 July 2012. This was when the new Commonwealth Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012 came into effect, replacing the 2007 act. Part 3 of the new act relating to land reform contains measures relating to town camps and community living areas. Those measures are aimed at facilitating the granting of rights and interests and promoting economic development in those camps and areas. Those measures allow regulations to be made to modify particular laws of the Northern Territory to the extent that those laws apply to town camps or community living areas.
During a second reading speech made by Mr Graham Perrett MP, Labor representative for Moreton, it was stated that:
The Northern Territory government has an opportunity to amend its legislation to enable Aboriginal landholders to use their land for a broader range of purposes. If the Northern Territory does not do this, the Commonwealth minister will have the power to amend Northern Territory legislation to enable the government to grant individual rights to land. Any economist or student of society would know the benefits that come from land being able to be passed down as it gains in value. It means that wealth can be passed down through generations. This will enable title holders to build their own homes and run businesses in town camps and community living areas, further empowering Indigenous communities.
The second reading speech in the Senate on 29 February 2012 spelt it out:
The Bill provides the Australian Government with the ability to make regulations removing barriers in Northern Territory legislation to leasing on town camps and Community Living Area land.
Currently, there are restrictions on how this land can be used - even where the community agrees they want to put it to different uses.
This will enable the Aboriginal landholders of town camps and Community Living Areas to make use of their land for a broader range of purposes, including for economic development and private home ownership.
This bill builds on what Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory have told us about the change they want to see, for themselves and for their children.
I note as an aside that a Discussion Paper has now been issued by the Australian government titled Community Living Area Land Reform in the Northern Territory with feedback invited by 12 April 2013.
The former Labor government of the Northern Territory was repeatedly told of the scale of the problems encountered by these communities. Endless reports have been written and commentaries made, but to what end? Just as the former Labor government had failed on the recommendations of the Little Children are Sacred report, leading to the federal government using its executive powers to intervene, once again we find ourselves subject to sweeping impositions on our Northern Territory parliamentary processes.
The Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act states, with regards to the town camps, section 34(1):
- The regulations may modify any law of the Northern Territory relating to:
(a) the use of land; or
(b) dealings in land; or
(c) planning; or
(d) infrastructure; or
(e) any matter prescribed by the regulations;
Section 34(6) states:
- The regulations may modify a lease granted under the NT Crown Lands Act or NT Special Purposes Act by modifying the purposes for which the land that is the subject of the lease may be used.
Section 34(8) states:
- Before making regulations for the purposes of this section in relation to a town camp, the Minister must consult with:
(a) the government of the Northern Territory;
(b) the lessee of the land that is the town camp; and
(c) any other person the Minister considers appropriate to consult.
But, unbelievably, section 34(9) goes on to say:
- A failure to comply with subsection (8) does not affect the validity of the regulations.
In other words, the federal government, in an extreme case, could consult with absolutely nobody and still overrule our legitimate Northern Territory government. How on earth did the former Labor government let this happen? It is surely a prime example of the paramount importance for all Territorians of statehood.
Town camps, as has been clearly outlined, have existed for many years, often with Third World conditions in evidence, just as the member for Nelson said. It appears the previous government simply put a fence around town camps, both figuratively and physically. Nothing changed behind the faade; the same problems continued. We must get behind the faade and find solutions to the future. This government wants to address the problems besetting these urban enclaves. In this regard, we have to make the decision to enable long-term residents to take proper ownership of their future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on the issue of home ownership and the empowering leadership, we see resolution of the town camps issue a key. Responsibility to put in place a solution in perpetuity and gain genuine redress is for the long-term residents themselves. This government will take a leadership role and resolve to work through the challenges, and we will be pursuing this issue with the Commonwealth at the earliest opportunity.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, this motion has been pursued before by the Independent member for Nelson and a matter we debated at length over the years when we were in government. There is no doubt, whilst I agree with everything in the motion, critical to any planning around the town camps and any real change in the status and the way the camps are able to provide appropriate housing and services for Territorians, is the need for the Commonwealth to be at the table. We consistently told the member for Nelson that. Whilst this motion calls on the Territory government, the need for the Commonwealth to be at the table in a joint task force is ever present.
Apart from the history speech of the minister, I listened to some of the rhetoric. To say we literally put a fence around the camps and left it at that is wrong. Much more work has to be done with the camps. Over the decade of the Labor government you saw programs, services and improvements in physical aspects of the town camps occur, particularly Bagot, with clinics going in. To pretend nothing happened in a decade, no progress occurred and no intergovernmental actions were taken, is patently wrong.
Is there a great need to do more? Absolutely, there is. I worked alongside minister Malarndirri McCarthy when she worked ardently to get the connection with the people of the town camps, particularly through the ADF, their main representative body, to really look at the options. It is a variety of things because, as you heard from the member for Nelson, each camp has its unique characteristics. They are populated by people often from quite different areas. To say there is a one-size-fits-all approach is missing the point of the people who live in those community areas. A multifaceted approach will be required, but will not be achieved or deliver any real results without the people themselves being true participants in that process.
You quoted comments I made in relation to One Mile Dam in 2007 which still stand. The point I was making about One Mile Dam is you could not find a way forward for One Mile Dam without engaging and consulting, person by person, about their living needs and aspirations, and then work out how any of that could be met more appropriately. People have a strengthened connection to where they have been living. Many generations have been living in the different camps across Darwin.
I agree with the member for Nelson that the term ‘town camps’ has become somewhat a derogatory term. Is there a better term that could be used? Again, I urge caution to ensure people at least are consulted in any renaming of these community living areas. They are not of the one. Knuckey is quite different to Bagot, and the Palmerston Indigenous Village is different again. The point I made of one-size-fits-all - it does not. There are strong people in each of those living areas who have a very clear view on what they would like to see happen; trying different things, by the way - things where people do not acknowledge the effort.
At Palmerston Indigenous Village they have been building a horticultural program creating their own nursery and looking at it as a small business opportunity. Minmarama is quite different again and has entered into a real business opportunity with Territory business in developing some of their land. At Bagot, whilst the population fluctuates, there is a very strong, very active group of residents who have very clear views of what they want to see in improvements of their living conditions and the way services are delivered.
I hope the comments made by the minister in regard to the Chief Minister’s view, where he said it would require a cohesive approach, are borne out. We need a cohesive approach of the Commonwealth government – yes, they are prescribed areas – and the Territory government in its responsibilities in service delivery and the opportunity for housing and, ultimately, the people of the communities themselves. Add to that, at the table you ought to have - or at least by extension - a social subcommittee, because there are non-government organisations which are putting a great deal of investment and effort into working with people in these areas. The Smith Family, for example, has done a tremendous amount of work over the years, particularly at Knuckey Lagoon. Do they have a genuine input to provide in the ongoing servicing of community living areas, because we are dealing with families at risk? Yes, they do, they ought to have a seat at the table - if not the main table, then at least the social services subcommittee.
We can draw upon the experience of the Alice Springs Transformation Plan which showed not only do you need capital to deal with the physical improvements - and when I am talking about physical improvements, quite clearly and obviously, they are not just the houses but the services that go along with the requirements - you also need a large social resource in programs to work and support people who have genuinely been at a degree of risk, and moving in and out of either home communities, or born and raised and growing up in communities but need critical intervention and support in the at-risk services for families.
The member for Nelson talked about the programs of the education links for children. The minister spoke about how Labor had not done anything, but I can point out that whilst these living areas existed under the previous CLP government, there were no dedicated transport links to get the children to school. That was absolutely a Labor initiative. We knew it was critical to get the children linked into the schools closest to them. Whether it was the children traveling to Millner school or, as you have heard, to Manunda Terrace Primary School, that initiative was achieved under the Labor government.
These may sound like small steps, as if we were not doing enough. That will be your political view and, by all means, stay wrapped in the comfort of your political view. I challenge you that sometimes you need to take a broader perspective on what are highly complex issues across tiers of government and people at community level. These are the challenges. As we experienced with the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, it took tiers of government around the table.
Successive federal governments, both Liberal and Labor, have not yet chosen to put the investment into a Darwin transformation plan, a Katherine transformation plan, or a Tennant Creek transformation plan, as they have put into the Alice Springs Transformation Plan. The desire of Labor is what we have seen work in Alice Springs – yes, we still have a journey to take; the job is by no means complete - ought to be applied to Tennant Creek. Julalikari is a strong council. Why would you not have a task force that deals with service delivery with them? What is wrong with Kalano? These are all conversations the Labor government had with the federal government. These have all been on the table in discussions between ministers within the governments. To pretend we did nothing and we said nothing is wrong.
What we did not do was kick the political ball around as though it was just a political football, because what you are dealing with are people who, at the end of the day, have very real hopes and aspirations. I do not think they deserve to be treated in that fashion.
Motions like this are important; they give members the opportunity to focus and shine a light on the issues and challenges we have. I look forward to seeing a cohesive approach, as committed to by the Chief Minister. The cohesion does not come about by playing politics with the people. To raise the Little Children Are Sacred report and pretend the Labor government did nothing is foolish politics and has no place in this debate. You brought it in so I will respond to it.
The Labor government responded to the Little Children are Sacred report, to all of the recommendations, and funded the implementation of the recommendations. Of course, it was followed by a subsequent report, Growing them strong, together, which was responded to and the recommendations were funded. Since then, of course, there has been a major upheaval in Children and Families. The independent committees have been scrapped and there is no line of sight as to what is occurring in the funding of the recommendations. In fact, we know the CLP government has confirmed they are not meeting the recommendations of Growing them strong, together.
Raise the Little Children are Sacred report, minister, but try to at least put it in the context of facts. Yes, it was used as a trigger by the then Liberal government to intervene in the Northern Territory - John Howard and Mal Brough. However, the failings of that intervention - there have been good things in funding and resources; you can go to communities and see some good outcomes in funding, resources, programs and buildings - were fundamental in that they did not consult with the people and bring the people with them in what they wanted to see. The lesson out of that was the evolution, the creation and consultation around local implementation plans. I wonder what the status of those local implementation plans are now under the CLP?
That model of consultation, community by community, to arrive at the local implementation plans perhaps provides a model for addressing these community living areas called town camps - whether they be in Darwin, Katherine or Tennant Creek. It is resource intensive; it takes time. By sitting down with people and having local reference groups decide, with the tiers of government alongside them, what the priorities are and how to move forward, or get on with things such as town plans through consultation, is progress and a model to look at in how to address the issues contained within this motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the minister can play the cheap political football, by all means, if he wishes, but he will not get genuine progress if he does because these are strong people living in the community areas and they will not put up with being treated like that.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the GBD motion put up by my colleague, the member for Nelson. It is not unlike the motion in May last year. On the one hand, I might ask myself why we are going down this road again …
Mr Wood: Nothing happened.
Ms WALKER: Some things did happen because I understand a task force has now been put together; they have only recently met, I believe, with people at Bagot.
The difference is this time I am sitting on the opposition benches. I am moving into an area which is, in some ways, new to me. I have only recently managed to get to some of the communities around Darwin. I have had the opportunity to meet with Colin Tidswell from Yilli Rreung. Some of that was driven by the fact I had the Housing portfolio in shadow Cabinet, which I no longer have - the member for Wanguri is very ably handling that portfolio. I have the shadow portfolio of Indigenous Affairs.
Yes, we keep the portfolio of Indigenous Affairs, even though the new Chief Minister has decided they do not need that portfolio. One of first things he did was axe it, which is a very curious thing to do especially when, the day after, Tony Abbott made a State of the Nation Address at the Sydney Institute talking about the state of Indigenous affairs, nationally, and the fact that, if elected in September, not only would Senator Nigel Scullion have the ministerial responsibility for Indigenous affairs, but he would elevate it to Cabinet. Many people welcomed that vision but, at the same time, it created some controversy because the new Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, his conservative counterpart, had done the opposite - a very curious state of affairs. It is when we come to issues such as town camps that there needs to be a portfolio with that oversight to connect across the different agencies.
The Housing minister has spoken - housing is very much at the heart of the motion and the communities we are talking about around the Darwin area. Without that single go-to responsibility - recognising that Indigenous affairs goes across each of the portfolios in government, it is also about that interface with the Commonwealth. The Opposition Leader has just spoken about - and it was highlighted by the former Minister for Indigenous Affairs in the Northern Territory, Malarndirri McCarthy - the need to engage with the Commonwealth government, to have them at the table, walking hand and hand with the Northern Territory government and with those people at grassroots level who are living in these places. I note in the motion - it is a very important inclusion the member for Nelson has - the review should include the views of residents, amongst other people.
I have re-read the debate from the May Parliamentary Record of last year. It has been interesting to re-read what was said on the floor of this House at that time. I quote from what Malarndirri McCarthy had to say because some things have not changed. She spoke about:
- … the unique history of these communities and … the need for joint and cooperative work to create the kind of bright future and prosperous connection to the broader Darwin community we all want for the residents of these communities. That is, a clearer and optimistic future with more choice and opportunity for residents and future residents, as well as clear acceptance of roles and responsibilities by everyone with an interest and a responsibility in these areas.
She went on to say:
- This issue is fundamentally about families, recognition of families, connection to place, quality of life, access to services, participation in all Darwin has to offer, and an optimism about the future. In the context of the future of town camps in the Darwin region, we are also talking about land tenure and property rights, history, and for many long-term residents, a strong sense of belonging to the place they call home, population growth, infrastructure, pathways to home ownership, youth and family services, and fuller employment for residents of these places.
This work cuts right across government and involves many areas of government. Future work will not be about what I, as the Minister … do after today. It will hinge on how the three levels of government work together ...
Forgive me for that rather lengthy quote but that vision and statement remain the same. It is important to recognise these people are at these places because of that connection. It can be over generations, but there is no doubt that connection is there. The issues are population growth and infrastructure, the services that are provided, and employment and opportunities for people who live at these places. It is much more than about housing; it is about a heap of things that intertwine through people’s lives and across different areas of government service delivery, and across different levels of government.
I understand some of the challenges with service delivery and with land tenure. At my meeting with Colin Tidswell a couple of months ago I took pages of notes. One thing I was assured of was residents of these places have a vision. I received a copy of the Bagot vision, a community implementation plan, in June 2012. Clearly, there has to be a starting point: what people know about where they are, where they have been but, importantly, where they want to go.
As the Leader of the Opposition has highlighted, the local implementation plans which are across what Labor termed growth towns, were absolutely critical - a blueprint of the future of those growth towns. I was present and signed off on behalf of the minister on those local implementation plans at Yirrkala and also at Galiwinku, Elcho Island. Those documents have been put together in consultation with the local reference groups - that core group of community members representative of their community, but in consultation and side by side with the local government authority, the shires, as well as the federal government. That is the go-to plan; this is what we want. What is the pathway to get there and how are we going to achieve that? The fact we have a document such as the Bagot vision is critically important.
I have only recently made my first visit to Bagot - been in the Territory for 25 years and confess I have not been to Litchfield Park. The dozens of times I must have driven down that road on the way to the airport or, for whatever reason travelling down that road and driven past Bagot, but have never been inside. It was a real pleasure to visit recently. The members for Johnston and Wanguri came along and we met with Lyle Cooper, Helen Fejo-Frith and Carol Stanislaus, who is the government engagement coordinator. We talked about a number of things regarding that community. They said the single biggest issue they deal with is the need for additional housing, the ongoing maintenance issues associated with housing - which is where a good deal of the $4m allocated by the Northern Territory government has gone in the last year or two to upgrade housing. Some has also gone into street lighting, a really important issue for community safety, and some into infrastructure for sport and rec for young people.
They also spoke about - and I had already heard this through Colin Tidswell at Yilli Rreung - it being a very stable community. People are very proud to be living there. It is their home; they do not want to be relocated anywhere else.
One of the problems they face is visitors coming into town. The issues of visitors has grown much worse since - and what we were told at the meeting came as no surprise - the increased number of visitors correlates directly to the dismantling of the Banned Drinker Register. There are people drifting into Darwin so they can drink, and have much freer access to alcohol now the Banned Drinker Register has gone and access to takeaway alcohol is open slather. The 2500 people or so who were on the BDR are no longer on the BDR and can purchase as much grog as they want. This is a source of enormous frustration for people who are living at Bagot and, no doubt, some of the other communities as well.
I have not got to all of them. I have visited Knuckey Lagoon. I had lined up a visit to One Mile Dam but, on the afternoon I was due to go, the senior man had to attend a medial appointment. I will get to these places.
When we are talking about assisting these communities to support their vision, the social issues that come with alcohol are quite big and very much at the core of the dysfunction we see.
We know that to be especially so in Alice Springs. I heard on the news this morning about stabbings overnight in an Alice Springs town camp. There has been an incredible investment in Alice Springs with the Alice Springs Transformation Plan; federal money which has built numerous houses, repaired many houses, but also invested heavily - as the Opposition Leader pointed out - in upgrading services and that type of infrastructure below the ground you do not see.
I was talking with the Mayor of Alice Springs last week when we were visiting Alice Springs for our Caucus. Damien Ryan and I were talking about the works currently happening in reinvigorating the mall in Alice Springs, and how, as they are digging their way through, finding the services they are coming across do not match what is laid out on their survey drawings.
This is part of the issue in the town camps area of Alice Springs, in understanding exactly where these services are, what state they are in, and the responsibility for investing in them to bring them up to standard. Whilst people will look at the number of new houses and refurbishments - and you get those very obvious visual signs of where money has been spent and what it has delivered - people are less appreciative of money that has to go into essential services to bring them up to standard.
SIHIP at Galiwinku had a considerable sum of money attached to it to deliver 90 new houses and close to 70 refurbishments. Half the money spent on that housing program - which has delivered great benefits to that community, as other communities have received SIHIP housing - was spent on services to bring power and water infrastructure up to an adequate standard to meet the needs of not only the community of Galiwinku but, in particular, the new suburb of Buthan which has been opened.
The Alice Springs transformation package also delivered the visitors centre. I believe that is the name for it - the visitor transit centre?
Mr Wood: No, it has an Aboriginal name.
Ms WALKER: We will call it the visitors centre; it may have another name attached to it. I took the opportunity to go through there not that long after it was opened. It is a beautiful facility. Whilst on one hand some people have talked to me about the big fence around it and that it looks like a prison - I do not think it does - I have had other people say one of the attractions of staying there when people from outlying communities come into Alice Springs for whatever it might be - a football carnival, health, other services they are accessing during their visit - is they actually feel quite safe and secure when they are in that place because there is security and a fence around it. That hostel/visitors centre is a brilliant place, which is a great investment in that community to look after people who are visiting for whatever reason, and providing them with somewhere safe, comfortable, modern, and very affordable.
When I was shown through by the people who worked there, there are different configurations of rooms that can accommodate families or a couple. There are also camping areas and areas where camp fires can be lit, kitchen areas, barbecue areas, and laundry areas. It is a fantastic facility. Perhaps one of the things we need in Darwin is a visitor accommodation centre so people are not drawn into Bagot or other places and where it is, again, like the Alice Springs visitor centre, a place that is secure, comfortable and affordable. That is one of the things Darwin is lacking.
Speaking of the Alice Springs town camps - and forgive me, member for Nelson, I am straying off the set topic here but …
Mr Wood: I can handle it.
Ms WALKER: I am glad you can handle it. We are all aware of some of the issues around the Alice Springs town camps. As the member for Nelson and the Leader of Opposition have said, it is a shame we are stuck on this terminology of town camps and camps. At Galiwinku even the community members talk about middle camp, bottom camp. The language of it suggests something that is constantly moving, not permanent, and that is a shame. It would be ideal to have names for these places that reflect a connection to the place they are on, the cultural element and the cultural ownership and connection with those places. I guess time will tell as to how we go with that.
We know the issues on Alice Springs town camps prompted a few weeks ago - it was described as an emergency summit coordinated and led by Tangentyere. This meeting Tangentyere organised was a very positive move. They invited service providers from the town camps; obviously, the leaders from the Alice Springs town camps Tangentyere services. Police were invited and the minister, Alison Anderson, was also invited to this meeting. This was a summit for people to gather, to talk through the issues but, importantly, as it said in the media release that came out later that day from Tangentyere:
- These people were earnestly trying to confront the issues that plagued the lives of town camp residents. They came ready to accept Aboriginal people’s part in the problems and their contribution to the solutions ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, member for Nelson.
That meeting fell apart because when the minister arrived there was some argy-bargy over who had been invited to the meeting and who had not. As a result, the minister stormed out of that meeting; she refused to meet with them. It was all about one individual who was not invited to the meeting and who had accepted the explanation from Tangentyere as to why he had not been invited. Nonetheless, she made a huge brouhaha, stormed out of the meeting, and talked to the ABC and whoever else was standing outside from the media waiting. It could be described as nothing more than a dummy spit.
What is interesting for members opposite is they are no longer opposition; they are the government. They are ministers of the Crown. They have their hands on the levers and the capacity to work with people to drive change. That includes sitting down, talking with people, listening to people, but also accepting that sometimes things may not go quite as planned. Storming out like a spoilt child is not the way one expects a minister of the Crown to behave.
When we were in Alice Springs last week, we had the opportunity to meet with Walter Shaw and talk about the summit which was aborted by the minister who stormed out. He is deeply disappointed, as are town camp residents who genuinely were seeking this opportunity to talk with her as the representative of the government. The minister needs to build those bridges and work with people because it is about working with people, listening to the voices, which will get things done.
Regarding listening and working with people, I go back to an issue at Bagot. Shortly before the election the member for Fong Lim, in his Tollner Telegraph newsletter, talked about normalising Bagot. He said they were going to normalise Bagot. They had a plan for the way forward for Bagot which was around subdividing and home ownership. He made one crucial error in this process; he did not talk with anybody from Bagot. Small wonder when news came out he had a considerable crowd of angry people outside his electorate office demanding to talk with him about what his plans for Bagot were and the fact he had not spoken with them. Helen Fejo-Frith from that community was absolutely appalled and said, ‘It is really scary’.
There is a very simple lesson there. It is about talking with people about what it is they want on their communities, in their neighbourhood, and in their town camps. Until we have a government that is prepared to engage with the residents and their representative bodies, we will not make much progress.
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion before the House. It will be interesting to see how the new government - they are the government; they are no longer in a position where they can just sit back and criticise and come up with weird and wonderful plans. They are now at the helm and need to deliver on the many promises they have made, find the solutions, work with people to find those solutions and, importantly, work with their Commonwealth colleagues who are, invariably, the funders of these big programs. They need to work with their federal counterparts - whether they are of the same political party or not is irrelevant - to resolve some of the issues we have, not the least of which is around the town camps in the Darwin Area.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for raising this issue and I welcome the chance to contribute to the debate. The future of town camps in Darwin region is a real concern. This is the second time the member for Nelson has raised this motion in the Northern Territory parliament.
This side of the House supports this motion, as we did in 2012, when the motion was amended to include the Commonwealth government in the review. This issue has a long history and not limited to the three locations mentioned in the wording of this motion. It is also an issue for me, personally, as a local Aboriginal man in the Labor Caucus with strong community links to many of the town communities.
It is important to look closely at the issues of ownership, management, maintenance, access, and services in these communities with the aim of improving the quality of life for residents by improving living standards in these areas. It is also important to improve the relationship between town camp communities and our broader communities - an important relationship that has not always been a good one, but a relationship that is constantly evolving. When we talk about Indigenous disadvantage, people sometimes compartmentalise that to problems in the bush and remote communities. Those in this House would know many Territorians who live in town camps face the same problems, the same stresses, the same overcrowding of houses, the health issues, and the same family dramas.
I will talk about Bagot community in Darwin with which my family has had a long affiliation and where my maternal grandmother lived with my family for many years as a member of the Stolen Generations. I spent many years of my youth at Bagot as my mother also - and very proud of her I am - started her training as an Aboriginal Health Worker in the old Bagot clinic. I have fond memories of Bagot and the many friends I made, the aunties who watched me grow up, pulled me into line if I was running amok around the reserve. For people in this House, I spent every school holiday for many years at Bagot. I looked forward to my school holidays when my mum said she had to go to work at Bagot and I would be in the car waiting. I would have my vegemite sandwich, my toast, or my cornflakes because I was so keen. I would run to the car and get in waiting for my mum to drive me to Bagot because I had so many friends there. I learnt so many things about culture, kinship, and how other people do things. I learnt how to do a dropper, a big torpedo, how to fish, how to spear, how to throw a net - all these things from my mates and lifelong friends I made at Bagot community.
I learnt how to play basketball, play cricket - some of my cricket there, not all of it, member for Nelson, some was at Freds Pass - and soccer as well. I have a close affiliation to Bagot and it is something special to my heart because it had so much to do with my childhood. I still have a few aunties who rock up to my office every week. Sometimes, I feel they are there to check up on me - nothing other than to see how I am going - or they come in and talk to me about some issues I can assist them with.
It is about trust in many of these communities. When people trust you they will come to you with issues. As members of parliament, even for friends or family friends, you have to take that responsibility on to help people when they come to you. I am very proud and humbled that I have kept these relationships and they are very proud of me and what has happened to me, where I am now, and who I represent. It is something for me, as local bloke growing up here, to have people I was friends with when I was a child come into my office and tell me they can trust me and I can help them with something.
As the member for Nhulunbuy mentioned, the member for Nhulunbuy and I visited Bagot community. It was the only one we could get to with the new member for Wanguri. We were happy to have the opportunity to meet with some of the workers and people who are community leaders. I am very proud of one resident who works there and is very passionate, as most people who work and live there are, about the Bagot community.
We had a long discussion and many things were mentioned. One of the major concerns, as the member for Nhulunbuy mentioned, is that old chestnut of housing - the lack of housing at Bagot community. A few houses are down, a few need much maintenance, and that is a massive issue.
The other issue is antisocial behaviour which, as we know in this House, is not a new issue for the Bagot community and other communities around that area. It was relayed to us about the BDR - groups of 20 or 30 people walking in with cartons of beer and other alcohol and running amok. We know the behaviour of people when they are blind drunk or suffering from alcohol abuse - they terrorise the community. This community, over the years, has had to deal with this for a long time.
An interesting thing for me is the age and demographic of the Bagot community. It was mentioned to us many times that there are not many young people at Bagot community after I asked about sport and recreation facilities or programs running. They said that not many young people are there any more which is probably why we are being a bit more boisterous around let us get this right, sort this out and get a vision.
I see they have the 2012 Bagot vision. When people talk about vision about town camps - and I do not like the word, and we need to change that wording - Bagot community has taken the initiative and has a plan. I suggest and hope we speak to the people of Bagot so, if anything happens in their community, we want to learn from them. They know what is needed; that is why they came up with the vision. They have it in that document. We need to work with them. I hope this debate is all about that. It is always a privilege to talk about Bagot community; I can keep going on and on.
In the past, it was mentioned if there are any changes to Bagot there will have to be changes to the lease agreements which could, potentially, cost taxpayers millions of dollars in compensation. Changes for the lease agreements could also be tied up in court for many years. We know they need more houses and more funding for housing maintenance. These are all critical issues at Bagot, and this is what the residents are relaying to us.
The other issue I will talk about is One Mile Dam. It has been mentioned a few times. Not many people know where it is. If anybody has been there, it is a little community. Something needs to be done there. It has deteriorated, run down, a bit of a dump, needs some planning, needs to be sorted, needs to be fixed up and get it back to the beautiful place it used to be in the old days.
There are a couple of old residents there, notably Uncle David Timber who has fought, worked hard and done all he can. It has overtaken him a little and is full of riff-raff. We need to do something agreeable to everybody.
Madam Speaker, I will finish. I want to see all Aboriginal communities be places to be proud of. We should be all proud of all these people. Let us support a review of all the funding that is going into the communities, all the organisations involved, all the government agencies, and get this right.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to talk on this. There are only four minutes left, and I will seek to conclude my remarks at a later stage at that point.
I have listened very carefully to the debate tonight. I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion on. I also particularly thank my colleague, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment for speaking tonight. The reason the minister spoke is it is part of our new regime of having all our ministers responsible for Indigenous affairs. Quite frankly, the motion raised a number of issues which relate to Indigenous affairs.
It was ironic listening to the new member for Johnston give his explanation of what needs to occur. It would cause him great opportunity to reflect on the previous 11 years of his party’s government and what they did in that frame. During that reflection, he will find that not much occurred; nothing has really changed.
There was conversation tonight about the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, and I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about Alice Springs town camps. Quite frankly, when the Leader of the Opposition was in government as Treasurer and deputy leader, nothing changed. We have seen substantial amounts of money flow to the Alice Springs town camps, particularly through the Alice Springs Transformation Plan in conjunction with the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program. To date, we have found many things have not changed; in fact, some areas have become worse.
I was talking to my colleague, Senator Nigel Scullion, the federal shadow minister for Indigenous Affairs, recently along the lines it is a complete waste of money. He was generalising in that conversation, but the point he was making is there have not been many substantial changes.
Earlier today in Question Time, I asked the opposition what their policies were on anything. They have only been in opposition for seven months but, surely, they must have a standing on some policy intent or framework in which they wish to operate. That is not the case. I listened very carefully in this debate to see whether they had any new ideas, visions, or thought bubbles about what they should be doing. The conclusion of the Labor speakers was in the form of the member for Johnston, who talked about the chronic overcrowding and the need for more money for more public and social housing.
We all want to address chronic overcrowding, disadvantage, and the prisms of welfare in which too many people reside. Instead of the member for Johnston talking about more state contributions through the welfare prism, he could have had a much smarter debate.
I had a brief chat with the member for Nelson earlier, and he is quite sincere in wanting to see change in this area. What is required is a new frame of business on how we seek to engage. The minister for Lands and Planning, minister Chandler, mentioned previous comments I made in this Chamber about wanting to work on a consensus-type basis with people to get fundamental change.
Since taking this new role as Chief Minister, I have said I want a new era of economic development. It is about business, development and jobs - that is where we need to go. I am firmly on the record talking about the desire for home ownership for all Territorians but, in this debate, about Indigenous Territorians. Opportunities for reform in this area, whilst not typically required to be mandated, reflect increasing home ownership and providing opportunities for people. That is where I would like to see the future of what are commonly known as town camps - the opportunity for change to bring people back in with the rest of the community, to remove the separatist environment - not from a philosophical position, but a desire to change the welfare nature of many people’s lives in town camps. That is a generalisation. I understand and know that, because there are many good people residing there – many people who work. There needs to be a fundamental shift in the way we look at town camps.
Yesterday, I asked the Leader of the Opposition to have greater policy debate and be more mature about the way we do our business in this Chamber and encouraged her, and the Labor members, to remove the personal attacks and start having that policy debate. I am keen to take that journey, from our side of the Chamber, and encourage the opposition and the Independent member for Nelson to come on the journey of how to provide an opportunity to town camp residents to move to a more equitable future where people can reap the benefits of sustainability in living environments which provide opportunities for every other Northern Territorian and Australian.
When I seek to continue this debate at a later date in another General Business Day, I will provide more comments in that frame. I believe now is an opportunity to set forth a new direction and provide hope to town camp residents and housing associations about how we can work together to provide that sustainability. I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this on.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to conclude my comments at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Reschedule of 2013 Sitting Dates
Continued from earlier this day.Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I realise the Attorney-General or the Treasurer will give us some details on this issue tomorrow at the Public Accounts Committee meeting. My concern is the government is introducing some changes to the Estimates Committee. If we have a system where questioning can go on and on, will that interfere with the days we have set aside? For instance, we have the period from 18 to 20 June and 25 to 27 June 2013. I am wondering how, practically, it works.
The Treasurer wants to introduce changes to the Estimates Committee process which means that, in some cases, we could go on half the night if we need to. I did not know whether that was the intent. If it was the intent by putting these dates on, for instance, does that put any limitations on the proposal he is putting forward? I will leave other questions until tomorrow.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): In closing, Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions - predictable comments from the opposition. However, I hear what you are saying and yes, I will front the Public Accounts Committee tomorrow in an effort to give evidence to demonstrate the government’s intention in this area.
No, we are not trying to truncate the estimates process. The estimates process will still be fulsome; in fact, it will be more flexible in the way scrutiny can be brought to bear. It will enable questions to be asked to exhaustion of ministers within the time frame allotted. It will still be much the same time frame as estimates in the past. However, if there are particular areas of concern, the expectation will be those questions continue to be asked until they are exhausted. That means the members of the opposition, shadow ministers, as well as Independents, will have to do some work in reading the budgets and ensure they are in a position to do the examination they want of the government.
This is a conversation for the Public Accounts Committee. This is not an attempt to truncate the Public Accounts Committee or the estimates process. It will allow for some flexibility, but it will also reflect the doctrines of ministerial responsibility and responsible government. I will discuss that more in the Public Accounts Committee tomorrow when I give evidence before it. I am not sure if I am being summoned or invited. I do not much mind either way ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Either way, I am happy to attend. If you require me to take an oath, I will. If not, I will answer questions honestly and forthrightly.
One thing concerning me is the figure attached to the preparation of the estimates process - $2.4m worth of government time goes into preparing for the estimates process to produce a bunch of folders of which 95%, at least, are never referred to. That is a waste of time and money. It also means you have all those public servants - rank upon rank of public servants - sitting in the room beside the Litchfield Room waiting their turn. If they are really unlucky or lucky, depending on how you take it, there might be a question that finally percolates back to the fourth row of chairs where there is somebody who has an interest in that area and who might be brought up to the table to give evidence. That is also not a productive use of public service time.
The approach will be questions can be fired to the minister, and the minister should be able to answer the general policy-type questions. They will be flanked by the CEO and, possibly, another couple of senior public servants. The minister can then refer the questions to those public servants for more detailed answers if required. We will not have 20 or 30 public servants sitting behind them.
We ask that questions be prepared by all members who want to ask questions. We will get that work done before the estimates process and will answer those questions as they arise. Other questions without notice will be welcome and, hopefully, answered in most instances. Where those questions cannot be answered, the same process of Questions on Notice we have always used will apply.
We can fire it off to the department, ‘Dear Joe Blogs, can you get us an answer to this’, and those answers generally come back within an hour or so. In fact, we often did not move off output groups by the time the answers came back. That will be a much more productive way to do it. It will require shadow ministers, and members of parliament generally who have questions, to better prepare those questions and fire them off to us. Even if you are asking for something global, we can answer that as best we can if that is the area of interest of a member of parliament. There might be a question where you are interested in a specific area with relation to a particular issue. All that research can be done and, hopefully, we can prepare for the estimates process.
What we will not do, as a government, is spend $2.4m and several weeks of public service time dedicated solely to putting files together which are not referred to. That is, in my opinion, a waste of money. This is about a better way to do it.
As I said, I will answer further questions tomorrow in the Public Accounts Committee and deal with the rationale more comprehensively in relation to the determination we have made about how the estimates process should work …
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member opposite said he would answer more questions tomorrow in the Public Accounts Committee. How can we vote on something when we do not have all the answers? What are these questions he will answer in the Public Accounts Committee tomorrow? I would like to know and believe it is reasonable for the parliament to know about these answers tomorrow. What am I voting for? It is reasonable for me …
Madam SPEAKER: You are voting on the motion.
Mr VATSKALIS: Exactly. He is putting a motion in place and …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! May I assist …
Madam SPEAKER: One minute, Leader of Government Business.
Mr VATSKALIS: … he stated he would answer more questions on this motion tomorrow. How are we going to vote today when we do not have all the answers because he will answer the questions tomorrow? It is reasonable to ask that question. I am not trying to be difficult, but there are a number of questions to be raised.
He said he would answer these questions tomorrow and I accept that is fair enough. Is it fair to vote now before we have the answers, or is it better to bring it up tomorrow and the Public Accounts Committee can advise us what the answers are? I am asking for your opinion.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Casuarina, there is a motion before the parliament which has been debated, and the minister has replied. It is now time to put the question that the motion, as debated, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, tonight I adjourn on some unfinished business in the Barkly electorate from the new government. I seek their support on behalf of the constituents for Barkly.
Life in opposition is very different from government where, as an MLA, you had direct access to ministers. The CLP government has returned to a bygone era of Territory politics employing a host of old boys as political advisors, sacking senior public servants and replacing them with mates and, more recently, sacking the CEO and industry representatives on the Power and Water Corporation Board and replacing them with bureaucrats.
Given the dysfunction of the CLP government evidenced by their incessant ministerial changes - three Treasurers in seven months and continual leadership problems - it makes life as an opposition member even more challenging. Currently, I have ministerial correspondence lodged with ministers in the areas of Power and Water; Lands, Planning and the Environment; Transport; Tourism; Regional Development; Corrections; and Infrastructure all awaiting responses on issues raised by Barkly constituents. It seems the revolving door of CLP ministers is one blockage. However, in the absence of a CLP budget now delayed through the government’s instability, Territorians lack the road map of funding support services and infrastructure.
A burning issue for the CLP across the Northern Territory is antisocial behaviour and alcohol abuse. At this stage, the government remains silent on what policy direction and budget allocations they have planned. Minister Tollner, when in charge of Alcohol Policy, wanted a health approach to lock up problem drinkers under the Mental Health Act; minister Elferink wants to lock up drunks under the Criminal Code Act, while the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, advised Territorians to ask problem drinkers nicely to stop drinking.
One thing the CLP has in common is they scrapped Labor’s Enough is Enough alcohol policy, including the Banned Drinker Register, Alcohol Courts and, pending income quarantining of up to 80% of welfare benefits for problem drinkers, refuses to address alcoholism and offending behaviour. The real issue for the CLP is they scrapped the policy and the tools, one of which was a major challenge for problem drinkers through the Banned Drinker Register, in the absence of having any new policy or strategies in place. I was shocked at the way the news reverberated through the bush one day after the 2012 election that the CLP government had scrapped the BDR, and it was game on for anyone and everyone to purchase takeaway alcohol without ID, including the 2500 people placed on the BDR in the 12 months the new policy had run.
Recently, a leaked CLP Cabinet document showed significant funding will be allocated to shires. This is welcome news to the bush; however, we still await the budget allocation and the policy for this new government’s alcohol reform.
I will go to one piece of correspondence I urge the minister to respond to. I will give the chronology on the letter, which was written to Hon David Tollner MLA, Minister for Essential Services in Parliament House, GPO Box 3146, Darwin NT 0801 on 21 September 2012. It said:
- Dear Minister
My letter relates to a request from constituents in Tennant Creek regarding the Power and Water Corporation, Sporting and Recreational Bodies Concession (Rebate) Scheme.
The Barkly constituents represent the RSL Tennant Creek Sub-Branch Committee Members, who are concerned at the high costs incurred by the billable sanitary fixtures since the upgrade of their ablution facilities at the RSL Club.
Can you please advise the RSL Tennant Creek Sub-Branch Committee of the concession scheme available for the sewerage services as per the ‘Sporting and Recreational Bodies Concession (Rebate) Scheme, and how they can make application please.
Contact details:
President
Mr Edward Wilson
PO Box 407
Tennant Creek NT 0861.
I would also ask your consideration of a re-bill of the sewerage charges paid by the RSL Tennant Creek Sub-Branch since the ablution block upgrade as their committee members where unaware of the rebate scheme available to their organisation at that time.
Thank you for your consideration of my request and I look forward to your determination and reply,
Yours sincerely
- Gerry McCarthy
21 September 2012.
Since then, there has been a revolving door of ministers within this government, so let us presume that letter was lost in what is chaos on the fifth floor. The letter was redrafted and written again last week, and it will now go to the new Minister for Essential Services.
Essentially, this is an easy issue. It is an existing rebate scheme. The Tennant Creek RSL Sub-Branch needs support from this government, and it would be now fair to say they should be given that subsidy in backdating, which could be credited into the quite large power, water, and sewerage bills they are now struggling to pay.
In the middle of all that, I used a logical, rational strategy I continue to use in the Barkly; that is, advising constituents to invite the government to the Barkly and Tennant Creek, talk to them, and tell them about their issues. During the party’s meeting in Tennant Creek ministers Lambley and Westra van Holthe visited the Tennant Creek RSL Club. I encourage that. The committee members got to talk to these ministers but, unfortunately, it fell on deaf ears. Nothing has been done.
Nobody is asking for favours; this is an existing scheme, minister. This is the Power and Water Corporation Sporting and Recreational Bodies Concession Rebate Scheme.
I ask you once again to please contact the President, Mr Edward Wilson, and advise the sub-branch on how they can be afforded the benefits of this concession scheme. I also ask you to please consider backdating the benefits of this scheme to when they created the new ablution block. They have done a mountain of work there.
Ted and Anne are tireless workers; they have formed a really strong committee. They are very active in their programs now. Anzac Day is coming up and that is one of their major functions, and still they are battling with trying to pay their power, water and sewerage bills. They have this unresolved situation where they increased the facilities in renovation and establishment of a new ablution block and they need the benefits of this scheme.
Regarding my request, I also have outstanding correspondence in the areas of Power and Water, Lands, Planning and Environment, Transport, Tourism, Regional Development, Corrections and Infrastructure, all awaiting responses on issues that have been raised by constituents - your constituents, our constituents, constituents of the Northern Territory.
It reminds me of when the Labor government was in charge. On nights like this, when opposition members would adjourn asking for special help for their constituents, staff on the fifth floor would be busy documenting the information and starting to put the processes in place to ensure things happened. I can remember one member on that side, minister Chandler, was quite liberal in his praise for the work we would do. He would acknowledge his letters, inquiries and lobbying were acknowledged and acted on - not always being solved, but at least it was processed and there was that cross-information.
At the moment, there seems to be a blockage. We have talked about the total dysfunction. The new Chief Minister says he has turned the ship around; the Queen Mary has turned around and is now steaming in the right direction. Let us start to see a bit of efficiency in constituent issues across electorates - real issues where people want answers.
The invitations are out there, of course, always: visit the electorate and talk to the people. You are most welcome in the Barkly. I spread your names around everywhere. Everywhere I go I tell people what you do, the responsibilities you have, and that you should be invited into the electorate. Come 2016, we are all going to sit down together and decide, ‘Would you be judged worthy to continue?’
Madam Speaker, I ask for support in this outstanding correspondence.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I respond to a question asked today by the Opposition Leader surrounding allegations I improperly used my government-provided fuel cards.
On Friday, February 15, I was in Katherine with the member for Stuart who was driving an Assembly-approved hire car. She needed fuel and, because her credit cards were not working, I offered her my government fuel card. The member for Stuart notified the Legislative Assembly the following Monday of this occurrence. The expense of filling the member for Stuart’s vehicle and my vehicle are both met by the Legislative Assembly.
While I am now aware this should have been done differently, the end result was the same and falls a long way short of the personal, grubby and misleading slurs being spread by the Opposition Leader and her party. For the record, member for Barkly and Opposition Leader, the Department of the Legislative Assembly does not yet have a statement I can table in this Chamber.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, tonight I adjourn on several issues. First, I would like to talk about my local schools. It has been fantastic since becoming the local member to visit all the local schools and meet the staff and students. They are terrific schools.
Tonight, in particular, I congratulate the Student Representative Council members and House Captains from some of those schools. First and foremost from St Andrew Lutheran School, the SRC members are: Calista Lay and Les Harris, Selena Mariotti and Kelin Lay, Tiana Gaffney and Dimitrios Syriotis, Gypsy Lay and Vincent Mu. The house captains are: Alicia Rimington and Rhys Walters from the Frilled Necks House, and Caitlin Lyons and Joel Park from the Goannas House.
It was terrific to also have the opportunity to sit down with these student leaders at their school and chat to them. I thank the Principal, Damon Prenzler, for that opportunity.
I acknowledge the newly-elected Wanguri Primary School SRC members who are: William Wetherson, Deklyan Kay, Ethan Lockley, Isobel Dunn, Tamera Cox, Amber Hawkey, Manoli Brannelly, Jayde Chisholm, Chloe Day, Tali Stoddard, Kim Easton, Hannah Pell, Laurel Edwards, and Ronin Wetherspoon.
I acknowledge the new house captains. The captains of Wellington House are Peter Pusterla and Amiee Rodricks and the vice-captains are Jesse Sellers and Jayna McCallum. The Palmerston House captains are William Green and Miah Wallace; the vice-captains are Johnny Martinson and Isobel Dunn. The Victoria House captains are Joshua Schloss and Jaylene Friel, and the vice-captains are Braith Schloss and Paige Maly. The Dundas House captains are Xavier Grant and Kim Layton, and the vice-captains are Liam Breen and Tayla Chisholm.
At Holy Spirit School, the school and house captains have also been elected. Congratulations to the school captains, Amelia Llewellyn and Andrew Caldwell. The house captains for Gsell House are Anthoula Kostopoulos, Munashe Mudzingwa and Tommy Nguyen. For Strele House, the captains are Tylah La France, Richard Sachs and Destiny Batman-Peris. For Angelo House, the captains are Elijah Brown, Isaac Seden-Kurnoth and David Suradi-Lawton. The McAuley House captains are Heath Wilson, Louise Jones and Vincent O’Leary.
Congratulations to you all and I am looking forward to seeing the SRC outcomes at the school.
At Leanyer Primary School, they are still in the process of electing their SRC and house captains. I am looking forward to meeting them soon as well.
Another matter which is close to my heart - and I will not always use adjournments to speak about things I am personally interested in – and I would like to put on the record is some information about the Territory Women’s Football outcomes for the season. I have been impressed with how the competition has built over the years and how we are seeing it grow. We can see the progression from the juniors through to the teenage girls through to the women’s competition. It is fantastic. It is a wonderful sport to play. It teaches a lot about commitment, about being part of a team, and tests you athletically. Girls can now play from AusKick through to junior leagues, and through to the Under 16s into the women’s competition. That is great to see.
Today there was a story in The Age reporting a curtain raiser this year before the Melbourne and Western Bulldogs game featuring a draft competition of the best Victorian female players. That will be 29 June and will be fantastic to see. We are truly making it into a sport for everyone.
I acknowledge the winners of this year’s Women’s Best and Fairest for 2013 which went to Alanah Kelly from Nightcliff; the runner-up was Lisa Roberts from Waratahs and Jennie Attrill from St Mary’s came in third. Alanah Kelly from Nightcliff is a bit of a superstar - she also won the Rising Star Award.
In the Grand Final, I am very pleased to report that Waratahs beat St Mary’s, 89 to 52. The Best on Ground was Lisa Roberts. Nine goals were kicked by Waratah’s Abbey Holmes in the Grand Final, a phenomenal effort. She took off the next day to play in the Under 21 Netball Nationals as well, so, she is a real all-rounder ...
Mr Wood interjecting.
Ms MANISON: And the officials were fantastic.
Commiserations to St Mary’s. There is nothing better than a Waratahs v St Mary’s clash when it comes to the women’s. All the best to captain Danielle Chisholm’s team; they put up a good fight but it just was not their year.
The competition has improved because of the volunteers, players, and officials who put much effort into it to help it grow the way it has. I acknowledge all the clubs, their best and fairest and their coaches who put in so much time. St Mary’s coach is Steve Lolias, assistant coach is Bryan Ahmat, and Kahlisha Rioli who won the Best and Fairest Award.
Waratahs coach is John Dunstone, assistant coach is Bronwyn Evans, and Belinda Evans was Best and Fairest. Nightcliff coach is Tony Potter, and their Best and Fairest Award was won by Alanah Kelly again. Tracy Village coach was Anita Rhook and the Best and Fairest was Sue Nalder. Palmerston coach was Tony Fuller and the Best and Fairest was Kerry White. Darwin Buffaloes - or the Buffettes - coach was Frank Duggan and the Best and Fairest was Kylie Duggan.
It was great to see the girls Under 16 youth competition grow this year. Wanderers, Nightcliff, Darwin, Tiwi, Saints and Palmerston were in the competition. The conditions are modified. It is pretty exciting to watch and this year we saw St Mary’s beat Palmerston 95 to 71. Palmerston was up by one point at three-quarter time and Saints got away. Commiserations to Palmerston, congratulations to Saints. It is great to see the girls having a go, and it ensures we are building an even stronger women’s competition.
I move to another matter I will discuss in my capacity as the shadow for Public and Affordable Housing portfolio. I will talk of some families I have met since being voted into this job, but also my personal experience around the time of the mini-budget and seeing what happened to one of my co-workers.
With the mini-budget we saw some big changes to home ownership, particularly around the scrapping of the First Home Owner Stamp Duty Concession in December. That had a fairly profound impact on some families who lost the dream of owning a house. The first homebuyers concession was a concession of up to $26 730 for the first $540 000 of the property purchase price. That was almost $27 000 worth of savings. That was scrapped in the mini-budget.
We also saw a change to the First Home Owners Grant. Prior to 4 December, people got $7000 on purchases up to $750 000. Instead, the purchase price cap was dropped to $600 000 which meant fewer people could access it. The government said a better deal was in place for people because now they are entitled to $12 000 for an established home in urban areas or $25 000 for new homes. However, when you remove the almost $27 000 in savings in stamp duty, plus the harder criteria to be able to access that funding, it has made it much harder for families.
I will go through this very quickly because I am running short of time. The first example I have of a family who lost their dream of owning a home was one of my co-workers. Her husband is in the Territory Police Force. They had placed an offer on a place in Leanyer. They enrolled their child at a local school and have another baby on the way. They were very excited about their future. On the day of the mini-budget, their dream was destroyed because they had to scramble to find another $37 000 and could not find that money. They lost the home and that dream.
Another lady came to see me. This story moved me a bit as well. She is a cleaner, a lady who works very hard. Her husband is a cleaner. They had placed an offer on a place in Moil. They are currently living with their sister in an overcrowded house. She takes care and helps out with the autistic son. When they found out about the changes to the stamp duty concession they had to find $15 000 more. They could not find that money and lost their house. They now have to save longer to find a deposit to buy a property. They do not want to go through public housing. They want to set up life, do the right thing, and stand on their own two feet. Their daughter has now deferred going to university. She will not go to university so she can work full-time to help her parents get a bigger deposit to buy their home. They were so close and it was taken away from them.
Madam Speaker, I have another example of a family but, unfortunately, I am going to run out of time tonight. With the upcoming budget, I hope with any future changes made to housing and home ownership the government takes the consequences of their actions into account and think about it long and hard before they make the changes.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak of a fine teacher who taught my daughter at St Mary’s Catholic Primary School, a lady by the name of Honor La’Porte. Honor La’Porte began teaching at St Mary’s Catholic Primary School in November 1972 as a teacher of Year 7. Honor and her husband, Alan, moved from Lucknow in the north of India to Perth, then on to Darwin. When she began teaching at St Mary’s, the school’s population was about 350 students and the Principal was Sister Mary St Anne of the Daughters of Our Lady of the Sacred Hearts, the order of nuns which established the school in 1908.
During Honor’s time at St Mary’s the number of students has reached 600. Honor has taught Year 7, Year 2, Year 1, Transition, and in the area of special education. She is especially renowned for her competence as a Transition teacher. St Mary’s has certainly benefited from her contribution as a classroom teacher and at an executive level as Deputy Principal. On at least two occasions, Honor has stepped into the role of principal and, again, been able to make a meaningful contribution.
Honor’s husband, Alan, was involved in St Mary’s community school as a member of the school board.
Their daughter, Alana, attended the school from Transition to Year 7 and continued her high school studies in the Catholic education system. She has since completed a law degree at Charles Darwin University and is employed as an associate at De Silva Hebron.
Honor has established a strong rapport with many Darwin families who expressed their respect and admiration for her contribution to St Mary’s, in particular, the education of many young children. There are many parent requests for Honor to teach their children and she is now, on many occasions, teaching the children of the students she previously taught.
She is also dedicated to fundraising for the school with her organisation of the annual Danceathon - lots of fun and exercise for students and teachers which enables the provision of valuable funds for education needs.
Honor is still teaching at St Mary’s, full of enthusiasm and well versed in the latest curriculum requirements and implementation of up-to-date technology. Honor’s teaching talents, gifts, and professionalism can be best summed up in the following statement expressed by the parents of one of her students:
- There is no doubt that in our mind that our son’s level of academic achievement was achieved by Mrs La’Porte’s dedication to achieving the best out of her students. More importantly, this rich start to learning with Mrs La’Porte has set him with such a remarkable values where he has naturally learnt to respect his teachers and fellow students and learn in an environment where his only limits are set by himself. Her love for St Mary’s school community is evident in her longevity of contribution, her hard work and commitment and dedication to achieving the best out of her students.
Mrs Geri never worked to her hours of employment, happily contributing well above what was expected. She was a person the students went to when they needed a hug or an ear to listen. She was always able to help students feel positive about themselves and cope a little better with any difficulties. Parents also sought out Mrs Geri for her advice and support, and sometimes just to have a chat and enjoy her cheerful personality.
She has particularly enjoyed being involved in school and sporting fundraising events and general school social functions involving students, parents, and staff. She was truly able to fill a pastoral role in the school community. Mrs Geri was also a great support to all teaching staff, whilst always willing to find some time to help an unexpected need.
Her recent endeavour was to get on board with recycling, collecting poppers, cans, and bottles, washing them, and taking them to the recycle station. Some of the money raised was sent to the Sudan to assist the work of the sisters of the Order of Daughters of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart.
Mrs Geri was keen to have a vegetable garden established, and this happened as a result of her efforts with recycling. The garden provided opportunities for a number of students to be involved in a very worthwhile project, as well as provided some delightful produce.
The generosity of gifts and words of thanks and appreciation shown by staff, students and parents when Mrs Geri retired at the end of last year was a testimony to the respect and esteem in which she was held. This year, without her, means the school is realising the amazing contribution Mrs Geri made to St Mary’s School community.
I also wish to talk about something particularly concerning to me, having listened to the member for Arnhem’s contribution. Today we heard allegations of corruption and those types of words being used in relation to the use of a fuel card. I have now listened to the explanation by the member for Arnhem and it turns out she filled up the hire car of the member for Stuart – and that is it. On the basis of that, unless there is some other information the opposition knows about, they are prepared to sully a person’s reputation in the most horrible and disgusting terms.
The Leader of the Opposition has form on this because the same stunt was pulled with the new member for Daly where she repeated a series of allegations that, if allowed to stand unchallenged, would have diminished the reputation of the member for Daly substantially in the community and, if uttered outside this House, would have doubtlessly led to a substantial suit for defamation. The use of this parliament to defame people is starting to reach scary proportions.
Today, we heard another attack on the government, based on the water licence being issued to Tina MacFarlane. I listened very carefully to what the opposition had to say, and it is all based on speculation. According to the member for Barkly, if you shuffle or your eyes are too close together, that is a good enough reason to slander a person. During the debate the ABC News came on and I slipped into the lobby to catch the headlines. I saw a public servant, the Water Controller saying, ‘No, no, no, this stuff has been looked at for a long time’.
I pick up on what the member for Nelson had to say. The member for Nelson disagrees with the decision of the Water Controller, but he is not accusing anybody of being corrupt because he does not believe anybody is being corrupt.
Of course, the Labor Party members waltz into this House and throw that word around about people - and they do it about not only members of parliament, but public servants. If the allegations from the Labor Party were correct - and the Leader of the Opposition sailed very close to making this allegation - the Water Controller has to be corrupt.
We heard in a speech from other members opposite the ‘old boys’ are being dragged in. These are respected Territory public servants and we are seeing slanderous attacks being levelled at them in the most unpleasant fashion in this coward’s castle. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition, and any other member opposite who wants to engage in this type of defamation and slander, to stand outside the parliament and repeat any of those allegations. You will thoroughly and richly deserve the law suits that will come in your direction.
We have to be careful with the privilege we have been given as parliamentarians, and the Labor opposition is currently not being careful at all. In fact, they are using that privilege in the most reprehensible fashion. If you have a legitimate concern, by all means raise it in this House, but constantly returning to the lowest nadir - that is a tautology - of gutter politics and using this House to say ‘corrupt’ and ‘sexist’ and all types of things in relation to people’s reputation, both inside this Chamber and out, on the flimsiest of evidence, on speculation, and on guesswork, you are doing the people of the Northern Territory a grave disservice. It will not be long before we start hearing the question, ‘When did you start beating your wife?’ and those types of things being uttered in this House because it will be the place to which the Labor Party will want to take us.
For goodness sake, by all means pursue those things important to the people of the Northern Territory, but stop tarnishing the reputations of the innocent built on the tissue-thin, flimsy misinformation you are doing it on.
Madam Speaker, I know it is part of the strategy, but it is an unhelpful strategy which does nothing to honour this House or the people in it.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will talk tonight about a movement I have been involved with for over 10 years - probably more like 12 or 14 – that is, natural resource management. Some people, like me, still refer to this as Landcare but, as with all things, names change, new schemes start, funding changes and we all get confused as to what is what.
All that aside, I received a copy of the 2013 Natural Resource Management Calendar in January and was hoping to talk on it in February, but did not get to do so. This calendar has a range of spectacular photos in it which were submitted by various Landcare groups across the Territory. For the last 10 years, I have been involved in this movement and have been the Chairman of the Wangamaty Landcare Group at Daly River.
The photos in this calendar for both May and August were submitted by our coordinator, Joye Maddison. It is very good that we got two of them in. May is a special month for Joye, also for me and Rob Lindsay - Rob heads the Malak Malak Landcare Group - as all our birthdays fall in that month. It is good to see that was the first month with our photos.
In getting these photos in the calendar, I see there is recognition for the hard work done by our coordinator, Joye. I place on record my, Rob’s and all the Malak Malak people’s gratitude for the hard work and dedication of Joye.
Our second photo in the calendar was for August, and this photo shows two very senior Malak Malak women, Rita and Frances, who - Gerry might correct me - are both over about 70 years of age. Their role is breeding moths that eat mimosa plants; they have been doing this for several years. As well as mimosa, they do salvinia weeds as well. Both Rita and Frances take this role very seriously. It goes to show, no matter how old one gets and feels, they still have a very productive contribution to make to society. It needs to be placed on record the appreciation we have for people such as these in caring about their country.
The NT Cattlemen’s Association also has two photos included in this and ‘sees natural resource management as fundamental to their lives and livelihood’. I have been involved with this work for over 10 years and agree with the sentiments of the Cattlemen’s Association. I would like all members to recognise this is not a ‘greenie’ movement but a dedicated group of people who simply care for country. Joye, Rob, Frances and Rita - a job well done.
Madam Speaker, I also add why I felt I had to do this tonight. Joye is very sick in hospital at the moment. I send my regards to her. She was medivaced out at the end of last week with pneumonia.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, tonight I will talk about local government. I was hoping to discuss a Matter of Public Importance last night, but I was told there was something else happening and it did not happen. That might reflect the state of the House at the moment when it comes to trying to work out what is on. The adjournment debate will do for the time being.
Since the last sittings, there has been an announcement by the government that it has been putting out options for regional governance in the Northern Territory. I will give my opinion on the views of the government in relation to local government.
I am concerned they are using the word ‘regional’. Anywhere else in Australia a regional council would be a group of councils. I am not sure whether it is a smaller council. I do not think it is; it is the existing councils with a different title, then using the issue of having local authorities underneath them which were boards before.
I am concerned people are not getting enough options. Even though government says there are two options, there is really only one option if you want to look at local government as we know it - as a shire. In Queensland, councils were given an opportunity to see whether they wanted to de-amalgamate. I am not advocating for small councils as there used to be before, but there needs to be an option where you could have a smaller group of councils operating which concentrated on the core functions and not take up all the government agencies.
One of the issues is communities have lost their feeling of ownership. The government is saying, ‘We are going to have regional councils and local authorities’. I am not sure we will not build up new bureaucracies and if you are able to pay these people. Local authorities are going to be the centre of contracting some of these communities with governments and different agencies.
I am concerned we have not given people enough options. I go back to the days of Jack Ah Kit, who put out the option of about 25 councils. That option should be looked at. We do not have that option available for people to give their opinion.
My concern is we have not addressed one of the fundamental issues of local government, especially on Aboriginal communities; that is, rates. You only have to look at the document the government has issued; the total percentage of income to councils is from rates. The figure is $7.2m for eight shires, which works out at $900 000 each. For some of those shires it does not even cover their administration cost. If you take the total waste service charges you might get another $500 000.
The amount of money the government has to put in is something like $51.8m which means these shires have a very small percentage of rates compared to their total operating expenses: the Tiwi Islands 4%, the Roper Gulf Shire 2%, Central Desert Shire 3%. When you come to the municipalities you have Alice Springs 58%, and my council 67%. The difference is the municipals are able to raise money through rates and the shires are not. Part of that is because of the land structure; you cannot rate Aboriginal land trusts.
They are the issues I thought should have been in this paper. The options for change in reforming boundaries or giving new titles will not get back to the core problems local government has. It simply does not have enough money to run itself.
There are issues in regard to roads. The previous government could not come up with the money to provide maintenance of roads in the Northern Territory to local government councils. I do not know where the new government is going with that, but that has been an ongoing issue since the reform of local government and has not yet been solved. Councils do not have the money to maintain all the roads. If the government wants to give all the roads to the councils it will have to come with a package, and that package will be ongoing. It has not happened and should have been part of the discussions.
The other matter is roads and communities on Aboriginal land. If council is to provide services, can it provide services on a road which requires a permit - in other words, a private road? I have raised this before and it needs sorting out. The council’s job is not to provide a service on private property and many of your outstations are on private property. They are not set up as towns, do not have leases, so how can you provide services to that community? I am not saying they should not provide services, but they have no legal framework to do it. Again, these are some of the issues I believe had to be in the options paper.
The other issue is whether councils really need to start again and deal with core functions and not take on all these agencies. This paper says the biggest part, 76%, of shire council income and spending is on non-core services; only a quarter, 24%, of shire council income and spending is on core services. That might sound good, but it means you have to maintain a big bureaucracy to look after that 76%. Is that being done to the detriment of the core services - the roads, the reserves, the rubbish? Does it mean they are not getting enough emphasis from the council because it is more interested in the more glossy side of things; that is, the government agencies and those things?
Council should have the option of saying, ‘As a council, we do not want to take on all those other functions written in the Local Government Act; we simply want to take on the basic functions then, if we want to take something on, we take it at our own speed and when we have the money to do it’.
With the amalgamation of councils the new shires were forced to take on functions. The reason we had a rally for Litchfield around this parliament is because the government was going to force functions on to the council it did not want. Unfortunately, many of the shires did not have people who knew what was happening and able to muster up the forces to say to government, ‘We do not want all these things; these are government responsibilities not local government responsibilities’. They now have to pick up the tab for some of those responsibilities that are not core functions. They are some of the options which should have been put into this paper so people had a chance to look at the issues and see if there are other forms of local government.
I do not believe the regional authority should be around for a long time. That is like having a two-and-a-half tier level of government, and I am not sure you want it. Local governments have to walk first. They were put in a position, when the shires came, of running first. We need to ensure people can get some pride in their community. I am not saying many councils are not working well, but some places do not look crash hot.
I always felt local government was the key to getting pride into a community, where people were so proud of saying, ‘This is my community. Look at the lawns and the trees we have planted, the houses are up to scratch’. We used to try to do that at Nguiu on Bathurst Island. We used to sell plants to people to encourage them to beautify their area.
The option of smaller councils - not the little ones we had before - should be given to people. It may be a way of reducing the bureaucracy instead of having a regional council and a local authority. It may be small enough that each community is close enough to be connected without having to have that duplication of bureaucracy. This needs plenty of discussion.
Madam Speaker, the last issue is I spoke to the Shire Clerk of the Tiwi Islands, and he is very disappointed government members have gone over to the Tiwi Islands but no one has formally visited the Tiwi Shire Council; they all go off to the land council. As we know, that is not particularly good. People take sides when it comes to those two bodies, but when it comes to local government on Bathurst Island, the minister needs to talk to them because they provide all the services. At the moment, they feel as if they are being left out, and they have some major concerns, especially about paying the cost of power and water.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I will not be on my feet for 10 minutes; I have a couple of things I wanted to raise, two of which are purely administrative matters. I do not swamp minister’s offices with letters of request or complaint, but I have sent two to the Minister for Health, neither of which I have received a reply to, which is pretty ordinary.
It has been an absolute shambles on the fifth floor for the past seven months. Hopefully, things will settle down now. We have a new Minister for Health who is probably far more organised and across the portfolio than her predecessor and may well act on this request.
The first letter I wrote was on 25 November last year. I will not read these letters out because they are confidential matters to do with the frustrations of one of my constituents with regard to her nursing registration, and what the Northern Territory government and the Minister for Health may or may not be able to do to support her, knowing health professionals in remote regions can be extremely hard to recruit and retain. This woman has lived out there for many years. She is not housed through government employee housing. She is in a house through her husband’s work. She is really keen to return to work; however, until I get an answer from the Minister for Health she is unable to commit to what other avenues are available to her with regard to her registration. Obviously, being a small town, I know my constituents, and know this individual to be a very competent and skilled nurse who is keen to return to work.
If anyone up there on the fifth floor in the Minister for Health’s office is listening, can I please have a reply to my letter of 25 November? My electorate officer has phoned on a couple of occasions. We have had some feedback about the delays, but four months is getting to the stage of being ridiculous. That is the first letter I am seeking a response to.
The second one is a letter I wrote - I cannot find the copy of the letter on my system, but it is probably dated 14 January. It is to do with important matters around dental health services in Nhulunbuy with regard to a contract arrangement in place with a private dentist for a 12-month period. I have written seeking a review and, hopefully, a continuation of what has been an excellent arrangement between the Northern Territory government and a dentist. However, more than two months has gone by and I have not heard anything about that matter either.
Now the member for Araluen is the Minister for Health I am appealing to her. We are tired of phoning up asking, ‘Where is the response to this letter?’ It is not about me, it is about my constituents.
I was asked recently by the Arafura Times what impact this constant shake-up and reshuffle by this shambles of a government meant for me as a local member. I replied in all honesty, ‘It is very difficult to represent one’s constituents when you constantly have ministers changing seats and fighting with one another, when all you want to do as the local member in representing your constituency is get answers to questions’. I could probably come at six weeks waiting for a response, even perhaps a bit longer, but four months is too long. A little over two months is also too long for my letter in regard to dental health services in Nhulunbuy. Hopefully, someone is still up there and awake in the Minister for Health’s office and can say, ‘Heck, whatever happened to that? Can someone get an answer for the member for Nhulunbuy so her constituents have an answer?’
In the region I represent, people are starting to think the CLP is not particularly interested in them. A number of people have expressed their disappointment at the way the stabbing and the overthrow of the Chief Minister, the member for Blain, occurred. People are genuinely concerned that, with his departure, there is a threat to gas to Gove. I assured them, ‘No, absolutely not’. People have been really shocked by that.
We do not see too much of ministers. A bunch came out a few weeks ago, did a whirlwind tour, held a couple of private meetings, then jumped back on a plane and disappeared. I took the opportunity while the Minister for Health was there - the member for Fong Lim - to chat with him. He spent a couple of days there doing the rounds of the primary healthcare clinics in the region, visiting Gove hospital, and now he is gone. The stakeholder relationships being built are completely out the door. We look forward to the member for Araluen making a trip out to the region to get around to the same stakeholders within health, have a chat with them and see, firsthand, what the needs are.
If I could have responses to those letters it would be really good.
The other thing I want to raise, now we know Budget Cabinet is being pushed out a few weeks because the government is in shambles - they do not have the budget under control at all – is to put in the bid for some of the election commitments made in the electorate of Nhulunbuy. There is a real beauty, the first one up. We wonder what the currency is of this, given we have photographs of two people who are no longer part of the CLP government - I do not even know about the former candidate or what his involvement is; he certainly does not live in Nhulunbuy any longer.
This was a commitment from the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, and the candidate for the CLP in the Nhulunbuy electorate, Allen Fanning. The first one on this long list of what they were going to do is $1.5m towards completion of the Mud Wharf precinct. I have many people asking me, ‘What is the go? $1.5m. When are we going to see that? When are we going to hear about that?’
People voted for the CLP on the strength of the prospect of $1.5m for the current boat ramp facilities at Melville Bay in which, by the way, the former Northern Territory Labor government had invested more than $400 000 and would very much like to invest more. However, nothing will happen there until land tenure issues are sorted before we continue to put government money into an asset that does not have any security of tenure over it. People are asking for an answer.
It was raised at the meeting when we had a few ministers out a couple of weeks ago. Apparently, the member for Katherine who is the responsible minister, ummed and aahed his way through it and said, ‘I do not know about that’, to which the member for Fong Lim chirped in and said, ‘No, an election commitment is an election commitment’. For all those deliberations going on with Budget Cabinet right now, if you can factor in the $1.5m for Nhulunbuy to complete the Mud Wharf precinct it would be fantastic.
I would also like to know what the commitment is to provide financial assistance to install an undercover area at Nhulunbuy pool. We look forward to seeing some investment there, thank you, from the CLP because these are your election commitments. People voted for you on the strength of these commitments.
The other matter was to provide assistance to DigiFM on Elcho Island. DigiFM is a fantastic outfit at Galiwinku. It produces a monthly newspaper, maintains a very comprehensive website and operates a broadcasting service as well. It is primarily funded through federal government money, but if the Northern Territory government has committed to provide assistance then they want to know where that assistance is. I look forward to receiving a reply on that.
The commitment also said, ‘Strengthen services in health and education’. We welcome that. We have not actually seen it; in fact, we have seen quite the opposite. We have seen teachers removed from schools, including our remote schools which need those teachers more than anybody. We have not seen any strengthening in health services. We have actually seen them stripped back, if anything. The medi-hotel, the hostel planned for Gove District Hospital with more than a $5m commitment from the federal government - that has been handed back, so thanks very much for that.
Madam Speaker, we would love to hear government plans to support business developments so more jobs can be created. That is a really important area, but I had word yesterday the position of Indigenous Economic Development Officer has been axed from the East Arnhem region and is due to finish in April with no replacement, which is incredibly disappointing. It is backwards and I do not know how you intend to create jobs - jobs, jobs, jobs as the Chief Minister says - when you are axing those positions.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, in adjournment tonight I give a synopsis on what I have been up to since the last sittings and also wrap up by wishing everyone in my electorate a happy Easter.
Quite a few weeks ago now, I attended the City of Palmerston’s Safe Communities committee meeting. That is an initiative by the City of Palmerston where stakeholders such as me, police, Neighbourhood Watch, Mission Australia, and other key service providers discuss ways in which we can make our community safe. It was very valuable. It was the first time I attended that meeting and I thank all those who attended for their contribution. It was at that meeting I learnt Palmerston has very significant status. I will read from notes provided to me by Ben Dornier, the Director of Corporate and Community Services of the City of Palmerston:
- Palmerston Safe Communities is a program facilitated by the City of Palmerston to promote community safety in partnership with key organisations to reduce injury in our city making it a safer place to live, work, study and play. In March 2008, the City of Palmerston became the first community in the Northern Territory and the 133rd community in the world to be named as a designated international safe community by the World Health Organisation for its collaborative approach to safety and injury prevention promotions.
The Safe Communities program is overseen by the Palmerston Safe Communities committee which meets bi-monthly and includes representatives from council, government departments, police, business, community organisations and other sectors. In addition, the Palmerston Safe Kids network reports to this committee, working closely with children service provision organisations.
It is very significant to hold that World Health Organisation status, and I commend the City of Palmerston for its efforts in that regard. It should be more widely known in our community we are 1 in 133 communities in the world that hold that status.
I also attended the City of Darwin Australia Day Thank You Reception and spoke on behalf of the Chief Minister. It was an excellent function and I commend the Chair of the Australia Day Council, Roland Chin, for his hard work over the years as Chair. He has now finished his tenure and will be moving on to greener pastures.
It is the time of year when schools have their parent council meetings and I have been invited along to those. I went to Driver Primary School, Durack Primary School, and Gray Primary School’s AGMs and they were excellent. Thank you very much for having me along and for welcoming me to future meetings. I thank the outgoing committees of those parents and friends organisations and welcome the new 2013 committee members. I look forward to working very closely with them over the next 12 months.
As a graduate of the Life Education program with happy healthy Harold which we all know and love, I could not resist the offer given to me by Suzie Spedding from LifeEd to go to Durack Primary School to participate in one of the classes. I joined a Year 2 class at Durack and sat at the back and participated with the students. It was excellent and, in the end, I had a photo with Harold which was really wonderful. The students and the teacher were great, and so were the Life Education staff. It was very enjoyable, a worthy program, and something I support.
Palmerston Power Basketball Club is going from strength to strength thanks to the $75 school sport voucher. It has had an enormous increase of 33% in junior registrations, which is fantastic. It has cut its administration processes and costs significantly because parents are now paying for a full year which, with Palmerston Power, is two full seasons up-front. They are just thrilled. We did some media around it, and it was wonderful to see the tangible benefit of the initiative of our government.
Clean up Australia Day happened on a very soggy morning. I woke up and thought, ‘Gosh, is it cancelled?’, as it was pelting down outside and had rained all night. I got in touch with Pam Robinson, a fierce and determined woman, and the Clean Up Australia Day activities still went ahead, so we went to Durack Lakes. This was organised by the City of Palmerston and a large group attended - 42 in the end – including young children and senior Territorians. We donned ponchos to shield from the rain. Thanks to Heather Malone, Alderman of the City of Palmerston, for lending me a poncho which matched my outfit that day. It was very fortuitous! We got on with the business of picking up rubbish in and around the Durack Lakes area. It was excellent, and well done to Pam. As always, she organised things beautifully and did an excellent job.
Another initiative of the City of Palmerston, the seniors forum, was a well-attended event at the Gray community hall. It is a significant event in the annual calendar for Palmerston seniors. In fact, many seniors from the Darwin region came because they find it such a valuable way in which they can report back to council and government about issues affecting seniors. It was a very worthwhile forum which went for the better part of the day and a great deal of information came from it. I look forward to intermittently joining with the Seniors Advisory Council to keep close to issues affecting our Palmerston seniors.
I also welcome Rob who has just opened Ben and Sarah’s Caf and Bakehouse in Highway House, Palmerston. It is a lovely bakery. He has a full kitchen, bakery area set-up and, of course, the shopfront with chairs and tables out the front in a lovely alfresco area. I popped around to see how he was going and introduced myself. I wish them all the very best of luck. It is excellent to see new business in Palmerston. I hope new business continues to be attracted to our CBD because it brings a more life and community spirit to the area.
Thank you to minister Conlan, who let me speak with Tom and Courts on morning radio for Hot 100 which was an enjoyable experience. They are a wonderful crew. Courts announced live on radio that we are ‘besties’, so I am thrilled about that; I have a new friend in the radio world. The reason I was on radio was to announce two of the hottest acts coming to BassintheGrass this year - Flume and 360. That was very exciting. 360 has been before, but Flume is brand new, one of the hottest acts in the country at the moment. Everyone was very pumped up about the announcement. Thank you to the minister for getting Major Events on to that one. Young Territorians were lobbying you very hard for that act, and we managed to score Flume. It will, no doubt, be an excellent day.
I also went to MacKillop College in the electorate of Brennan. Lauretta, the principal, invited me as I am formerly a Sacred Heart student. They are sister colleges. It was excellent to see their campus and what they have planned for the future. She would like me to become involved with the school so, with the permission of the member for Brennan, I will do that to whatever extent I possibly can.
A few other things have happened. There has been a Probus meeting in Palmerston. Probus recently developed in Palmerston in the last few months.
I talk about seniors to no end in adjournment, but that is because they have such an action-packed calendar during the week. It is almost impossible for me not to go to several seniors’ events each and every week. Speaking of seniors, the Palmerston 50+ club had its annual Easter Hat competition. I missed it just as I missed the Melbourne Cup Hat competition. I am really bummed about that. I have decided I am going to speak with Ann Brown to ensure we match up sittings timetables with all future hat competitions so I can be involved.
I have also just pumped out a newsletter. It is an easy eight pages and, at the back, we have my Happy Easter colouring-in competition. I encourage all Drysdale youths to ensure they get that colouring-in back in for the competition.
Madam Speaker, I wish everyone in Drysdale and residents of the broader Palmerston area, and all Territorians, a very happy and safe Easter. Please heed all police warnings. There is a blitz on this weekend which is for your safety. We want all of you coming back to work and to school on Tuesday morning after the break.
Also, for Durack residents, there was a croc sighting in the lakes yesterday. I do not think that issue is resolved. There is also a low pressure system in the area. Have a safe weekend. It will be wet with those vicious crocs lurking around Durack. I look forward to seeing you all after the break. Again, a very happy and safe Easter.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, a great adjournment, member for Drysdale - live croc reports in parliament. Well done and happy Easter to you as well.
There are a couple of things I want to talk about, but I need to pick up on a couple of things mentioned by the member for Nhulunbuy. Yes, it is disappointing there are a number of things we would love to do, as a government, and a number are yet to be done. What she failed to mention as she read out that very short list of things we have not ticked off yet in Nhulunbuy was we have a $5.5bn debt left to us by the previous government, and that is tracking at $800m in an annual deficit, so, it is very difficult. We would love to do more, but it is difficult to do it under such restrained financial circumstances.
There has been a fair amount of interest shown about a ministerial trip I took as I was conducting business overseas on behalf of the Northern Territory government. I thought this would be an opportunity to highlight to the House and put on the Parliamentary Record some of the business I conducted while overseas on behalf of the Northern Territory. There are several objectives: to gain an understanding of the current Tourism NT resource allocation; how business is achieved in our key international markets; strengthening and developing new airline relationships - very important; strengthening existing and developing new trade partner relationships; and strengthening relationships with Tourism Australia and other state tourism authority partners.
ITB in Berlin is the world’s largest tourism trade event. It is absolutely enormous, with 7000 journalists, 180 000 visitors, 113 000 trade visitors and, in all, 27 halls full of trade and consumers. Each hall is about the size of the Sydney Convention Centre; it is massive. It is like a mini-globe sitting there, and you get a feel of what the world is like, and the competition we face as a Territory and, indeed, Australia. It brings industry’s most prominent figures together to negotiate contracts, develop existing relationships, and set strategies for the future.
At the trade show, as I arrived - I got straight off the jet from Darwin, arrived in Berlin at 9 am and, by 10 am, I was assisting Tourism Australia launch the world’s best jobs. You can check this out on the website. It is Australia.com. In fact, I believe it is even on our Tourism NT website, but I stand corrected. It is going up, at least. It is called The Global Best Jobs In The World Youth Campaign. It is selling NT jobs. There are six overall, and we have an Outback Adventurer. We think that is probably the best of the lot. It is a fantastic experience. It could be anything from flying mail runs or anything to do with the outback; it is called an Outback Adventurer. It is a great job and the campaign has been enormously successful thus far with hundreds of thousands of people already signing up. In fact, after the first days - we launched it in Europe the morning I arrived and within two days we had 120 000 applications already. This is enormously popular.
I also had embassy meetings with Thomas Roth, Deputy Head of Mission at the Australian Embassy in Berlin and in London, Michael Rann, former Premier of South Australia, who is now the Australian High Commissioner to London, with the sole purpose of strengthening those relationships with the Northern Territory. They have not seen much Northern Territory representation. These embassies and High Commissions are greatly underutilised by the states and, in this case, the Northern Territory. There is a wonderful opportunity for us to utilise these High Commissions and embassies to host events and functions and bring people together in a diplomatic, or even a social or business environment. That is what they are there for; to provide that assistance among other things.
I had Tourism Australia meetings in Berlin and London, aviation meetings with Singapore Airlines, Qantas and Emirates. Strengthening relationships with those airlines is crucial. We also need to realise that the Singapore Airlines and SilkAir partnership is the only one-stop air access between Darwin and Europe. It is a wonderful opportunity for the Territory that we have one carrier all the way from Darwin into Singapore through SilkAir, then Singapore Airlines connecting into Germany and the UK. It is fantastic, but we need to ensure we stay in that space and these companies stay.
In London I met with Trailfinders. Trailfinders is a prominent wholesaler for the region and is the largest independently-owned travel company in the UK. It has 28 travel centres. It is the top supplier of business outside Australia into AAT Kings and Ayres Rock Resort. It is vital to the Territory products of Uluru, Ayres Rock Resort and AAT Kings. Overall, if that is not firing, the Territory is not firing. I will have a bit more on Trailfinders in a second.
Recent tourism statistics have shown there has been a 10% decrease in international travellers to the Northern Territory in 2012. This continues, sadly, after 11 years of consecutive decline under the previous government. The failure to strengthen these types of partnerships is no coincidence. I have to stress these are partners of the Northern Territory. We partner with these wholesalers, airlines, travel agencies, and buyers and sellers of tourism. That is how you strengthen these relationships; we literally partner with them. It is a collaborative partnership that forms part of our collaborative marketing budget. We partner with these people, and you have to be out there and be a presence. It is very important that you display a presence from the top; from a ministerial level. It is no coincidence that the lack of ministerial representation internationally has coincided with the lack of international visitation. It is directly related to that.
This particular visit is part of the many initiatives Tourism NT is undertaking to reverse this downward trend in international visitation. We have done reasonably well domestically, but internationally, we have much work to do.
I mentioned Trailfinders. It is about strengthening relationships. “Trailfinders” is one of the biggest players you will find anywhere in the world. I met with the General Manager of “Trailfinders”, Tony Russell. You do not just get a meeting with Tony Russell; he met with us because we had a ministerial delegation. We strengthened that relationship. It is as simple as that. It is as simple as Tony Russell saying, ‘When someone comes into your travel agency to book a holiday and they say, ‘I want a desert experience', it will be, “If you like that, I could recommend South Africa because they have wildlife and the desert, the outback experience, or would you like Australia?”. It is really as simple as that’. If the Northern Territory and Australia is in the mind of the seller then we have a very good chance of getting our product up and that person visiting our shores.
These relationships cannot be underestimated under any circumstances. It is vital to visitation to the Northern Territory. As a result of these relationships we have strengthened, they have reported the NT is tracking ahead of Australia, in general. Client numbers to the Northern Territory in January/February 2013 were up 37%. Room nights in the Northern Territory for January/February 2013 were up 17%. 2013 forward bookings to the Northern Territory are up 37%. 2014 forward bookings are up 67%. So, it is good news and it is a direct result of the relationships we have forged in recent months with our international partners.
In London, we participated in something very exciting and ground-breaking. It was called a Google Plus Hangout or Webinar. It is like a seminar on the web. It was highly successful, using social media to grow awareness of the Northern Territory and, essentially, it worked. We had nine places filled with travel bloggers, and another 24 travel bloggers based in the UK, US, Norway, Sweden and Ireland. Through that, we generated about 336 users who tapped in to listen to Tony Mayell and I talk up the Northern Territory. You can go on YouTube and look at it. If you search for Matt Conlan, you will see this Google Plus Hangout or Webinar. You will see Tony Mayell and I there. You can watch the whole 40-minute interview. We thought it was a great success and I urge you to look at it and see some of we got up to.
Madam Speaker, as anticipated, I have run out of time. You cannot sum up a trip like that in 10 minutes because we got down to work. I thought it was fruitful and very productive. We will start to see the benefits of that trip as evidenced in some of those figures already.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016