2014-10-21
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it was with great sadness that we learned this morning of the passing overnight of Australia’s 21st Prime Minister, Edward Gough Whitlam AC QC, at the age of 98. Prime Minister Whitlam was in office at the time of the election of members to the first Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory in 1974.
I ask all members to rise to observe one minute’s silence as a mark of respect for the passing of a former Prime Minister of Australia.
Members stood for one minute’s silence.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of former members of the Legislative Assembly Hon Jane Aagaard, Dr Christopher Burns and Mr Kon Vatskalis. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you. I hope you enjoy your time in the Chamber.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 5/6 class from Milkwood Steiner School accompanied by Wendy Watt and Caryn Dunning. On behalf of honourable members, I hope you enjoy your time at parliament and find it educationally interesting.
Honourable members, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the family of the new member for Casuarina, Lauren Moss. We have father and mother Barry and Anita Jonsberg, and her partner, Jake Lutz. I welcome you all to this special day for you and your family.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given permission for Channel 9, the ABC, the NT News and a private photographer to be in the gallery to take images during the swearing in of the new member for Casuarina.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that on 18 September 2014 the resignation of the former member for Casuarina, Mr Kon Vatskalis, was submitted to me by letter pursuant to section 18 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. I table a copy of the resignation.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Unite in Pink Breast Cancer Campaign
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, you will find pink ribbons on your desk to enable you to show your support for the Unite in Pink breast cancer campaign. Every day in Australia around 50 women are diagnosed with breast or gynaecological cancer. By uniting in pink everyone can make a difference in the fight against these terrible diseases which impact on all of us.
Mr CLERK: Honourable members, I lay on the table the Return to Writ issued by Her Honour the Administrator, Ms Sally Thomas AC, on 20 October 2014 for the election of a member of the electoral division of Casuarina on 18 October 2014 and certifying the election of Lauren Jane Moss.
Ms Lauren Jane Moss made and subscribed the oaths required by law.
Madam SPEAKER: On behalf of members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory I congratulate you on your election and welcome you to the Assembly as the member for Casuarina.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received Message No 20 from Her Honour the Administrator, notifying assent to the bills passed during the August sitting. The message is dated 16 October 2014.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Wanguri be appointed to the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 20 August 2014.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, during the last sitting we said we supported the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill, and the establishment of a new Civil and Administrative Tribunal. I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for contributing to that debate on my behalf.
However, while the body has been created it does not yet have a body of work. That is the purpose of the bill we are debating. For the tribunal to operate it requires jurisdiction, which this bill will confer. This conferral bill, as was flagged during the debate to create the tribunal, will be the first of many. It is very fitting that the first conferral bill we have is from the Attorney-General. He has established this body, and now takes the first step in providing it with a jurisdiction. It is not quite Neil Armstrong, but it is a first step.
We do not find this bill contentious. Some technical amendments have been circulated, and we support those changes. This bill provides changes to several acts, with the outcome being that rather than applying to the Local Court for the review for an appeal you can instead go to the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, or NTCAT.
This bill amends four acts, and we are debating three bills of the same name during this sittings period. In fact, we are covering all of them today, two of which is being debated in cognate. I double checked with the minister’s office yesterday to make sure I delivered the right remarks for the right bill. It is not often you have three bills of the same name come before parliament, and I am not sure if in future sittings – because we are debating a lot of conferral bills – we will see this trend continue.
I understand that with this bill we will be amending the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act so NTCAT can hear appeals from people aggrieved by a decision. As a result of this bill, if you want a matter heard and determined under the Fences Act, you now go to NTCAT. If you are aggrieved by a decision of the director or an assessor of the Crimes Victims Services Unit, NTCAT would hear your matter. The Interpretation Act is being amended so that from now on when an act refers to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, it will be interpreted to mean the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
That last change is, in some ways, the most important and symbolic. We are making the change so whenever a bill is passed in this House in the future the administrative tribunal is part of the appeals process. We have taken an idea and are putting into the body of whatever happens next. It is now a matter of course that administrative appeals will flow to this body. I follow in the footsteps of the Attorney-General’s second reading speech in being brief and in commending this bill and its amendments to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am pondering over the last statement the member for Fannie Bay made about keeping it brief, in line with the Attorney-General. I assume he only referred to the second reading speech, not the long contributions of the Attorney-General from time to time. They are not necessarily brief …
Mr Gunner: It was an isolated incident.
Mr Elferink: Invite me to warm to my topic, I challenge you.
Mr WOOD: Yes, isolated incidents, thank you very much.
I also support the bill. It makes good sense to have a Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, at the moment known as NTCAT. Obviously a range of acts will have to be changed as we go through this process.
One thing that did confuse me, which I did not mean to raise at this late stage, is in the second reading – and it is also mentioned in the second reading of the bill we will discuss after this one – it says:
I will probably get a good explanation to this, but the heading of this bill is:
I ask the minister if he could explain why the bill has that heading, but the second reading said:
It would be nice to have an explanation of that.
Obviously this bill covers a range of acts: the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act; the Fences Act, the Interpretation Act; and the Victims of Crime Assistance Act.
I reckon the most controversial one you will need NTCAT for will be the Fences Act. Being from the rural area, where development is going ahead steadily, supported by the local member in places like Coolalinga, the Girraween subdivision – did you hear that, minister? Being a supporter of rural development does not make a person anti-development. In the process of development, minister, many people have fences. Yes, they have barbed-wire fences; that is what rural development is about.
There is a case next door to me where a person bought a block of land recently and found the fence was, in some places, 50 m out of alignment. The person next door had ‘borrowed’ a bit of land while the other landowner was absent. There will be issues from time to time. I remember a case in Virginia where someone had a chook house partly over the boundary. They had to go to court to decide whether that chook yard belonged to someone else. It might sound silly, but a little thing like the Fences Act is very important for many people when it comes to so-called ‘neighbourly’ disputes.
Also in relation to the Fences Act, someone may want to erect a new 6 m chainmesh fence when they are only required to put up three-strand barbed wire. These are the type of things that have to be dealt with by tribunals. It is important that streamlining the system will mean we do not have to set up a special tribunal just for the Fences Act. You will have someone operating who can deal with these issues, and hopefully it will be quicker because you have the process ready to go. As time goes on, we will get through a few of the hiccups that probably will occur with a new process, and it will be better for the administrative processes of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions, and their support of this legislation. It was clear at the outset when the legislation enabling and creating NTCAT, for want of a better acronym – I was going to call it NATCAT but none of the public servants liked that, so it is NTCAT. I thought NATCAT rolled off the tongue. Perhaps only we weird politicians get it. However, it is what it is and what we had passed in this Chamber was the structure of NTCAT. Now we have created the structure we have the house, which is splendidly empty like any new house, and it is about time that in the act of moving into our new house we furnish it.
This bill, being unremarkable and, I suspect, uncontroversial – certainly in this House it is uncontroversial – will introduce to the lavatory the toilet brush and a few other things. There will be other bills that come along later which will furnish the lounge room, the bedrooms, the kitchen and those things. I suspect there might be some controversy over some of those as they step forward. Clearly we have indicated, as a government, that the Liquor Commission could also be dissolved and NTCAT take over its administrative functions. The Labor Party has already signalled some concern with that process so I imagine that will be one of the contentious issues.
It is the intent of government to bring, from the four corners of the Northern Territory statue book, into one place, a process of review. It will not be an absolute process of review in the sense that ultimately all tribunals will rest there. There will invariably be one or two which remain by virtue of the nature of what they do outside that process. By way of example, the Development Consent Authority will be one of those isolated from being collapsed into NTCAT because of the peculiar and particular nature of what it does. There is a specific task for that authority which will have the effect of creating an exempt environment.
Nevertheless, this bill attends to a number of legislative instruments, including the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act; the Fences Act; the Victims of Crime Assistance Act; and the Interpretation Act. I pick up on the member for Nelson’s comments in relation to the Fences Act, and it is probably a classic example of why these tribunals are important.
The hallmark of a civil appeals tribunal is its approachability. Fences are usually neighbourhood-type disputes. One neighbour will disagree with the gauge, height, material used for construction, depth, colour, whether there are barbs, no barbs, sufficient barbs, and those are the type disputes of which great contests are made. If you were to take this matter through to its conclusion nowadays, you would find yourself in the lower court, and that, of course, invites you to get all lawyered up.
You are not necessarily prevented from having a lawyer, depending on the rulings and directions of the president of the NTCAT, but the NTCAT will operate in such a way that it will have a much more inquisitorial flavour. Rather than a magistrate rocking back in their chair listening to submissions from the respondent and the plaintiff then ruling on those submissions, the president or members of NTCAT will be able to make inquiry of the parties before them and not necessarily be bound by things like the rules of evidence. Therefore, you have organisation that is capable of providing a flavour of judgment which will, in its nature, be fairer.
One of the complicating factors with appeals to courts in relation to issues is that many times those courts will not be able to introduce concepts of bias, fairness and reasonableness into their considerations of matters before them. What courts will do in relation to administrative matters before them is ask generally a simple question, and that question is, is the act or the decision of the decision-maker lawful?
It may not necessarily be reasonable or even fair, but is it lawful? If the answer to that question is yes it is lawful and within the power of the decision-maker to make the decision, that is pretty much the boundary as to where the court will go in consideration of the issues before it.
We are creating a system by which the equitable flavour of an inquisitorial system enables it to hear evidence which is outside of the operation of the normal boundaries of the Evidence Act, an environment which will then create a sense of fairness in the community, an organisation which is more approachable, more affordable in its approach, more responsive to the needs of the parties before it and able to give proper and probative weight to whatever matters it determines to.
Those are the matters for consideration before NTCAT in something as simple as a dispute under the Fences Act; the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act; the Interpretation Act; and the Victims of Crime Assistance Act.
I turn my attention to the issues raised by the member for Nelson in relation to the wording of conferral jurisdiction in the heading of the act, while in the second reading speech there is no conferral of jurisdiction. I commend the member for Nelson for his eagle eye on this issue, however …
Mr Wood: Eagle, I am not sure about.
Mr ELFERINK: … I can shower great comfort and reassurance upon the member for Nelson in this issue. The term means, and perhaps could have been expressed slightly more clearly, that it will give it no further jurisdiction than the one that is currently conferred on a Court. It is able to make decisions within its own rules, but cannot appropriate further jurisdiction than is currently available to a Local Court. I hope that clarifies the issue for the member for Nelson. Being the smart fellow he is, I suspect he already knew that but just wanted it on the record.
Mr Wood: I didn’t actually, but I am a smart fellow. As the minister for Lands and Planning.
Mr ELFERINK: That is, in toto, the matters for consideration of this House. However, we are required to go into the committee stage because there are a couple of tweaky amendments that have to be dealt with.
I thank the honourable members for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 defeated.
New clause 2:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move that new clause 2 entitled ‘Commencement’ be inserted after clause 1 as follows:
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 27 August 2014.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, today we have three bills with the same name. I contacted the Attorney-General’s office yesterday to check that I had the right notes to the right speech in the right order. Even then I was still a little nervous this morning, so I can understand the confusion.
This is a question I asked earlier today, but the Attorney-General had a pressing issue. We know we will have a number of conferral of jurisdiction bills, and I am curious as to whether we might have this problem for a while where we have bills with the same name dealt with on similar issues. I do not know if they will have different names or not, but it could be worth inquiring about.
We debated already one bill that conferred jurisdiction, we are now doing another. As I said in the debate of first bill, last sittings we supported the establishment of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal through the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill, so obviously we also support a conferral of jurisdiction.
We agree that the 35-plus commissions, tribunals and bodies which are constituted under Territory legislation should be merged into one body. We will have a lot of business come before this House, as that conferral of jurisdiction will cover an estimated 117 bills. It will take some time, there will be some detail and there will be many bills. As we flagged last sittings through the member for Nhulunbuy – and as the Attorney-General touched on in the previous debate – we have no doubt that in the detail of some of those changes there will be contention, contest or controversy. We have flagged likely concerns where we feel there is currently an original decision-making body that has independence, expertise or particular knowledge, and we do not want that lost to the appeals tribunal.
We can understand having an appeals tribunal, but the Liquor Commission is an example we and the Attorney-General have mentioned, where we are not convinced that losing that independence, expertise and experience will be a good thing. We are still waiting for that detail to come forward, even though that was flagged earlier this year.
We support this bill, and, as a result, support the conferral of jurisdiction, as we believe the tribunal can provide a simplified, more efficient and user-friendly system. As members, we can all know people who rail against bureaucracy, usually followed by a complaint about the futility of it all.
We want people to know they can participate and there is way for them to have their complaint heard, that there is an easy-to-use system. It is helpful if you have just one system. Instead of all the different acts and tribunals that can hear and do different things, we now have one body, an independent third party which will be easy for people to access and which can resolve complaints.
However, fair warning, the tribunal might not always side with you, but at least you can go there. People often want to know there is somewhere they can go, there is someone who will listen and they will have their case heard. Sometimes that is the greatest frustration. They want to have their case heard, and often they feel a decision is made and that is it. Sometimes they do not know why the decision was made. Through a process like this where a decision can be appealed, you will find out why something happened. The tribunal should offer those things.
As local members we often work with people who want to understand a decision of government, object to a decision of government or want a decision changed. Sometimes avenues already exist where we can recommend those people go through the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General or the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. Sometimes we can appeal an decision ourselves with the minister, through correspondence or conversations, debate in the House or letters. Sometimes these decisions are fought messily in the media. Sometimes we are talking about people who simply do not know how a decision was made, on what basis a decision or what information. They are frustrated because they feel they could have provided more detail, could have answered questions which would lead to a different decision but were not asked them, or know nothing beyond the decision.
Sometimes the issue is delay. We are all aware of the time it can take a government to make a decision. Internally, it may not feel like forever as a piece of paper bounces from in-tray to in-tray, but that could be someone’s life being held up, and it feels like forever to them. These are often Territorians who deserve better.
The administrative appeals body we have established in the Northern Territory can and should provide people with an opportunity to have their voices heard. These are people deserving of a better government. All parties can strive to be better. Part of our job in opposition is to learn to be a better government in the future. We currently have a government that does not listen and strive to be better. There are decisions of this government that should be appealable.
I want to revisit some of the issues the member for Nhulunbuy raised during the last sittings. We represent people who have issues with the CLP not replenishing the public housing stock, to use an example. It would rather sell it or demolish it for private use. We represent people who are concerned about a government which rezones community-purpose land in our suburbs for residential density. I should not use the royal ‘we’. I enjoyed the member for Nelson’s colourful description of this government as doing a Putin in the rural area. I am sure he represents people who want to appeal decisions of this government.
We represent people and stakeholders who believe the decision to allow open speed limits should be reviewable. When the police say open speed limits are dangerous, I listen, and they have said that repeatedly. The member for Nhulunbuy quoted this during the last sittings, but the President of the Police Association, Vince Kelly, who speaks for around 1400 police officers, said:
Yet right now on parts of the Stuart Highway you can drive as fast as you like.
There are decisions of this government which should be appealable. It is fitting that the government most in need of an appeals body introduces an appeals body. It is consistent that it is the lone wolf, the Attorney-General, who often seems to be running a different race to his colleagues in this Chamber, who has brought this reform to parliament.
In the bill we are debating we are seeing the abolition of the Health Professional Review Tribunal and the Pastoral Land Appeal Tribunal, with their jurisdictions being transferred to the new NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and the conferral of jurisdiction of decision-making of dispute resolution across a range of acts. The Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal Act will be repealed. The Residential Tenancies Act; the Caravan Parks Act; the Energy Pipelines Act; the Pastoral Land Act; the Petroleum Act; the Geothermal Energy Act, the Control of Roads Act, the Health Practitioner Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Act; the Health Practitioners Act; the Heritage Act; the Lands Acquisition Act; and the Mineral Titles Act will be amended. I am pretty sure I called all the acts there.
That is a significant body of work for one bill, and we will see similar bills come forward over future sittings. Several of our shadow ministers, who work with stakeholders who may be affected by these changes, will be commenting on this bill.
We support this bill, but, as flagged during our debate last sittings, we express some reservations about the detail that will come forward on how we manage our way through the conferral process.
I conclude by quoting the member for Nhulunbuy quoting me quoting the Attorney-General. In his policy statement on the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the Attorney-General said
As I said at the outset, the opposition supports this bill, we support the amendments that have been circulated for it, and we commend the bill to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was just thinking what we should have called this bill. The Very Appealing Tribunal Bill might have been good; it is all about appeals.
The member for Fannie Bay raised some good issues, because the right to appeal is a very important part of our democracy. I mentioned the Fencing Act previously. Common acts are used that require resolution – the Building Act. I am not so sure about the Caravans Park Act because by the time the CLP finished with that it was a bit of a limp bill, because I have not seen anyone appeal against it.
The Tenancies Act is stronger. Control of Roads Act, the Energy Pipelines Act, the Geothermal Energy Act, the Health Practitioner Regulation Act – obviously there will be people who use that. The Heritage Act is an important part of the Northern Territory’s basic culture, as sometimes decisions are made for or against keeping parts of the Northern Territory protected by the Heritage Act. The Land Acquisition Act – obviously there will be people who disagree with losing 20 m of their property for a new road. The Mineral Titles Act, the Pastoral Land Act, the Petroleum Act, the Planning Act – the Planning Act affects us all on a continual basis. I note again that it is difficult living in the rural area and in some cases not having the right to appeal. The minister would know already …
Mr Chandler: Come and live in the city.
Mr WOOD: No, I do not want to belong to the city; I want to belong to a well-planned rural and urban centre, minister. I apologise if I got a little carried away during Question Time, but I am not anti-development.
It is an opportune time to say a few things to the minister for Planning: Coolalinga North, Coolalinga South, Girraween subdivision, Girraween Goode Road subdivisions, Weddell, Herbert North, Herbert South, which is Benjamin Lagoon, Howard Springs – that is the one we were talking about today; I supported the rezoning of that land – Howard River Park, Townend Road, Whitestar subdivision at Acacia, Malady subdivision, and the list goes on – they are just some of the developments I supported, including Coolalinga, which is an urban development. It gets me a little riled when I hear people say I am anti-development, and I cannot appeal against you. All I can do is make a bit of noise. The problem I have is that rural people cannot appeal. One of the big issues that will be highlighted by the lack of rights rural people have is if the Lowther Road subdivision goes ahead. It is well under what is regarded as rural, but if people do not agree with a decision that goes against them they have no right of appeal.
If a similar development occurred in Leanyer or Port Darwin people could appeal against it. It is an area which is lacking in the Planning Act, and I hope the minister will be supportive of any changes which allow people in the rural area to be on an equal footing with people in urban areas when it comes to appeals.
Another classic example is the Radford Road development where Zuccoli meets the rural area. The original development plan in Zuccoli included a buffer between the suburbs and the rural area. That buffer has reduced to 1000 m2, with a few trees. The people on one side of the road, living in the Litchfield area, have no right of appeal, whereas if it happened wholly within the Palmerston area, residents of Palmerston could have appealed. That issue has been missed.
The Planning Act is one of the acts often used by people who do not agreed with a decision made by the Development Consent Authority, usually in the case of developers rather than third-parties.
If a developer does not agree with the conditions the Development Consent Authority has placed on them, they will appeal the decision. Under the existing Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal, that is the process followed by someone who does not agree with a Development Consent Authority decision. That will change with NTCAT.
One of the concerns I have is about making sure that if you are creating a single body, people with the right background, especially in planning law, the planning scheme and other decision-making areas are involved. You can have legal eagles, but you also need people who have some idea of what is in the land use objectives and other documents used when the Development Consent Authority makes a decision.
I hope none of that that capability is lost; I hope it is improved. There is only one person on the board of the present Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal, and I think it is a magistrate. Some years ago it was a magistrate who talked about shooting dogs. I think there was something on the front page of the NT News some years ago.
Mr Elferink: Yes, he has since retired.
Mr WOOD: He has since retired, but it raised the profile of that tribunal. Hopefully that does not happen, because you need to make sure NTCAT is something people have a lot of faith in and is seen to be independent and knowledgeable about the matters that come before it.
I have a question for the Attorney-General. On the end of the third page of your second reading speech, it talks about preserving the consequences for land administration in the Northern Territory that flow from the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cth) upon the repeal of the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal Act. Are there any issues with acts that may cross over between the Commonwealth and the Territory in relation to appeals tribunal, and how would that be handled? I am not really up on those issues, but I know we have acts that sometimes cross over between the Commonwealth and the Territory. Are there any issues that should be noted in relation to how NTCAT would work in those cases?
Like the member for Fannie Bay, I also support this motion. I know the member for Katherine will give the right speech at the right time; I also mixed up my explanatory notes, so it has been a little difficult looking at which piece of legislation we are dealing with.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of this historic bill brought before the Assembly by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice on behalf of the Northern Territory government.
As the Attorney-General so comprehensively outlined in his second reading speech for this bill, the significant benefits arising from the establishment of a civil and administrative tribunal are many. Firstly, it will provide the Northern Territory with a single body for citizens and business to use for the fair and independent resolution of disputes relating to administrative decisions, as well as the making of administrative decisions. Secondly, it will establish and execute common provisions for the commencement of actions, tribunal procedures and powers, making it a fairer and easier system for all who use it. Thirdly, establishment of the new tribunal will result in the abolition of many of the single decision-making and administrative review processes that currently exist under individual Northern Territory statutes. This will serve to reduce inconsistency in decision-making on administrative and civil matters, as well as remove the duplication of functions we currently have.
As the Attorney-General informed this House, the new legal framework for administrative decision-making and appeal will appropriately involve a stepped approach. This commences with an agency first conducting an internal review of its own decision. If this does not resolve the dispute, an external merit review of the decision will be undertaken by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal. If this, too, proves an unsatisfactory resolution for one or more of the parties involved, the tribunal is to conduct an internal review of the decisions made by its members. The final recourse a party or parties can have is to seek a review of the tribunal’s decision by the Supreme Court.
In my portfolio responsibilities as Minister for Mines and Energy, Land Resource Management, and Primary Industry and Fisheries, a new Civil and Administrative Tribunal will take responsibility for many pieces of legislation for which these departments are responsible. For Mines and Energy matters, it will replace the decision review mechanisms provided by the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal which are currently applied under a number of the Territory’s mining and energy statutes.
To accommodate the new Civil and Administrative Tribunal, amendments will need to be made to the Energy Pipelines Act, the Geothermal Energy Regulations, the Mineral Titles Act and the Mineral Titles Regulations, and the Petroleum Act. These changes, to be progressed as art of further bills approving the conferral of jurisdictional amendments, are to be brought before this Assembly by the Attorney-General. Altogether, it is expected that 117 acts will be amended as part of establishing the new administrative law reforms, which serves to highlight the significant body of work required to make this historic step a functioning reality.
With respect to the hearing of disputes for mining and energy-related issues, and, for that matter, any others relating to my broader portfolio responsibilities, I am pleased that under the proposed tribunal the president may determine the composition of the tribunal for particular matters or classes of matters, unless a relevant act specifies otherwise. This will allow those with an understanding and experience in a particular matter, field or industry to provide advice, as a member of the tribunal, to assist with the tribunal’s deliberation and resolution of such disputes. Of course, the president of the tribunal also has the capacity to refer a question of law to the Supreme Court for a decision.
The establishment of the new tribunal represents a key milestone in the Northern Territory maturing into a highly competent and increasingly attractive jurisdiction for doing business. This is especially important given this government’s strong focus and commitment to developing the Northern Territory into a world-class energy and mining resource provider. The establishment of a centralised civil and administrative tribunal that is fair and user-friendly characterises this government’s reform agenda, which includes a strong focus on increased efficiency and service delivery.
This also serves as yet another beacon to industry that we are ready and willing to put in place processes that assist those wanting to do business in the Northern Territory, which in turn helps to grow and modernise our economy. I trust that all honourable members understand the significant benefits that will be gained by establishing the Territory’s own Civil and Administrative Tribunal and, further, that they are mindful of the enormity of work put in by the Attorney-General and his department to have this bill before us today for debate.
A move to adopt a centralised administrative appeals tribunal will bring the Northern Territory into line with other Australian jurisdictions, and will cut red tape for Territorians and those wanting to do business in the Territory. Madam Speaker, I support this legislation.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
INAUGURAL SPEECH
Ms Moss – Member for Casuarina
Ms MOSS (Casuarina) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet today, the Larrakia people, and pay my respects to elders, both past and present.
I would also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to Gough Whitlam, whom we lost today. Gough Whitlam irrefutably shaped this country with his bold vision and commitment in areas such as education, health and land rights, and most of us can only dream to have the impact in the communities we work in that he has had.
I am a fiercely proud Territorian, and it is a deep honour and privilege for me to be standing here today as the elected member for Casuarina, a community that holds so many wonderful memories for me and my family. Understanding the weight of this, I look forward to working hard for the people of Casuarina and, in particular, getting into the community to continue to listen, represent and speak up for them.
Before Labor’s historic win in 2001, in a seat formerly held by the CLP since its inception, a big part of Labor’s breakthrough was the election of Kon Vatskalis. Kon Vatskalis has worked tirelessly in the electorate and for Territorians, alongside his electorate officer, Deb Rowland, and he is highly regarded in the community. I am humbled by the opportunity to build on his hard work and thank him from the bottom of my heart for his belief in me.
This is especially poignant for me. As a migrant, like many people in Casuarina and the Northern Territory, when I was a child my family took a huge leap and moved halfway across the world, as my grandad had done from India many decades before, in search of a better life for us, and we found it here. My mother and stepfather, teachers, found work in local schools, and my brother and I grew up amongst a diverse range of peers, and I am still constantly grateful for the beautiful multicultural community we have.
Giving back to this community is an important part of showing my gratitude, and over the years I have been a part of a number of groups and organisations, such as the now Chief Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians, the Australian Youth Forum, the Darwin Youth Organisations Network, Young Social Pioneers and the Headspace National Youth Reference Group.
Noting the lack of attention around a huge personal concern for young Territorians, I started Skin Deep, a group focused on body image and advocating for greater communication about eating disorders. I have worked professionally in roles and projects that I have helped to develop or establish, focused on health promotion and better outcomes for young people. These experiences led me to create my own businesses to enhance time spent on projects with social impact.
Of these things I am extremely proud, particularly standing here today as a young woman. The youth community in Darwin is vibrant, and as the youngest MLA in the history of Territory parliament, I hope to encourage many more young people to engage in this process and have more of a say in the decisions that impact on their lives.
Quite often young people are those who are most removed from our democratic system. There are thousands of young Territorians who are not on the role to vote, and I hope that representing and listening to them helps them to relate to what happens in this House.
However, it is equally important to note that I will be advocating for a community that is rich in its diversity. It has been life changing to hear what is important to the people of Casuarina, from families, seniors, first time voters and many more. I look forward to bringing a unique perspective to a very active team.
I am also a proud union member and thank union members profusely for their support during this campaign. There are a number of industries currently fighting for good conditions in which to continue to provide quality services for the people of the Territory, and they do enormously important work. Unions in the Northern Territory are not just about looking after the workers. Fighting against cuts to teacher numbers often means more than just protecting teachers; it is about protecting quality educational outcomes for our children. Fighting for greater work cover protection for firefighters means the people who protect us are also protected, and fighting to keep our assets in public hands means we can protect vital Territory services and protect workers.
During my campaign I was proud to release a safety plan for Casuarina with the Territory Labor team, which we will continue to refine with further feedback from the community. I was also pleased to hold mobile offices in the Casuarina Coastal Reserve and to engage with visitors from surrounding suburbs and beyond. We have a wonderful area of natural beauty right on our doorstep, and it is our obligation to local residents, now and into the future, to do what we can to preserve and maintain the existing reserve. I would like to thank the local Landcare group, which does an incredible job of helping to keep the reserve beautiful and sharing with others the importance of its flora and fauna.
The campaign also provided many opportunities for me to meet with local groups, including the Family Transitions Network and a local childcare group. The Family Transitions Network is concerned with post-school options for their young adults with disabilities, and I look forward to working with them further over my term. We were heartened to hear the commitment to the growth of the Henbury School in Casuarina, and I look forward to seeing its development over the next two years.
A message I received loud and clear is that the people of Casuarina love their community. We must, however, acknowledge that there are a number of people in our community who are disengaged from what happens in the NT parliament. I will continue to work hard to be as accessible as possible for the Casuarina constituents. Decisions on whether to stay in the Northern Territory, regardless of a love for and deep connection to this place, are being dictated by the growing costs of living. People are genuinely concerned about their children receiving quality education and their access to health services. Throughout my term I will continue to commit to advocate on these issues and I am proud to be part of the Territory Labor team. It is understandable that Territorians are concerned about whether they will be able to enter the housing market as renters and homeowners.
I also hope to keep mental health firmly on the agenda. I am proud to have represented a number of national organisations, working hard to progress and improve the way in which mental health services are delivered across the country. We still have a way to go to collectively reduce stigma, support health services and encourage help seeking, and I am confident that collectively this can be achieved.
I thank Delia Lawrie and the Territory Labor team for their incredible support, not only during my campaign, but in all of my endeavours. I am proud and humbled to be standing here as your parliamentary colleague. To my campaign team, especially campaign director, Kent Rowe, and Cameron Angus, who helped me through this new and exciting time. I am amazed by your knowledge, skills and commitment, and I am so grateful to you. I also extend my most sincere thanks to the campaign volunteers. I could not have done it without you. Your support helped propel me through, and I will be forever thankful for your efforts.
I attribute joining Territory Labor to the values instilled in me by my family, who have worked incredibly hard for their successes in life, and who are here today. My mother, Anita, put herself through university with two small children, juggling work to later become a teacher. She has taught in schools around the northern suburbs, and thanks to her I have an incredibly important sense of the value of education, a strong sense of self and doing what you can to make your community a better place. My stepfather, Barry, also a teacher, fulfilled his lifelong dream of becoming an author, and he has been an incredible role model and supporter of everything I have chosen to do in my life.
My father, Paul, and stepmother, Sue, provided me the great honour of being here in Darwin from the UK for my announcement as a candidate. It is a beautiful time to share this incredible place with them, and seeing Darwin through new eyes always reminds us we can be forever surprised by its beauty, and that of the Northern Territory.
To my brother, Brendan, I have so much respect for you, and I am amazed at your talent with people; your support has been wonderful. To my friends and colleagues, past and present, your love and encouragement makes me the person I am today. To my mentors who have reminded me of the importance of vulnerability and leading with heart, I hope to make you proud.
Finally, I thank my partner Jake. His love has always been unconditional, and he stands by my side day in day out in everything I put my mind to, and gets behind it 100%. He will always be the most important person on my team, and I could not be here without him. I look forward to embarking on this next chapter of my life with him.
To the people of Casuarina, thank you. I look forward to meeting more of you over coming months and representing you in this parliament.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Casuarina, for your maiden speech. I am sure it was the first of many speeches you will make in this parliament, and I am sure you will make your constituents proud, as you have your family. Congratulations.
NORTHERN TERRITORY CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (CONFERRAL OF JURISDICTION FOR NATIVE TITLE MATTERS) BILL (Serial 93)
NORTHERN TERRITORY CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (CONFERRAL OF JURISDICTION AMENDMENTS) (NO 2) BILL (SERIAL 92)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, the new member for Casuarina was fantastic.
We have enabling legislation before us to give effect to the new Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. It is a new tribunal intended to streamline and standardise the consideration and resolution of disputes with government and the review of decisions of agencies, statutory office holders and statutory bodies.
It also provides for disciplinary proceedings in a range of professions, vocations and occupations, for example, against registered health practitioners. As we heard in the previous debate, this reform has been a long time coming. It was the subject of two comprehensive reports of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee in 1991 and 2004. Only Tasmania is yet to implement similar reform arrangements.
We have supported the establishment of the new tribunal and do not oppose this enabling legislation to give responsibilities to the new tribunal. Indeed, it is very timely and will potentially be a very busy tribunal, given the record of this government’s two years in government, an ever-increasing disquiet with decisions of this government and its agencies. Civil administrative tribunals were established in Victoria, Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland in 2009, South Australia in 2013, and in New South Wales in 2014.
In the Northern Territory, the matter of review of administrative decisions and establishment of an administrative tribunal has been developing for some time. In 2013 an administrative law advisory group was established to consider the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee reports, and to advise on the issues associated with establishing a single tribunal.
Importantly, the tribunal will have both professional members – for example, the president has to be a magistrate – and appointed ordinary members, who we would like to be considered as community members. We trust that in determining membership of the tribunal the government will take that important responsibility to heart and do all it can to ensure members are seen to be independent and they reflect the broader interest of a community dispersed across the Northern Territory.
Importantly, the tribunal legislation provides opportunity for mediation as well as tribunal determination. It is our hope that these arrangements make it a tribunal that is user-friendly for ordinary Territorians, including those who do not have English as a first language.
We have supported the establishment of the new Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and look forward to its work, streamlining and standardising, as appropriate, the consideration of grievances and disputes with government and its agencies. Our concern is that in considering these changes the community can be assured they do not weaken opportunities for review of administrative decisions by ordinary citizens. My colleagues have spoken in this House about the importance of a competent, professional public service, and we look forward to public servants knowing this tribunal is developing, and of its important role in ensuring open and accountable government.
Territorians are wary of apparently partisan appointments to key positions, and a parade of planning and resource allocation decisions, including dubious land leasing deals and ground water allocations to mates, leaving many Territorians increasingly concerned about how pivotal government decisions are being made. As we have said in debate to establish the bill, all Territorians see from this government are decisions crying out for examination and review: a water extraction licence granted to a former CLP candidate for Lingiari, and former CLP member for Goyder, a recent director of Foundation 51, an entity to set up to attract undeclared donations, supporting work to bolster the electoral fortunes of the CLP.
In our last debate on the establishment of the new tribunal we heard the Attorney-General say:
The ballot box will provide a test of the public’s confidence in any minister and the way they have conducted business. In New South Wales we have seen an ICAC inquiry bring to the surface some grave breaches of ministerial and parliamentary conduct, leading to the resignation of a succession of members of the New South Wales Liberal Party.
Here in the NT we had the remarkable sight of the government endorsing most of the recommendations of the Stella Maris inquiry, except the most important: the establishment of an integrity commission. We have yet to see clear action from this government on the timing and appointment of the inquiry into political donations in the Northern Territory, an inquiry passed by motion of this parliament, catching the CLP asleep at the wheel in this Chamber.
The point is there is keen interest in the role of ministers and ministerial influence on decision-making in the Northern Territory, witnessed by questions about the role of ministers in regard to water allocations, as well as the delegation of powers to public servants. As mentioned in earlier debates, we continue to trust that the government will ensure the public and public servants will have access to clear advice and support in the working arrangements of the new legislation and the tribunal itself.
Increasingly we hear Territorians express concerns about planning issues: the rezoning of community-purpose land for medium-density housing in our suburbs and the rezoning of land zoned for conservation purposes to enable industrial development.
In Alice Springs there is robust debate about building height limits, with proposals to increase the height restrictions from the current five storeys to more than eight storeys being discussed behind closed doors. Central Australians are concerned there seems little opportunity for the community to have a say on the proposals that will have a dramatic impact on the visual and cultural appeal of Alice Springs.
Local people across the Territory have a passion about the need for developments that are sensitive to the landscape, heritage and iconic Territory feel of our towns and cities, including our open spaces. Central Australians who have been around for long enough have long memories. Speak to any long-term Centralian and they will tell you about the fight they had to preserve the old Alice Springs Gaol from the bulldozers of the previous CLP administration. The CLP is infamous for allowing the demolition teams in under the cover of darkness – think about the Hotel Darwin and the iconic Turner House in Alice Springs, both lost to the midnight dozers of the CLP.
Expressions of community concern about planning decisions are increasing in volume and temper as more and more Territorians react to this government’s agenda to cut red tape and change a long-standing planning decision to fast-track urban development. They are aware of increasing disquiet in the rural area in reaction to this government’s planning decisions which directly affect the lifestyle choices and, in some cases, the value of family investment in the rural area.
The member for Nelson highlighted in debate on the establishment of the tribunal how it could address a current inequity where a planning decision can be referred to mediation, including the party objecting. Previously the relevant department could have a role in mediation, but not an objector. That is a timely change.
It is also good that an important feature of the new tribunal is the requirement for it to give reasons in writing for its decisions within 28 days of the hearing of the proceedings. Importantly, the decisions of the tribunal may be appealed to the Northern Territory Supreme Court on questions of law. I am sure many Territorians will seek the opportunity to have decisions reviewed and for more transparency in the events leading to planning decisions and the role of decision-makers.
This legislation also makes arrangements for the new tribunal to hear matters relating to the Lands Acquisition Act and Lands Acquisition Regulations. We recently heard the CLP government has even considered compulsory acquisition of Aboriginal freehold land, so it seems that compulsory acquisition of land is definitely on the government’s agenda.
Similarly, the Planning Act and the Planning Regulations are being amended for the new tribunal to hear and determine appeals against decisions by the Development Consent Authority. This is another potentially substantial body of work for the new tribunal as community concern builds over DCA processes and decisions under the CLP government and the minister crowing to his colleagues about the streamlining and fast-tracking of development projects. These are works that can radically alter the character of our communities which we will have to live with for a very long time.
I also note that the transitional arrangements embodied in this bill also refer any review of administrative decisions under the Heritage Act to the new tribunal. It is likely that the review of decisions under the Heritage Act only occurs from time to time, but when they do they can be important. Our heritage is often vulnerable and once lost it is lost. I am thinking of reviews of decisions relating to heritage conservation applications or development applications impacting on heritage values, whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous, all part of our wonderful history, including burial places, and whether fixed heritage such as buildings or movable heritage items.
We enjoy a wonderful heritage in the Northern Territory, and it is important that it is valued and proper consideration is given of its value to us as a community and its long-term security. Right now we are seeing unnecessary controversy and disputation about changes to zoning potentially affecting a known burial place near Totem Road in Darwin, rezoning that will allow construction of a light industrial area in an area previously zoned for conservation purposes. There seems to be unseemly haste occurring with some deep community concern and heritage protection applications unresolved.
This might be an example of a type of heritage dispute that could come to this new tribunal. I urge that in developing membership of the tribunal the government ensures it includes skills such as a sound understanding of our heritage and an opportunity for expert independent advice to ensure sound consideration of the issues by the tribunal where there is remediation or determination. Needless to say, that should also include capacity for the use of Indigenous and other language translations to ensure appropriate understanding and consideration of cross-cultural issues by all the parties.
I turn briefly to the second bill being considered, conferring jurisdiction, as far as Northern Territory law allows, to the Northern Territory Civil Administration Tribunal on native title matters.
This repeals the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal Act, thereby abolishing the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal Act that has previously had a role in these matters.
We note that an application of this jurisdiction in native title matters is determined by the Commonwealth Native Title Act and provides for the tribunal to be the independent body mentioned in the Native Title Act that may hear and make recommendations about objections and the determination of compensation under the act.
Again we say that native title matters are of great importance to many Territorians and are a fact of doing business in the Northern Territory. How we deal with native title issues can be taken as a measure of our maturity and our approach to land and economic development with native title claimants, native title holders and the respective bodies. Our fear is of the damage that might be done to the Territory by the bloody-mindedness of CLP decision making in respect of native title. Let us not forget it was our current Chief Minister who told the national press last year that he wants to get rid of native title implications which he says have stopped development.
Perhaps as time goes on he is learning more about the application of the Native Title Act, most recently saying he wants more funding from Canberra to facilitate a native title agreement in relation to Ord Stage 3. Instead of chest thumping about native title, the Chief Minister might be better advised to take an approach more in line with respectful business practice in working with citizens with property rights.
Just yesterday Senator Barnaby Joyce released his white paper on agriculture competitiveness that advocates a sounder approach, acknowledging native title groups, traditional owners, Indigenous landowners and Indigenous communities as essential partners in the development of agriculture, echoing the same conclusion of Australian government work on the develop the north agenda, that we should respect native title rights, work in partnership with native title claimants and title holders and work to cooperatively improve the efficiency of the native title process, not attack hard fought for recognition of property rights.
We look forward to the tribunal working independently and diligently in this important area should issues relating to compensation come about. We do not oppose this legislation proceeding and I look forward to the tribunal conducting its work diligently and fairly on behalf of all Territorians, especially those Territorians aggrieved by government decision-making.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, these bills are yet another step in providing the Northern Territory Civil Administrative Tribunal with its initial jurisdiction.
I commend the work done by the Attorney-General in this area. We are about reducing red tape. We looked at various issues when we came into government, and apart from the massive debt we inherited, there was an awful lot of red tape. We decided we needed to fix that so it was simpler for people to understand the requirements of the law, and to make it less costly for people to do business and go through a range of systems. In this instance the appeals processes extend over 35 commissions, tribunals, bodies and other parts of the institution.
It costs a lot of money to run those things, but before I talk about some of the financial issues I will take up a couple of points made by members opposite.
Firstly, the member for Johnston mentioned the Hotel Darwin. I recall very well the debates that went on in, I think, 1999, when the Hotel Darwin, sadly, was demolished. I received briefings then from various people. I do not know whether the opposition would classify them as experts, but there were reports about the concrete cancer that affected the Hotel Darwin. I do not know if the member for Johnston knows this or whether it was part his research before speaking in the House, but the estimated bill to remove sections of the Hotel Darwin and restructure it due to the concrete cancer would have been more than rebuilding it.
I understand why the member for Johnston says those things, because his side do not seem to worry about the bill, and nor did they when they were in government. They did not worry about the bills; they just kept spending money and putting more on the credit card. The cost of restructuring the Hotel Darwin would probably not come into his field of thought. It is terrific if we have great buildings around, but if you wanted to rebuild the Hotel Darwin in its then shape and form it would have costed you X number of dollars, and to repair it would have costed more. I do not know what part of economics the member for Johnston does not understand, but if he did his research and looked at the cost, then perhaps he would know better.
That is just one point. The member for Johnston also said – I wrote down his comments, but I am happy to stand corrected – ‘I am sure NT citizens will look forward to being able to have decisions looked at’. That currently happens, and is carried out across 30 or more different appeals, tribunals, etcetera. I do not know what part of the current legislation the member for Johnston does not understand, but nothing is changing.
It is very important for all members, especially the member for Johnston, to note that the changes proposed in these bills do not create new appeals rights. They simply aggregate them into one tribunal. I understand there are a number of acts – about 117 from memory – that need to be amended to take account of NTCAT. Likewise, the bill transfers a range of appeals provisions into NTCAT’s jurisdiction. Having one organisation to do this, as opposed to 35, has to provide a cost saving. When you come into government and you are looking down the barrel of a $5.5bn debt, it forces you to consider what you will do. It is like an animal that is out of control. The debt is going up, and incoming governments must look at what they can do.
If you look at the last few years of the previous ALP government on this graph, you can see the debt levels. Around 2011 it starts to rise rapidly, and continues through to the 2012 election. This is spending the previous government committed to. When we came into government we had to look at getting rid of that debt and red tape. Given that is the case and we cannot change it – that is what we inherited – one must look for the silver lining. What silver lining is there in a massive debt we have inherited? It causes you to look at how you can reduce debt. It makes you think outside the square. You go to the public service and your colleagues, you have wing meetings and Cabinet meetings and say, ‘We are facing an horrendous problem. How are we going to fix it?’ We have to say to those in charge of spending in the public service, ‘How do we save money? How do we keep the services and reduce the spending?’
My understanding is we found a considerable amount of waste we were able to pare back. We found efficiencies, and that is what this is about; it is part of the efficiencies of government. In any economic argument, the idea of good economics is finding an efficient and effective way to deliver a service better. We have found a very efficient and effective way to run the appeals process.
A number of people on the other side seem to be a little misguided. I am sure the Attorney-General will correct some of those inaccuracies when he replies to the debate today. I quote from the member for Fannie Bay’s contribution to this debate:
The only way we will get this $5.5bn projected debt down is to become better at what we do. We have to find more interesting ways, while still trying to maintain economic growth in the Territory and trying to provide more land and housing options, more options in how government does its business, and more options for business to do business, because without business there is no tax. I am no expert, but I have Economics 101, and I do not know what part of economics the opposition does not understand about how you generate wealth?
In William J Bernstein’s book …
Mr Elferink: The Birth of Plenty by Bernstein.
Mr STYLES: You know the book. We on this side have read it. It is a fabulous book. There are a number of things William Bernstein says in his book. He has looked right across the world. The book’s title is The Birth of Plenty: How the Prosperity of the Modern World Was Created. There are four major points in the book that are very relevant. These are the four things you must have in any community, town, city, state, country – in fact, anywhere in the world. He has looked at every community in every country across the world, and those which have been successful and those which have not, and at what is constant.
The first point is that they must have personal property rights. That is always a good thing. The English were the first to have the best property rights. The Northern Territory needs people. We need Aboriginal people to have personal property rights, otherwise they are not going anywhere. You need intellectual property rights. We are going a long way down the track for all people in the Northern Territory, including Aboriginal people, in relation to intellectual property rights of their art, inventions, bush tucker and whatever else. The third point is access to cheap capital. Many of these organisations get access to cheap capital. The fourth point is an efficient and effective transport system. Efficiency and effectiveness are the prime things in generating wealth.
Obviously there are many things that happen, such as Aboriginal land rights. There is a range of things that are appealable, so when decisions are made by courts, etcetera, you can appeal. When we look at what is appealable in relation to things that happen in our community, I quote the member for Fannie Bay:
He also said:
You must have economic development. If someone says there is a fantastic economic development opportunity and it is in the public interest, we look at it.
Another quote from the member for Fannie Bay:
It is. In this House is where it is reviewable.
He also said Vince Kelly speaks for 1400 police officers. All due respect to Vince Kelly, who is a friend of mine, but he does not speak for every one of them. He has a particular view, but there are numerous police officers I know who say it is a great idea because there are people – you want to look close to home – who exceed the speed limit. I have said in the House before, when driving from Alice Springs to Tennant Creek when the speed limit was 130 km/h, I set the cruise control and off I went. Families in Toyota LandCruisers and Holden station wagons passed me. They were not doing 250 km/h, but they were doing a speed which suited them, their capacity, the time of day, the weather conditions and whether they were in a good or bad car.
The other thing I noticed was people driving older cars doing the same speed. When I have spoken to police officers in the bush they say many people are still doing exactly the same speed they did before, but others are moving a little faster. People driving from Tennant Creek to Alice Springs can leave in the afternoon and be there before dusk.
It is interesting that you made those statements in this debate, which is why I am responding to them. People have a choice. Sadly, when you look at what is going on in road safety around the Territory at the moment, the majority of people are being killed in built-up areas and it is seat belts and if it is speed …
Mr Gunner: Release the five reports, Pete.
Mr STYLES: They are not reports, they are audits and assessments. This is where you get it wrong all the time. These things are still going on, still being assessed, and when we find things that need to be changed, like speed limits around roadhouses or issues like that, we will change them. That is where you get it wrong.
Let us look at some of the other reasons we aggregate appeals into one tribunal. There is a number of consequential amendments to a range of legislation: the Building Act; the Building (Resolution of Residential Building Work Disputes) Regulations; Control of Roads Act; Energy Pipelines Act; Geothermal Energy Regulations; Heritage Act; Lands Acquisition Act; Lands Acquisition Regulations; Mineral Titles Act and Mineral Titles Regulations, Pastoral Land Act, Pastoral Land Regulations; Petroleum Act; Planning Act and Planning Regulations, and the list goes on. Various acts and regulations need to be changed and we need to drive efficiencies in dealing with appeals under them.
There are over 35 commissions, tribunals, committees and boards which have the power to make original decisions or hear appeals, and review, uphold or overturn original decisions. What they do not do is change legislation or debate the policy of the government or the opposition.
Additionally, the Supreme Court and Local Courts have specific appellant powers under at least a further 54 acts. This is where we get numerous inefficiencies in the way we deal with these matters. I am told that there about 251 pieces of Territory legislation that will need to be reviewed to establish the need for consequential amendments to legislation and to give effect to the function of the tribunal in respect to the original and reviewed jurisdictions.
I close with a few words on the red tape this government has come across. We have a small committee for reducing red tape, and that committee is working overtime to deconstruct some of the impediments to government doing business. Government needs to operate far more efficiently if we are to reduce the amount of debt we inherited. I am very supportive of anything in the government can do in this area, because I have my children and grandchildren living here, and this is their future.
I did not appreciate, when I came into this government, the level of debt we inherited. I looked at this graph which shows the Northern Territory non-financial public sector net debt, and thought it was awful. I realised this is my kids’ future; my children will have to pay this off. Then I got another graph and I looked at the federal government net debt. Here we are with my favourite subject: pyramids. The opposition was great at building stuff, but it did not build too many houses. In its last year of government it wanted to turn off about 2000-plus house blocks. I am very happy for the opposition to correct me, but I think it was about 520 it turned off, which was about a quarter of what was required, and they wonder why we got soaring house prices, etcetera.
There was no choice for young people. The Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment is now saying that in Palmerston you can buy a block anywhere between $160 000 and $380 000 depending on the size of the block you want. That is something this government has introduced. It is about choice and young people have a choice. Who did that? The Country Liberals government did that.
Now back to the debt. After I looked at the debt we were left by the ALP government under the direction and treasureship of the member for Karama, I then looked at the national debt, and my heart goes out to those in the Coalition government in relation to how they will deal with it. The federal Labor Party want to keep the whole thing going, keep winding the wheel, keep it all churning away, and they just increased the federal government debt to $667bn.
I was somewhere recently where they said a billion seconds ago it was 1957, a billion minutes ago Jesus Christ walked the earth and a billion years ago no one was walking on two legs. That is just minutes, seconds and hours, but that means that a billion is a big number. It is a huge amount of $100 bills.
Taxpayers in this country have $667bn owing to other countries, banks and other places. How will we do that? Well if you listen to Labor you just keep spending. I remember something the member for Karama said as Treasurer when we were in opposition. I am happy to stand corrected, but I think she said, ‘We are going to spend our way out of trouble’.
My mother would roll over in her grave if she knew that, because mothers taught most of us in this room basic economics. You can borrow for certain things, but you cannot borrow to pay wages, go to the movies or for some of the luxuries in life.
When we took over government there were 94 unfunded positions in the children and family services area which were not even budgeted for. We borrowed on the MasterCard.
A member: 199.
Mr STYLES: It was 199. There were 199 positions not budgeted for, and we wonder why we have this huge debt level. It is because the previous government was not responsible. If members opposite want to – I am happy to listen to anything they have to add to this – say they are very proud of the $5.5bn debt, which continues to rise – it is borrowed money that someone, sometime, somewhere has to pay back.
I am very happy for them to have a go at me for what I am saying, and I am also very happy to have the debate on the pyramids of debt we have, courtesy of federal Labor and the six-year Rudd-Gillard era.
When we talk about efficiencies in government, which is what we are doing with these bills, we can look at the Howard-Costello era. The debt is going down on the right hand side of the pyramid, and it goes underground. We are digging holes in the ground. On the graph, we can see the hole in the ground because that is where $45bn – billion is a big number so we need a big hole in the ground – in cash was left that we gave to Rudd and Gillard. In six years, they dug up all the money; I do not know whether they filled the hole in.
In 2007-08, Rudd-Gillard took over, and they had $45bn in the bank with zero debt. Today we are looking down the barrel of $667bn in debt. Remember a billion seconds ago it was 1957; a billion minutes ago Jesus Christ walked the Earth; that is how big that number is; it is enormous. I am disgusted with the way the previous government left the finances of the Northern Territory.
Fortunately a fiscally responsible government came to power. I listened to the Chief Minister this morning in Question Time talking about economic development and finding efficiencies, which this legislation is designed to do. I look at other efficiencies, including those in our communities. I look at the opportunities for Aboriginal people to get involved in economic development. I heard the questions to the Chief Minister this morning, one after the other, with the Chief Minister doing an excellent job of firing straight back and saying, ‘This is what we are doing; what did you do, except run up the debt?’ They did not do very much at all.
They say they did this and that, but I challenge them to tell me what they did, apart from rack up a lot of debt. What economic development did you do on the Tiwi Islands, in Borroloola or in Kalkarindji? I sat in opposition for four years, watching what the government did, which was not much at all.
There was a lot of talk and a lot of nothing. There is talk over here, but the difference is that we back it up with action. We have action plans, and you see the action plans every time.
The member for Greatorex talked about the Masters Games. The numbers were up on last year; look at the input. I listened to the interjections of those opposite saying, ‘What about the Arafura Games?’ My challenge to you …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We have the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill before the House. I call Standing Order 67: digression from subject. I appreciate there is a certain degree of latitude, but if you could ask the minister to come back to the bill before the House.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order; whilst I appreciate the member’s concern the minister is covering issues raised by members’ opposite. If digression were to be ruled against in this instance, she should have been calling the point of order on her own members.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, you have the call with regard to the statement and legislation.
Mr STYLES: Thank you for raising that, member for Nhulunbuy. It is very good you point that out. Thank you, member for Port Darwin, who rightfully pointed out that the member for Fannie Bay digressed severely in relation to a range of issues, such as 1400 police officers talking about speeding. I do not know what that has to do with it.
What I am talking about, member for Nhulunbuy and those opposite, is efficiencies. I want this bill to get through, and I want to be able to say to members that these are the types of efficiencies you need. This is why we do things. This is why we are doing this. I can stand here and say, ‘This is a great bill. I want you to support it’, and sit down again. But it is important we give our reasons why we support this solidly: because we support so many things in relation to getting rid of red tape and making government more efficient and accountable for the dollars taxpayers give us to spend wisely.
I will continue in relation to how efficiencies have been created by this side of the House. I was at a meeting with the member for Blain yesterday. He was enlightening this side of the House as to the efficiencies he is bringing in as the Parliamentary Secretary for Business, with reforms to get rid of red tape. We talk about efficiencies on our side. I do not know what you did when you were in government, but we on our side talk about this. We kick it around and have a great time discussing this and that. We do not always agree. The Attorney-General went away and said, ‘We will do a bit of this and a bit of that’. We asked him to come back and give us a bit more information. We discuss many things about getting rid of red tape, just like this legislation that is now before the House.
We want to get rid of red tape. How do we do that? How do we do it in Aboriginal communities? There is an enormous amount of red tape to get through to do things there. We discuss that. Some of the appeals work has been done in this bill.
You have to work out what it is you want to achieve, so discussion has to ensue. As part of that discussion, a range of subjects are discussed by every member on our side.
I hope you, on your side, do exactly the same. Sadly, we do not see a very great contribution to the debate. Obviously we have listened to members on your side talk about these bills. You have made a contribution. I do not know whether I would consider it to be the greatest contribution. Do you spend much time discussing it? Do you get ideas and kick them around a lot, or are they put in front of you and you go along with it?
On our side we are seriously trying to reduce the red tape and the debt of the Northern Territory. We find that every time we turn around, the other side has an issue with it. You want economic development. There is one way to get out of the debt-to-income ratio of about 98% we inherited. We can cut services to the bone, and we have not done that. You obviously have to find efficiencies and pull your belt in. The other way you can do it if you want to halve your debt to income ratio, is to double your income. Cutting red tape is one way to do it. This legislation we have before us is about reducing red tape, but that will not pay off $5.5bn worth of projected debt. You have to change the things you do.
We are changing what we do with this legislation. We are also changing the way we do business. That is about generating business. I note in this bill there are Aboriginal appeals in various acts. What did we do? We went to see the federal government. Fortunately, we have a rational federal government in power in Canberra which can hopefully make some decent decisions, albeit the Labor Party, which the opposition is part of, is dead set opposed to cost-cutting measures. It just wants it to keep going. Fortunately, on this side, we can put some of those things in place. This legislation before the House today is part of that. It is about reducing red tape, reducing government spend on it, and paying back debt so we can get the Territory going again. When we get those dollars, we can either retire debt or create economic activity. We have two choices. Fortunately on our side there are discussions about both.
I will not discuss them in this House today, it is not appropriate; however, there are some serious considerations on our side about how to generate wealth in the Northern Territory, as opposed to consuming it. The opposition is very good at consuming wealth and running up debt. Maggie Thatcher said socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money to spend. Sadly, they came very close to running out of other people’s money to spend; they kept spending it. It was the same in Canberra.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Attorney-General for this legislation. There will be significant savings and efficiencies. We will not lose anything like what the opposition is espousing. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I will briefly digress to the challenge from the member for Sanderson, who is consistently careless with the use of ‘projected’. Sometimes it is in the rhetoric, sometimes it is out. ‘Projected’ means that both sides of this House had a plan. It is good to see the media is finally reporting that, after a mini-budget and two Territory budgets, the CLP should start to focus on its own economic management. The media is finally articulating to the public that the CLP, after two years, is continuing with the blame game, because that is all it has, and its own economic management is under scrutiny. That relates to that rapid, rampant increase in the cost of living and giving this new approach to the cash register type cash grab.
I digressed to the challenge of the ultimate barbecue stopper delivered by the member for Sanderson, but let us get back to the bills. I thank the minister for the opportunity to debate them in this House. I also thank the members for Fannie Bay and Johnston, the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Caucus team, who facilitated the healthy debate around these bills and the process. It is good to work in a team that gathers in a room and shares a healthy, robust democratic process of debate, then formulates a position to bring to this House. The opposition supports these bills and this process. It is a pleasure to participate in that team network, because unfortunately I cannot be in Darwin all the time and receive the traditional briefing. I acknowledge colleagues and the Leader of the Opposition for supporting that research, the knowledge and the debate for me.
Since this was introduced at the last sittings I have been very busy on the road in the electorates of Stuart, Namatjira and Barkly, with visits to Greatorex and Braitling, which has been very interesting. Being a bush member on the road in a Toyota with no access to charter aircraft, I get to talk to many people but unfortunately cannot be in Darwin to participate in the traditional briefing process. It is a good time for me, on behalf of many regional and remote residents, to participate in this debate. No doubt the minister will share his ideas in response to some of my questions.
The opposition previously indicated in-principle support for a civil and administrative tribunal. It goes without saying that the tribunal must be adequately resourced to ensure there will be no unreasonable delays in the hearing and determination of appeals. Looking at the second reading speech and through the Labor Caucus debate, in the areas I am responsible to research, I can see this will relate directly to the Energy Pipelines Act, the Geothermal Energy Act and Geothermal Energy Regulations, the Mineral Titles Act and Minerals Title Regulations, and the Petroleum Act. These are areas of incredible work and development within the Northern Territory, not only now but in the future.
I see that this directly relates to the possibility for a massive workload for this new civil and administrative tribunal. The land access issues will be the first ones to emerge in the new caseload of the tribunal, because in regional and remote areas there is already an incredible dialogue and conversation going on about those areas: petrochemicals; minerals; resources; and the exploration programs that will translate into production. There will be a lot of work in this area, and it is important that the tribunal be adequately resourced to be able to deal with it. I am also interested in where the 120 appeals to rating of pastoral lands sits now and if it will become an immediate job lot of the new administrative tribunal – the appeals raised by the pastoral sector under the Local Government Act and the rating of pastoral properties. That is an incredible body of work that probably will be first in the door of the tribunal. I am interested to hear the minister’s comments on that.
That area of the Northern Territory, ironically, relates now to a new process in democracy and administrative appeals. They are going side by side, so once again the opposition reiterates the point that resourcing will be critical in what will be a very busy area, and I have given a few points around that.
It is important that there is no diminution of the rights of appellants under the new arrangements, and the opposition requests assurance from the Attorney-General that will be the case. We have debated that already, but it is a point I have to raise on behalf of constituents. In relation to the Pastoral Lands Act and the Pastoral Lands Regulations, I will quote from the minister’s second reading speech:
That makes sense; that is the process. The speech goes on:
A recent case, over seven years, was the campaign against Muckaty Station being nominated as the site of Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste management facility. Having stood shoulder to shoulder and worked through this case for seven years, I challenged the member for Katherine, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, and Land Resources, in debate when the Pastoral Land Act was being amended. I asked if these new changes on pastoral lands would allow a nuclear waste dump. It was a very short response, and very guarded. It is in Hansard, ‘No, member for Barkly, you do not have to worry about that’.
The minister then stood today and talked about the bills, and his contribution to debate mentioned that he is very happy to see that the new Civil and Administrative Tribunal will serve to reduce inconsistency in decision-making. We already have the Chief Minister, the member for Greatorex and the member for Araluen supporting a nuclear waste dump in Central Australia. The first market they are looking at is pastoral properties. We are not quite sure because it is very secretive when you do business with the CLP, but there are pastoral properties being reported in the media as being very interested in locating and building Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste management facility on their land. The minister’s statement today says this will serve to reduce inconsistencies. We have a minister who assures me, as the member for Barkly, that under the changes to the Pastoral Land Act there will be no nuclear waste dumps on pastoral properties, and now we have a Chief Minister openly hawking Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste dump on pastoral properties.
The people of Greatorex are very interested in this, as are the people of Braitling and Araluen, because as Alice Springs residents they know this is in their pocket now, that the ball has been kicked south, and it will be located within up to 50 km of Alice Springs if that site becomes a real and live nomination. Many pastoralists from the Tanami area are also talking. I am a little confused with this inconsistency, when it has been preached that this will help to reduce it.
It would be nice to know what will happen if the neighbours of a pastoral property that might emerge under the Chief Minister’s hawking process want to appeal Australia’s first nuclear waste dump being set up next door to them. It may interest the minister to know that one of the early forums I conducted in public education and awareness on the nuclear waste management facility issue was on the banks of Morphett Creek. More pastoralists than traditional owners turned up to that forum, to inquire and register their complete dissatisfaction with any process that will locate nuclear waste on pastoral property with no consultation, no scientific basis and no environmental protection. They were very vocal that morning, and I remember that as a very productive meeting.
The next stage was that we needed to take this to the Federal Court to win our case and bring some sanity back into the debate. The member for Katherine mentioned in his contribution to the debate that if the administrative tribunal does not successfully resolve an issue, it can go to the Supreme Court.
I would like to hear the minister’s comment on that. After being assured by the minister in previous debate about not accepting nuclear waste dumps on pastoral land, should the Chief Minister be successful in hawking Australia’s first nuclear waste dump on the pastoral sector and a plan is developed to build on pastoral land, and should the neighbours unite and go through the administrative tribunal process with no real resolution to their concerns, will it go to the Supreme Court? I am sure the Attorney-General, a lawyer by trade, will be able to explain that, through me, to the people of the Barkly and the wider community across the Northern Territory, which is still extremely concerned about this process rattling around in the hands of politicians with no understanding of the science or environmental implications, and who have a cash register mentality.
It seems to me that members on the other side, including those in Palmerston, the members for Drysdale, Blain and Brennan, are quite happy for this process to start in their electorates, with waste transported through the port and the beautiful city of Palmerston as it rattles towards the electorate of Goyder. The member for Nelson has said everything in this debate except where he will nominate a laundry-size site in Howard Springs for the world’s nuclear waste. Then it goes through the electorate of Stuart and Barkly on its way to Central Australia to be located on pastoral land.
I am articulating many questions that are coming from the electorate. I am only the spokesperson. Constituents of the Northern Territory are asking these questions. That is why I am on my feet asking on behalf of those constituents from Alice Springs, right up through the Northern Territory.
I am sure the minister, when he wraps this debate, will assure the constituents that should Australia’s first nuclear waste dump be located on pastoral lands under the CLP, the administrative tribunal will be able to deal with any objections. Then, if that does not achieve a resolution, a Supreme Court challenge can be mounted.
That is the fail-safe the traditional owners opposed to the dump site on Muckaty Station had to go through to bring this debate back to a sane level where we are requesting that there be an independent commission set up federally to start to manage this issue on behalf of all Australians – a very simple request, a very simple process. This would sit outside the minister’s new Civil and Administrative Tribunal, represent all Australians, and rationalise the debate. That is one of the major success stories from the Muckaty campaign.
It is very disappointing, as I continue to travel the Northern Territory’s length and breadth, to be asked questions as to why the CLP government is continuing to play politics in this space. I will do my best to raise this in the House whenever I get the chance. That is a fair question, and I expect from this minister a fair answer.
The member for Katherine also mentioned in his speech that this tribunal represents the benefits for doing business in the Northern Territory, for cutting red tape. I am a little concerned when that becomes the objective. When we are dealing with caravan parks, yes, we can manage that. When we are dealing with residential tenancies, we can manage that. When we are dealing with disputes over fences and boundaries, we can manage that. But when we are dealing with Australia’s first purpose-built facility that could take the world’s nuclear waste – because we know that is where the money is, that is the cash register mentality and this is all about getting a footprint on the Northern Territory that can then be processed through the bigger picture of accepting the world’s nuclear waste – maybe this Civil and Administrative Tribunal better stand aside and we instead use a bipartisan approach to get an independent commission from the Commonwealth to make sure our kids and grandkids, and our environment, are protected.
Minister, thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this legislation on. The conferral legislation is another sign of us removing red tape in the Northern Territory and seeking to save on expenditure on tribunals and other analysis bodies which are, no doubt, providing a good model of reference. We have an opportunity to provide much saving on expenditure for a number of processes.
In the red tape reduction process the government has been rolling out, I can think of more than 30 changes we have made to reduce red tape in seeking to provide more seamless processes within the Northern Territory for consumers to conduct their business, and for businesses to conduct their business on an ongoing, regular basis.
It is interesting to see that this week’s CommSec State of the States report provides analysis of the performance of each jurisdiction across eight lines of business. The Northern Territory is now leading in five of the eight areas of business: economic growth; construction activity; retail sales figures; low levels of unemployment; and the purchase of industrial construction equipment. That is a sign the Northern Territory economy is moving further and further ahead, and the conferral legislation reducing red tape is another element of support in the direction we are taking business in the Territory.
I am looking forward to the TAFR in the near future. I am looking forward to a good chat with Moody’s about the performance of the Territory government in driving down expenditure, driving down the $5.5bn Labor debt, reducing our infrastructure payments and making sure we have an environment where people want to invest and grow into the future. That is part of our north Australia development strategy, part of our strategy on building infrastructure going forward. It is also part of our strategy to look at how we operate some of our major assets in the Northern Territory, including TIO and the Darwin port, and identify what business the government should be in, what models of operation we should be in, and how best they should be structured in a model to reduce red tape and provide for greater business integrity. Also, should we have the opportunity of realising the value of those Territory-owned assets, how we reinvest those into the Territory. Certainly, the best option to move forward is to invest that in infrastructure.
From an economic point of view, we would all like to see it invested in economic infrastructure, but we also want to see a balance with community infrastructure. That is why we created a website yesterday asking for Territorians to suggest, should we realise the value of TIO and the port, what that should be spent on. We are already receiving amazing information and ideas, not least the idea – which was my idea but has been affirmed many a time – about rectifying some of the sewer and stormwater issues in Rapid Creek. If we can realise the asset value of something like TIO and put it back into rectification works in Rapid Creek, it has a positive effect on constituents within that area and will ultimately reduce the impact of insurance premiums and policy payouts going forward. I am surprised the member for Johnston does not want to see proceeds of the sale of TIO going to Rapid Creek. I find it interesting he is not standing up for the people there. There is a range of other initiatives we are looking towards in that area.
It is interesting to hear the dog-whistling debate in the Chamber today. Some of the comments from the member for Johnston are not only wrong, they are blatant lies. The idea of someone advocating for height limits above eight storeys in Alice Springs is a flat lie from the member for Johnston, as are many of his other comments. I think he said I wanted to get rid of native title. That is far from the truth and another lie from the member for Johnston. He needs to be careful when lying in parliament on a regular basis because he will be caught out. It is bad politics and will reach a point where we call him out on those lies.
It is like the member for Barkly talking about nuclear waste and lying in the Chamber. The member for Barkly frequently lies, publicly and privately, and we saw him do that today in regard to the nuclear waste debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, please withdraw that.
Mr GILES: I withdraw.
To hear the member for Barkly tell mistruths about nuclear waste in the Territory and the advocacy of pastoral properties – it is nothing more than a blatant lie in anyone’s eyes. If he educated himself on the process he would find that Aboriginal traditional owners in his seat of Barkly want the nuclear waste in the seat of Barkly. I am frequently informed of that. If he was truthful he would say that nuclear waste in the Northern Territory is currently stored in our five hospitals. He would start looking at where nuclear waste is stored right now and would realise the electorate which has had the most recent by-election – on 18 October this year – the seat of Casuarina, holds Royal Darwin Hospital, the biggest repository of nuclear waste in the Northern Territory, much like the Tennant Creek Hospital in the member for Barkly’s electorate, which also holds nuclear waste, as do Katherine Hospital, Alice Springs Hospital and Gove hospital. They are the biggest repositories of nuclear waste in the Northern Territory. Far be it for me to get in the way of having a public debate about whether or not there should be nuclear waste stored in the northern suburbs of Darwin. I do not believe there should be.
We should be able to have a mature conversation about where we should be storing nuclear waste and identifying an appropriate repository. I do not believe nuclear waste should be stored at Casuarina; I do not believe nuclear waste should be stored in the northern suburbs of Darwin, but clearly Labor does. Clearly the member for Barkly, the Deputy Opposition Leader, believes nuclear waste should be stored in Casuarina in the northern suburbs. I wonder what the new member for Casuarina thinks. Does she think Royal Darwin Hospital should be the biggest nuclear waste repository in the Northern Territory? Currently it is.
Clearly the member for Barkly supports that. To provide some education for him, the process is open until 10 November for traditional owners, through land councils, to nominate a site. I am aware that the most popular site of traditional owners to date is an area within his electorate, so traditional owners in his electorate are supporting that; that will be interesting.
I will come out every day and say I do not believe nuclear waste should be stored at Casuarina in the Royal Darwin Hospital, or in the northern suburbs. I will advocate that it is moved to a highly-recommended site that is away from health and hospital services, and from the general population of the northern suburbs.
If Labor wants to campaign in 2016 that they support nuclear waste being stored in the northern suburbs, they should do that. Going by the lies, or debate, we just heard from the member for Barkly, the current Deputy Opposition Leader, he is surely a fan of nuclear waste in the northern suburbs. Member for Barkly, you should talk to your new colleague, the member for Casuarina, and say how proud you are to see the biggest nuclear waste repository being in the seat of Casuarina at Royal Darwin Hospital. Talk to the traditional owners in your electorate who are campaigning for a nuclear waste repository in your own electorate. Member for Barkly, that is very funny.
Let us move on to a couple of important elements within the bill which will be conferred, most notably around energy pipelines. We know a little about energy pipelines in the Northern Territory, because I have been talking about it on a regular basis. Most recently I spoke about it at COAG and had full endorsement from all state and territory jurisdictions on the Territory’s desire to build pipeline infrastructure linking the Northern Territory to the eastern seaboard to do a range of things, least of all present the ability to establish a domestic wholesale gas market for this nation, starting to combat some of the netback LNG pricing arrangements which are driving domestic gas on the eastern seaboard and will undoubtedly have impacts on the Northern Territory. It also presents the opportunity for more exploration and for developers to start to get some of those exploration leases into development. It allows us not only to pursue royalties based on production but also to see the creation of jobs in the development of infrastructure in the Northern Territory, so I am supportive of this from an Energy Pipelines Act point of view.
In regards to the Pastoral Land Act, I reflect on the hard work by the member for Katherine, the minister for pastoral activities, and acknowledge the hard work that has been done, particularly around the reform of the Pastoral Land Act, to allow non-pastoral activities on up to 30% of pastoral properties for a period of 30 years with a 30 year option. That allows for greater levels of diversification in industry, greater levels of agribusiness and horticulture, and for the offsetting of any downturn in cattle trade that may or may not be experienced by a future Labor government that tries to destroy all things cattle trade in the Northern Territory, as saw Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Paul Henderson and Delia Lawrie do over recent years.
I also point out that minister Westra Van Holthe has done a fantastic job in reigniting the live cattle trade into Indonesia. I think around 470 000 cattle crossed our port in the last financial year, the highest number ever. We have about two million cattle in the Northern Territory with an ability to extend that to around three million, with greater levels of engagement and activity with Indigenous Territorians, where much of the land is available for them to get involved in pastoral activities.
The Petroleum Act is one of the key conferral models within this legislation. The Petroleum Act is interesting when you put it in the context of the Northern Territory. You also put it in the context of the five world-class mines in the Territory, all started pre-1976 when the Land Rights Act came in. There is also the matter of hydrocarbons – the gas and oil that comes out of the Northern Territory – and the approval processes for that. There were no approvals in 38 years, since before the Land Rights Act, until this year, under the Country Liberals government, when there was approval for the oilfield at Surprise Creek near Kintore, and gas at Dingo field, with Magellan and Central Petroleum interests.
We unashamedly want to move towards more approvals for hydrocarbon licences. It builds jobs, infrastructure and telecommunications, and it provides hope for many children going to school in regional and remote areas. It is not just about education, it is also about jobs going further.
The Building Act and Building (Resolution of Residential Building Work Disputes) Regulations, the Caravan Parks Act, the Control of Roads Act – I have already mentioned the Energy Pipelines Act – the Geothermal Energy Act and the Geothermal Energy Regulations, the Health Practitioner Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Act, the Health Practitioners Act and the Heritage Act – there are very important conferrals that will be attributed within this act. Several other acts are also attributed through the conferral process.
I say well done to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice for bringing this forward. Every piece of conferral legislation we bring forward reduces red tape in the Northern Territory and allows businesses to get on with their work. It allows jobs to be created, infrastructure to be built and northern Australia to be a bigger and better place than it has been in the past.
I reaffirm that for people like the members for Johnston and Barkly, as well as the Leader of the Opposition, to come in here and make false statements is bad for debate. You will be caught out, as you do it on a daily basis, trying to get yourselves a headline in the media, hoping some new, impressionable journalist will pick up on a false statement.
You have clearly been caught out today, member for Barkly; you have supported the Royal Darwin Hospital being maintained as the largest nuclear waste repository in the Northern Territory. It is embarrassing that you would support the northern suburbs hosting the majority of nuclear waste in the Territory; it is very poor of you. I will be happy to let people in the northern suburbs know that you want nuclear waste to be based in the northern suburbs. We will happily campaign on it, member for Barkly. We will also let traditional owners know you will not support them. It is unfortunate, but I am happy to let everybody know that you will support nuclear waste in the northern suburbs.
I support this legislation. The Attorney-General is resetting the agenda for reducing red tape. It is a positive outcome. Let us hope there is plenty more of it to come as we seek to grow jobs and business, and drive down crime and debt. We have been very successful at in the last two years, and we will continue to be for the next two.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will contribute very briefly to this debate. I thought it was about red tape, but somehow or other we have covered yellow cake.
Mr McCarthy: The yellow cake is processed, Gary.
Mr HIGGINS: Yes, there is a relationship, but I will go through some of my experience with the red tape people have to deal with in business.
I will relate my comments to my own business. If you examine the licensing someone has to go through, the constant red tape we have to deal with, and how much that costs us over time – I am not talking about the standard car registrations, as well as the drivers’ and trailer licences we have to obtain, which are treated as an inconvenience by everyone. For a business like mine at the Daly River, firstly there is boat hire. While everyone who lives in the northern suburbs might have boats, they do not have to register them. If you have a business and you want to hire boats out, you must have licences for them. They have to be registered, you must have a number on them and you must have them inspected every year. Some of the requirements are way over the top.
An example is a Bermuda boat I purchased new. It had Australian standard compliance and could carry three people, with a motor up to about 20 horsepower. It was inspected, and I was advised I needed to modify it by adding a rail around the top of a boat that already complied to an Australian standard. I had to pay an extra $600 or $800 to have those rails added. I could only then put a 15 horsepower motor on it and only put two people in the boat.
If you lived in the northern suburbs you could put half-a-dozen people in that boat and you would be complying with the law. But we had to modify it and add the rails for people to trip on when they were getting in and out of the boat on to the pontoons. That was the first issue.
The second issue was while we had an exemption on the Daly River for the safety equipment carried in a boat, those exemptions did not extend to hire boats. Some of the ridiculous things that applied to that were that you had to carry an anchor, 12 ft of chain of a certain weight, and 50 m of rope, yet during the Dry Season, when you are hiring out the boats, the deepest parts of the river are about 8 m, and no one would anchor their boat in the middle of the Daly River anyway; you use a 12 ft rope and tie on to all of the snags. But we had to comply with all of that.
That was just our boats. Then you get to the camping business and the restaurant. The first thing we needed was an eating house certificate. The restaurant had to be inspected every ear to ensure the people working in it had food-handling qualification, and they took temperatures of all the food. I know these are valid things to have, but they all take time.
The second thing we needed in that eating house was our liquor licence. To have a liquor licence you had to do all the tests to ensure you complied with all the legislation and knew all about it. They then inspected how you locked up your alcohol and how much you had. Originally you had to do returns on how much you turned over in the liquor store.
We needed responsible service of alcohol qualifications. You had to be trained in that. I am talking about a small business that is run by a family; you are adding up all this time, I hope.
We also needed a boarding house certificate. They checked that you had reasonably clean accommodation, which is acceptable. However, as well as the boarding house certificate, you needed tourism accreditation if you wanted to become a member of a tourist association.
Many of these things are automatically controlled. If you have dirty premises and do not maintain some standard, the tourists will not come anyway, and you will go out of business. But we still had to have all of these things.
I thought it was really amazing that I needed a fishmonger’s licence. We are on the Daly River, and I needed a fishmonger’s licence so I could sell fish through the bistro. You are not allowed to sell fish out of the Daly River, so you had to buy fish. I still needed a fishmonger’s licence to sell it, even though I cooked it.
To get your tourism accreditation you have to fill out all the paperwork and make sure you have all the qualifications, licences, insurances and so forth.
When you have a farming business, the first thing you have to prove is that you can handle chemicals. You have to do a ChemCert course. You pay money, do a ChemCert course and become a member of the local association or horticultural society. Once you have the ChemCert certificate, you then do a Freshcare course. When you have done a Freshcare course, the auditors want to check that you are complying with the Freshcare training you had. Some of these requirements are basic things like having a sign in your bathroom that tells your workers to wash their hands every time they have been to the toilet – the standard thing we have in Australia. The standard practice is if you go to the toilet you wash your hands, but we had to have signs everywhere telling people to wash their hands. If you want to sell to suppliers like Woolies, you need their accreditation. These are just some of the licences. I hope I have given people a picture of why people in small business have had the jack of red tape – not yellow cake, red tape.
I recently had power connected at a new property. That property also had solar power. We went to Power and Water and said we wanted to connect power, put it in our name and use the buyback system for the solar power. We filled out all the paperwork to transfer power and water to our name. We then filled out all of the paperwork for the contract that related to buyback of the solar power. I then received an e-mail saying page 14 of the contract I had signed was missing and could I please complete that contract in regard to the property, for which they had the address.
I found page 14 of the contract, and it simply asked for the customer name. They had addressed it to me so they knew who I was; they referred to the property address, which had to be on the paperwork; they wanted an e-mail address, which they also had because they sent me an e-mail. I thought there must be somewhere to sign on the page but there was not. This page could easily have been filled out by the staff at Power and Water, but they were not allowed to do it; I had to do it.
I am trying to give people a picture of some of the red tape that really annoys people in business. On top of the Territory red tape, you have to continually deal with AQIS inspecting for bugs on fruit you are growing, and the Bureau of Statistics sending letters every month wanting to know how many people came through, how many pieces of fruit you sold, and how many acres you have growing this and that. If people do not have an idea of how much red tape floats around, I do not know what will ever convince them.
As to nuclear waste, I am not sure how nuclear waste came into the red tape other than the yellow cake. Much of the time the arguments about nuclear waste do not distinguish between the waste we produce in the Territory, the waste produced in Australia and the waste that might come in from overseas. I would like to see people in this House address it at those three levels.
The first issue is, if we have nuclear waste produced by Territorians in the hospital, it is incumbent upon us to take responsibility for it. The second issue is, as Australians, what waste are we responsible for. The third issue is whether we want to commercialise and take waste from overseas. That is an economic issue that needs to be debated.
I support the Attorney-General’s changes. Any reduction in red tape is a positive in allowing people in small business to get on with what they are trying to do, which is to help the economy of the Northern Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, what a fascinating debate it has been. There is obviously an agreement by the members opposite to use these debates as a frolic to discuss any number of issues they wish to.
The Chief Minister quite ably rebuffed the member for Barkly’s positively insane contribution to this debate. If that is the information the member for Barkly has been giving to people in his constituency in relation to the recent case of Muckaty, which I understand was a Federal Court case, clearly he wants to take a good hard look at himself, because what he is saying is patently untrue and mischievous to the point of being irresponsible and reckless.
Unfortunately, Aboriginal people do rely on the information they receive from non-Aboriginal people, particularly in remote areas, and they trust that information. That information needs to have integrity. Your failure, your deliberate and – I am trying to find another word for corrupt. Your misinformation is dreadful.
If that is what he is telling people in his electorate …
Mr McCarthy: What are you telling them?
Mr ELFERINK: The truth.
The member for Barkly is not telling the truth; it is far from it, and it is deliberately designed to inflame their passions and incite their fears. He is an ogre who haunts their fears, leaping out from under a bridge to scare them every time they want to stick their head out above the parapet.
I can tell you what happened in relation to Muckaty. It was a victory of fear generated by the members opposite. If this stuff was so dreadful, why does the member for Barkly continue to insist that a basement in the Royal Darwin Hospital be used? It is not designed for the purpose of storing nuclear waste, but you cannot stick it in the middle of nowhere.
Mr McCarthy: Stick it in Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: You are really quite dim, aren’t you? If I turned on the light, what would I get, 15 watts out of you?
Mr McCarthy: Sticks and stones will break my bones minister.
Mr ELFERINK: The point is that you are a dishonest human being who misrepresents the truth in a most reckless and dreadful fashion.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62. I suggest that was unbecoming.
Madam SPEAKER: Please withdraw, minister.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
The member for Barkly says he wants to represent and care for Aboriginal people and then, in such a blatant fashion, misrepresents the truth
Mr McCarthy: Rubbish.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, he does and he is a disgrace.
Mr McCarthy: There are a lot of Australians on this campaign, John.
Mr ELFERINK: If they are saying exactly the same thing …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51. I am right next to the member for Port Darwin and I cannot hear him talk over the member for Barkly.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask all members to cease interjecting and calling across the floor. If you have a point of order, address it through the Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Barkly has my irritation on the record, and he knows full well it is true because rarely does he burr up, unless of course he has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He is burring up now because he knows what he is doing is fundamentally and profoundly dishonest. It is a misrepresentation of the truth in such a way to his own constituency that I can only just restrain myself from using the ‘L’ word in relation to what he is saying.
Mr McCarthy: Oh, hit a nerve hey, John? Guilty conscience?
Mr ELFERINK: What are you talking about?
Mr McCarthy: What you’re saying.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, I will say it. You are a liar. I withdraw, Madam Speaker. I got it out of my system.
Clearly members opposite have not the vaguest idea what this legislation does. I was listening with some fascination to the member for Fannie Bay saying this would be a vehicle by which he could overturn government decisions. I am fascinated by that world view and that misunderstanding. The example he used was government decisions in relation to open speed limits.
Mr Gunner: I said they should be appealable, not that they are.
Mr ELFERINK: I hear the correction: they should be appealable. To what authority? That is an even dumber statement. If that is what he thinks then clearly he does not understand how the doctrine of responsible government works and he places no integrity in the democratic system. If he believes what he is saying, then as far as he is concerned, the decisions of this House and of a government duly formed under the doctrine of responsible government should have an unelected superior authority to it. This is the problem with the members opposite; they do not understand hierarchies, and it is completely obvious when they say these sorts of things.
Mr Gunner interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Fannie Bay, in his denials, forgets what he said was:
They are reviewable, through the ballot box. To suggest that an organisation like the Northern Territory civil appeals tribunal is the vehicle to review decisions of parliament is such a ludicrous departure from common sense that you would need a visa to end up wherever you were going when departing from common sense in such a profound fashion. I welcome the members opposite having their passports stamped if they are going to that place; hopefully they will have trouble getting back into the country of rationalism.
I am mystified by some of the comments I have heard from members opposite in relation to their understanding of what this organisation does. In spite of their strident criticisms, they continue to support it, so confusion reigns supreme on the benches opposite.
I will place on the record something that must be understood about this stuff. Nothing effectively changes in terms of the powers and capacities which exist in the legislation of the tribunal’s jurisdictions. There are some 49 separate and discrete tribunals across the statute book of the Northern Territory. As we confer these tribunals towards NTCAT, we substantially pare back the numbers of existing tribunals. In terms of what NTCAT does, nothing really changes from the experience of the person in the powers of that tribunal to look at whatever decision has been made. Any decisions that were reviewable before will continue to be so now, and any decisions that were not reviewable before will not be so now. This is not a complex idea.
I hear that the member opposite wants to talk, at some length, about changes in legislative power. There is no change in the reach of the reviewable jurisdiction. It is the vehicle – what is done inside the tribunal in having a single body looking at all these jurisdictional areas, rather than multiple tribunals looking at various jurisdictional areas, which is what we are trying to achieve. It is about a system that is available, identifiable and usable by the public to enable them to step through all of the hoops they would have been able to step through in the past, except for having to spend a squid load of money on lawyers, by way of example. It is not that complex.
I was a little surprised by the member for Johnston’s contribution to this debate. I am normally quite impressed by the real member for Johnston, the speech writer for the human being who meanders into this place, because they usually do a really good job. Unless he has had a change of speech writer recently, I am profoundly disappointed in the real member for Johnston this week, and they should lift their game. Whoever you are up there, I hope you are listening, because on this occasion the real member for Johnston made a couple of tactical errors.
If you read the real member for Johnston’s speech, after it was repeated for the Hansard by the human being who walks into this place, you will find there is a self-contradictory statement in it, namely the criticism of the public service. At the start of the speech there was a criticism that the public service somehow dropped the ball and is not doing its job properly. A short time later the member for Johnston went on to say there must be a professional public service in the Northern Territory.
Most public servants, bar a handful who exist now, were public servants under the former government, providing full, fierce and frank advice then as they do now, and providing services to the people of the Northern Territory. To berate them in the fashion the member for Johnston did, and then go on to describe them as professional is inherently a self-defeating proposition. As a consequence, it renders his pontifications on the public service incoherent and incomprehensible.
I also pick up on the astonishing comment by the member for Johnston in relation to the Northern Territory government seeking to acquire inalienable freehold. Deep sigh, face in palm, breath. Okay. The term ‘inalienable freehold’ means it cannot be alienated from the person who holds or possesses the freehold. That means, by way of legislative instrument or any other technique possible, even if it was the desire of the Northern Territory government to acquire the freehold which is described under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 of the Commonwealth as inalienable, that desire could not be any more fulfilled than my desire to walk upon the surface of the sun. It is not possible. It just cannot be done. Several things would have to occur before we could even begin to contemplate it. Under the current legislative environment, acquisition by the Northern Territory government of inalienable freehold property, whilst oxymoronic in proposition, is beyond the legislative scope of this parliament, jurisdiction and government.
To say we seek to compulsorily acquire Aboriginal land is a little like saying the Northern Territory government has territorial ambitions over Germany. Yet, sprinkling on our ears like little dew droplets of deceit from the member for Johnston, we hear this dark and villainous ambition which we harbour behind our cloak as we cackle evilly, twirl our moustaches and adjust our top hats. I find it astonishing that if you are to criticise us from the opposition benches you would use that vehicle. Of all the vehicles to run and challenge government with, why would you go for the go-kart? Seriously, it is fascinating.
Listening to the member for Johnston articulate that left me bereft, not because I felt as if I had in some way been caught out in my villainous and dastardly ambitions, but because only somebody who has been unconscious for the last 35 years and suddenly woken out of their slumbered stupor could make such an assertion with a straight face.
The other comments the member for Johnston made were in relation to native title. On several occasions – I am getting so worried about the member for Johnston’s speech writer, because the real member for Johnston normally does not get these things so wrong – he articulated native title as a property right. It is not. It is a bundle of rights which give you some access to a change-of-use process, can co-exist with pastoral leases, and does exist, either exclusively or non-exclusively, over Crown land. When the member for Johnston says it is a property right he utterly misrepresents what this right is and how it has been described by the High Court of Australia.
It is frustrating in the extreme to listen to members opposite articulate these things when they are so vacuously ill-informed that the presence of any thought would be welcome over the absence of thought we see presiding between the ears of the members opposite. Please, for the sake of a mature debate to which the member for Johnston referred, find out what on earth you are talking about before you meander into this place, clutching in your sweaty little palms a speech that turns to papier-mch in your hands only shortly after it is clearly demonstrated there is papier-mch between your ears.
I am concerned that members opposite genuinely struggle with these issues, because should they form the next government of the Northern Territory they will have to go back to Law 101 on some of these issues just to get through the most basic briefing notes from their departments.
I also pick up on the maiden speech of the member for Casuarina. I welcome her to this House and understand her enthusiasm. I welcome any breath of fresh air that comes into the Labor Party, because goodness gracious me, as clearly demonstrated today, they know they need it. But the reality of the place we occupy is that it has to deal with governance issues for the people of the Northern Territory. I note after she addressed you, Madam Speaker, which was entirely appropriate, she acknowledged the Larrakia people upon whose land we stand.
The member for Casuarina needs to understand that the Labor Party, whilst in government, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money fighting a native title claim over Darwin. For the edification of members, at the risk of oversimplifying a native title argument, some would suggest that to successfully argue that native title has been defeated is to successfully argue that cultural genocide has occurred because of the breakage of links with the bundle of rights that are native title.
The former Labor government acknowledged – and the Labor Party still does apparently – the traditional owners of the Darwin area after it spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting in the Federal Court the claims of the Larrakia people over Darwin. It is unfortunate that the very organisation that so stridently fought and spent taxpayers’ money fighting a claim now acknowledges that claim in symbolic ways only.
That is the reality of what we do. I support the decision the former Labor government made in relation to fighting those claims. Nevertheless, reading the decision by Justice Manfield leaves one saddened because so little of traditional Larrakia rights exist today, and further saddened by the fact the extinguishing event, if memory serves me from reading the case, occurred in the 1920s or 1930s rather than in more recent times. We persevere with the symbolic acknowledgement of native title holders, but the former Labor government made sure that acknowledgement was nothing more than mere symbolism. It always feels uncomfortable when I hear people from the Labor Party make this acknowledgement when in fact they never gave any real credence to the legitimacy of the claim made against the former government.
This is unlike the former Country Liberals government, which gave some credence to the potential claim so when Palmerston was expanded into the suburbs that exist now, potential native title holders were identified and an arrangement was put in place which ultimately led to a number of jobs and development opportunities going to the claimants, rather than going through a fight in the courts.
It is a curious mix where you will hear members opposite say they fight for Aboriginal rights when in fact they are quite happy to go to court against them.
I thank members for their contributions to the debate, as much as some members struggled with it. This legislation is merely a conferral act to confer jurisdiction to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal for the Building Act and the Building (Resolution of Residential Building Work Disputes) Regulations; the Caravan Parks Act; the Control of Roads Act; the Energy Pipelines Act; the Geothermal Energy Act and Geothermal Energy Regulations; the Health Practitioner Regulations; the Heritage Act; the Land Acquisition Act and Land Acquisition Regulations; the Mineral Titles Act and Mineral Titles Regulations; the Pastoral Land Act and Pastoral Land Regulations; the Petroleum Act, the Planning Act and Planning Regulations; and the Residential Tenancies Act.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 24, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 25:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 26.1. I move that the word ‘its’ be omitted from clause 25(5) and the words ‘the applicant’s’ be inserted. This is a technical amendment and is necessary to preserve the consistency of the provisions of the Caravan Parks Act and the Residential Tenancies Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 49, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 50:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 26.2, omitting the words ‘legal practitioner’ in respect of the proposed section 63(1)(a) and that the words ‘lawyer with at least five years’ experience as a legal practitioner’ be inserted.
This is a technical amendment. The Legal Profession Act differentiates between lawyers and legal practitioners by reference to admission in the former case and the holding of a practicing certificate in the latter. The provision in the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act relating to eligibility for the roles of president and deputy president refer to the eligibility for appointment as a magistrate, which, in turn, is expressed in the Magistrates Act as being a lawyer and having been for at least five years.
In the ordinary course a judicial officer will not hold a practising certificate. If the jurisdictional transfers include provisions requiring that the tribunal include a ‘legal practitioner’, a judicial officer appointed as president/deputy president, or a retired judge or magistrate for that matter, could not sit. This is clearly not what is intended. This amendment corrects the anomaly.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 107, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 108:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 26.3 that the reference to section 57H(5) in clause 108 be omitted and section 57H(5)(b) be inserted. This is a technical amendment necessary to ensure the correct section of the act amended is being referenced.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 109 to 133, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 134:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 26.4 to clause 134(2). I move that the words ‘Commissioner to prepare’ in section 27(1) be omitted and the words ‘Tribunal for’ be inserted. This technical amendment is necessary to ensure consistency in the changes being made to the Caravan Parks Act and the Residential Tenancies Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 26.5 to clause 134(4). I move that the words ‘by the Commissioner’ in respect of section 27(1) be omitted and the words ‘for the Tribunal’ be inserted. This technical amendment is necessary to ensure consistency in the changes being made to the Caravan Parks Act and Residential Tenancies Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 134, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 27.1 inviting defeat of clause 2.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 defeated.
New clause 2:
Mr ELFERINK: I further move amendment 27.2, that new clause 2 entitled ‘Commencement’ be inserted after clause 1 and the words shall read:
This is a technical amendment and is necessary to ensure the commencement provision contained in the bill allows the act to be commenced prospectively rather than retrospectively.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 27.3 that the Lands and Planning (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1998, Act No 1 of 1999, be omitted from the schedule. This is a technical amendment and is necessary as this act already has been repealed by the Legislation Repeal Act, No 39 of 2005.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bills reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Before we go to the question I place on the record my thanks to all the people involved in the process of introducing the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal legislation, as well as my thanks to the departments now assisting in creating the conferral legislation. As we step through this process we will probably see more bills associated with this tribunal than you will find in a flock of ducks. That is not a small amount of work for a number of public service departments to pursue.
I place on the record my particular thanks to Andrew Macrides, whose work on this has been nothing shy of monumental. This was cast upon him some 12 months ago as a brand new idea and is a testimony to his work ethic and capacity as a person who delivers for the people of the Northern Territory. We are fortunate to have such a fine public servant amongst us.
I note the former member for Casuarina, Kon Vatskalis, went to the point of crediting and thanking Mr Macrides for his work for the people of the Northern Territory. I want to ensure the efforts of Mr Macrides are recognised across the Northern Territory and by all members in this House, as well as his ability and the formidable intellect he brings to this legislation. Were he here, I imagine Mr Macrides would be blushing by now, but these are accolades well deserved. I am particularly proud to see the work he has done.
I also place on the record my thanks to Mr Bruxner, formerly of the Solicitor-General’s Office, who has taken up the temporary appointment of president for the next 12 months to help us build this from the ground up. This tribunal will serve the people of the Northern Territory particularly well, and I am grateful for the efforts of so many people, acknowledging in particular Mr Bruxner and Mr Macrides
Motion agreed; bill read a third time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I present a statement on nurse practitioners in the Northern Territory.
I have often said nurses are the backbone of our health system. I am proud to stand before the Assembly to say this government has gone a step further in recognition of their hard work and commitment and has created a policy specifically to generate more opportunities for nurse practitioners.
The Strategic Plan for Nurse Practitioners endorses a target of 25 full-time nurse practitioners to be employed in our workforce by 2016. Through this plan the Country Liberals government will deliver an eightfold increase in nurse practitioners throughout the Territory government’s clinics and health services. The plan also provides a blueprint for establishing nurse practitioner positions in non-government and community controlled health services in our remote communities.
We need a targeted nurse practitioner strategy as the previous Labor government left the Northern Territory well behind other jurisdictions in Australia. While there were just over 1000 endorsed nurse practitioners in Australia, the Territory had only three designated positions, and unfortunately I know of endorsed nurse practitioners who have left the Territory to seek employment in other states and territories.
I am committed to addressing this situation. We need highly-skilled nurses in the Northern Territory and we cannot afford to lose those we already have in the system. To this end, it was apparent to me that a strategic approach for increasing the number of nurse practitioners in the Northern Territory was imperative, and I am pleased to say our strategy has already made some progress. Ten nurse practitioner positions within the Northern Territory health system have been initiated under this strategy since its launch in February this year, which is a significant achievement in just six months. It is evidence that this plan is a significant milestone in the Country Liberal government’s commitment to support career opportunities for nurses.
A nurse practitioner is endorsed to work in an advanced and extended clinical role. It is expected that nurse practitioners will work in primary healthcare, alcohol and other drug services, remote clinics, child health, diabetes, chronic disease and other outreach services. Nurse practitioners can directly refer patients to other healthcare professionals without the need to see a GP, and they can also prescribe a range of medications and order certain diagnostic investigations.
This demonstrates our support for the many wonderful long-term nurses who have provided healthcare to countless Territorians at our homes and in our clinics, hospitals and remote health centres. Increasing the opportunity for nurses to advance their careers and provide even more services to Territorians will benefit not only the 3591 nurses but our health system and the community.
The strategy also imbeds in policy a recruitment plan for the workforce into the future, attracting nurses to the Northern Territory where they can make a real difference to people’s lives as nurse practitioners in our unique urban, remote and regional communities. Increasing nurse practitioners in our workforce will greatly benefit remote communities. More nurse practitioners in the bush will enhance health outcomes for children and for the management of chronic diseases including diabetes, health disease and mental health just to name a few.
The nurse practitioner strategy will ensure that nurse practitioner positions will be in areas that will have the most impact on improving health outcomes and where these roles will work most effectively within the multidisciplinary team. Priority service areas include remote primary healthcare clinics; specialist outreach services; mental health; alcohol and other drugs services; urban community health; and district hospital emergency departments.
Importantly, increasing nurse practitioners within the healthcare workforce is not a strategy aimed at substituting or replacing medical practitioners. Instead, nurse practitioners will work alongside and complement medical practitioners, extending the capability of each healthcare team where these roles are implemented.
Working both collaboratively and autonomously within the multidisciplinary team in advanced and extended roles, the nurse practitioner has a scope of practice that builds on the platform of the skills and knowledge of the registered nurse.
This government has made a significant contribution to nurse practitioner prescribing in the Northern Territory with the implementation of the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act on 2 May this year, nurse practitioners were designated as authorised prescribers. They can now practice to the full extent of their scope with the legislated ability to issue a prescription. Importantly, they can only do this because of the qualifications and experience they must hold before using the title of nurse practitioner.
Under section 95 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act, ‘nurse practitioner’ is a protected title in Australia. This title can only be used by a nurse endorsed by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia. To become an endorsed nurse practitioner each registered nurse must complete a master’s degree and demonstrate practice at the most advanced level within their profession. They must have a minimum of five years’ postgraduate experience, and a minimum of three years as advanced practice nurses within a designated specialty.
Nurse practitioners are safe, provide evidence-based care and engage with people to promote health, prevent illness, facilitate a smooth journey through the complex healthcare system and administer a variety of curative therapies.
Although I can see the benefit of having nurse practitioners within the healthcare workforce, this is not only my opinion. National and international research shows that nurse practitioners have the capability to provide services that are safe, effective and efficient. They provide added value in an environment of fiscal restraint, and have a significant positive impact on health outcomes for consumers. Studies have also identified increased consumer satisfaction with services that employ nurse practitioners, compared with those without them. However, the rate and extent of the implementation of the nurse practitioner role across Australia has varied. There are also many more endorsed nurse practitioners than opportunities for employment.
Looking at the situation across Australia, the areas where there has been most success in implementing nurse practitioner positions are where organisations have worked strategically to match health service needs and specific nurse practitioner roles. Successful healthcare services have supported registered nurses who already have high levels of commitment to the organisation to gain specific skills and knowledge as nurse practitioner candidates, with dedicated positions in place for when they graduate.
Taking this evidence on board, there are three essential elements of the Strategic Plan for Nurse Practitioners in the Northern Territory. It is service-driven, with nurse practitioner education matching service needs, and it is underpinned by a robust clinical governance structure. Each of these elements builds on the experience of other jurisdictions, both good and bad, and incorporates a unique Territory flavour, so that we are well-placed to lead the nation in our approach.
The first element of the strategy is that health services will be the driving force behind identifying where nurse practitioner positions can be implemented. In other jurisdictions most nurse practitioner positions have been implemented where nurse practitioners have taken the initiative. Although there have been some successes, this approach is hit and miss, and there have been significant problems as well.
Our strategy ensures that nurse practitioner positions will be implemented in sites where they are of most benefit to achieving improved health outcomes. For example, two of the three nurse practitioners in place prior to implementing the strategy were employed in mental health. This number will expand further over the next three years, and a unique mental health nurse practitioner position is being implemented in the Emergency Department at the Royal Darwin Hospital.
We all know how hard the nurses and medical team work in the Emergency Department at the Royal Darwin Hospital. They are well-equipped to deal with the many physical injuries people present with at one of the busiest emergency departments in the country. However, not all nurses and doctors have the appropriate skills and knowledge to deal with people experiencing an acute mental health episode or with chronic mental illness who present with an acute injury.
The new mental health nurse practitioner position will provide triage, practical advice and assistance, assessment, short-term management and referral for mental health patients and their families in the emergency department. He or she will take referrals from medical practitioners and emergency department nurses, facilitate treatment consistent with best practice in mental health, and liaise with GPs, psychiatrists, psychologists and allied health professionals and practitioners to facilitate continuity of care for the client during admission and following discharge. This role will significantly extend the mental health expertise within the emergency department team.
Our emergency departments at the smaller regional hospitals are equally in need of specialised team members. Gove District Hospital led the way in the Territory by establishing one of the three nurse practitioner positions prior to the release of the strategy. This position will be joined by two more nurse practitioners over the next two years. In addition, the strategy has provided an opportunity to revise the fit between the role and the changing health service needs within the East Arnhem region.
There is evidence identifying that health problems within the under-three-years age group have serious consequences in cognitive development, poor educational outcomes and chronic disease, including intellectual disability later in life. Achieving targets for Indigenous children in this age group in remote communities and the urban centres of Darwin, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Nhulunbuy is a priority of this government.
It is our intention that nurse practitioners who specialise in child health will be among the 25 positions. We have begun this process by calling for expressions of interest from the current pool of experienced child health nurses working in a variety of contexts across the Northern Territory. A key role also being explored is a nurse practitioner specialising in rheumatic heart disease. This role will not only be an innovation in the Territory but will build on our international reputation for leading healthcare in managing this disease across the patient’s life span.
Nurse practitioners specialising in chronic disease management, including diabetes, will also be included among the 25 positions to be established. Since announcing the strategy, the two government health services have begun to develop position profiles and scope of practice for nurse practitioners to work with patients with diabetes, one in acute care and one to provide outreach services to Aboriginal people in remote communities.
The department is also assisting Sunrise Health Service Aboriginal Corporation and Katherine West Health Board to establish nurse practitioner positions to improve outcomes for patients with diabetes and chronic disease. Significant improvements in health outcomes have been achieved internationally through primary healthcare initiatives that include integrating nurse practitioners into the remote health workforce.
When I launched the strategy, I announced that nurse practitioner positions in remote health clinics will make a substantial contribution to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous health. Since February, an experienced remote area nurse has been selected to extend his knowledge and skills by undertaking the nurse practitioner course in preparation for a role as a nurse practitioner in a Top End community.
The primary healthcare team in Central Australia is examining which clinics will benefit the most from having a nurse practitioner as part of their resident workforce and where outreach nurse practitioners will be most effective.
The government’s healthcare reform agenda has seen the integration of remote health and outreach services within the Top End and Central Australia health services. This reform provides a unique opportunity to redesign the workforce and integrate the nurse practitioner role within the Northern Territory nursing career pathway. As the new services’ framework rolls out, more nurse practitioner positions that streamline the patient journey between acute and primary healthcare services will be explored.
Improving the lives of people experiencing the devastating effects of alcohol dependency is a key commitment for this government. We have made significant inroads so far in providing treatment for alcohol addiction and making positive changes to the lives of people and their families. In line with this commitment, a nurse practitioner position has been established in the alcohol and other drugs division, and a candidate has been recruited to establish this critical role. In the acute setting a nurse practitioner within the gastroenterology team is under consideration.
There is already an advance practice nurse who has completed his nurse practitioner studies specialising in chronic liver disease. Under the strategy there is the potential for a nurse practitioner to work in collaboration with the medical team to improve patient access to services in this area.
We also know our population is ageing, and as we grow older ourselves we all have a vested interest in ensuring good access to specialist services. Palliative care is critical in achieving the type of quality of life we all look forward to when nearing the end of our lives. Nurse practitioner roles in palliative care are well established in other jurisdictions. A designated position has been identified for an advanced practice nurse in this field who has recently graduated from the Charles Darwin University nurse practitioner program and is soon to be endorsed as a nurse practitioner.
The second element of the nurse practitioner strategy is working with educational providers to ensure nurse practitioners graduate with the right skills and knowledge for the Northern Territory. Working with Charles Darwin University has been critical in the discussions that have led and continue to lead each of the positions under development. Our Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer is a professorial fellow and has been instrumental in ensuring the nurse practitioner program at the university addresses the unique context of remote and Indigenous health. This close relationship was particularly important for the course achieving accreditation by the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Accreditation Council. Without this accreditation, students cannot be endorsed. Continuing the close relationship between health service and education is a key platform of the nurse practitioner strategy plan.
So too is providing financial support for nurse practitioner candidates to undertake the required study. Through the studies assistance grants administered by the Nursing and Midwifery Office, this government has prioritised support up to $5000 per year for nurse practitioner candidates.
The third element of the nurse practitioner strategic plan is governance. The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia requires that rigorous governance systems are in place to ensure compliance with the legislated role of the nurse practitioner.
Through the work of my department, this government is ensuring appropriate checks and balances are in place. They will ensure that nurse practitioners employed in government and non-government health services all have the required qualifications and endorsements to fulfil the role identified in their stated scope of practice.
My department will also ensure that nurse practitioners and health services demonstrate that the essential collaborative relationships between nurse practitioners, other nurses, doctors and allied health professionals are in place and that service level agreements for diagnostic services are complied with.
The governance framework also requires that key performance indicators are monitored and audit systems are in place to evaluate compliance with safety and quality standards.
I have spent some time outlining how nurse practitioners can benefit Territorians and the health system. What about the nurses themselves? Sometimes as Health minister it is all too easy to get drawn in by the big picture, the improvements, best practice and great outcomes and lose sight of what is in it for the people. As I draw to a close I will spend a minute or so talking about nurses and why this represents a great advance for them individually.
When I worked in allied health it was easy to see the health profession, while having all the appearance of a pyramid from the outside, is, from the inside, a highly integrated jigsaw, all sectors fulfilling their roles, doing their best to provide complete care for their patients. But as things change – technology, work practices and even the people – they create small gaps in the jigsaw that makes up the Territory’s health system.
It is these sorts of gaps that lead to opportunities, and nurse practitioners can play an integral role in filling some of those key gaps.
Of course, choosing to train as a nurse practitioner is not for all nurses, but it is important to provide this pathway for some nurses to expand their horizons, maximise their opportunities and add to the jigsaw that is healthcare in the Northern Territory. For those who want to take this path, I assure you we are now offering support, positions and training. I am keen for nurses to take this opportunity for their own benefit as much for the help it will provide to the health system.
This strategy makes a real commitment to supporting nurses to work to the full scope of their extended practice roles so they can make an even greater contribution to the health and wellbeing of Territorians.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Health minister for bringing forward this very important statement. We support the work happening to bring more nurse practitioners into the Territory’s workforce. There is no doubt that a strategic plan to encourage and grow the nursing practitioner workforce is a very sensible and good move by government.
Last sittings we discussed, with regard to Indigenous health practitioners, that when it comes to your health, you want to deal with somebody you trust, and there is no doubt that one of the most trusted professions is nursing. Nurses are true professionals, and they are very special people because they go into a career that is all about helping people. They go into a job where every day they take care of people who are at their most vulnerable, and work to keep them healthy. That is a very noble career path to take.
The opposition is very pleased to recognise the critical contribution of nurses to the quality of life, from birth to death, and their dedication and professionalism in delivering quality health services to Territorians no matter where they live. We are all mindful of the key challenges affecting the delivery of health services in the Northern Territory: our geography and service delivery challenges and the necessity, for many years, for our nurses, especially those in the bush, to make critical day-to-day decisions that are often life or death, remembering that very simple events in very remote locations, such as heat stroke, low blood sugar levels or dehydration, can quickly lead to dreadful outcomes for people.
It is an awful feeling when you do not know what to do in a health crisis, when you are confronted when something is going very wrong with somebody’s health. It is a wonderful feeling of comfort when you have a health professional there who knows the steps to take, who is highly trained and has the skills to diagnose and treat the problem, especially when you are far away from appropriate health facilities. In many circumstances, especially in the bush, it is our nurses who provide that knowledge and comfort, but it is not just health emergencies where our nurses come to the rescue.
In the NT one of our key health challenges is the burden of chronic disease amongst our population. Key chronic disease issues in which the NT is leading the way in research, understanding and treatment are renal disease, diabetes and heart disease, to name a few.
Prevention and ongoing treatment of chronic and preventable disease is a pressing issue in the NT with its high numbers of Indigenous people. I remind the House of the COAG Reform Council report from June this year, noting that the rate of potentially preventable hospitalisation for Indigenous people is three to four times higher than the rate for other Australians, and that Indigenous people are three times more likely to die of an avoidable disease.
Our diverse population is also primarily a very young population but, thankfully, increasing numbers of senior Territorians are staying in the Territory, who ultimately require aged care support. This is another area where nursing support is so important to Territory families, especially when they have to deal with the consequences of ageing, like reduced mobility and, in many cases, dementia and other conditions affecting their loved ones.
As the minister stated, in the area of mental health there are already active nurse practitioners. This is an area of immense need in the Territory, and one that seems to be growing in health demands. It should be welcomed when nurse practitioners can play a role in the healthcare of Territorians with mental health issues.
More and more Territorians are now able to receive specialist healthcare in the Territory, particularly as a result of the growing healthcare sector over the last ten years. Initiatives like the Alan Walker Cancer Centre is a key example, where specialist healthcare is required with specialist nursing support.
Last sittings, when we discussed work to build the Indigenous health practitioner workforce, we also spoke of the distinctive cross-cultural challenges in providing quality healthcare in the Northern Territory. It is important to have the capacity to bridge cross-cultural communication, as well as a sound understanding of the diversity of cultural values of our health clients, not only Indigenous culture, but the increasing diversity of other cultures represented in the Northern Territory.
We are all mindful of the key progress made in closing the gap in Indigenous health and life expectancy. The work on building that progress and not letting any important health gains slip away – it is very important we stay focused on closing that gap. We must also stay focused on growing and developing our primary healthcare activities, a space where nurse practitioners will play a critical role.
Health research has shown time and time again that investment in primary healthcare services results in healthier populations and lower overall costs to the healthcare system. We have plenty of evidence of the value of investment in primary healthcare, including the recent example of the 10-year study by Dr Susan Thomas, a study into diabetes treatment which found that every dollar spent on primary healthcare for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory with diabetes can save $13 in hospital treatment.
We are increasingly recognising the need for a special focus on the health and wellbeing of young Territorians in the formative early childhood years. In all these important areas of health work it is our nursing workforce which provides the backbone of our health system. Those of us who have needed the support of our health system will recall, with affection, the comforting hand and advice nurses provide, often in times of confusion and need, and not just to us, but to our families. They can be very comforting during those times.
Nationally, the 2013 Roy Morgan Image of Professions Survey found that nursing continues to be one of our most highly-regarded professions. Ninety per cent – which has remained unchanged in three years – of Australians aged 14 and over rate nurses as the most ethical and honest professionals. It was the 19th year in a row since nurses were first included in the survey in 1994.
We are pleased to see more progress in delivering and developing nurse practitioners in the Northern Territory. Nurse practitioners provide advanced and extended health services to patients, and their practice is designed to enable them to support patients throughout their health treatment. They can reduce the need to see a doctor, prescribe medications and order diagnostic investigations. In our health system they will make treatment far more streamlined for many patients, and hopefully make treatment options quicker and far less stressful for those in need of them.
In the Northern Territory the need for developing this capacity is even more urgent following the Abbott government’s budget cuts to the pre-vocational general practice program that will end this year, a budget decision resulting in the loss of 25 full-time equivalent doctors working in remote communities at any one time in the NT.
Importantly, nurse practitioners can also directly refer patients to other health professionals, assisting in a timely and seamless transition for treatment for pressing or chronic health conditions. The nurse practitioner role provides a new level of service to our community. It is designed to provide timely access to healthcare for all Australians.
As we have heard, a nurse practitioner is a registered nurse who has completed advanced university study at a master’s degree level and who has clinical training which develops the role. Nurse practitioners are able to independently conduct diagnostic tests, interpret the results of those tests, develop patient care plans and prescribe treatment, including approved medications.
Importantly, they also provide guidance and mentoring expertise to our health professionals, both to younger and less experienced nurses and to visiting health professionals. Becoming a nurse practitioner will offer an exciting path forward for many in their careers. It will help many nurses further pursue their areas of interest to the highest level as a nurse and strengthen the Territory’s health system. This is a good thing and I hope it helps retain more nurses in the job in the Territory.
I first encountered a nurse practitioner when I was out doorknocking. I heard her story and how passionate she was about the profession and seeing more nurse practitioners developed in the Northern Territory. As a result of not being able to pursue her area of interest as a nurse practitioner she had left the Territory, the place she loved and where her family was. She was still coming back to do some work here, but it was a real shame to see someone of that calibre who had developed their career in the Territory and had the knowledge of the Territory health system having to leave to pursue her passion and to be a nurse at the highest level. I completely support the moves to further develop more nurse practitioner positions within the health system. It was a story I took on board at the time and it was very soon after that the new strategic plan was released. It was good to hear firsthand from somebody who had a huge interest in the Territory who wanted to stay. It is good to see there will be more opportunities for people in her position in the future.
It is also important to ensure the focus is not only on urban areas but in the bush. I welcome the work that will take place with Aboriginal health organisations such as Katherine West and Sunrise. I hope we see more of this work in the bush.
We are very supportive of this minister’s and this government’s commitment to developing our nurse practitioner health workforce for today and the future. However, we are left questioning some of the challenges that are ahead in doing this, considering we have seen some fairly deep cuts to the health budget.
I acknowledge the work of my Territory Labor colleagues while they were in government in supporting the health system to develop in the Northern Territory, particularly around the work with the CDU and Flinders University health education partnership. That work has helped enable the Territory’s health system further and worked towards building the nurse practitioner workforce. CDU has offered a nurse practitioner program since 2008, but the new reaccredited courses increase the focus on remote and Indigenous health.
We applaud these important measures that will increasingly become more important as we go towards the pathway of some hefty health budget cuts in the future, driven by the Abbott government. The Chief Minister has forecast that these cuts over the forward estimates will mean hundreds of millions of dollars will be cut from the Territory’s health system. There are some very big challenges ahead, particularly within our hospital system, but also programs that will be impacted in the bush. We have seen some very big cuts around the primary healthcare sector. It is very important at this time to see more nurse practitioners, but there are clearly more challenges ahead in being able to deliver them.
Another issue we wanted to raise about nurse practitioners is the incentives to get them to come to the Territory, stay, and to pursue these degrees. The sacrifice they have to make, particularly when they go through study to a master’s degree level, is a huge personal commitment, a big financial commitment and a big time commitment.
We have to be practical about this. We know people are passionate about their careers and they want to go forward and become nursing practitioners, but they want to be certain when they get out of that there will be jobs. Also, we need to have the right mechanisms in place to ensure they have the right amount of pay to ensure they can stay in the Territory.
I have been advised that nurse practitioners are to be paid around the Nurse 6 level. That will equate to around $110 000 a year if the new EBA goes through. It is a huge responsibility the nurse practitioners will be taking on. They already have a very high level of experience, and studying a master’s degree is a big commitment and a big workload. It is something you have to take into consideration. At the previous level of Nurse 5 they still had access to penalty rates and overtime. When they weigh up the wages, some people might be left questioning if they go that extra yard with the study and sacrifice to get to that level.
The cost of living is a challenging factor for many people in the Territory and has driven many people away from the Territory. It is important to ensure we have the right wages and conditions in place to make it practical for somebody to undertake the study to become a nurse practitioner and ensure they can afford to continue living here. It is a big investment to go through all that training, and we want to make sure when people take these positions they stay to benefit the health system.
There are some challenges and I would like to hear more about the structures and retention strategies to ensure we keep nurse practitioners here, because we want to see them stay.
We certainly want to see more nurse practitioners, but the work to get nurse practitioners to come to the Territory, or people to decide to become a nurse practitioner, should not mean we lose focus on recruiting and retaining doctors in the Northern Territory. It is important this is not seen as a mechanism to cut cost where doctors are still required and that we do everything to ensure we keep making the Territory an attractive place for doctors, or for homegrown doctors to stay in the Territory health workforce. We do not want to see any work put to the side because of the strong focus on nurse practitioners. It is essential that work to bring doctors to the Territory continues.
We also need to make sure a strong message is being sent to the health profession workforce that the deterrents we heard about earlier this year have been tackled. For example, earlier this year we saw reports of the Health department using temporary contracts in many cases. It was reported on 27 May that more than 2000 of the department’s 5000 employees were on temporary contracts.
The head of Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, Yvonne Falckh, said at the time:
We have also seen numerous reports with regard to bullying throughout the NT’s health system. There has been some fairly comprehensive reporting through local media with regard to that and some deep concerns have been raised. We have seen headlines such as ‘Rampant bullying festers in the Health department’ and an editorial on 27 May with the headline ‘Sickness takes hold in Health’.
We have also heard stories that there are some particularly big issues in remote clinics. It is something the chief executive has acknowledged. It was good to hear during the June estimates that he was encouraging people to contact him directly about issues with bullying so he could personally take them up. However, it was clear there was an issue, given the chief executive had to step in to open those lines of communication. It is important we tackle those issues so the workplace is as attractive as possible to retain people and get them to make the commitment to become nurse practitioners.
Nurses have an incredibly stressful job at times, in some of the most trying conditions within the Territory health system. We have the most chronic sickness in Australia. We have the most horrendous rate of domestic violence and alcohol abuse, and often, tragically, it is our health professionals who have to deal with the consequences of it. They are on the front line. It is an incredibly stressful job where they can make decisions that are life or death for people. With the extra pressure of all these health conditions and some of the horrendous abuse they see day-to-day, it certainly does not make it easier. We need to make sure the workplace is the very best workplace possible.
We have seen some huge issues and hear of ongoing issues with double-bunking in the emergency department. That is just a fact; it does happen. In my conversations with nurses who work in the emergency department, they find it pretty tough going. They are concerned about how it all works, having to move patients around and the standard of practice. They do their very best under very stressful and trying situations and always have the patient’s health and care as their top priority, but there is no doubt there have been some big issues that have placed nursing staff under immense pressure.
We have also heard from many people within Royal Darwin Hospital with regard to the challenges of bed block, with the pressures on them day-to-day to clear the wards to get patients out as soon as they can, and to find beds for patients who need to come in. It has been a challenge and we have seen incredible work done by the health professionals within the hospital. We have seen the nurses working at their hardest, and it is a welcome relief to see we finally have 40 beds open in the medi-hotel open. That is 40 of the 100 beds there. We have had many debates and arguments with regard to the use of that facility. Two years ago we had that facility ready to go, and two years later we are finally seeing it available to alleviate pressure on the Royal Darwin Hospital.
In conversations I had a couple of weekends ago with somebody working within the hospital, they said they had six patients they knew of who would be going straight in there. They could see the immediate benefit the medi-hotel would have on Royal Darwin Hospital. We know 40 beds are available and we have been told that 100, the full capacity of the medi-hotel, will be up and running at the start of next year. That is something we will be keeping a very close eye on, because we want to see the medi-hotel used for its full intended purpose; it was not built without reason.
There was a lot of work done to attract funding to build that facility, so we need to see it used to its full potential. We are looking forward to seeing that happen. Our staff working within the Royal Darwin Hospital would like patients to have the very best standard of care, and they have really been under the pump with the bed block issues.
On a positive note, we welcome the work to build the Territory’s nurse practitioner workforce. We applaud the recognition of the value of further developing the capacity to establish more nurse practitioners in a raft of health areas. We want to see more recruited and retained. It is a really important move to ensure the government has some very clear career paths for our nurses who want to stay and pursue their careers to the highest level.
We welcome this statement. I thank the minister for bringing the statement on in these sittings because the last time I saw it come up I was in labour; t was nice to be able to speak to the statement today. The opposition supports more nurse practitioners in the workforce and we will keep an eye on the work the government is doing as they will be a welcome addition to the Territory’s health system.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of the minister’s statement and to make some general comments in regard to nurse practitioners and nurses generally.
Earlier this year it was my pleasure to be involved in a function for International Nurses Day. Nurses are the unsung heroes, working quietly behind the scenes to support the community’s needs, whether they are medical, emotional or psychological. They are the kind of people who can often soothe the troubled soul, help mend broken hearts and calm a worried mind, in addition to all the health and medical assistance they give to people in need. It gives me great pleasure to support this statement by the Minister for Health, Robyn Lambley.
One of the most famous nurses, who paved the way for the esteemed professional, as most of us know, was Florence Nightingale. Ms Nightingale was a celebrated English social reformer and statistician, and the founder of modern nursing. She came to prominence while serving as a nurse during the Crimean War, where she tended to wounded soldiers and became known as the Lady with the Lamp, after her habit of making rounds at night, checking on patients.
During International Nurses Day, Ms Janie Mason launched her book From hospital to university – a Northern Territory nursing story, and I urge all members who have not read it to avail themselves of it. It is an interesting journey of nursing and nursing practitioners in the Northern Territory. It goes through the history of nursing in the Territory and captures the unique challenges nurses faced, incorporating such things as distance, language barriers, tropical diseases many of them might not have come across before and, in many cases, the competing demands of a very esteemed profession.
I will read from the preface of the book:
This is Janie Mason talking.
CARPA stands for Central Australian Rural Practitioners Association.
After reading that excerpt, you can imagine a young woman, just out of nursing school, who has never been away from her community or family, going to a remote location in the Northern Territory. Coming to the Northern Territory in the mid-1960s must have been a very daunting, if not scary, move, but clearly many people did it, stayed in the Territory and have contributed to the wonderful history of nursing here.
I will give you an overview of the first nurses in the Territory, again from Janie Mason’s book.
Nursing in a modern age, now in the 21st century, has its own challenges, just as they had challenges then. The challenges today, again, range from unique tropical diseases and how they change and morph for a variety of reasons, we have an ageing population and we have chronic health issues in the Northern Territory, both urban and remote. These challenges are in addition to isolation in remote communities, a long way from home and family, social upheaval, resourcing and recruitment. Sometimes, nurses do so much with so little, and despite that they continue to make a difference to many Territorians’ lives.
In my own electorate there is a very high proportion of nurses and retired nurses, who have given their support to all types of areas, including schools, remote health services and hospital positions. They work in aged care; midwifery; ICT; aeromedical, CareFlight as it is now called; and in health clinics and some of the schools in the Palmerston and rural areas. Maybe some of these people will become nurse practitioners, or will encourage some of their younger colleagues to become nurse practitioners. I know they will ensure these opportunities are known to people.
When I was doing some research for this, I asked how many nurses there were at the hospitals in the Territory. I was surprised at the number of nurses employed in these establishments. Royal Darwin Hospital has over 1000 nurses, Alice Springs has about 500, Katherine about 100, Tennant Creek about 46, Gove 57, and in ‘other’, which includes clinics in remote places, there are 647. There are nearly 2500 nurses, and they are the ones we know about. There might be some who have recently retired or work in a voluntary capacity.
This is a good statement, and it will see the delivery of an eightfold increase in nurse practitioners throughout the clinics and health services in the Territory. It is good if we can get an additional 25 people, because we have substantial health challenges in the Territory. Currently we only have the three full-time nurse practitioners, and if we can get more that be a bonus for everyone.
It is expected that the nurse practitioners will work in primary healthcare, alcohol and other drug services, remote clinics, child healthcare, diabetes, chronic disease and other outreach services. Nurse practitioners can directly refer patients to other healthcare professionals without the need to see a GP, which will be a real bonus, especially in rural and remote communities. They will be able to prescribe a range of medications and other diagnostic investigations. Again, that will be a real bonus for people living rurally and remotely.
Nurses are the backbone of our health system in the Territory and we should be leading the nation in rolling out more nurse practitioners to support our nurses. The commitment by the government will go a long way to doing this.
I place on the record some of the people in my electorate I have come across who are nurses, past and present, and compliment them on the work they do, both within the public and private health systems. Mary Vitkus works at the Royal Darwin Hospital. She works in emergency sometimes, but also works in the other wards. Ruth Hanssen is also a nurse involved in the public sector. Mrs Ottley is also one of the current nurses. I have a list of names here but I will not read them all out because some I know and some I do not. They are across all of the rural areas.
There are some nurses I know who have retired. One of them is Narelle Craufurd who lives in the member for Nelson’s electorate. She is one of the nurses who works in a primary school. Tanya Anderson, June de Clifford – Jo Nelder is a retired nurse. Carrol Lynch works part-time in my electoral office and is a retired nurse of many years in the Northern Territory. Heather Boulden is also a retired nurse. She is also referenced in Janie Mason’s book. She is also one of those pioneering people in the nursing profession of the Northern Territory and very much involved with Friends of Fogg Dam. Some of you would know her and the work she does there.
The other nurse I would like to compliment on her past and current work is Margaret Fuller, who lives in my electorate. Margaret Fuller was an aeromedical nurse for 30-plus years, and an outstanding professional, not only in her nursing career, but also her quasi-medical career. She still works part-time at Royal Darwin Hospital and has gone on to do additional training and studies. When Marg Fuller was working in aeromedical with Pearl Aviation, the high standing in which she was held by the company and the government, particularly the company, resulted in them wanting to name an aircraft after her. She declined; she is such a humble person, but is a true professional and a delightful person.
I compliment her and all the other nurses, rural as well as everywhere in the Northern Territory, on the good work they do in the public and private sectors. If there is anything I can do to encourage people to become health and nursing practitioners, I will do it.
Minister, thank you for this very good statement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing on this important statement.
It was interesting listening to the member for Goyder talk about the number of nurses in the Northern Territory. We have to remember how lucky we are when we hear there are three or four doctors in Malawi per 100 000 people. Sometimes when we cry that life is a bit tough in the Northern Territory we need to keep our feet on the ground and have a look around. Some countries really suffer from lack of the facilities we are lucky to have in the Northern Territory.
I totally agree with the member for Goyder about Marg Fuller, who I have known for many years. I worked out bush, and she was a wonderful nurse. I remember coming home from Parliament House with a swollen leg and calling in to the Palmerston Super Clinic when it was free. It was about 11.30 pm after finishing here and she was on duty. The service I received from Marg was fantastic. She also checked my heart to see if I was ticking over okay. She was concerned about my health, and that is just how Marg Fuller is. She is a wonderful person. If you knew her for a long time, you would know she also loves looking after wallabies and kangaroos. She is one of those special people.
I support the reality of having nurse practitioners, but I feel I have an obligation to remember someone else in this parliament, a member of the CLP who, many years ago, brought this forward. Unfortunately that person resigned before the bill he brought forward could come into reality, if the Labor Party had supported it. It was Dr Richard Lim.
On 2 May 2007 he introduced the Health Practitioners Amendment (Nurse Practitioners) Bill. I listened to the second reading and was very much in support of what he said. Much of what the minister said today was in that second reading, about the gaps that had occurred between nurses and doctors and the need to fill some of the requirements that, in some cases, were left out. The Parliamentary Record says:
He said:
He said things were not correct. He said there was an obvious need to fill that. It is good to put on the record that this has been around nearly eight years. I will read a little of what he said so we understand where he was coming from.
He went on to say
Unfortunately, to my surprise not long after that Dr Richard Lim retired. I am not being critical, because this is history, but it was never taken up by his own party again, until now; it is a pity. Seven years ago Dr Richard Lim put this forward.
Dr Lim could be a feisty bloke at times and he enjoyed a good debate, even at 11.30 pm in an adjournment, but he had some great ideas. He was a doctor committed to improving the health of people in the Northern Territory. I raise this today because it is important when we are discussing this that we do not leave him out of the history. Obviously what he wanted did not happen, but it would be wrong of us to forget that at least he tried and for whatever reasons that legislation did not go forward in debate.
It is funny how when you talk about nurses, some things in your life stay with you. When I was about 11 or 12 I was in a hospital getting surgery on my arm, as I had polio. You are in a hospital, in an outer suburb of Melbourne on Port Phillip Bay, you have had your operation late at night, and as you come out of your anaesthesia …
Mr Elferink: Did they have anaesthesia that long ago?
Mr WOOD: Some people in my time, like in the civil war, just had whiskey, and a leather belt to bite on. No, it was not that long ago, member for Port Darwin.
For me, nurses are in a very special profession and they are very special people. Late at night, when the pain killer wears off, you are by yourself as a young boy, and a sister comes round – the old days when a sister with a red uniform or a red bib – sits beside you and talks to you. They are some of the things you never forget.
I have been in hospital for an operation for skin cancer for a week, and I know how hard those nurses in Darwin hospital work. Not everyone there is pleasant to the nurses. Some of them think it is a motel. They expect a three course meal and to click their fingers and everything is there just when they want it, even though there are many other patients who are in need of help. Nurses are a very special group of people and perhaps sometimes we do not recognise them enough.
It is not an easy job: cleaning up the floor after vomit; there is faeces, blood, people in pain and who are very sick and worried about their health. To some extent, a nurse has a vocation in life to help people. With this statement today, it is important we recognise what an important role they have in our society.
As the minister said:
They are not easy areas to be working in, especially alcohol and drug services; there are difficult people to deal with sometimes. It is not just about knowing all the ways to administer medicine, take a temperature or check an X-ray, you have to be able to deal with a human beings and the problems associated with humans them when they are under stress, or are dependent on drugs or alcohol. It is not an easy job.
The member for Wanguri was saying the government has to keep these people in the Territory. That is really important. It is not easy to keep people in these jobs, especially in remote communities. We want to make sure they will stay here for as long as possible. Many remote communities admire people who stay for a long time. I am not knocking the teaching profession, but when I worked out bush, many teachers would last a year and then go. There was never a chance to be part of that community. It is important that governments also encourage people, especially in the nursing profession, to try to stay and become part of the community where possible.
I thank the minister for her statement. It is important, and it highlights the need for, and recognises the importance of, nurse practitioners. I also thank Dr Richard Lim for at least getting this debate under way, even if it did take seven years longer.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to this debate, brought on by my colleague, the Minister for Health.
In this year’s budget the Giles government has made the largest allocation ever to the health sector, which is a reflection on our commitment to the Northern Territory community to provide appropriate services, notwithstanding the debt levels the Labor government created.
The Northern Territory is a challenging environment. Providing healthcare services to remote and regional communities and towns, coupled with a small, widely-scattered population, is a challenge in itself.
I draw a comparison to the greater area of Cairns that encompasses about the same population as the Northern Territory. In Cairns there are two hospitals and five or six health clinics. With the same population in the Northern Territory, we have five major hospitals and 79 health clinics. It is a huge number of hospitals and health clinics to service, and trying to find doctors to put in all of these places is a huge challenge, let alone providing other required health services.
Many of the primary access roads to these communities are unsealed. From a transport perspective it is so important that we have those roads sealed. It is so important we have air services in and out of those areas, or are at least able to get people into larger regional centres and major hospitals.
Within the Indigenous population of many of those communities, the proportion of serious and chronic diseases in all age groups is significantly greater than in the major urban centres of the Territory, and the challenges of providing quality health services increase exponentially.
The previous Labor government left the Northern Territory well behind other jurisdictions in Australia. We need a targeted nurse practitioner strategy, and I am so glad to hear that members opposite support another great initiative of the Territory government. Sadly, many of our good initiatives are not supported, but I am very grateful that the opposition supports this one.
The Minister for Health stated that there are about 1000 nurse practitioners in the country, but only three in the Northern Territory. Given the challenges we have with the remoteness of our communities and regional towns, it is essential we have a vibrant and solid nurse practitioner policy, as well as the education facilities to back up the training required to get sufficient numbers to assist in the delivery of quality health services across the Territory. Significantly increasing the number of nurse practitioners is a policy reform that will have significant impact on health service delivery across the Territory.
The Country Liberals plan to deliver an eightfold increase in Territory nurse practitioner numbers in the bush is a great initiative. The ability for a nurse practitioner to refer patients to other healthcare professionals without the need to see a GP, and to prescribe a range of medications and order certain diagnostic investigations, will be a significant benefit to complement existing arrangements.
I heard the member for Nelson say doctors are simply signing blank documents to allow nurses to do these sorts of things in their absence. I imagine that has been going on for many years. With the advent of this legislation and policy, that will stop to a large degree.
Children in remote communities will benefit from more nurse practitioners in the bush, particularly in the management of chronic diseases. Practitioners will build on the skills and knowledge of registered nurses in remote and regional locations. They can be mentors for new nurses who want to take on the frontier to gather experience and knowledge in a wide variety of areas of their profession.
The Darwin-based nurse practitioner accreditation program at Charles Darwin University is a valuable asset to the Territory. I was also very fortunate to visit the medical training facility Flinders University has in conjunction with Charles Darwin University. I was very grateful to talk to a professor there who showed me around the establishment. I saw what fine medical facilities we now have. Combine that with Charles Darwin’s delivery of medical education there, it means we are going ahead in leaps and bounds. All credit to all those involved in providing those training courses.
Even as casual observer you cannot help but notice that a range of courses offered by Charles Darwin University has been a significant factor in helping to overcome the previous historical difficulties in recruiting health professionals to the Northern Territory. There is nothing like training your own! If you keep them and educate them here, they meet people here, settle down, have families here, and those who love the Territory do not have to go away to receive medical training, be it as enrolled nurses, registered nurses, doctors or nurse practitioners.
Increasing opportunities for nurses to advance their careers and provide even more services to Territorians will benefit not only the more than 3500 nurses, but our health system and our community overall. The strategy outlined by my colleague today will provide employment opportunities for graduates from the nurse practitioner program.
Mr Deputy Speaker, an initiative that makes a difference to health delivery throughout the Northern Territory is also welcome. The strategy outlined today should be applauded, and I recommend all members of this House take note of this great initiative, a very good policy.
I support the motion and commend it to the House.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the statement to the House. It is a great initiative for nurses, especially in the Northern Territory. It has always been a struggle for them to get into remote communities, so the strategy will probably work really well.
There is a lot in the statement about chronic disease. Recently I was in Oenpelli for my young cousin’s funeral. Menzies School of Health staff were there doing research on rheumatic heart disease to find out whether it was genetic or not. These are some of the extraordinary things they are doing there. I would really like to know the answer when they have finished their research. I have spoken to the CEO about it today. He came to see us after talking to you, minister. There are really interesting things happening in research within the Aboriginal community, and ways of improving Aboriginal health.
We all know it has always been a struggle for Aboriginal people in remote areas. The arguments in this House have always been thrown back and forward between the two parties about who is doing better. At the end of the day, Aboriginal people want what is best for them. The infrastructure and the amount of money that comes in for Aboriginal disadvantage from the federal government will never be enough to settle the problem, until there are roads, better food – the quantity and quality in the shops. Not everybody has a car to get to Katherine, Gove or places like that to buy proper food. These are the real issues. Chronic disease will exist until we make a difference in that area.
We can all sit here and fight about the same things over and over, but it is not really going to make any difference at the end of the day. The most depressing part is coming in here and listening to members talk about who has been doing better and who has done wrong in the past. If the people out there sat in this gallery, especially the ones who have to bury their people every day, and listened to this argument, they would be pretty disappointed. We bury one person every day. It is sad enough. The health conditions are worse than anything, and it will get worse because of the drug problems. Now ice is going to the community, but there is no talk about that.
Lately my colleague and I have been in my electorate talking to the local police officers about the Sentencing Act and drugs in the community and how it is basically like petrol; you light one fire and it moves to the next place. You put this one out – it is like constantly chasing a fire. The penalties for people selling drugs are not enough for the police officers, and they are constantly fighting a battle which could go on forever.
What are we going to do to make life better for people in the bush? We can have people go out there with all the knowledge and expertise in the world, but when will we utilise the people already in remote communities who can do the job? There are Aboriginal health practitioners but they are not given enough strength, effort or investment to gain that experience. They can have a master’s degree as well.
We are elected to parliament to make life better for everybody and give everybody an equal opportunity in this world, but Aboriginal disadvantage is the biggest issue in Australia – worldwide – and it will be until we change the way we think about it and stop blaming each other. This problem will not go away, and it is frustrating, as an Indigenous member, to repeat myself over and over. It is a great statement and I support it 100%, but I sit here and listen to everything else. The minister put a lot of effort into this. She is going down a great path, she is leading the way, but there is still a lot of work to be done, especially in health in remote areas. Sunrise Health, Katherine West Health Board – there has not been a lot of investment in those areas, because they are NGOs, to have positions for nurse practitioners to invest their time and work in remote communities.
It is a great initiative and I support it, but the biggest problem in remote communities is in renal health. You have renal infrastructure in place which probably two to four members utilise, but there is not one renal nurse working there and looking after these patients, and that is almost in every area. Perhaps the government can look into that, minister. There have been many incidents in the past because renal patients have to come here to be trained to look after themselves when they are out bush, and that is about two years’ training.
Yes, they can look after themselves, but sometimes there are incidents were the nurses in the remote clinics, and the Aboriginal health workers, have to rush in because of bleeding problems and things like that where they have gone through the main artery. Problems like that really exist out there and it is a big issue. Family members do not like to sit around smelling blood or looking at blood. It is an issue. Some family members try to support their loved ones but there really is a need for renal nurses in remote areas where there is infrastructure in place for clients.
Nurses have always been the backbone of the health system, yes. Some of the great nurses who still work in remote areas have propped up remote clinics so well. Barunga, for example, has done such a fantastic job with remote Aboriginal health practitioners. They are practically nurses at the end of the day; they do what nurses do. They are veterans who worked during the Vietnam War, but they came back and put their effort in where they knew it was needed most. They are dedicated. I salute the nurses who came back and did that because they did the work and educated Aboriginal practitioners a little every day, and that is all they need.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the government and the minister for bringing this forward because it is a fantastic initiative, looking at many areas of poor health. It is not just concentrating on putting health practitioners in the bush; it is identifying areas that can start seeing results at the end.
Minister, is we know strategic plans often sit on tables in departments for many decades. I hope this one does not get lost in the bureaucracy. I hope your vigour is replicated by your agency and all these things are looked at. It is really important that you are looking at what is really the backbone of the Northern Territory.
I take this opportunity to thank nurses in my electorate, especially at Papunya. Vicki and Danny, who have been there for many years, really are the backbone of bringing the community together, making sure they identify problems.
Overcrowded houses is a really big health factor. There has to be a combination of the Health minister and the Housing minister, if he is interested, to make sure the two agencies come together. Overcrowding in houses creates many health issues, as you know, Minister for Health. Scabies and hepatitis come from overcrowding. You cannot have renal patients living in houses that have 35, 25, 17 or even 12 people in them.
The disadvantage factor for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory is a big issue, and we need to look at it. This is a key initiative you have brought forward as government to make sure Indigenous issues are looked at. There are plenty of resources.
Mental health is another area, minister, where you have looked at supporting remote Aboriginal communities. Like my colleague, the member for Arnhem, said, there are drugs galore in our communities. I had the problem with my son at the last sittings, trying to overdose on ice. There are no support mechanisms for these children, and that is in Alice Springs. Some of these kids in remote Aboriginal communities like Millingimbi, Kintore, Hermannsburg, Papunya or Ampilawatja – the drugs. We talk about alcohol in this parliament all the time. Put alcohol to one side because you need to start talking about drugs. You need to talk about the impact of drugs on the next two generations of Aboriginal kids in communities. You need to make sure there are counselling services for kids in the communities. Kids are committing suicide because they have nobody to talk to. Parents are struggling because they have nobody to talk to. They cannot go to a counselling service like we can in Darwin, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Alice Springs, and they are minimal services. These communities have nothing.
In my visits I sit down and talk to parents who have just lost their children to suicide, because they have not been able to get that from anywhere else. We see these kids committing suicide all the time. It is suicide through drugs. Yes, statistics are reducing on alcohol consumption, but statistics and data should be showing us all as parents, aunties, uncles and grandmothers that drug use, not just in remote Aboriginal communities but in towns like Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin, is on the increase. You have parents in northern suburb seats in Darwin crying about their children because they are using ice. We have to act on these issues now.
It is a fantastic strategy, minister, to see you collectively harness these other areas to put into the focus of a strategic plan to lead your government. But it is really important and appropriate that we look at overcrowding of houses and appropriate counselling services with our people working in remote Aboriginal communities. I understand we will not be able to put counselling services in every remote Aboriginal community; we also cannot have doctors in every community, but this is the time for us to be talking about these issues and helping Aboriginal people.
Our kids are struggling. I do not know whether anybody here saw Four Corners last night, but it was shocking to all of us as Australians, and it should be a shock to us as Territorians and parents. We need to get together and develop a committee to look at what the human cost of amphetamine use in remote Aboriginal communities and rural towns is to the Northern Territory taxpayer. It is important we have a direction for the next year-and-a-half of this government to help these young Territorians.
These young people are the future generation; they are our kids, nieces and nephews. If you do not have the services in remote Aboriginal communities, how will these parents and the community deal with the struggle and these issues? How will they talk about the impact on the family and cultural structure, and what is happening on a daily basis to their children? Maybe there is a connection between the number of kids coming into child protection that we need to look at as well. Are they mostly coming from drug using parents? They are the kind of programs we need to make sure we are focused on a forward direction as a government and parliament.
It is a fantastic strategy, minister. I congratulate you and I support the statement.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank my colleagues for supporting this statement on increasing the number of nurse practitioners in the Northern Territory.
I was very interested to hear the contribution of the member for Nelson, who talked about the former shadow Minister for Health, Dr Richard Lim. He brought a similar proposal to the parliament approximately seven years ago, which is news to me, but it does not surprise me.
Richard Lim was a medical practitioner, and he was committed to improving health services within the Northern Territory. From the position of opposition you are very limited in how effective you can be, but the story the member for Nelson told me was about how tardy the former Labor government was in this space. A doctor, a general practitioner by profession, brought an important suggestion to the Northern Territory parliament, and it was effectively ignored. It was a lost opportunity, and it took seven years to come around again. That is a sad story, but I am proud we have finally reversed that. We are finally doing something about a matter that should have been dealt with a long time ago.
The other interesting statement, emphasised by my colleague, the member for Sanderson, was that we have many nurses employed throughout the Northern Territory, and we all genuinely value them. These are, by and large, incredible people. I have shared before in this Chamber that many of my closest and dearest friends in the world are nurses, most of who work in the Northern Territory for the Northern Territory government. I have very great admiration for these people, as all who have participated in the debate have said.
With such a large number of nurses employed by the Northern Territory government – at the moment we have about 2365 nurses – only three of those, up until recently, were nurse practitioners. Out of almost 2400 nurses, only three of them had attained the level of being employed by the Northern Territory as nurse practitioners.
Coming into the position of the Minister for Health approximately 18 months ago, these are the types of stories I was uncovering where the former Labor Ministers for Health had not done a particularly good job. Under every stone I found a story of tardiness and, essentially, laziness in not doing the right thing by Territorians. Tonight we are talking about nurse practitioners and how there should be – and will be soon – many more employed within the Northern Territory government. We have lost all those years and are trying to make that up very quickly.
I took on board the comments of the member for Namatjira who urged me to not let another strategic plan gather dust on someone’s desk within the bureaucracy. I will not let that happen. This strategic plan for nurse practitioners I presented to the public in February 2014 will not collect dust. I have put targets on the department that it will reach. We will be reviewing those targets close to the election. The current target is to increase the number of nurse practitioners from three to 25 by 2016. That leads us into the next election.
It is a fairly modest target but a substantial increase on what we were left with by Labor. Essentially, the former Labor government, through its sheer neglect and tardiness, prevented registered nurses from becoming employed nurse practitioners in the Northern Territory. That is something to be deeply ashamed of. I realise most of the Labor members we have in this Chamber were not a party to that sort of tardiness, but some were. Some actively presided over taking their eye off the ball and allowing this to occur. They have done no service to nurses and midwives in the Northern Territory.
The nurses and midwives’ union aligns with the Labor Party and, ultimately, a Labor government. It is that union and that government that has let nurses down in this case. They should be deeply ashamed for not giving Northern Territory nurses the real opportunity to extend their learning and education, and to be employed in jobs in which they could have been performing an extended role, as I described in my statement.
The same story goes to the tardiness around the lack of opportunities and development of the Aboriginal health practitioner profession. That was another story I uncovered soon after becoming Health minister, another rock I looked under where I found another example of tardiness, laziness and the former Labor government taking its eye off the ball, to the extent the profession has languished and become a lot smaller that it was at the beginning of its term in 2001.
I take the comments of my colleagues from both sides of the Chamber on board. Everyone who has spoken tonight has graciously extended their support of strategy, not surprisingly, because it means the whole nursing profession will be progressed and upskilled. There are opportunities now that were not there just a few months ago, or years ago under Labor. Although it has not been a particularly political debate, I feel compelled to end it on a political note: this Country Liberals government is committed to improving health services in the Northern Territory. We are not here to tell stories of rhetoric and nonsense; we are on the ground doing fantastic things to reform and improve working lives and careers, and the health services across the Northern Territory.
The story of nurse practitioners in the Northern Territory will unfold, and I will come back to parliament, undoubtedly within the next 12 months, to give you an update. As I have already outlined, we have gone from having three under Labor to 10 in just a few months. I am hoping we will reach 25, the target number, well before 2016. Hand in hand with that target is making sure these people are trained and the positions are created in a strategic way. That part of the strategy was endorsed by several people in the Chamber tonight: that it is important that areas of the greatest need are aligned with the new nurse practitioner positions.
I listened to the members for Arnhem and Namatjira speak about their perceptions of where these upskilled, advanced nurse practitioner positions should be targeted, and I hear what they say. There is a great need for more specialised mental health positions throughout remote areas of the Northern Territory. In my travels the consistent message I have heard is there are people in our remote communities who are suffering mentally and need expert assistance, as do we who suffer from mental health issues in the urban areas of the Northern Territory. We need to extend our mental health services. Perhaps this initiative to increase the number of nurse practitioner positions in the Northern Territory is one way of providing specialised mental health services to remote communities.
I thank members for those comments. I heard the member for Namatjira clearly talk about the problem of amphetamines in the Northern Territory. This is extremely disturbing. I am hearing more and more that ice or amphetamines are more freely available throughout the Northern Territory. Yes, I watched the Four Corners program last night and it was extremely disturbing. I will have a conversation with my Department of Health executives about how we might address this emerging problem in the Northern Territory.
I also heard of the need, as I mentioned before, to extend the education of, and to upskill, Aboriginal staff in remote clinics.
I heard the member for Arnhem talk about how Aboriginal health is one of the most challenging areas of need we face throughout the Northern Territory, and she is indeed right. Hand-in-hand with bolstering the number of nurse practitioners, we are working on doing the same for our Aboriginal health practitioners, but across the board we need to make sure people who have an interest in health, whether they be at school or have finished school, are given opportunities to get into the health workforce.
That is another area we are working on very actively at the moment. We are engaged in discussions with the Education minister and various executives within his department to look at how we can provide a more flexible education system, particularly for people who live in remote areas who have a desire to become health practitioners of one sort or another.
I listened with great interest to the contribution made by the member for Goyder and her reflection on great nurses within her electorate. The thought that went through my mind is that all of us in this Chamber could probably spend at least half and hour talking about the nurses who live in our electorates and have made amazing contributions to life in the Northern Territory and beyond. I even suggest that during the next International Nurses Week we take time to reflect on great nurses, as did the member for Goyder earlier this evening.
I listened to the member for Wanguri who was very gracious in her support of this initiative. Yes, we have a long way to go in health. We have problems within our health system that we inherited from you and we are working very hard to address them. You recognise that one of those problems that existed during the former Labor government’s time is bed block. We have opened, as you said, 40 beds within the Royal Darwin Hospital accommodation facility, formerly known as the medi-hotel, and we will be opening the remaining 60 beds, taking it to a total of 100 beds utilised by the beginning of next year.
Already making the medi-hotel available for the hospital in the home and step-up, step-down patients has been very well received. I have no doubt we will fill those 100 beds very easily in the future.
When we came to government in August 2012 the medi-hotel was completed. We were told by the departmental executives that the beautiful 100-bed facility we all talk about on a regular basis was completed and ready to be used, but it was left vacant for approximately four months, by Labor, leading up to the election. That seems to have dropped out of the narrative of the medi-hotel spun by the opposition, but I put it on record that it is indeed a fact. It was completed in May, the election was in August, and it remained unutilised for those four months. When we came to government it was astounding that we were shown this amazing facility which staff were trying to keep clean and maintained because it was not being used. The positive outcome is that it is now back to its original intended use, and the stories we are hearing from the Royal Darwin Hospital are extremely positive.
I will not continue with reflecting on the comments of my colleagues. Suffice to say I am very pleased this initiative has the full support of the Chamber. No one has spoken negatively about this initiative, because it makes perfect sense. It made sense seven years ago when Dr Richard Lim, the opposition health spokesperson for the CLP, brought this forward. It made sense to progress it then, and it certainly makes sense to progress it now, seven years later, in getting back to what really counts. It is about making sure our nurses are well catered for, they are given opportunities and that communities right across the Northern Territory benefit from these highly skilled, advanced nurse practitioners.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I update the House on the biosecurity incursions crippling two significant horticultural crops in the Northern Territory. Both banana and watermelon crops have been infected with an exotic plant disease, and the only effective method to contain and eradicate these diseases is quarantine and destruction.
Banana freckle was first discovered on bananas in the Northern Territory in 1991, but it was not until July 2013 that a new strain of the disease was found, affecting the Cavendish variety. Ninety-five per cent of the Australian market is Cavendish, so this find was devastating for the industry.
In order to eradicate banana freckle from the Northern Territory and prevent its spread interstate, all banana plants in six zones across the Top End will be destroyed. These zones correlate to areas where bananas are known to be infected with banana freckle. This approach has been endorsed by the national management group, which has representatives from affected industry associations, the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments. It will be the largest nationally cost-shared emergency plant pest response to date in Australia.
The Northern Territory government, through the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, will implement the national banana freckle eradication program, as endorsed by this national biosecurity group. The six eradication zones are in the Darwin region, which includes all properties north of Manton Dam and west of Marrakai and extending to the NT coastline, Rum Jungle/ Batchelor, Dundee Beach, Daly River, Milikapiti and Ramingining. Under the eradication program, all banana plants in the identified zones, including Darwin, will be removed and destroyed. Quarantine and movement controls for banana plants and fruit will apply.
There are four phases to the banana freckle eradication plan. The first phase is the destruction of host material. This primarily involves the removal and destruction of all banana plants in the six zones. It is estimated that this phase of the response will take around seven months, and will be run from now until April 2015. Surveys will also be conducted on the edge of the zones and in other areas across the Top End to confirm the disease is restricted to these zones before its eradication is complete.
Phase two is the host-free period. This phase will last at least six months and include a full Wet Season. During this time there will be movement control on banana plant material being moved in and out of the zones, and surveys to track down and destroy any remaining banana plants or re-growth.
During phase three there will be the reintroduction of banana plants under a controlled replanting and monitoring program administered by the department. This will occur over 12 months. Some of these plants will be used as sentinels to confirm that banana freckle has been eradicated from the Northern Territory.
Phase four will involve the Northern Territory seeking and gaining national recognition that the Territory is free of banana freckle. Application for national proof of freedom cannot be sought until all zones have been through all phases of the eradication program and the Northern Territory is confident that the NT is free of banana freckle. At this stage, this will not be until at least April 2017.
The Australian Banana Growers’ Council will contribute over $10m to the eradication plan which will be run by the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. The eradication program will have a strong emphasis on working in partnership with the community to identify and destroy banana plants within the zones.
Territorians will be encouraged to remove plants and then inform response staff, who will then treat the stumps of plants to prevent their regrowth. In other situations, response staff will remove and treat plants or work with other groups, such as Indigenous rangers, to complete the destruction of banana plants within the zones.
The eradication of banana freckle will deliver a number of outcomes. It will stop the spread of this disease to interstate farms, it will ensure that a re-established Northern Territory banana industry is free from the effects of this disease, and, importantly, it will ensure that Northern Territorians can once again grow banana plants that will be free from banana freckle.
Although the local banana industry is small, there is growing national industry recognition that there is a very real potential for bananas to become a major horticultural industry in the Northern Territory. Experts agree that the eradication program will see the Northern Territory free of banana freckle by the end of 2017.
The banana freckle disease is a double blow for the Northern Territory banana industry, which is still recovering from an outbreak of the soil-borne panama disease in 1997 that caused most commercial growers to cease production. The eradication program, while severe, is designed to get rid of an exotic disease that is present in the Northern Territory and that poses a real threat to the national industry, including the longer-term future of banana growing in the Northern Territory.
Unfortunately, this is also now the case with the Northern Territory’s watermelon industry. In the first week of October the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus, or CGMMV, was positively identified in seven watermelon farms in the Northern Territory, six in the Katherine region and, later, a farm in the Darwin rural area. This is the first time this virus has been found in Australia, and it was devastating news for melon growers here and nationally.
The fruit of CGMMV infected plants can suffer internal yellowing and patches of flesh that is soft, breaks down and becomes watery. The disease can also cause fruit to abort or become malformed. The leaves of infected plants have a mottled appearance.
The Northern Territory is Australia’s second-largest producer of watermelons, with a well-established industry valued at more than $60m per year. There are currently 18 commercial watermelon farms located from Central Australia right up to the Top End. Melons – that is, rockmelons and watermelons – are considered to be the next major crop for the Northern Territory that has excellent export potential. Nationally, the melon industry was valued at $235m in 2012-13. Since the positive identification of the exotic plant disease CGMMV, the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries Biosecurity and Animal Welfare Group staff have surveyed all melon farms in the Northern Territory from Alice Springs to the Top End to determine how widespread the virus is.
The department’s molecular scientist has used the new state-of-the-art Quarantine Containment Level Three facility during testing at Berrimah Farm, Darwin, and also utilised the services of the Australian Genome Research Facility at the University of Queensland to supply sequence data from DNA of CGMMV for definitive confirmation.
Following confirmation of the identity of the virus and recognition of its potential as a serious plant pest, a high-level management response team was immediately established in the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. This response management team, operating from a control centre headquarters at Berrimah Farm, is coordinating surveillance to establish the location and enable containment of the virus.
To prevent further spread, drastic urgent action was necessary. This virus is easy to transfer. It can be transmitted via infected seeds, plants, machinery and, possibly, water. You can spread this disease simply by walking through an infected crop and then coming into contact with crops on another farm.
The immediate response from the department was to survey to determine the extent of the incursion; quarantine all confirmed infected, suspect and nearby at risk properties; identify and establish effective methods for all farms to implement to minimise carryover of the disease; and promptly alert industry within the Territory and interstate to the presence of this disease and how to prevent its further spread. Further, a free-call 1800 hotline was put in place to answer queries from the public.
The infected farms have now been fully quarantined and destruction of crop material and disinfection of machines and equipment is under way. The infected crops are sprayed with herbicide, and all plant material will then be placed in large disposal trenches at least 1.5 m deep for burning and then burial.
All sites will be cultivated to assist with the breakdown of root material, which can carry the disease. A cover crop will then need to be planted to stabilise the site and increase soil activity to enhance plant tissue breakdown. There will be a two-year ban on growing watermelons on farms that have tested positive for CGMMV and are placed under quarantine. If the disease is found to be infecting other crops, this ban will be extended to include the affected crops.
This plant disease is easily transmitted and may persist in an extended period in plant material and soil. The damage it causes to the host plant and fruit is extensive, and results in substantial crop losses. High-level urgent and drastic biosecurity measures are essential if we are to be successful in containing and eradicating this disease.
CGMMV is considered to have a narrow host range primarily limited to the cucurbit species, which includes watermelon, other melons, cucumber, pumpkin, squash, zucchini and gourds.
The disease is also of great concern for our vegetable growing industry. The Northern Territory’s vegetable growing industry has taken off in recent years, with vegetable production in the Northern Territory in 2012-13 close to $60m. Bitter melon, cucumbers and pumpkins, which are known CGMMV hosts, had an estimated value of $9.8m, $7.2m and $9.7m respectively in 2012-13.
CGMMV is a real and significant threat to fresh market, export and cucurbit seed industries not just in the Territory, but Australia-wide. The containment and eradication of this plant pest is vital to ensure the future viability of the Northern Territory and Australian melon industries. Under quarantine conditions the movement of melons in affected areas will need to come to a standstill. No movement or sale of melons or plant material will be permitted from premises under quarantine.
The department takes biosecurity very seriously and works closely with farmers to protect our primary industries and detect, manage and resolve issues when they occur.
I commend the department’s biosecurity office for its quick response to this disease in notifying all commercial watermelon growers in the Northern Territory and beginning surveillance and tracing activities to help stop further spread of the suspected virus.
As you can imagine, dealing with two responses at the one time requires significant resources.
In relation to the banana freckle response, we are transitioning to a project management focus which will see groups of up to 60 people from around Australia dedicated to the response for the duration, which is expected to be three to four years. In relation to the CGMMV response, a significant number of resources have already been marshalled from within the department and other jurisdictions, which has allowed us to take swift action to date. The Department of the Chief Minister is coordinating additional support from across government, which will bolster our ability to contain the spread of this disease as we plan for its eradication.
I have personally visited the control centres of both responses and witnessed firsthand the level of professionalism in dealing with the complexity of these types of operations. I am confident that the department is doing everything it can to achieve the ultimate goal of eradicating both diseases for the longer term viability of the affected industries in the Northern Territory.
It is difficult to estimate the value of these industry losses as melon growers are at different points of production. However, as a guide, for 2012-13 production of watermelons in the Northern Territory was valued at $63.7m and bananas at $5.4m. The Northern Territory government recognises that the economic and social consequences of these incursions for our commercial farmers, hobby farmers and many Territorians in general will be far reaching.
These plant disease incursions are a substantial threat to the Northern Territory’s horticultural industry. There will be social and economic impacts on the industry and on the Northern Territory’s economy in general.
While our commercial banana farmers are potentially eligible for compensation under the National Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed, it is unfortunate that Australia’s melon industry is not a signatory to the deed, so Northern Territory melon growers are not able to access this form of assistance. To this end we have pledged to do all we can to support these horticultural sectors during the eradication and quarantine phase and to be there to help these businesses re-build when it is safe to do so.
The Territory has managed to successfully eradicate a number of exotic pests or diseases of horticultural crops in the past, including citrus canker, Philippine fruit fly and, most recently, grapevine leaf rust. Robust and tough biosecurity measures are warranted to stop and prevent the entry and establishment of further exotic plant pests or diseases that threaten our horticultural industries.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note this statement.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this important statement to the House and informing not only the House but Territorians about this very important issue.
I thank the minister once again for the opportunity I was given to tour the banana freckle eradication response centre and learn about the important work that goes on there. It gave me a full understanding and appreciation of the nature of the issue and the work needed to correct this problem.
I also thank the minister and his office staff for another invitation for an individual briefing session on the national banana freckle response plan. I say to the minister’s staff, I have not replied, I have been on the road in the bush for quite a while, but I look forward to making contact.
There is a tragic sense of irony for the minister when faced with a Commonwealth determination to eradicate an industry, basically, in northern Australia. It rings of the live cattle export ban. I feel for you, minister, that you have been placed in the same situation by the federal government to address …
Mr Westra van Holthe: You are wrong. You are a fool. You come out with comments like that to try to …
Mr McCARTHY: Bring it on, minister. Sticks and stones will break my bones.
We will get down to tin tacks. This is one of the ministers who continually runs a narrative around the live cattle ban …
Mr Westra van Holthe: You are a disgrace …
Mr McCARTHY: He continually uses people’s names and slags off …
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I have everyone seated for a minute. Do not yell at each other across the floor or you will both be out. Member for Barkly, you have the floor.
Mr McCARTHY: As I was saying, it is a tragic sense of irony. I feel for the minister having to deal with the pressure that has come from the federal government, because it directly affects Territorians. We are talking about an industry that will be put on hold. Lives will be changed. Banana production in the Northern Territory will be eradicated with the eradication of banana freckle.
I understand the pressure the minister must be under, and it was very interesting to see how he reacted. It sums up the character of this minister, let alone something else that seems to be resonating behind the scenes. But whatever, minister. That is my statement. I understand what you must be going through, and I raise that point in good faith. This minister continually tries to twist and bend the truth in attacking the previous Labor government.
There is also a very important point here, and it is that banana growing in the Northern Territory will be effectively wiped out for very good reasons. I thank the minister for the education to learn about those reasons.
During the briefing at the banana freckle emergency response office, it was interesting that there was a hint that if the process did not work, they will have to go back with far more drastic approaches, and a far more drastic strategy. This is what the minister has risen in the House to describe tonight. It has reached that next level.
It is important to reflect on the growers and the industry. As a responsible government, being responsible, it will be very important to work through the stages described in this statement.
The first phase of the eradication program is the destruction of host material. Talking to people in Darwin over the last couple of days, I have been told that growers have been instructed to destroy their own plant. The minister highlighted that stumps then will be poisoned to complete that destruction. I am wondering what biosecurity measures are in place to ensure growers destroy their plants completely and effectively to allow the next stage of the process, where the stumps will be poisoned and the ground cultivated before we move on to phases two, three and four.
The question of compensation is still alive and well. The minister outlined in his statement that commercial growers will be compensated; however, hobby and back yard farmers, and people who have grown bananas for many years in their own private premises are unable to be compensated.
I remember there was a degree of goodwill in compensation in the previous eradication campaign, where people where offered a replacement banana plant. I am assuming that will not be available any longer because of the more radical nature of the campaign. Are people being offered any other form of compensation?
The word on the street is that there could be legal action mounted by the Northern Territory commercial grower. I suppose that will challenge the government in resources needed to conduct the campaign and ensure the biosecurity level is maintained with banana growers destroying their own plants, the monitoring campaign and the destruction of the stumps. I am wondering if that talk on the street is real and, if so, if the government is preparing for that possibility, as we know the costs in legal fees in what could be lengthy action.
I also listened very carefully to the situation of the Northern Territory’s watermelon industry. I am particularly interested in the watermelon farms around Ali Curung and Tennant Creek. Reading the statement this morning and hearing the minister deliver the statement, I hoped there would be good news coming from that area in the Northern Territory. I hope they are still, in their growing cycle, under normal production, and there will be the opportunity to continue marketing that crop out of Central Australia. I did not really get that from the statement, but I hope the minister will elaborate on that.
The statement said the Northern Territory is Australia’s second-largest producer of watermelons, a well-established industry valued at more than $60m per year. You are looking at not only a quite sophisticated industry but, as the minister said, the potential for further growth. In that melon industry, is there any compensation? Is there anything government can do to support this industry, because it is a lot wider spread than the banana industry? It would involve people’s livelihoods and businesses, and there is no doubt there are many jobs involved. Those jobs represent the important elements of regional economic development in regional communities. Is there anything the government is doing for that?
When the federal government imposed the live export ban that affected the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory government immediately moved to cease the pastoral land rents to give those producers an immediate level of support. There was a huge shock, a huge impact on northern Australia, but the Northern Territory Labor government moved immediately to try to do something with a cessation of pastoral rents for those producers who were in trouble. Has the Country Liberal Party government thought of anything that can be done for the watermelon growers, those broadacre farmers who have quite sophisticated systems, employ local people and provide families with incomes? It would be good to hear the minister’s creative intellect about that to see if there is something in train to be supportive of the industry.
Towards the end of the statement the minister said there is not a lot they can do, that commercial banana growers – I believe one major commercial grower in the Territory is eligible for compensation; however, the melon growers, those broadacre farmers, do not have much opportunity, so it will be good to see what this supportive government can do.
It was good to see and understand the level of operation at Berrimah Research Farm. I remember talking about the world-class research laboratory on the site. I attempted to convey my concern for the minister, and he reiterated that concern in the statement where there are two major biosecurity issues occurring at the same time. This is a very high pressure situation for not only Northern Territory industries but for the government and the Berrimah Research Farm. It highlights the increased activity, no doubt, at Berrimah Research Farm and the importance of the farm. It certainly would take priority over the minister for Lands and Planning’s rhetoric around encouraging an international developer to reduce the size of Berrimah farm, cut it up and deliver residential development.
This biosecurity issue, no doubt, will be the headline around Berrimah farm, and I assume this government will be putting all the resources necessary into Berrimah Research Farm, the personnel, the systems and the management, because being hit with two major biosecurity issues at once and then having a very firm plan over the next three to four years would certainly solicit that focus and resource allocation.
What about the jobs in the industry and what is government able to provide? I linked a couple of paragraphs that really were good to read. To see the government recognising the economic and social consequences of these incursions then articulating this is a quite radical measure, but a measure that is needed to develop the future of the industry. It would be good to hear from the minister how that will translate into real support on the ground.
I thank the minister once again for this statement. I do not mind locking horns anytime, anywhere, but I found the sensitivity solicited quite interesting. This minister likes to throw around the rhetoric but does not like anybody who wants to chip it back over the net. It was interesting to see that level of emotion and vicious attack with that childish name calling across the floor, minister. We are all in this together
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your adjudication and the opportunity to speak.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a bit hard to be cheerful about what we have to talk about today. I was never a big time grower; I grew quite a few bananas at Bathurst Island and watermelons. The member for Arafura might remember them, because sometimes on Sunday people jumped the fence and took them home in the back of their car thinking I was not looking. Bananas and watermelons have been very much part of the Northern Territory for a long time. What we are talking about today is a much larger industry than I knew of that has been devastated by two serious diseases. It is a very difficult time for the people involved in those industries.
It must be heartbreaking for the farm at Lake Bennett, and there is one starting on the Douglas Daly. From a commercial banana growing point of view, Lambells Lagoon is our biggest farm and it will be destroyed. With that will go jobs and the livelihoods of many people from that small community at Lambells Lagoon, plus the people who own the banana plantation lose the business.
There are other people as well. There are reasonably-sized hobby farmers in the Darwin area. I am sure you will hear from Peter Bekkers, minister. He has supplied bananas to the markets for many years, and there are people affected in my electorate. Some of us have already been through the destruction phase from the initial outbreak of banana freckle, so for some of us it will not make any difference. But for many who thought they were lucky to miss out, it is simply not going to happen.
I raise the issue of the hobby farmers. I understand where the government is coming from. Commercial growers pay a levy; therefore they are covered under the national scheme. I understand that, but there are people who are also dependant on the sale of bananas locally. They do not have anything to do with the interstate trade. They are purely local; they provide a service for the local communities through local markets, and, of course, they earn an income. They too will be severely affected. You only have to go around the markets in the rural area or in Darwin and Palmerston and look at the variety of bananas that are sold, especially the cooking varieties. Those varieties, as well as Cavendish, will disappear. It certainly will be a big change for this part of the Northern Territory.
Thank you, minister, for the briefing I had yesterday. We probably went a bit longer than expected but I had many questions, and we are dealing with a couple of issues that are really of Northern Territory importance, especially when it comes to the effects it will have on the economy and the social fabric of some of these areas. At least there was some good news. The Douglas Daly farms are out of that area. I am not sure how far those farms have gone, but the new farms at the Douglas Daly are not in the eradication areas.
I note that Daly River, Nauiyu, is in it, and that is another place I grew bananas when I first came to the Territory. I know a Brother, called Brother Groves, who for many years grew bananas right on the banks of the river there as well. It might sound a bit strange, but it is like a bit of history disappearing. There will be no bananas there, something you would not have expected to happen.
If we look in the hard light of reality we cannot ignore the fact we have a disease which, potentially, if it got into Queensland, could be disastrous. The decision-making really has come from the biggest state with bananas, which is Queensland. They do not want to see their industry affected. The Northern Territory is regarded as small bikkies when it comes to this matter, and to make sure there is no risk to the banana industry, the Northern Territory has to step up to the mark, unfortunately. It will be quite a long time before we see bananas grown in this part of the Northern Territory.
Hopefully other banana plantations will be able to get going in areas outside of the eradication program, and that might fill the gap, because people will be concerned about the cost of bananas now. They were never exceptionally cheap in the Darwin area, partly due to the high cost of production because of the Panama disease. It will be interesting to see what the price of bananas will now be in the Top End.
In relation to what will happen, there is some concern that there are varieties of bananas that people have nurtured for some time – they are not all Cavendish or Lady Fingers; there are quite a few varieties of bananas. I hope the department has a chance to allow people to at least identify varieties of bananas they would like to keep. One way to keep them would be to take some tissue culture from those plants and keep them in quarantine, with their names on the material. We could at least enable those people to preserve some of the species they have had for many years. If you have tried different bananas you will know they do not all taste the same. We have many cultures in the Northern Territory which have many different tastes, and one of those is different varieties of bananas.
Many people would be sad if there was no way those varieties could be kept through this period. Questions will need to be asked about when plants can be grown again. One of the big issues the government has is that we live in a very multicultural area; people have come from Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia, many countries where bananas are grown, and I remember there was a lot of suspicion about how Panama disease reached the Northern Territory. Many of us believe it was brought in; I do not know how else Panama disease could get here. Before we had Panama disease we had the potential to be one of the largest banana growing areas in Australia. It did not happen, as Panama disease arrived and destroyed most of that.
When the government is delivering this message about why we must destroy these plants, it must put it out in language that is understood by all people. It might have to come out in many languages, whether it is for an Aboriginal community or for people from Asian countries who might not fully understand English; it needs to be delivered in a way so they can understand the reasons the government needs to destroy banana plants. The other side is biosecurity; we must ensure people understand you will not be allowed to bring banana plants to these areas. I do not know whether it is fruit; I presume we can still eat bananas from other parts of Australia, but I presume we cannot bring in plants. There will be a ban on any plants coming into those areas, and it needs to be very clear and well-advertised.
If we are to shorten the time that we cannot grow bananas we must ensure there are no outbreaks of banana freckle in that period. We have to push this idea that you cannot bring plant material in from overseas, interstate or intra-Territory. At Yirrkala there is an enormous banana plantation which was unfortunately devastated by Panama disease, but they are still producing some bananas. There needs to be something there that says you cannot take bananas from Yirrkala to Ramingining anymore, because Ramingining is part of that area where no bananas should be grown.
It will be a difficult issue for government. Minister, I do not envy your task, and you will receive a lot of flak from certain people. Other people will understand it. I have received some of that flak at times from people who did not want to destroy their bananas, and I had to explain why it is necessary. It will not be easy. I even received an e-mails from someone saying they did not want any chemicals used in destruction, so there are little things like that. There must be a program that is user-friendly, because many people will be missing their bananas, especially those who grow them for the markets.
In relation to the cucumber mosaic virus, there is no shortcut with the acronym, so I will just call it that. I enjoyed the briefing. There is a gentleman on the front of this paper, Barry Conde, who has been in the department for many years. He is a virologist and I have known him for a long time. I am pretty sure that is him. If I am wrong, he will tell me. He has spent most of his life working with the department of Primary Industry, especially in the area of disease control. He is someone the department needs, especially in times of diseases like this.
Watermelon and other crops are infected. I doubt if you call something the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus that it just attacks watermelons, not with ‘cucumber’ in the name. It is obviously a problem with other cucurbitaceae plants. You list them in the briefing paper you gave me: watermelon; rockmelon; cucumber; pumpkin; squash; bitter gourds – some of the Asian markets depend on those plants – zucchinis; and gherkins. It is more than watermelons. It is much of that other market.
What effect that will have on our economy and our social fabric, because there are big growers in Katherine – as you said, we are the second-biggest grower of watermelons in Australia. I did not realise we were that big. I knew we were getting big, and I always enjoyed buying watermelons by the side of the highway, whether they came from Katherine or Lambells Lagoon. Obviously that will not happen anymore.
An industry which is maybe seven times bigger than the banana industry is a big industry. It will have effects on the economy of Katherine especially, whether it is people having to look for work, the local agricultural supplier of fertiliser, chemicals, T-Tape and plastic. Many people will be affected by this. In some cases, growers may just have to go away and find another job until the period is over, or they will have to find another crop to grow, if that is possible. I hope the government will be giving advice in that area where possible.
As the minister said, unfortunately watermelon growers will not be entitled to compensation. As they are not entitled to compensation, I hope the business section of the government is looking at trying to help people through this time, because we want the watermelon growers back. I am not saying this in a silly way, but the government says we are open for business, and at the moment we are just about closed for business. If we want to make sure we are open for business in two years’ time, we have to get through this period and help those growers so they do not just leave town and never come back again.
On the issue of biosecurity, I am concerned whether we have done enough. I talk about the Territory and Commonwealth governments. We have had a number of diseases come into the Territory. We know about Panama disease and how it destroyed the potential for bananas. But we have little things like snake bean wilt. It is not really wilt, but it is the same as you get in tomatoes. There is the same problem with watermelons. I did not know until recently that some growers bring in watermelons in tube stock. There was talk that some of that tube stock might have fusarium wilt. There have been some problems with watermelons from that point of view. Now throw in banana freckle and cucumber green mottle mosaic virus, and life is getting tough for some growers.
Luckily we have places like Ali Curung that are free of that problem. I have been to Ali Curung. I am not knocking the people there, it is a beautiful farm, but I ask whether the department is ensuring that watermelon growers in the Northern Territory have strictly enforced biosecurity. One of the things that came from the briefing was there was not much biosecurity on farms. I could come in, knock on the door and walk across the paddock. It is obvious we have to tighten up on many of those things. If we are to protect the Ali Curung watermelon crop, what do we have in place to make sure nothing from the Top End can be inadvertently spread to Ali Curung, otherwise they will have the same problem.
The other issue is biosecurity of seed. There has been a lot of talk about this disease coming in in seed. I used to buy seed from different companies. I am not sure Yates exists anymore. The Australian company was Yates, but I did not buy all my seed from Australia. I bought it from overseas through Bloms, MPK and other companies, some of which do not exist anymore. I understand from the briefing there is the possibility some of this seed was infected with this virus.
I understand you can check for this virus using DNA method. If this is such a disastrous disease that could spread throughout Australia, are we sampling seed coming in from overseas? What are we doing to make sure that seed is pure?
We already know there is an outbreak in California, again believed to come through seed. If we are to protect our horticultural markets and our future, we may have to spend a bit more money on tightening our controls so plant material cannot come in from anywhere else. In Western Australia you cannot get through the Kununurra gate, but it costs a lot of money for that protection, of course. We may have to spend a lot of money to protect those crops.
This is not particularly a Northern Territory matter. It is an Australian government matter to make sure seeds or plant material coming does not carry disease, as appears to have happened here.
The future of our industry depends on whether we can keep our crops clean. It would be tragic to get through the next two years, start growing watermelons again, and all of a sudden we have another outbreak. It is the same with banana freckle. We get rid of all the bananas, and all of a sudden we find someone brings in freckle again.
One good thing I heard at the briefing – you have to take some good out of fairly tragic circumstances – is if all the bananas in the Darwin region are removed, so will many of the pests and diseases that come with bananas. It may be that when new crops are grown, at least for a period of time there will not be so many pests and diseases because the host will not have been around for a couple of years.
Minister, I do not know whether you have looked at the cost to the Northern Territory government. I know some of this will come from the Commonwealth, in the case of bananas, through the levy and compensation. Has the government looked at the cost to itself because you have to employ many people to carry this out? What will the cost be to the economy, and is there any chance the government could afford to give some compensation to the smaller growers who will be devastated by this as well?
It is hard, minister, to talk up what is going on because it is a very serious time. I thank the government people for the briefing. I also thank the …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I cannot emphasise enough that if the government wants to succeed here it will have to sell its message, and it will not be easy. The government needs to tell people why it is doing it, very clearly, to give an understanding. Yesterday I heard the technical names for the different – for instance, when it comes to the spores from banana freckle, we have the Ascospore, which we did not know about. Last time the member for Barkly and I went to the banana freckle centre all we heard about was the Conidia spore, which is spread by water. Now there is another kind of spore which is spread by air.
I do not think people are silly enough not to understand, but it needs to be made clear what is causing this problem, what it will do the industry, how we can overcome it, and to look on the bright side that out of this will come a chance to grow bananas again, hopefully with no disease; we just need to work together as Territorians. That is the thing; if we are to get the Territory economy going in relation to bananas and watermelons then we will have to work together as a team. Yes, it will be hard. Yes, people will say, ‘I do not want to do it’, but the reality is there are times when the individual is not as great as the community. In preserving the industry and looking into the future so this industry can pick itself up and continue, then there will be some pain.
I hope the government can put it forward in a way people will understand. Make sure the biosecurity side is emphasised and that people will not be able to bring plants in. That is the real worry for me, that someone will sneak some in from out bush or someone has a cousin in Queensland and brings a plant in. We need to emphasise that will not be allowed because we only need one banana plant that has freckle and we are back to square one again.
It will be a big job. I do not envy the minister, but I give him my support and hope other members give their support to say we need to do this for the benefit of the horticultural industry in the Northern Territory.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, in July 2013 banana freckle was first noticed on the Cavendish variety of bananas. This variety makes up 95% of the Australian market, so this find was devastating to the banana growing industry. The banana freckle disease was first found in the Howard Springs area of rural Darwin and has spread to a number of other areas, including Milikapiti on Melville Island in my electorate.
To eradicate banana freckle from the Northern Territory and prevent its spread interstate, all banana plants in six eradication zones will be destroyed. These eradication zones are the Darwin region, Rum Jungle/Batchelor, Dundee Beach, Daly River, Ramingining, and Milikapiti in my electorate.
The spread of this disease to Milikapiti on Melville Island proves that quarantining these farms and stopping the transportation of plant matter, along with its destruction, is vital to the successful eradication of this disease. The eradication process outlined by the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries has been endorsed by the national management group, which has representatives from industry, the Commonwealth government and all states and territory governments.
People in the Territory have been encouraged to get involved with the eradication effort by removing banana plants on their properties and then informing response group staff. Response staff will then come and treat the stumps of plants to stop regrowth. If people are unable to remove plants themselves, staff will be available to assist. I encourage all Territorians to contact the banana freckle hotline if they have any questions. The eradication of banana freckle will stop the spread of this disease to interstate farms. It will ensure the re-established Northern Territory banana industry is free from the effects of disease. Importantly, it will ensure that Territorians can once again grow banana plants free from banana freckle. Experts believe that the Northern Territory will be free of banana freckle by the end of 2017.
Unfortunately this is not the only biosecurity incursion affecting Territory producers. As the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries has outlined today, the disease cucumber green mottle mosaic virus was found on six melon farms in the Katherine region earlier this month, and later on farms in the Darwin rural area. This is the first time the virus has been found in Australia, and it has devastated melon growers in the Territory and nationally.
The Northern Territory is the second-largest producer of watermelons in Australia, with the industry valued at more than $60m a year.
The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries informed the House of the process required to eradicate this virus from the Northern Territory, including a two-year ban on growing watermelons on affected farms.
This is not the first time the Northern Territory has faced biosecurity threats; however, these two threats are substantial issues for the Northern Territory horticultural industry. This will, in turn, impact on the Northern Territory economy in general.
In closing, I commend the minister, his department and interstate colleagues, as well as the industry association for their prompt response and hard work in trying to eradicate this disease.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this sad, nevertheless necessary, statement to the House.
I listened to what the minister had to say, and I have been tracking this issue in the media. One can only feel desperately sad for businesses which will be affected by this. A $62m melon industry is under threat, as well as the $5m banana industry. It is a banana industry which recently went through the ravages and pains associated with the Panama disease.
It is a sad truth that we are still fairly ill-equipped to deal with these sorts of diseases, in spite of all of the bells and whistles of the age of miracles and wonder we live in. A virus, which is barely a life form at all – if it is describable as a life form – needs some other cellular body in which to effectively survive and go through its process of reproduction. Unfortunately, that means hosts, and in this instance hosts are invariably the plants we grow to make a living. It is a shame because it means the industry has to take another hit. But like so many times in the past in the Northern Territory, the blunt instrument of government and the capacity of science to deal with these things are still clumsy. Watching scientists deal with these issues is not entirely unlike watching somebody trying to knit a stocking whilst wearing two baseball mitts.
In truth, the proposal is apocalyptic in the sense that what has to be done is like an apocalypse in the very literal sense of the word. This is bearing in mind that the word apocalypse literally translates from the Greek to mean an uncovering, or ultimately leading to a new beginning. It has become, in the Judeo-Christian language, the end: a complete judgment and destruction of everything you know.
Unfortunately, the minister has no tools available to him to do anything – as I said, even in this day of miracles and wonder – but take an apocalyptic approach to the disease that has presented itself in two different types of crops, namely the CGMMV crops he described, as well as bananas with the banana freckle disease. Unfortunately the minister has had to take this approach, and I am saddened because it means there is no simple way to treat this sort of infection. Were it a bacterial infection there might be some plant version of an antibiotic you could use, but we are dealing with viruses which are, in their very nature, a completely different thing.
As a consequence of that, the minister has taken the necessary steps, which are not unlike steps taken in the past. I am put in mind of the BTEC scheme which was ultimately there to protect the cattle industry but, of course, it had a very negative effect at the time it was rolled out.
The black striped mussel scare in the late-1990s was dealt with by way of poisoning the whole of the Cullen Bay Marina with – it was not chlorine, it was …
Mr Barrett: Copper sulphate.
Mr ELFERINK: Copper sulphate, that is it. That was a pretty brutal way in which to deal with it. In the process, every other living creature in Cullen Bay Marina was killed. It was a sterilisation of the Cullen Bay Marina, but it needed to be done. It was a clumsy way of dealing with it in the sense there was only one way to deal with it, and that was to kill everything. That is exactly what the minister finds himself in charge of at the moment, and I do not envy him the duty that has fallen on his shoulders. But he has shown the requisite fortitude to step forward through this process, and has taken the tough decisions which have to be taken to protect the industry.
Whilst I imagine this will literally have led to tears in the night between husbands and wives who run their family businesses surrounded by this, I suspect even the people in the industry understand the minister’s choices were limited because of the lack of capacity of modern sciences to do anything other than count the number of days a place needs to have no host species present for the virus to simply die out.
Consequently, an apocalyptic approach has been used by the minister, and the apocalypse has been visited on the melon and banana industries in the Northern Territory where the diseases occur. That means not only tearing down the trees, but also killing off the residual stumps – a scorched earth policy.
Like all fundamental changes of that nature, it creates a blank slate. I note that one of the members in this House – I am not quite sure who – made a fleeting comment in relation to the fact that not only will we see off banana freckle and some of these other diseases, there is an opportunity to see off a number of diseases, both local and imported, that may be affecting these crops in the Northern Territory.
Should the circumstances occur, God forbid, that this is not contained to the Northern Territory but has already spread to other areas, then dealing with the matter now will, whilst painful in the short term, position Northern Territory growers into an environment where they might find themselves having a substantial portion of the market in the future because this minister had the courage of his convictions and the fortitude required in doing his duty to protect the industry locally.
Nobody in another jurisdiction can criticise the Northern Territory government or this minister for doing the work he has done, and in the fashion he has done it. I imagine other jurisdictions would be grateful for his strident and firm response to these issues.
If it is the case that this has not been contained and this becomes apparent in other jurisdictions, then those jurisdictions we can rightly expect to show the same intestinal fortitude and take exactly the same steps this government and minister have taken to protect not only the future of their industries, but the rest of the industry throughout Australia.
Whilst I dread the thought that were the case, the commercial reality is if it is and other jurisdictions have to take the same steps, then whilst we may be taking the pain first, the benefit of coming out the other end sterile and free of these diseases, while in other jurisdictions they are still dealing with the residual mop-up of the same approach, then perhaps there is a little more to be made in the recovery process.
Nevertheless, It was a sad day when I heard the steps that had to be taken. They are tough and brutal steps, but ultimately are necessary for the future protection of our industry when it comes to these fruit products and our reputation as a jurisdiction in our capacity to respond to these things when they occur. It will give greater comfort to other jurisdictions, no matter what the product moving across Territory borders, that when those products leave the Northern Territory, they come from an environment of policing that is second to none in its responsiveness when an infection is discovered.
That consequently means the reputation of the Northern Territory in a horticultural or, even more broadly, a primary industry, sense will be of a jurisdiction prepared to take the tough decisions when required. This will endorse the Territory product in the eyes of many consumers and other people working in similar industries in other jurisdictions. Your reputation is your AAA-rating for dealing with these issues, and if any jurisdiction was to baulk at having to make the appropriate and tough decisions when these events occur, then their AAA-rating would quickly reduce to something much lower.
As a consequence, I thank the minister for his strength of character and courage in stepping through this process. I congratulate the people from the department. I would hate to have been present when departmental officers had to inform growers their entire crop had to be destroyed, but that is exactly what had to be done and we are stepping through that. My sympathy goes to the industry and the people in it. I am sure the minister will take every step to ensure this transition and process will be as painless as possible. Like all apocalypses it will ultimately, in the traditional sense of the word, lead to a new beginning.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement on because it affects many people in my electorate, as well as in the electorates of the Speaker and the member for Nelson.
The problem with the diseases in bananas and melons is the impact they have on the economy of not just the Territory, but specific families. Many families will be affected by this, and I am not necessarily talking about the commercial growers; I am talking about many of the private back yard growers who go to a lot of the markets I attend. The member for Nelson referred to markets earlier. These people rely on some of this cash income to supplement their pension or whatever.
The position of government is it must always rely on the best advice available. That advice comes from the public sector and is what the minister has relied on.
I too have looked at the centre at Berrimah. I have not looked at any that might be set up for the melons, but I have looked at the banana centre. I also noticed in one of the newsletters from the Chief Minister that over 30 000 properties had been checked up to September. The amount of work being done by these people is phenomenal.
The decision to destroy all the crops was not made lightly by anyone. The minister had many discussions with me about it, and the whole wing, and there was much consultation through industry. I have been disappointed with some of the media reports about people are being critical and saying there has been no consultation. People will always complain, but much of it has been unfairly levelled at the minister, and I would like to defend him on that.
There have been many comparisons of these diseases to various things. We heard of BTEC and live cattle, Panama disease and another one was the cubungi weed in the water that was also sprayed. If you go back through history, there are many things that are similar that had big impacts on horticulture and agriculture, like the prickly pear in New South Wales. There was Patterson’s curse, serrated tussock, cane toads, and here more recently, mimosa and gamba. All of these things have big impacts. At some point you have to take some action. Many people still believe gamba grass should be available to everyone and they should be allowed to grow it to feed cattle, but is has a dramatic effect on natural vegetation and fires.
What struck me with some of this is that the banana industry has signed up to a national scheme and the melon industry has not. I compare that to having insurance. Many people take out insurance on their properties and some do not. People have to accept what might occur if they do not take out insurance. With floods and fires, everyone is quick to jump on the bandwagon and ask for compensation from government. Government has to help where it can, but there needs to be a balance in how much money it outlays in this instance.
Much of what has been on the radio that disappointed me was, if you analysed it, simply money driven, and it was personal money driven. No one was saying they were willing to pull their bananas out because there is a bigger picture. They all said, ‘I do not want to pull my bananas out because I want to sell them next week’. They are not considering their nextdoor neighbour. I am not saying they are being selfish, but people need to take a holistic approach.
I heard Barack Obama the other day say about Ebola, ‘We have to be very careful that we do not create too much hysteria, because it leads to misinformation’. That really needs to be borne in mind with these diseases.
Two weekends ago I had a phone call from one of the senior Vietnamese farmers here, who is very high up in the Vietnamese horticultural society. There was a bushfire that went through the Darwin River and he lost between 2000 and 3000 trees when he was about to pick his mangoes, but I have not heard anyone on the radio ask, ‘What about his compensation?’
I had fewer than 2000 mango trees and I know that that is about 100 tonne a year, so that would be $100 000 to $150 000 to that fellow. You cannot take out insurance, but there are not many people sticking up for him. These are the sorts of things we need, in this House, to take into account. Do not start picking on government or the public service, there is a problem that has to be addressed and we need look at the whole picture. That is what I really want people to consider.
I commend the minister. The department has been doing an exceptional job with both of these diseases
The disease affecting melons will have a bigger impact because many livelihoods will be affected by it. The banana industry is really one very big commercial property, and many people will be affected by that. Most of the others are very small growers who might supplement their income, but they will not be without an income. The melon disease could have a bigger impact. It could extend from melons to cucumbers and other cucurbits; I have trouble getting my tongue around that word. I have trouble getting my tongue around a cucumber too. I hate them, and pumpkins. I would not mind a disease getting into pumpkins; they can get rid of them.
I thank the minister for making this statement. It is a very important issue, and there are many examples – whether we pick on the opposition over live cattle or not, they were in a position where they had to make a decision; we might say it was the wrong one, but that is all well and good in hindsight. Thank you, minister.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that a ministerial statement on the Territory’s banana and watermelon industries is not filled with better news. In reality, we have a biosecurity emergency on our hands, and I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House.
It is critical we receive such an important update on a matter which affects so many Territorians. Not only major communities but others across the Northern Territory will be affected by these exotic diseases, so the minister’s statement is very relevant and informative.
I want to speak from a local member perspective about the impact banana freckle, in particular, will have on the Palmerston community. The outbreak is something I have followed closely. I thank the minister’s office staff for keeping me informed on developments and showcasing the wonderful work the department has been doing.
We have heard that the banana freckle outbreak has the potential to affect so many people over a large area. Ninety-five per cent of bananas consumed in Australia are of the Cavendish variety, and it is frightening to hear the disease was observed on this type of banana for the first time this year. Fortunately, the department is working tirelessly to fight the disease. I took the opportunity to tour the Berrimah veterinary laboratories this year on 15 July, and I make special mention of Dr Andrew Tomkins, who is the Director of Biosecurity and Product Integrity, and Mr Stephen West, who is the Chief Plant Health Manager. Both were very professional and dedicated in their briefings and their explanation of how the facility is working tirelessly to rid the Northern Territory of banana freckle.
The Northern Territory government’s efforts to eradicate banana freckle are part of a concerted national response, as we have heard from the minister, with the national management group endorsing the Territory’s implementation of the national banana freckle eradication program. Over four phases, as outlined by the minister, we hope to achieve complete eradication of banana freckle by 2017, and whilst this is several years away, each phase must be adhered to in order to reach this target.
Of the six eradication zones, which are very large areas, Palmerston falls squarely within zone one. It is sad that all bananas in these six areas must be destroyed, but it is a necessary process. I echo the comments of my colleague, the Attorney-General, who spoke of the fortitude of the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries in taking such a strict but necessary step to eradicate this disease.
I know Palmerston growers who are not farmers or part of the industry have still been deeply affected by this outbreak. They are mums and dads, average Territorians who have a few banana plants in their back yard and are disappointed their plants will have to be destroyed. I hope they know and understand that it is for the greater good. For those of us who grew up in the Territory, we have fond memories of eating bananas from our back yard. In our back yard we have more bananas than I ever know what to do with. Thank goodness we have chickens to help eat them all. On the weekend I made my small contribution to the eradication of banana freckle by knocking down my banana plants.
I feel for the families in my electorate and around the Territory who have to remove their plants and start all over again once we are advised we are clear to do so. We need to remove all the banana plants under this response plan; it will not only eliminate freckle but many other diseases which currently damage our banana trees. When we can start replanting we will have a much healthier product in our back yards.
The eradication of banana freckle will not be achieved by the government alone. This is why it is so important that the community is our partner in this fight and that Territorians endure this short-term pain for a very long-term gain. If we do not all act now and work together, there will be devastating consequences for banana farms, hobby and back yard growers, consumers and the wider community.
I am committed, as a local member, to working with the department, the minister and my Palmerston colleagues to establish ways we can support Palmerston residents with the disposal of their plants, so we can play our part in this battle against banana freckle. I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I start with an apology. During the contribution by the member for Barkly I lost my cool and went against the tradition of this House by shouting across the Chamber. I apologise to the House for that and also to the member for Barkly if he took any offence from the words I used. In saying that, my display of anger was born out of frustration and disappointment that the member for Barkly chose to, in any way, shape or form, politicise the important statement delivered today.
The member for Barkly, who I understand has been briefed on this, chose to deliberately misinterpret what was told to him in relation to the Commonwealth’s involvement in this matter. I need to set the record straight. The Commonwealth had the same level of involvement in the decision to eradicate banana freckle as every other state and territory jurisdiction, along with representatives from the banana industry association.
By contrast, when the live cattle ban was introduced by the Commonwealth government in 2011, it was a unilateral decision made by two very weak people, Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister at the time, and Joe Ludwig, who was the Minister for Agriculture. The difference between the two incidents could not be starker. In the case of banana freckle, this is a decision made by considering the best available science we have in determining how it is to be eradicated, as opposed to the decision made to ban the export of live cattle to Indonesia, which was based on purely political motives whereby the so-called east coast democracy pressured the minister and Prime Minister at the time into making that decision.
Having cleared the air on that issue, I will address some of the matters raised by the members for Barkly and Nelson. I thank everyone who contributed to the debate this evening. These are tough times, and I appreciate the sentiment that has been sent my way in relation to being in a tough spot as the minister who is responsible for dealing with these matters. Although I do not feel a sense of responsibility for the incursions of these diseases, I feel a sense of responsibility to deal with them as best as we can, with the long game in sight.
There have been, as the member for Daly pointed out, some adverse comments in the media. I ask those commentators to consider the long-term effects of these incursions of exotic diseases; in the case of the melons it is a virus and the bananas, a fungus.
If we do not eradicate these exotic pests from the Northern Territory, there will be no industry. It is as simple as that. You heard during the course of the statement I delivered that the final phase of the eradication program for banana freckle – and this will apply, no doubt, at some point to watermelons – is that the Commonwealth, the other states and the industry have to form a view that the Northern Territory is free of that disease.
If we are not declared free of these diseases, there will be no industry. We will not be able to export bananas, melons or any of the other cucurbit crops that may become affected by this virus.
For me it is the long game, and I am patently aware of the pain this will cause. I have met with the Darwin banana farm operators and owners. I recently visited there, on top of other visits when I have been to the banana farm before. I have seen their operations and understand exactly what they are talking about when they say this will hurt them and affect their employees. The employees on that farm are largely backpackers, nonetheless that is still money made and spent in the local community. The backpackers earn the money but they spend it in the local economy.
I have visited quite a number of the melon farms. I have been to Sweet Life and to a number of the affected farms in Katherine. The effect of the watermelon problem will be far more significant to the Northern Territory than the banana problem because it affects more properties. The local stimulus to the economy from those farms will dry up. That will affect Katherine in a very significant way, so I am extremely mindful of the effects on not only the growers, but the broader community.
I will address some of the specific issues raised. The member for Barkly asked what constitutes destruction of bananas for back yarders and asked if plants are cut down, what is next? My advice is that the spores of this fungus do not survive well, or at all, on dead plant material. They need a live host, so once banana trees are felled and rot away, the fungus disappears. That should solve most of those problems, but there are options available to back yard growers. They can cut the banana tree down, let it rot on the ground and that solves the problem. The stump still needs to be treated with herbicide to kill it and make sure it does not grow again. Alternately, the back yarder can cut their banana tree down and take it to the tip. We are still asking everyone who has a banana tree, whether then intend to cut it down themselves or would like some help to do that, to make sure they contact the department through the Banana Freckle Hotline. I do not have that number in front of me, but it is easily found on the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries website.
We want to work with the community in this regard. We are not lumping it on back yard growers, saying cut your own trees down. If you need assistance, please contact the department.
The member for Barkly also raised issues around potential legal action from the Darwin banana farm. I acknowledge that is certainly a possibility. I hope that is not the case, but if it does happen we will just have to deal with it.
In relation to comments from the member for Barkly on watermelons around Ali Curung and Tennant Creek, he was effectively asking will growing, marketing and selling of those watermelons continue. Although I believe the issue we have with the watermelons and other cucurbits is far more significant to the Territory than the bananas, the nice thing – if there is a nice thing with the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus – is that only quarantined areas are affected. Farms not affected by the virus can continue to grow, market and sell their produce interstate. For example, the watermelon farms at Mataranka are not affected by the virus so they can continue to grow. The areas that have been found to have the disease will be quarantined, and they will have to go through what will probably be a two-year program to ensure they are free of the virus.
The member for Nelson talked about the number of small growers who will be affected. I concur that there will be a significant number of people in the six eradication zones who will be affected by this. I acknowledge that a lot of the smaller back yard growers do provide bananas into the local markets. It supplements their incomes or pensions, and it is extremely unfortunate that we find ourselves in the position of having to eradicate bananas.
The member for Nelson raised the issue of compensation. It is a difficult issue to cross, member for Nelson. I am sure you understand that, but there is no consideration being given to compensation for smaller growers. We provided replacement trees of a different species when we had to remove bananas when operating under the first response, but the extent is now such that we probably will not be able to keep that up.
I take the point the member for Nelson raised about not allowing any plant material to come into the Northern Territory. Member for Nelson, I commend you for thinking that broadly and deeply about the issue. I can assure you, member for Nelson, that is already under consideration. I have sought and am awaiting advice on whether we need to prevent the importation of plant material or potentially infected plants from interstate and overseas. That relates more at the moment to the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus.
There are many things to consider before this decision is taken, but it could well be the Northern Territory becomes a jurisdiction where no plant material that can carry CGMMV can come into the Territory unless it is certified as being free of the disease. That is under consideration at the moment. The point that you made about that is absolutely spot on. The last thing we want to do is allow affected material to come into the Northern Territory while an eradication program is under way, or even after the eradication program is complete, only to find ourselves re-infected. That is certainly in my thinking.
The member for Nelson also talked about special banana varieties that might be kept. The first thing that springs to mind is the removal of those plants to somewhere outside the infected zones, but that might present biosecurity problems in itself. I have to take that on notice, member for Nelson, and see if the department can provide me advice on that issue, but it seems quite a difficult one. I suspect bananas within the eradication zones must be destroyed, and bananas outside of them can stay.
Moving back to melons and the CGMMV, we are looking at assistance for two farmers for alternative crops. As I mentioned in the statement, after the eradication, or at least the destruction, of cucurbit crops affected by this virus, a ground cover will have to be grown to help. The department is working on options for alternative crops that could be grown. It could be – I do not say this definitively – that after a cover crop is grown, a non-host plant may be able to be grown the following year. That is ongoing work, and, member for Nelson, this is a changing beast. Every day something is new. We have to remember this is a brand-new disease to Australia. This is the first time cucumber green mottle mosaic virus has presented in Australia, or at least been found. We know it has been in the US, and you mentioned that California has had to deal with a couple of outbreaks over the last few years. My department is in touch with Californian authorities to drag from them as much information and intelligence about dealing with this problem as it can.
It may appear that the Territory is in a crisis state, with two significant biosecurity incursions over the last year, and the Territory has had other biosecurity problems in the past, but compared to somewhere like Queensland we fare pretty well. Queensland has probably had the most biosecurity incursions of any of the jurisdictions, so we rate reasonably well.
My primary concern is the protection of future industries in the Northern Territory. I have said before, and I say again – I do not say this flippantly or with a cavalier attitude – that for short-term pain, we hope to achieve long-term gain. I ask everybody involved with bananas or the melon industry to do the right thing. By and large, people have been very good. There have been a few occasions over the past few months where it has been difficult for my team to deal with some bananas. People are a bit emotional about access to their yards, what they may have grown there; and the attachment they have to them. We ask people to cooperate with authorities on this matter. It is too important to the Northern Territory’s horticultural future.
We are looking down the barrel of significant costs with this; the response to banana freckle will cost somewhere in the vicinity of $25m, as I mentioned in the statement. It is the largest national response to a biosecurity incursion in Australia’s history. Of that, around $4m is being put in by the Northern Territory, both cash and in-kind. It is important to point out too that the banana industry is putting in a significant amount of money as well.
As for melons, I can only imagine the process for those will be very similar to what we have gone through for bananas. The cost is yet to be determined. We have a dedicated team working on the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus. They are internal resources, with a few people brought in from other departments. We have also brought people in from other states, and the Commonwealth has been cooperating as well.
Mr BARRETT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the minister to conclude his speech.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: We have a team working on this; we have a virologist who has come from Queensland and have other professionals heading our way. As I said, this is changing daily. I expect that if we do the right thing and the people of the Northern Territory do the right thing we can overcome these problems. We can put ourselves in a good position if we take strong decisions and action now to make sure we get on top of these incursions.
As I said, for me it is the long game. We must do whatever we can to protect the industry. I have not speculated in the statement about the source of the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus. As the member for Nelson mentioned, it is suspected to have come in on seeds. Part of the response is some tracing to try to determine how this has happened. If it has come in on seed, then I fear for the Australian industry because a large number of the seeds used in the Northern Territory have come from the US. Those seeds, as I understand it, are distributed by a distributor in Queensland. I will eat my hat if the Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction to have obtained seed from that source. I worry that this will be in other states as well, which will affect the whole watermelon industry across this country.
The member for Nelson also raised the issue of the Commonwealth’s biosecurity responsibilities. When I discovered that this cucumber green mottle mosaic virus was going to be a problem, I made a telephone call to the federal Minister for Agriculture and informed him of what was going on. We had some early discussions about the fact the melon industry was not eligible for compensation. He and I are having a sensible, ongoing discussion about what the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory can reasonably be expected to do to assist farmers. That is fairly and squarely on my mind at the moment. At this point in time I will not commit to cash compensation, but we will help farmers, if we can, to find alternative growing locations, and help with information about alternative crops. We will not leave any stone unturned in trying to assist the industry to get back on its feet.
The Commonwealth is also looking at its biosecurity issues and considering how the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service can change its procedures and protocols on the importation of plant material that could carry this virus. When I hooked up on a teleconference this afternoon with the federal minister and all the state ministers about some other matters, I raised this once again and alerted them to the situation in the Northern Territory. The federal minister was very quick to state that he was very pleased his department and my department were working very closely on all matters that relate to the cucumber virus.
All that can be done is being done to deal with these incursions into the Northern Territory. We take biosecurity very seriously; I have said that many times publicly and in this place. We will continue to do that because dealing with these issues early, quickly, decisively and strongly gives us the very best chance to have industries into the future. Without that, we do not have a chance.
Madam Speaker, once again, I thank all members for their contributions, which were, by and large, very sensible. I am happy to continue to provide briefings to members who have a particular interest in this. As things change, I am more than happy to take the time to update the House as opportunities present themselves.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Consultation on the Sale of Public Assets
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter:
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I speak on this definite matter on public importance because Territorians truly value their public assets. We have seen the community’s reaction before against any prospect of the sale of the Territory Insurance Office. Just two years ago Territorians went to the general election. At that election Territorians were not presented with a case from the CLP for privatisation of public assets. In fact, Territorians will recall the CLP campaigning against selling our Territory Insurance Office. The campaign was led by Terry Mills, the Opposition Leader at the last election, who went on to become the CLP Chief Minister.
Territorians were not given the opportunity to have their say in the way they should on such an important agenda. Now the CLP is trying to push through the sale of public assets under the disingenuous guise of building the Territory. While the Chief Minister is just a temporary Treasurer, he would do well to reflect on the record of past Northern Territory Treasurers and Chief Ministers who saw that their number one job was delivering funding to the Northern Territory for critical infrastructure.
This Chief Minister has abysmally failed to deliver for the Northern Territory. There is not one cent out of Canberra that was not already a funding deal secured by the former Labor government. Now he wants to sell our public assets to pay the billions in unfunded CLP election commitments. Territorians, if asked, I believe, would say a resounding ‘no’. The CLP is deliberately not providing Territorians with the tools to do that.
The Chief Minister is a master of cynical promotion. The Building the Territory website is a case in point, released the day after the Casuarina by-election. There is no doubt he should have been more up front with the Casuarina voters. The website does not provide a poll for Territorians to register their vote on the issue of public asset sales, not just TIO, but also the Power and Water assets in Generation Corp networks, Retail Corp and Darwin port. This suggests the deal is being done and the windows are being dressed to present a happy front on a very bad issue.
In fact, in this House earlier today the Chief Minister, speaking about TIO, indicated there had been much interest in the asset recycling program, suggesting a decision was already made to sell TIO. He admitted in Question Time today that it has been before Cabinet for consideration since March this year. That is months of hiding the truth from Territorians who went to the last election with the firm belief the CLP stood firmly against the sale of TIO. The CLP has no mandate from voters, from Territorians, to sell TIO, the port or any of the assets contained in Power and Water, GenCorp and Retail.
Labor demands that the CLP government calls a referendum on public asset sales or takes it to the next election so Territorians can have their say. The Chief Minister is being his usual disingenuous self with Territorians.
The CLP’s bush promises were not even listed on the election commitments they submitted to Northern Territory Treasury before the last election. The Northern Territory Treasurer at the time advised that the CLP’s election commitments did not add up and there was a funding shortfall of $120m. We know the CLP costings submitted to the Northern Territory Treasury did not include all those bush contracts made across our communities – all remaining unfunded, totalling billions of dollars. There were billions in promises made to the bush and now the Chief Minister wants an assets fire sale, against the interest of Territorians, to find the billions to fund the unfunded election commitments. It is clear the Chief Minister has an agenda to sell the Territory Insurance Office to fund these unfunded bush commitments. The problem is it provides financial risk to Territorians.
We are a small community and Territorians know the value of their own TIO. Territorians understand that selling TIO risks skyrocketing insurance premiums, adding to the cost-of-living pressures. We heard before the 2012 Territory election that the CLP did not support the privatisation of TIO. We saw them campaign actively against it.
On 5 December 2005, former CLP Chief Minister, Terry Mills, talked about the unique insurance needs in the Territory on ABC radio, including the need for storm surge insurance. He stated that Territorians need that level of protection and will only get adequate protection if we provide ourselves with our own insurance office.
In the same interview, Terry Mills highlighted the experience of the Katherine floods. What does the member for Katherine say about the sale of TIO? Territorians who were not insured with the TIO but other insurers were exposed because they were not covered in the same way TIO policy holders were covered for flood. The former member for Katherine, Fay Miller, told this House in an adjournment debate in 2006 that without the TIO, businesses in Katherine would be forced to close because they would not be able to gain insurance coverage from private insurers. The Chief Minister is not interested in this issue. He is just interested in a quick fire sale.
The current Chief Minister has also conveniently failed to recognise the recommendation contained within the inquiry into the development of northern Australia. The inquiry headed by the Nationals MP Warren Entsch recommended to the federal parliament that the model of TIO be expanded across northern Australia because it is the best insurance available, saying it is affordable and consistently available.
The developing the north report recommends expanding TIO as a model of insurance across northern Australia to address the insurance affordability crisis in other states. It does the opposite of recommending the sale of TIO. The head of the report stated that insurance in north Queensland skyrocketed by an extra $5000 a year compared to other states, making it unaffordable.
Selling TIO risks skyrocketing premiums, access to adequate cyclone and flood insurance and, so importantly for people who have gone through a major disaster, timely insurance payouts. We have seen businesses and households go to the wall in Queensland waiting for private insurance companies to pay up following the floods.
Territorians want TIO to remain in public hands to ensure cyclone and flood insurance is affordable and, importantly – this is the point the Chief Minister will refuse to accept because he simply does not want to know the truth – it ensures insurance payouts are paid promptly. The Territory government is ignoring this in a cynical exercise to sell TIO to provide the cash to pork barrel for votes.
A government owned TIO can avoid the crises seen in states like Queensland where businesses literally went broke waiting for insurance payouts after the floods. Territorians do not want their TIO privatised. They made that abundantly clear. Without it, residents in flood regions like Katherine, and storm surge zones like Rapid Creek, Cullen Bay and Bayview, will be left vulnerable. Keeping TIO in public hands is critical to ensuring timely insurance payments for flood and cyclone insurance, avoiding the crises we have seen in other states, like Queensland after the floods.
Ever since the CLP came to government, its agenda has been for privatisation. We have seen its agenda to split Power and Water and have been deeply and gravely concerned about the impact it would have on the delivery and cost of essential services across the Territory.
It is clear the CLP is positioning our major assets across Power and Water for sale, and when I say that, I still recognise the corporations it has split. They have been through a fattening up exercise, imposing significant tariff hikes on families and businesses; they have reaped in about $125m in profit, $106m in profit directly from the tariffs and $250m in profits across the corporations. That is $106m in profit literally ripped from the pockets of Territorians, families and businesses.
Mr Barrett interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: It is referred to in the Statement of Corporate Intent; you might want to look up the $259.4m net profit after tax figure, member for Blain. You are so interested in this conversation that you might want to look at the direct operating revenue profit of $106.6m. That is the result of CLP tariff hikes ripping money from the pockets of Territorians, families and businesses. That has stretched people’s budgets to breaking point; they have already had to cop the 25% increase on power tariffs, an extra $2000 a year simply to keep the lights on. We know there is another 5% on the already high tariff price about to hit families and businesses in January – more pain for families and businesses. The CLP is taking a profit before people agenda because it is hell bent on selling cashed up assets like Power and Water, assets owned by Territorians, and which they rely on for their essential services.
The privatisation of any of the Territory’s utilities will add to the high cost of living we are already suffering under the CLP. A private power company would be motivated to make profits for their shareholders, not provide an affordable, reliable service for Territorians. Elsewhere in Australia the privatisation of electricity has resulted in higher prices and reduced reliability – more blackouts.
A report entitled Electricity Privatisation in Australia: A Record of Failure was released in February this year. It is authored by an Australian Laureate Fellow in economics at the University of Queensland and prominent commentator on Australian economic policy, and highlights that electricity prices are highest in privatised states. In privatised states customers’ bills include the cost of almost 10% per annum interest on the corporate owners’ debt on electricity assets, compared to government borrowing costs closer to 3%. Customer complaints have risen profoundly for privatised states. Privatisation has rarely produced favourable outcomes for consumers. The report states:
Does that not ring a bell in the Northern Territory? It is exactly the model the CLP has applied to Power and Water, fattening it up for sale.
In privatising Darwin port, transport costs will rise for everyday imported goods, and these costs will be passed on to businesses and families. The Territory government has an obligation to come clean on the real effects of selling, or, in their terminology, leasing. What is the cost effect on the hip pockets of businesses and Territorians of selling Darwin port?
A wide range of businesses use the port to transport goods, including cars, livestock, whitegoods, furniture and all manner of dry goods. All of these businesses will face higher transport costs through a commercialisation lease – sale by backdoor methods – of the port. Businesses will be at the mercy of a commercial operator; many businesses operate in a retail environment where under recommended retail pricing they will not be able to lift their prices to pass on the full cost.
Some businesses can pass on the full cost, and that is a direct, massive hit on the pockets of Territorians. The proposed sale – or the tricky, slippery word ‘lease’ – of Darwin port is creating an environment of uncertainty for business. The oil and gas sector, a critical part of our economy, a key port user, has publicly called on the government not to sell or lease the port. Selling or leasing the port would be a quick cash grab which would cost Territorians into the future. Territorians have invested significantly in the port. It is making returns to our taxpayers. It makes no sense to sell the port now, at a point in our economic momentum where the oil and gas sector will bring greater returns in revenue. Why would you sell it now when the onshore resources sector has seen reduced yields going through the bulk minerals loader? It is insanity.
Territory Labor stands strongly against the sale of these public assets. You have no mandate to sell. With your slick PR machine, your ads and your fancy website, nowhere in any of that are you giving Territorians the opportunity to say whether they are for or against the sale. That is the most disgusting thing I have seen you do, and I have seen many bad things done under your leadership, Chief Minister. Get real!
If you stand by your convictions and your flimsy case, then put the question to Territorians whether or not they support the sale of these critical public assets: TIO; Power and Water assets; and our port. Do you have any conviction for your flimsy arguments? If you did, you would test it. The challenge is here. Take our referendum on the sale of public assets. Ask Territorians whether they want you, Chief Minister, to sell their assets, because that certainly was not a CLP policy going into the 2012 election.
Territorians should not be made to pay for your incompetence, inability and repeated trips to Canberra where you come back empty handed. Here we are, the focus of developing the north in our nation, and you are unable to secure a single cent in new infrastructure funding from the Commonwealth. You go around the Territory re-announcing roads projects funding secured under Labor. Little wonder you sit somewhat uncomfortably, because your incompetence is exposed. Do not let that exposure cripple key areas of essential services: our port, our insurance, our Power and Water.
You have no mandate, nor does your government, to sell any of our public assets. We will fight you on this. If you have any conviction in your flimsy, wafer-thin arguments for selling, then put it to the people, instead of a shopping list of suggestions people might want money spent on, as though it is some sort of Christmas gift wish list. Ask them on your website: do you want public assets sold or not? Feel free to list them separately.
Territorians do not want them sold. There is no amount of spending of the extra $33m you put into the Department of Chief Minister for self-promotion and spin that will satisfy Territorians on the sale of these crucial assets. They will not be duped. They will stand strong and fight you on this. You have made many mistakes since knifing the former Chief Minister and taking on the suit of Chief Minister. You have a chance to not make this one if you take it to a referendum and let Territorians tell you not to sell their assets. They are not yours for sale; you have no mandate.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, one of the most embarrassing things about leading the Northern Territory in the Chief Minister’s role is having to let people know you represent members of this Chamber who are so poor in their professional standards and so disgraceful in the way they perform, both in parliament and in public, that it is derogatory to the Territory.
For the Leader of the Opposition to start dog whistling about how disgraceful it would be to put any proceeds of asset sales into Aboriginal communities, again trying to pit black against white, right at the start of her speech, is abhorrent.
I ask the member for Johnston how he feels about that, because it is the second time today the Opposition Leader has tried to pit black against white in the Northern Territory. That is an abhorrent position to take ...
Ms Walker: Are you serious?
Mr GILES: I am quite serious. When the Leader of the Opposition said money from asset sales going to remote communities would be bad, that was dog whistling and shows a xenophobic attitude towards Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
Ms Lawrie: No, I did not say that
Mr GILES: That is a complete disgrace. You know exactly what you did. I know your political tactic. I listened intently to what was being said and I thought the dog whistling trying to drive racism was absurd. It is hard to find words for it, and it is the second time today you have done it.
To play to the northern suburbs as a way of offsetting Indigenous votes is appalling. If Michael Gunner was in charge he would have the decorum not to do that. I am serious; it is disgraceful. It is interesting to see the position you have taken following Saturday. You have moved straight towards the model of making misleading and incorrect statements in this Chamber and making things up. I understand how you do that, and that is embarrassing.
Your contribution to this debate was in the context of asset sales, and I think how it operates in other states in Australia, how Labor has led the asset sale debate with a mature conversation in other parts of Australia. South Australia and the ACT were the first jurisdictions to move towards asset recycling. South Australia in particular has moved a long way forward in its assessment of assets and how it supports the economy. I wish the intellectual aptitude of Labor oppositions or governments around Australian jurisdictions, and at the Commonwealth level, could infiltrate into the opposition in the Northern Territory, but that will be a challenge.
To correct one of your lies, Leader of the Opposition, Power and Water Corporation does not make a profit. Power and Water Corporation is provided a $77m subsidy each year, which assists it to be in a position where it can try to make its books look good. If you want to see how Labor managed the Power and Water Corporation when in government, look at the way it treated assets in the write down so it could make it look like it was performing in a better model than it is now.
Let me get to the nub of this MPI. It is important to remind the House of the $5.5bn debt legacy we inherited when we came to government. The opposition, which was in government at the last election, did not have an economic policy going to the election. Now in opposition it still does not have an economic policy, and I doubt it will have an economic policy in the next election campaign either. It did not have one on Saturday. In fact, it did not have a policy at all apart from being negative ...
Ms Lawrie: What is yours?
Mr GILES: Ours is to pay back your debt and get the government in surplus. We have set a time frame to get rid of your debt and get the government into surplus by 2017-18 – a fiscal imbalance you would call it, former Treasurer, the Territory’s worst Treasurer.
In our May budget we tackled two issues head on: the cost of living and the boom and bust economic cycles. My government has been tackling cost of living through the largest back to school children and living allowances seen in the Northern Territory and Australia. We have also tackled fuel prices head on, something the opposition never did. I am told today fuel is 158.9c at United on Bagot Road. E10 – a95 RON fuel and unleaded is at $1.63. You have not seen $1.63 for a long time. You have not seen it since we intervened. It is important to remember that in 2011 the fuel prices went up and the gouging occurred, when you were the Treasurer. They never went down after they came up in 2011. You were the Treasurer and you failed again.
To see 95 RON petrol, considered to be premium unleaded, at 158.9c today at Bagot Road United is a fantastic outcome, with price leading being undertaken by United. I congratulate David who was at the summit for starting to lead that debate. He gave me a personal commitment that he would do that, and we are doing something on fuel prices.
We are tackling the cost of living in housing and rents by releasing more than 5000 blocks of land in the two years since we have been in government.
We have tackled red tape head on, so it is easier to do business in the NT. We have launched a new government web-based system of paying government invoices to NT businesses, reducing red tape and helping their cash flow.
We are driving economic growth in the mining and resources sector through the release of free geodata and pushing ahead in connecting the NT with a gas pipeline to the national network, something fully endorsed by COAG when I was there.
My government has tackled the disastrous mess left by the Labor Party with the ban on live cattle exports. The Leader of the Opposition did nothing for our cattle producers and let her mates in Canberra destroy our cattle industry overnight. She stood back like a little puppy dog. We have re-established the live cattle trade, particularly thanks to the hard work of the Primary Industry minister, the member for Katherine, to a point where I think cattle is now selling for about $2.45, and we have had the largest number of live cattle go over the port in the Territory’s history: around 470 000. It is the best it has ever been. We have also started the live buffalo industry with a health protocol to Vietnam and a new health protocol going into Cambodia. The people on the other side, who could not work in an iron lung in the private sector, would not understand some of that.
Unlike the Labor Party, the Giles government has a plan for the future. We will not stand by and wait for handouts from Canberra. We are determined to get on with governing the Territory on a sustainable economic footing. The challenge facing the Territory is to address the boom and bust cycle.
Before I outline the short- to medium-term plan, let me turn to the medium- to long-term strategy. North Australia represents 36% of Australia’s land mass, one of the most underdeveloped parts of the world. The Northern Territory sits right in the middle of this vast area and of the northern Australia policy, and has the closest deep water port to Asia, natural resources in abundance, room to expand, well-established business links into Asia and a government that is unashamedly pro-business and pro-investment. The potential is significant.
The federal government is developing a white paper on the development of northern Australia, and we have gone to considerable lengths to make sure we lead this agenda and are leading it well. We have established an office of north Australia development to drive the Territory’s role in the region, and we have appointed a new commissioner for Indonesia and Asia, who is now based in Jakarta. We see this as a nation-building project that will increase exports, employment and terms of trade, and will secure Australia’s position among the world’s top economies.
Because we are stuck right in the middle of the north, we are making the Territory the gateway for the rest of the nation into Asia and Asia into the country.
Let me turn to our short- to medium-growth plan. The challenge with the INPEX project is the drop off in capital expenditure at the end of the construction phase of this project, an industry which the CLP started. The key is to continue to drive the development of infrastructure projects, which are the building blocks of our future growth – something Labor never addressed. These building blocks are vital for the entire economy. It was the CLP which delivered the Adelaide railway line by completing the Alice Springs leg. The Labor Party called it a failed dream, opposed it and talked the project down at every opportunity. The same way they are talking down the pipeline. It was the CLP who dared to bring the gas industry to Darwin. Labor mocked us bringing the gas industry to Darwin.
Mr McCarthy: Which pipeline?
Mr GILES: Darwin LNG, they mocked the plan. We are now developing the gas pipeline linking the Northern Territory to the eastern seaboard, and we hear that the Leader of the Opposition opposes that too. She opposes every economic agenda: northern Australia; natural gas; and the pipeline.
We have developed and expanded our Defence infrastructure and are keen to enhance those facilities. It was the CLP government which grasped the strategic benefits of northern defence. It was Labor that opposed it and set up the white elephant of the Defence Force hub. It was the Country Liberals that just opened the first business in the Defence Force hub.
We must continue to put infrastructure building blocks in place; there are several alternatives to building and growing these infrastructure blocks. One of the solutions is to borrow even more money and put us further into debt. No doubt that would be Labor’s plan. The other solution is to recycle assets, in line with the federal government’s asset recycling program and a recommendation from one of the Labor Party’s own Chief Ministers, but more about that later.
The federal government’s nation building program will be equal to eight new Snowy Mountain Schemes being built right across Australia in the next six years through government asset recycling. Labor states, South Australia and the ACT, have also started this process, with South Australia already announcing the sale of its MAC scheme. Selling government assets started in 1993; Labor’s great national leader, Paul Keating, sold the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas. Other states and Territories, including Labor ones, did it all, but not this opposition, which fails to see opportunity.
Let me turn to TIO, the ports and Power and Water in turn. The Giles government has launched a new website, www.buildingourterritory.nt.gov.au, where the community can propose infrastructure projects that could be funded through any future sale or lease of public assets. Through its possible sale, TIO could serve all Territorians in a new way by providing the funds to unlock our potential, creating the jobs and industries of the future for our kids. The federal government’s asset recycling initiative also offers a 15% financial incentive for us to sell eligible assets and reinvest the proceeds into new economy-growing infrastructure.
The government is also looking at ways to attract private sector investment in the Darwin port, so we can make it more efficient, improve economies of scale and bring freight costs down into the future. This is another way we can drive down the cost of living for Territorians by increasing economies of scale, particularly the amount of containers coming over the port.
I say clearly that no final decisions have been made. However, we are looking at selling TIO and leasing the port to provide a substantial return to Territorians in being able to free up TIO and expand the capacity of the port in trade into the Northern Territory.
You cannot build the Northern Territory without building infrastructure. The Office of Major Infrastructure and Investment has been tasked with identifying economic and community infrastructure projects that might be pursued, and has put forward some of the government’s ideas to help start the conversation. These include: flood mitigation works around Rapid Creek; roadworks to remove the bottleneck at the end of Tiger Brennan Drive as it approaches Darwin city; an Indigenous cultural centre in Alice Springs – Labor will be upset about that because it has ‘culture’ and ‘Indigenous’ in it – a second port at Glyde Point; a new sporting venue for Darwin; and a long-term infrastructure development fund to finance the building of the Northern Territory into the future. What we really want is ideas from the public about what projects Territorians would like us to pursue as a priority if we go down this path, including community and economic infrastructure.
TIO was established at a time when there were no other insurance providers in the Northern Territory, and now there are 15. TIO premiums are not always the cheapest, but operate in a very competitive market. When the Opposition Leader was in government, Labor was intent on selling TIO. She was in the Cabinet which signed off on selling TIO, but they could not muscle up to do it. Back then, Labor commissioned Rothschild to investigate a TIO sale process, which recommended the sale of TIO. Labor went down that path and tried to sell it, but they pulled out at the last minute when they did not have the ticker to go through with it. A year later, TIO lost nearly $60m in the global financial crisis. In the past ten years, it has only returned $16m to Northern Territory taxpayers.
The Northern Territory should look at recycling assets which can provide substantial community and economic infrastructure to Territorians, both now and into the future. Australia is facing a slowdown of the economy following the mining boom downturn, and the federal government is encouraging us to recycle those assets with a 15% initiative. We need to build infrastructure. It is not about borrowing, it is about using what we have to protect the children’s future.
A little about Power and Water: under Labor’s watch, PWC debt grew from $230m to more than $1.3bn. This was not, and is not, sustainable. The $1.3bn Power and Water debt we inherited equates to $1400 per household in the Northern Territory. It is not, and will not be, sustainable. That is why we have had to act.
Although it is early days of the PWC reform, we have seen an opening of the books and, finally, some transparency into an inefficient government owned utility, the last one in Australia in fact. It will take a little longer for the three corporations to settle down and find their feet, but it is an important part of our building blocks for the future. We must have a reliable, stable and modern electricity, water and sewerage corporation which can sustain growth into the future, and we are working very hard on that.
In regard to the port, yes, we are looking at a 99-year lease on our port. We are in market; we have been in market all year. We have been talking about it in this Chamber and publicly uphill and down dale. It is not my fault if you have only just started listening, Leader of the Opposition and Labor. I have said we have appointed Flagstaff Partners and run a two-stage process. I have said we are looking towards what legislation will be required to invite a partner to support the Northern Territory in expanding the capacity, both quay line and hardstand, and competitiveness of the port moving into the future. It is an opportunity.
I must point out though that much of the work we have been doing has not been a philosophical event we have come forward with as we came into government. We have done work and research into how we take the Territory forward. One of the pieces of research we had was a report by the Economic Development Advisory Panel of 2013 titled Recommendations for the Northern Territory Government’s Economic Development Strategy. The three panel members were Mr Doug McTaggart, former Under Treasurer in Queensland, Mr Ian Smith, who many know from Bespoke, and none other than former Chief Minister, Mr Paul Henderson. That report came down in 2013.
In that report, former Chief Minister Paul Henderson and his two colleagues recommended the sale of TIO and the port to finance infrastructure investment into the future to grow the Northern Territory. Why was it good enough for the former Labor government to recommend the sale of the TIO? Why was it good enough for the former Labor Chief Minister, Mr Paul Henderson – who has taken a pragmatic approach to development in the Northern Territory – to say TIO assets should be recycled to provide value back to Territorians, and for the port to be in the same boat, but it is not good enough for Labor? Why is it that every other Labor opposition or government around the country can have a mature and articulate debate about this, but you and your colleagues cannot?
Maybe if Michael Gunner, the member for Fannie Bay, was the Opposition Leader, we could have a sensible debate and work out how we get the best outcomes through a process to protect TIO’s brand, flood and cyclone insurance and the jobs at TIO moving forward. But, no, you will run a populist regime, dog whistling, attacking Aboriginal people in the Territory to protect your core vote, while not having an articulate debate about the future of infrastructure in the Northern Territory.
We will debate internally on this side. We are happy to work with Independents about how we progress this. We know there are structural issues with TIO and its sustainability going into the future. We know we have to invest in the port and how we can get a greater level of capacity to be more competitive and grow trade in the Northern Territory. We know we need to do these things. I am happy to have the debate with anybody, and happy to have a conversation about how to make them occur.
Ms Lawrie: Don’t ask them.
Mr GILES: You will not be involved in this, because I know you have not had a brief yet. You do not want to understand how TIO works, Leader of the Opposition.
I table the report by former Chief Minister Paul Henderson recommending the sale of TIO and the port. This matter of public importance is an important issue. It is unfortunate you treat it as a dog whistling exercise and not the important issue it is.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will speak on this MPI mainly in relation to TIO. It is a bit difficult in some ways talking about this when you see different governments and oppositions. I will read this media release regarding TIO from Terry Mills dated 12 January 2006.
I hear from this government exactly what was being argued then.
He went on to say:
Then I have from Syd Stirling, Treasurer, on 8 February 2006:
He went on to say:
I am a little confused because I received a briefing recently from Richard Harding, CEO of TIO, and I appreciate that very much. I very much respect Richard Harding. There was also a member of Treasury there, and I remember the discussions we had about opposition to the Labor Party selling TIO, and there was also influence from Treasury then. I am not saying Treasury should not be analysing the case of whether TIO is not viable into the future, but in 2006, after concerns about viability – I do not have latest annual TIO report. I gather it has been printed, and it would have been nice to have it for the debate today.
The chief executive’s report shows the 2008-09 deficit before tax was $59m. In 2012-13 there was $106m profit. I am not an economist, but if in 2006 we were worried about whether it was viable or not, but we hung on with it and said we would stick with it and now it is making a $106m profit – in his report the chief executive said:
He goes on about the outstanding results with the MAC scheme; the number of active claims; the insurance delivering a healthy surplus of $20m that year, up from $17m the previous year; the banking business returning an underlying profit of $2m before tax; and how TIO has helped improve Territorians’ resilience to extreme weather events.
Chief Minister, I understand where you are coming from and that if someone offers a nice bait saying, ‘You sell this and we will give you that’, it is very tempting. I need to put that away for a while. That is the federal government and its philosophy is we should sell assets. My difficulty is that I saw what people wanted back 2006. Over 15 000 wanted TIO to stay, regardless of whether it was losing $59m at the time, because it was more than just an insurance company.
That is probably hard to put a calculation on. It is probably hard even to put a dollar on, but many people are passionate about the TIO. We did not force 15 000 people to sign petitions. Those partitions were just sitting on tables; we did not stick them in people’s faces and say please sign them. An old ABC interview talked about 15 000 people being about one-third of the Labor Party’s vote in the Northern Territory at that time, saying that was a considerable number of people, politically, who did not want to see the sale of TIO.
I can understand where you are coming from but I cannot accept this argument to get rid of TIO purely because the federal government has offered you lots of money. I know that is tempting and it sounds good.
Mr Giles: But you also know that is not why we are doing it.
Mr WOOD: Hang on, wait until I finish. I am saying there is no reason why you cannot debate how to make TIO more viable and more averse to risk in the future. That is a reasonable debate, but the onus is on the government not to try to sell TIO based on what the federal government will give you, because that was not an argument for most Territorians. It might have been an argument for Syd Sterling when he was Treasurer to try to reduce debt, which you are saying as well. You just said, ‘We are in debt and we cannot do some of the things we want to do’, in regard to infrastructure programs’. Chief Minister, if you want this to go through you really need to put it to the people.
Most of those 15 000 people are still around. The TIO does employ many people, 235 to 250. It has a connection with the community through sport and many of the other promotions it does, such as road safety. It has been looking at things like how well older houses in the Northern Territory are standing up in case we have a cyclone. When I looked at that I wondered whether the government could be involved with the TIO in looking at whether we need to invest in some of the older houses in the cyclone areas to reduce the risk of a major payout by TIO.
We forget that one of the big natural risks in the Northern Territory is cyclones. Over all these years we have been building houses that are cyclone proof. So if you are bringing more and more houses up to a standard where they can resist a cyclone you are reducing a large payout by our insurance company.
You have to weigh up some of those things. Places like Townsville and Cairns have large numbers of houses that are quite old and if they are hit by a cyclone they are not up to the standard of what you have in Darwin. But all houses today are built to stringent cyclone standards, partly to reduce the risks for insurance.
Chief Minister, I argued against Syd Sterling as a member of the Labor Party selling it, now I have the Labor Party saying you should not sell it. It seems funny, politically, for me, feeling like I am arguing all over again.
Terry Mills said in 2006 there was no way it should be sold. I have another media release from Dr Richard Lim; I mentioned him before. ‘No way you should sell it.’ You mentioned Rothschild; the Rothschild report noted that TIO had nowhere to expand due to the Territory’s small population base. That is an argument I am getting now from TIO.
When I had the briefing they said they have issues the size of the base of the people who support TIO. ‘We are a small insurance company, therefore we could be at higher risk.’ But that argument was also put to us in 2006 when they were not doing too well, and there is now a $106m profit. Is that argument real? Do we need another Rothschild investigation to provide us with an independent assessment of where TIO stands? If Treasury, which I assume also gives advice, says this is a good deal and TIO is at risk if it cannot gain more customers so it can spread risk out if there is a disaster, let us have an independent assessment of that. In 2006 they had Rothschild look at it. I am not afraid of the debate about the future of TIO, but I am concerned that it not only be about dollars in the Northern Territory.
When you announced you were looking at selling TIO, the boss of the Motor Trades Association walked into my office at Howard Springs and said, ‘Where is your poster?’ He was not happy, because he knows TIO has always treated local people, especially panel beaters and spray painters, very well, compared to QBE or one of the big companies down south. They would be concerned, as a group, about getting rid of TIO.
I am concerned about the loss of jobs. You say they could continue and we might be able to keep the brand; all those things would need to be taken into consideration.
This debate cannot simply be based on economic grounds. You could say life moves on, but TIO is something people are used to. I was at the fish and chip shop at Humpty Doo on Monday night, and a bloke there said, ‘No way will the government sell TIO’. He might not know anything about the economy, but I am trying to give you an indication that people are passionate about TIO. If you think selling TIO will make Territorians better off, it is up to you to show them that.
This is not up to me; I am happy for it to be left as it is. TIO is making money: MAC, banking and insurance. It has enough money to sponsor sporting groups all over the Territory. We have the TIO Stadium, and people have ‘TIO’ on the back of their shirts. It is an important part of the community. I will not go down the path of saying this is a good idea, because I am not yet convinced it is. You are saying, ‘We will fix the problem of floods at Rapid Creek and get you a new sporting facility’. I do not know what the new sporting facility is. Is it a pool for the rural area?
Mr Vowles: Tennis, I think.
Mr WOOD: Is it tennis? It might be badminton. We could do with that, because I did not see any reps in Alice Springs playing badminton; they are probably all retired because they have no home. But that is the bait. I do not really want to use that.
We should deal with this issue in a mature way and ask the people, ‘Where do we go with TIO?’ Because they are passionate about it. If you do not ask people, there will be a backlash; people will say, ‘It is our TIO, and you have not taken us into account’. Your website only asks what asset money should be spent on. It does not ask if we should sell TIO. That is the basic question. You need another column there to say, ‘Do you think we should sell TIO?’ It would be interesting to see what answer you receive.
At present, I do not believe we should sell TIO, because I am not yet convinced. I am not worried about Mr Abbott’s assets. I understand that is something attractive, but once you sell an asset, the old story is that you have sold it and you never get it back again. That is where we must be very careful in going down this path. I am not sure it is a great argument that we are the only place in Australia that has a government-backed insurance company. One of the arguments about selling Power and Water was to provide more efficient services to the community, yet I understand that power and water charges in many states have now rocketed up. Gas prices have gone up, and they are all private.
Mr Giles: That has nothing to do with privatisation.
Mr WOOD: I know the cost of gas is going up anyway.
I will leave it at that. I am interested in hearing more in this debate.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to support this matter of public importance and condemn the Giles government for its attempt to hoodwink the electorate.
When the Mills government went to the people in 2012 there was no mention of a fire sale of public assets. Sure, you made some promises, many of which you have broken, but everyone on that side of the House was suspiciously silent on asset sales. There is a reason for that. If a wholesale sell-off had been part of the CLP’s agenda, you would now be sitting on this side of the House.
Territorians gave us a clear message in 2006 that assets like the Territory Insurance Office need to stay in public hands, and we listened to them. In more recent times we have been gauging the mood of the electorate following the Chief Minister’s comments to this House in which, on a number of occasions, he refused to rule out asset sales. The mood of the people has not changed.
My electorate office has been inundated with calls from constituents urging me to fight the sell-off. At the Rapid Creek Markets people have been giving me the clear message that the TIO must not be sold. More recently, at the Casuarina Square stall Labor set up to help the new member for Casuarina, Lauren Moss, the first petition people wanted to sign was the petition not to sell the TIO. Consultation is not your sweet spot, is it, Chief Minister? We are listening, you are not, and there will be a political price to pay. Make no mistake, if you sell the TIO, you will pay.
I had to laugh when I looked at a website set up by the government seeking public comment on the TIO sale. I thought there must be a place on the website where I could register a no-sale message. Surely, I thought, if the Chief Minister is genuine about finding out what people really think there would be a simple question: do you want the TIO privatised – yes or no? No such luck. Why is that question not being asked? Is it because you already know what the answer will be?
I am no pollster, but based on my interactions with constituents I reckon the feedback is running at about 80:20 against. Very few Territorians want TIO sold, so why the bogus website? You have to concoct a veneer of support for this measure so you have called in the spin doctors. The website is the result. It is a cynical public relations exercise asking Territorians what should happen to any proceeds from the sale of TIO. It is a con job.
My message to constituents is do not fall for it. When you give your feedback, you simply need two words: no sale. When the website asks how the money is to be spent, just write ‘no sale’. Send a message to the CLP, as you did on Saturday with the election of the new member for Casuarina, my new colleague, Lauren Moss. If enough Territorians write ‘no sale’ the government might get the message. The consequences for Territorians of not speaking up are loud and clear and do not bear thinking about.
The TIO is the tip of the iceberg. Next it will be our port. Against the wishes of all stakeholders who use our port, the government will have it on the auction block next. Then what? Power and Water? There is no doubt about it. Adam Giles will not be happy until it is all gone – a mad frenzy of ideologically driven sell-offs, no doubt to his silver circle mates at the expense of Territorians, families and jobs. Make no mistake, there is a consequence of privatisation that follows like night follows day: prices go up. Right now the government has control of the pricing.
TIO, the port and Power and Water are levers of our economy. In government hands, the government has the power to pull the levers for the betterment of Territorians. Out of government hands, the government loses that control. When companies own our assets, who are they responsible to? Not us. They answer to their shareholders, their owners. What do shareholders and owners expect? They expect a return on their investment. With TIO, premiums will rise. With the port, berthing and handling charges will increase. With Power and Water, the price of electricity and water will rise and the government will be powerless to do anything about it. So why does Adam Giles want a fire sale of what rightly belongs to Territorians? It is a grab for cash.
The Giles government has failed when it comes to securing federal dollars from the Abbott government. In Joe Hockey’s budget earlier this year, the big loser was the Territory. Then Treasurer Dave Tollner and Adam Giles either did not advocate the Territory’s position robustly or Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey chose to ignore them.
Cuts flowed across all major portfolio areas. Health, education and funds for Indigenous programs were slashed across the board, and there is more to come. The federal government is slashing $80bn over 10 years from health and education to all states and territories. Two years into the Mills/Giles government and the political reality is settling in. We have a general election in less than two years and Adam Giles needs money in an attempt to buy his way back into power. Instead of responsible fiscal management they have decided to sell the farm. Make no mistake, if TIO is sold for anything like the $500m we have heard, the CLP will embark on a pre-election spending spree the likes of which we have probably never seen.
All those bush seats where the CLP has failed to keep any of its promises will be barnstormed with wads of cash. Their pre-election bribes will be rolled out one after another. Maybe the CLP will keep its promises if that happens, but I doubt it.
The CLP must realise that if TIO falls into private hands, Territorians in flood and cyclone zones will be more vulnerable. Will flood and cyclone damage be covered? People in my electorate of Johnston are furious that the Chief Minister has linked flood mitigation in Rapid Creek and Millner to revenue from the sale of TIO.
This is despite the fact that shortly before the last election the CLP offered $1.5m for flood mitigation, with more to come should it be needed once the government-commissioned report into the flooding problem was made public. This is despite the fact that more than two years after it was elected the CLP government has undertaken no substantial flood mitigation works in the Rapid Creek catchment area. This is despite the fact that while the government is consulting with local residents about how they can protect their homes in the event of flooding, not one cent has been allocated to undertake the necessary remedial works. It is a bitter irony not lost on my electorate. Residents will only get flood mitigation if they support the sale of TIO, which will inevitably result in reduced coverage for storm and flood damage.
We have seen a strong pattern across the board of the CLP’s methodology: promise one thing before the election, do something else after it. To list a few examples, this deceptive strategy applies to public sector job cuts, the cost of living, teacher numbers and infrastructure: promise one thing, do something else after you are elected.
Sadly, flood mitigation in Millner can also be added to this list of broken promises. The government should undertake the necessary flood mitigation works as a matter of priority, not wait until after another Wet Season with potential flooding risk to the families of Millner and Rapid Creek. In other words, the CLP government should honour the commitment it made concerning flood mitigation in Millner and Rapid Creek before the last election. This is a reasonable expectation of the community. The Chief Minister should not be twisting the arms of Territorians to support the sale of TIO in return for election commitments the CLP has already made.
Added to the list of quid pro quos for the sale of TIO is a new sporting venue for Darwin. What does this mean? It means all those sporting clubs in Darwin, all those families who participate in sport or watch sport, will only get a new sporting venue if they support the sale of TIO. They will only get a new sporting facility if they support new insurance arrangements that will compromise their coverage for storm and flood protection.
The Chief Minister’s approach to the sale of TIO is coercive and has caused lots of anger in my electorate of Johnston. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the federal government’s own inquiry into the development of northern Australia acknowledged TIO as the gold standard in insurance models for natural disaster zones. Nationals MP Warren Entsch, no less, recommended to the federal parliament that TIO be expanded across northern Australia because it is the best insurance available. It is affordable and consistently available. Chief Minister, why will you not listen? We know you do not listen to Territorians, but please listen to your own side of politics.
In summary, it saddens me to have to make this contribution to this debate. The mad rush to sell what are rightfully Territorians’ assets begs belief. I put on the record my dismay that the government is taking this route and I commend this matter of public importance to the House.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I respond to what really is a scaremongering tactic of the opposition. This whole business of what we have a mandate to do and not to do is highly hypocritical. Did Labor have a mandate to put us into debt to the tune of $5.5bn? I do not think so. I do not think it had a mandate to spend willy-nilly on the things it did and put us all into a situation where we are in debt and have no money to pay for roads, schools, hospitals and all the things we need to, but, conversely, we do not have a mandate to put out for debate whether or not these public assets should be sold.
I beg to differ. We do have a mandate to discuss these very important issues, whether or not, for example, TIO’s relevance in its service to the community has expired. We need to debate whether or not it is time for TIO, like in all other jurisdictions around Australia, to be sold and the government owned insurance office be privatised. That debate has been had everywhere else in Australia, but not here to any great satisfaction. I heard the member for Nelson talk about how Terry Mills, in 2006, said no to privatising TIO, but 2006 is a long time ago; that is eight years ago.
Government is a business. It is prudent for us to look at all our government owned corporations, our assets, and review them to make good decisions on whether or not they are viable, sustainable and relevant, or are such a risk to this contemporary society that they should be considered as possible sale items. That is what we intend to do. No decision has been made. Cabinet has not presided over any decision on the sale of TIO or the port.
We are definitely looking at these very closely. When we first came to government, when I was honoured to be the Treasurer of the Northern Territory, one of the first issues put before me was the future of the Territory Insurance Office. It was prudent at the time that they did that because it was a contentious issue, and has been for a long time. The original rationale for the establishment of the Territory Insurance Office in 1979 was to ensure the availability of mandatory workers compensation and motor accident insurance in the Territory. So it has just celebrated its 25th birthday. Since that time TIO has evolved to provide a wide range of commercial insurance and banking products; however, there are a number of factors that limit the future financial sustainability of TIO, including its small size and concentration of risk. In addition, the availability of insurance and banking products from private providers in the Territory has significantly increased.
That was part of a brief given to me in August 2012 when we first came to government. It was provided by Richard Harding, who is the CE of TIO, with the endorsement of his independent board of directors. He was diligently alerting a new government to the fact TIO and the government carry a considerable amount of risk and competition within this sector had increased substantially in the last 25 years. You might have heard the Chief Minister mention there are now 12 players in this industry in the Northern Territory, 12 options for people when they purchase insurance services, as opposed to probably one or two in 1979; there would not have been any more than a handful. There is now a very competitive environment. Do not forget that we have a very small population in the Northern Territory. We have less than 245 000 people, and we apparently have 12 options when it comes to choosing which home or car insurance to purchase.
The point I am making is that the landscape has dramatically changed over the last 25 years. What we have heard from the member from Nelson – I appreciate his insight into this debate – is that over the years, whether it be Labor or Liberal CLP governments, people have considered that the sale of TIO needed to be explored. There were problems going back decades in the risk government held in respect to its relationship with TIO.
TIO is the administrator of the Northern Territory government’s Motor Accident Compensation Scheme. It provides commercial insurance products and services, and it provides banking products and services. Treasury regulates TIO, and its insurance policies and deposits are guaranteed by the Northern Territory government, which is where the risk lies.
Another section of the brief I was given some time ago about TIO says the sale of TIO would deliver significant financial returns to government, As the opposition has alluded to, but that is not the main motivating force behind reigniting this debate. It also says to relieve it of significant financial risk would relieve the government’s risk exposure through the legislative guarantee of TIO’s customer deposits and insurance contracts, which is considerable. It would also remove government’s exposure to catastrophic risk, which most of us in this Chamber are aware of. If we were wiped out by another Cyclone Tracy in the Top End, our government would be in serious financial strife, which the Opposition Leader would know. As the former Treasurer of the Labor government, the member for Karama knows exactly the risk we carry with TIO. Sadly, one day, there will surely be a very serious cyclone, and that could have a catastrophic impact on our financial situation in the Northern Territory.
We must be prudent and responsible, and we must look at how sustainable it is to keep what we all love and adore, that being TIO. But we cannot make decisions, as the member for Nelson alluded to, based on emotion first and foremost. We must be prudent, and a good government. A government is a business, and like any business you must review your assets regularly. You have to review your car fleet. Are your cars looking a bit sad and breaking down regularly? Do they need replacing? Do you need a new site for your business? Do you need a refurbishment? Do you need new machinery? Do you need to upgrade and change what you do, which may mean selling bits and pieces and replacing them?
The sale of TIO is not that simple, and I would not degrade it to the operations of a small business. It is a big business, and we have that emotional attachment, but it is our responsibility, as a responsible government, to make sure we have this debate. That is what we will do, and the Chief Minister has sparked this initiative. It has been mulled over for some time, like the former Labor government mulled it over for many years. We have the courage of our convictions to make changes and reforms. We are able to make difficult decisions. I have said in this Chamber time and time again how astounded I was by the lack of courage the former Labor government had. When it came to making hard decisions, they ran a mile.
Power and Water is a classic example. We have documented evidence the Labor government intended to increase the power and water tariffs but did not. They could not do it when it came to the crunch. They knew it was responsible, it was prudent, and that Power and Water had clocked up a debt of $1.3bn, but they could not make the difficult decision to increase tariffs. It had to be done, it was done and people have moved on since then, realising that, as in every other jurisdictions around Australia, you have to pay more for those utilities. It is a fact of life.
We had to make the hard decision. Yes, it was painful. You would not know what pain was on the other side of the Chamber because you have never made a decision that was difficult and caused you pain. All the decisions you made were about spending. You thought you had a mandate to spend, not to act in a prudent, responsible way as a government. We are doing something completely foreign to the opposition. We are striking up a difficult debate and conversation in the community about the sale of TIO.
I have the greatest admiration for the Chief Minister for going down this track because there has been a level of procrastination around this. We need to bite the bullet. We need to make a decision which is good for all Territorians.
Who is to say that the sale of TIO will mean an increase in tariffs or premiums? There is no evidence to say when you have 12 competitors in the market that selling the Territory Insurance Office will increase premiums. In fact, I argue the opposite, but I am no expert on it and neither is the opposition. Competition would suggest lower premiums.
Look what has happened since the Chief Minister intervened in the fuel debate. Look what happens when you name and shame service providers and retailers of fuel, for example. Prices go down and consumers benefit.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we have a mandate to put this on the agenda. We are not committing either way at this stage. We want a healthy, robust democratic debate about the sale of TIO, and it will happen sooner rather than later.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will focus on three issues: 1) opposition’s complete misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of how business works; 2) the benefit of the possible use of an infrastructure fund for future development; 3) a few facts about the Territory Insurance Office.
Last week I had the good fortune to sit through six hours of opposition questioning on the Power and Water Corporation and the two new corporations as a result of the government’s reform agenda. We understand that under Labor’s watch PWC debt grew from $230m to more than $1.3bn.
Earlier this year, the government started to reform PWC, which was badly needed. This reform is in line with nearly 20 years of reform in the electricity and gas markets in the rest of Australia, reform which the Leader of the Opposition, as the then Treasurer, supported with all other Labor state and federal ministers through COAG, but did nothing about implementing any of the reforms.
Although it is early days of the PWC reform, we have seen an opening up of the books and finally some transparency into an inefficient government owned utility, the last one in Australia, in fact. It will take a little longer for the three new corporations to settle down and find their feet, but this is an important part of our building blocks for the future. We must have a reliable, stable and modern electricity, water and sewerage corporation which can sustain growth into the future.
During last week the opposition tried and failed to scare Territorians about the accounts for PWC. I will not go over the entire six hours again but, fundamentally, the opposition has no idea how accounting works. It is clear from its $5bn debt it also has no idea how to run an economy in the Territory. The opposition made the wrong financial assumptions and was shown to have no idea about normal accounting practices. The Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee was told the NT taxpayer continues to subsidise electricity, sewerage and water services by about $77m, resulting in a net loss of $20m for PWC last financial year. The opposition has made ridiculous assumptions about the annual accounts for PWC, highlighting its lack of economic skill, which saw the PWC debt jump from $200m to more than $1.3bn when Labor was in government.
The hearing was told that PWC follows normal international accounting practices in relation to valuing its assets. While the opposition claimed these revaluations came through revenue from customers resulting in a claimed profit, anyone who understands basic accounting could see the opposition is completely wrong. It is about a write down of assets that happened under Labor’s watch because the organisation was in such dire financial straits. Now that write down has been reversed and the true value of those assets has been added back into PWC’s bottom line. It is a paper profit only. PWC remains running at a loss, but under the CLP reforms there will be more efficiencies and less loss over time.
The CLP reformed PWC in line with the rest of the Australian national energy market, which is vital for developing the recently announced gas pipeline to the eastern seaboard. The hearings were told that PWC has large amounts of excess low-cost gas which can be sold into the eastern markets and ultimately put downward pressure on any future electricity price increases. Without reform, this gas would be sitting in the ground and costing NT taxpayers a huge amount of money regardless of whether it was used or not, a contract Labor signed. This excess gas asset can be sold into the total Australian market and turned into a benefit for Territorians would which not have been possible without the reforms to PWC.
The opposition has always misunderstood how the economy works and wants to continue to keep running inefficient and old systems which contributed to the massive debt the CLP inherited. They talk about PWC, but the Leader of the Opposition did nothing in the past 11 years to make the corporation more efficient.
The point I am trying to make is we have a dichotomy. In relation to the recent announcements by the shadow Treasurer relating to the bottom line figure on Power and Water Corporation, they either do not know how to read a balance sheet or are deliberately trying to mislead people in the Northern Territory.
Either of these two scenarios effectively precludes them from being able to comment on how we are financially managing anything in the Northern Territory, including TIO. Quite frankly, I am disturbed that they either cannot understand a balance sheet or would deliberately try to spread information to scare the public in relation to Power and Water and TIO.
The $300m re-rating improved the debt-to-equity ratio of Power and Water Corporation, and that is a very important metric when you are looking at the viability of a company. The reforms have also improved the cash flow so they are only making a net loss now of some $20m as opposed to a much larger number under Labor. The reforms are having a positive impact on Power and Water Corporation and it hurts them to see that.
Let me turn to the issue of a possible infrastructure fund. There are benefits around this concept to ensure there are guidelines for reinvesting Territory funds into other important and worthwhile assets for the good of the community and the economy. The government has a number of assets which could be realised and put into this fund.
The government put together an Economic Development Advisory Panel which made some recommendations for the Northern Territory government’s economic development strategy. This advisory panel was made up of some very interesting people: Mr Doug McTaggart, an economist; Ian Smith; and Mr Paul Henderson, Labor Chief Minister of the Northern Territory from 2007 to 2012. One of the suggestions the panel made is:
This is the type of thinking the Northern Territory needs. The fund would be set up to use proceeds of assets, to reuse the money in more productive assets and/or more pressing community and economic needs. It could include partnering with the private and non-government sectors.
Under Labor none of this was even on the horizon, yet the Leader of the Opposition calls for a referendum on this issue. The NT needs infrastructure to ensure its continued growth and security. If we do not go down the path of looking at recycling our assets, then the only way of building what the community wants and needs is to go further into debt. That is something the Leader of the Opposition knows all about.
This government has tackled the debt, but not at the expense of community needs. This government is doing what all the other states are doing and have been doing for many years.
Coming into politics and parliament, I remember speaking to the then Treasurer about the current economic situation in the Northern Territory, and I was staggered. I know the Australian situation, when I was working in finance, had jumped from -7 to +43 thanks to the Rudd-Gillard government. Here I thought it would be bad, around 60-70%. When I found out the debt to gross state product was 98%, I was floored.
That would make Spain, Greece and Ireland blush. The amount of debt that was racked up is unbelievable. It is a scorched earth policy. It means any government coming in following that mess cannot do a thing. The people of the Northern Territory are hogtied. It is disgusting and despicable. As a Territorian who studies economics and has grown up in the Northern Territory, I find it to be an unmitigated disgrace.
This government is working to correct these issues and to put together this infrastructure fund. We need some money for that infrastructure fund so it can move the Northern Territory forward.
Some background on the TIO: the Territory Insurance Office was established in 1979 to ensure Territorians had access to compulsory workers compensation insurance and motor accident compensation cover. Since that time the Territory Insurance Office has evolved into a general insurance company, providing a wide range of insurance products, as well as a banking business providing primarily home loans and holding customer deposits. The strategic imperatives for the creation of TIO no longer exist.
The Territory Insurance industry is a vibrant and competitive one with in excess of 12 insurers competing for customers. Most large national insurers offer products in the Northern Territory. The Territory is also well served by the banking industry with the big four banks and a raft of second tier banks and credit unions also providing services. This reflects the global nature of finance and the insurance industry.
All insurers operating in the Territory offer cyclone cover and all but one offer flood insurance. Even in the area of cyclone cover, TIO is no longer the cheapest. Its prices sit in the middle of the market.
TIO now exists in a market where it is no longer providing unique service nor is it keeping competitors prices low. TIO remains the last government owned insurer and bank in Australia, with other states having privatised in the late 1980s and 1990s.
TIO is limited by its legislation to only offer services within the Territory. This means it is one of the smallest insurance companies in Australia, competing against national and multinational corporations. TIO is exposed to natural disaster risk, exacerbated by the fact that all of its customers are concentrated in the Northern Territory. TIO’s competitors have more capacity to diversify risk and to fund risks from much greater premium pools. Diversified insurers with access to global capital markets are a more efficient and effective means of managing the risks to which TIO is exposed.
TIO’s competitors can also achieve significant economies of scale. This makes it more difficult for TIO to compete in a small market against competitors that operate on a national and international basis.
As TIO is government owned, the risks associated with natural disasters, as well as the financial wellbeing of TIO, are ultimately borne by Territory taxpayers. Given that mature and developed insurance and banking markets operate in the Territory now, these risks are no longer justified.
The government is committed to ensuring Territorians have ongoing access to flood cover, and this would be a key consideration in any decision to privatise. As noted, most insurers operating in the Territory offer flood cover. Options for working with industry and the community on appropriate flood mitigation initiatives and planning measures to support the ongoing availability and affordability of flood cover will be examined in detail. Such measures have been developed in other jurisdictions, including north Queensland, and these provide an example of what would be implemented in the Northern Territory.
The recent Productivity Commission review into natural disaster funding also provides useful recommendations in this regard. The Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia has recently released the Pivot North report, which found that insurance costs in northern Queensland are higher than those in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Some conjecture about the role of TIO in this outcome has been part of the review. TIO is about to meet with the joint select committee to provide advice.
It is clear there are many factors that affect the difference in costs between north Queensland and the Northern Territory. The largest of these is the nature of the underwriting risk. North Queensland’s exposure to highly intense cyclones and large catastrophic insurance losses is significantly higher than in the Territory. In addition, the Territory’s building code is significantly stronger, and as a result of Cyclone Tracy, the vast majority – in TIO’s case it is 99% - of the building stock has been built subject to that code. TIO is a commercially managed business, and operates on the same basis as other commercially managed insurers. There is nothing in the ownership structure or role of TIO which would result in differences between insurance costs in these two markets.
The Northern Territory must move forward. We must continue the reform so many other states have undertaken, not just with TIO and looking at reforms with possible privatisation, but through Power and Water as well. We need to provide for the community and provide an economic future for generations to come, not just drive up debt like the Leader of the Opposition. There is another way, a sensible, prudent, smarter, more modern way.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, there is one position the opposition is putting forward: why not wait until an election?
The member for Araluen talked about debate. The Chief Minister has already listed these assets for sale, and the member for Araluen said nothing has been decided – in a dysfunctional Cabinet process – and that it is all up for debate. Then what is the problem?
The Territory opposition is putting it very clearly. Take it to the next election and let the people decide, or, what do you have to hide? It is a very clear alternative position. I will use the government’s rhetoric that it is sick of whingeing, whining and carping. I am sick of a government whingeing, whining and carping about an opposition that challenges them. We have a government that refuses to accept challenges them. ‘Do it our way. Just trust us.’ Unfortunately, the community is deciding very rapidly that this government is not to be trusted. There is a simple alternative. Give us all your neo-Liberal debate, let it go on the public record, and take it to the next election – very clear.
The Chief Minister rolled out a story about the CLP having done extensive research, since coming to government, on the sale of public assets. That is rubbish. The Chief Minister is a clone of Campbell Newman. It goes to the whole way the CLP was elected; there was some serious support from Queensland Liberals, a campaign director from Queensland was funded and put into the Territory and there was a serious cash splash from some Liberal benefactors in the bush, and, bingo, the CLP took power. The Chief Minister continues to trot out the rhetoric of Campbell Newman. The relationship is well and truly cemented.
What the Chief Minister fails to realise in his style of debate is that the Territory is a very small jurisdiction. We have a very small population base in a massive, challenging geographic area, with regular cyclones, floods and fire. The Chief Minister trots out this rhetoric about other jurisdictions, other big states, with millions and millions in population. The Chief Minister does not get it because – I have to remind myself – he is a newcomer. He roared over the border to try to get a federal seat in Canberra. I remember that result. I remember the Leader of Government Business, Hon Chris Burns, when he challenged the member for Braitling and laid out his electoral results when he stood for Lingiari. It was northeast Arnhem Land that really shattered his glass jaw, because that was the most devastating of all the results.
I was so busy trying to learn how to become a member of parliament, I did not really have time for that. But after seeing this guy progress with his arrogance, mistruths, rhetoric and denial, then I reckon, fair crack, you deserve it, Chief Minister. I have worked out that you do not get the Territory; you are a newcomer, a new chum. You are trying to overlay this big-state matrix into your neo-Liberal jargon. I have it on very good authority that the CLP Cabinet processes are most dysfunctional, and you are either misinforming your Cabinet ministers, bullying them, or giving them half the story. You are a big part of the problem.
The other reason I say, as a member of the opposition, ‘Take it to the next election, get your mandate from the people’, is what is this urgency? The urgency is the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has no signature economic project. He has not been able to secure anything in two years. He talks about a gas pipeline, and fuels the debate with personal gain for his electorate in Central Australia, when the APA says the commercial model that will stack up is the gas pipeline between Tennant Creek and Mount Isa. But the Chief Minister already has made announcements that the gas pipeline will go from Alice Springs to Moomba, which ignores any economic logic. Once again, it is a jobs-for-the-boys mentality and a personal-gain mentality. What I read into it, being a bit of an old crusty chum around the Territory, is a desperado.
Chief Minister, we can see you are getting very desperate in the second half of your electoral term and are looking for a quick cash grab. You will sell the family jewels, sell the farm with no mandate from the people. You are a new chum here. You need to show some respect.
I will briefly mention the SEGRA Conference in Alice Springs, which was the regional economic development conference. It was opened by our Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. The Chief Minister, in a rapid-fire convoluted way, talked up the Northern Territory. I was very proud to be a Territorian, sitting at a table with the Chief Minister talking up the Northern Territory. Then he attacked Aboriginal land rights and started to spin, to a full house of regional delegates, that it was all about 99-year leases, private asset ownership for Aboriginal people and scrapping land rights to deliver economic develop. ‘We will sell grandmother’s country for economic gain.’ Once again, the same rhetoric, this short-term gain, this cash grab, this Campbell Newman blueprint in new country with no respect for traditional owners.
I followed Mr Mundine, who was at that conference, and asked for assurance that traditional owners would not be used and abused by global corporate sharks with grandmother’s country being sold. Unfortunately, I left that conference with the question still unanswered.
The Chief Minister talks about the big infrastructure projects for the Northern Territory. It was funny that following the Chief Minister was the Deputy Prime Minister, Hon Warren Truss, who delivered a comprehensive list of mega-infrastructure projects for regional Australia, including the Melbourne to Brisbane railway line, but there was nothing for the Northern Territory. I asked myself and a few people at the table where I was sitting, why is our Chief Minister not with the Deputy Prime Minister announcing this major mega-infrastructure roll out. It was obvious by the end of it there was nothing in it for the Northern Territory, except the dollar for dollar deal to start work on the Outback Way – $20m from the Territory and $20m from Canberra – when there were other announcements all over regional Australia with mega-infrastructure projects.
With no signature economic project, no real relationship with Canberra – many visits but coming home with empty pockets – it looks like the Chief Minister is at a very desperate stage where he is willing to bluff his way through Cabinet, show complete arrogance to the Northern Territory and start to roll off the family jewels, the money makers of the Territory economy, because he is going to an election and is in a desperate state.
I come from the breadbasket of minerals, resources and energy in the Northern Territory: the Barkly. We also contribute in a major way to the live cattle export and are very interested in frozen beef being exported out of the Northern Territory to international markets.
Chief Minister, there are many opportunities coming online for the Northern Territory. These are the money makers of the Northern Territory, the future funding initiatives for our schools, hospitals and kids. This is the way to grow the Territory, so I am wondering why you would sell the supply chain logistics.
I do not understand the member for Blain when he says we will sell the family jewels and put the money into more productive assets. The member for Blain, the self-professed economic guru and homegrown Territory boy, says the Chief Minister will have a fire sale of Territory assets and invest in more productive assets for the community. What was it you were talking about on radio, Chief Minister? It was a sports ground was it not, when you are prepared to sell off the supply chain logistics that represent the emerging economy of northern Australia?
Having had the privilege of working with Darwin Port Corporation, I understood that fostering these projects within the Northern Territory would start to create economic benefits via the private sector. The rail operator would be investing in passing loops when new customers come online. The Darwin Port Corporation would be investing in new quay lines and a new port area when new customers come online. The Darwin Port Corporation would be organising new live stockpiles and bulk load out conveyers when new customers come online.
Chief Minister, I am not quite sure why you want to sell it off in 2014 when it is one of the jewels in the crown of our economic future. I am not sure why you want to drop it into private hands that will control the port pricing market as well as reap the benefits of all the major projects that will come online. I do not understand why the Marine Supply Base is not in your thinking, as it was with the previous government and Chief Minister, as the Aberdeen of northern Australia, as the collective that will draw all the offshore exploration and production in the oil and gas sector back into the capital of northern Australia, Darwin, to enhance our economic development.
It will be a bit late in 2017 to talk about this if you have sold off the port on a 99-year lease in 2014 or 2015 in your run in to an election, seriously needing to fill your pockets with cash to pork barrel the electorates. I do not get it. I do not understand what assets would be more productive than being able to control the most integral part of the supply chain logistics that will see, enhance and really put the substance into Darwin and the Northern Territory as the gateway to Asia.
Chief Minister, it is really simple in terms of this debate. We have our position and we put it very clearly. We do not mind your position; we do not mind the neo-liberal Campbell Newman type approach, but we will debate it. But let us have one bipartisan agreement that we will both put it to an election in 2016. I do not see why you will not do that, Chief Minister, other than this unknown that you foster, with mistruths, spin and clouded rhetoric. Face up, fess up, take it to an election. Very simple. It is a mandate from the people. The member for Nelson talked about the locals in his area already in this debate.
The Territory opposition has brought this to the House to debate. The Territory opposition has a very clear, pragmatic alternative. It challenges the members for Araluen and Blain, and the Chief Minister directly: being respectful, advised and being informed by the constituents of the Northern Territory, who we have been elected to represent. We do not have this holier-than-thou power as political representatives. We need to move with the people. We need to take the advice of the people, and we need to acknowledge Territorians, pioneering families who have worked hard in the Territory who can advise us and will advise us.
Chief Minister, take a deep breath. Hopefully you will listen to this part of the debate. It is offered in good faith, and I seriously hope the CLP changes its tune on the final step and puts it to the people.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, this matter of public importance goes to the heart of three very important parts of the Territory: TIO; the port; and what formerly was the Power and Water Corporation, which has been split into three businesses.
I have been overwhelmed since going to the public when we first had word the government was looking at selling of TIO. We started a campaign to ensure Territorians had a say. We tried to demonstrate to the government how much TIO means to Territorians and their views on it.
We have a petition. I have one out the front of my office and I have no problem seeing sheets and sheets of it being filled out. I was recently at the stand at Casuarina Square where we were supporting the new member for Casuarina in the by-election. We had the petition there and people never hesitated to stop and sign the petition, because TIO is an organisation they feel a great deal of ownership of and a great deal of care for. There are some pretty good reasons they feel that way and so strongly about TIO.
One of them is because it offers insurance products they can afford and know they can rely on in the Territory, such as flood and cyclone coverage, and they know TIO has not let them down. It is an organisation that has been there for them through thick and thin, and it has a great model for a jurisdiction like the Territory.
Let us face the facts. We have a small population and some fairly different and challenging weather conditions, to say the least. We have seen the adversity it puts us through. We have seen what happens during cyclones and floods. People need the support of an organisation like TIO in the Territory. It has done a really good job for a long time. The service level you receive from TIO is excellent, many people tell me that. I try to put as much of my personal insurance through TIO as possible, and it has been a terrific insurer. TIO also employs many Territorians.
People feel very strongly about keeping TIO in the Territory, owned by Territorians, rather than it being used as a cash cow, quite frankly, to help the CLP government fund the 2016 election. That is what it is about. Today in Question Time the government revealed it has been looking at this since March.
We have put several questions to the government in regard to the future of TIO, the port and Power and Water – Territory-owned public assets – and they have been shifty with their language towards those issues. They have not been forthcoming with their plans.
On Monday, straight after the Casuarina by-election, we saw a full page advertisement in the Northern Territory News for the launch of a website about TIO. If the government is pursuing such a popular decision, why did it not promote it during the Casuarina by-election campaign? It is very clear it is because you know Territorians do not want TIO to be sold. It is that simple; it has been a great insurer that has not let Territorians down. I really hope the government listens to Territorians and gives them a chance to have a say on their insurer.
I welcome the Leader of the Opposition bringing forward this matter of public importance, because Territorians should have a say. The CLP did not go to the 2012 election and tell Territorians its intention was to sell TIO. It has no mandate to sell TIO, and Territorians deserve to have a say on its future. Today we put this to the government: you should do the right thing by Territorians, and if you intend to sell TIO then get a mandate to do it. Put it up at the 2016 election and see what Territorians have to say. Give Territorians a real chance to have their voices heard in this process, because once you sell TIO it will be gone forever and we will not get it back.
I keep hearing these arguments about other insurers in the market, but, again, the government does not seem to get it. You are basically putting these insurance policies on the market; Territorians will be at the mercy of private insurance companies driven by profit. It is about profit before people, and this is why TIO has been such a good model for Territorians for so long. I hope the government seriously listens to Territorians, because they do not want TIO sold. They do not want to be left to the mercy of private insurers. They want to be able to afford their insurance premiums, and want know that when things go dreadfully wrong they have good coverage. That is what TIO has done for a very long time.
I turn to Power and Water. Prior to 2012, the government gave no indication it wanted to separate it on taking government. There was no talk from the CLP about its plans for Power and Water. In fact, their actions were very different to their words with regard to Power and Water, because we know one of the CLP’s key commitments at the 2012 election was to reduce the cost of living for Territorians. They signed contracts and ran hard on that commitment to reduce the cost of living for Territorians. What did the CLP do as soon as it gained government? They hiked power and water prices right through the roof. The cost of power, water and sewerage has gone up dramatically under the CLP. We are talking about an extra $2000 a year for the average Territory family. We are taking about $8000 a year just to keep the lights on and the water running. That is on top of rent payments, other bills and fuel prices.
They went to structural separation with very little consultation. They rammed it through without enough time for proper planning. We saw that last week at the PAC committee meeting. It is unbelievable that two new government owned corporations could not provide completed Statements of Corporate Intent to the PAC committee, which by legislation, they are meant to do. They did not have the financial data to be able to complete them.
We are talking about billions of dollars of infrastructure at Power and Water Corporation where you rammed through a split without doing the planning or preparation. Now, financially, Jacana Energy and Territory Generation are flying blind. They do not have a true picture of their finances. Territory Generation did not have a complete picture of its assets. You would expect when you were messing with billions of dollars of Territory asset you would have done the work and some cost-benefit analysis. You would have some evidence to show Territorians there might be some benefit to splitting the corporation at the cost of millions of dollars to the Territory.
It leads me to think there was more of an agenda around the eventual sell-off of Power and Water assets – more public assets going up for sale. Where structural separation has taken place in other jurisdictions it has led to the privatisation of essential service assets. We have seen it time and time again. The privatisation of utilities leads to higher prices, fewer jobs for people working there and less reliability. Repairs and maintenance goes down. It is a fact. It has happened time and time again down south. We have now seen it happen in the Territory. The government had no mandate to do it.
It was very clear that Jacana Energy and Territory Generation have some very attractive assets that could be sold. For example, almost 80-odd customers of Jacana Energy account for 34% of their revenue. So far, Jacana Energy said they have lost a couple of those customers. The structural separation will not benefit the average household – the mums and dads in the suburbs or the people living in the bush. This is about big businesses and big customers, and it is a very attractive asset for the government to sell.
Territory Generation has some nice new assets in its generators. The new legislation enabled the government to dispose of assets within the new Territory Generation Corporation. That is also a concern.
We ask the government to start listening to Territorians about TIO, the port and the future of Power and Water assets. If you are to sell any more public assets, have a mandate to do it. Go to the next Territory election and listen to what Territorians have to say. You have no mandate to sell TIO or privatise and sell Power and Water assets. Territorians deserve to have a say. So far you have made some huge changes with no mandate to make them.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we ask the CLP government that if is to privatise these assets, realising once they are gone they are gone forever, at least get permission from the Territorians who own them.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I table five travel reports from the members for Johnston, Arafura and Greatorex, pursuant to clause 4.1 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will speak about some achievements and positive exploits of groups and people in my electorate.
As you know, the Dry Season is a busy time for many of sports and youth groups. The people I talk about tonight are just a small example of the sterling people we have in the rural area and the commitment they give, not only to the group they belong to but the broader community.
The first person I congratulate and commend is Lachlan Casburn, who was awarded the Queen’s Scout Award for exceptional work done within his Scout Venturer Unit at Humpty Doo Scout Group. His hard work within the community and scouting in general has resulted in his nomination for this prestigious award. It is the first time anyone in the Territory has won this aware in about 10 to 15 years. It is very special. The award originates from England, and was presented at a very special ceremony at Government House by Her Honour the Administrator.
Lachlan commenced his scouting journey in 2008 as a scout at the Palmerston Scout Group before moving to Humpty Doo Scout Group in 2009. He achieved the Scout Medallion Award early in 2011 and became an Adventurer later that year. For those who do not know, Venturers are scouts in the older teenage years.
Lachlan is in the process of moving from Venturers to Rovers. He has been a driving force within his Venturer unit, promoting activities and encouraging other Venturer Scouts. He has been the Chairman of the Unit Council and a regular organiser and participant in activities and camps of the Humpty Doo Scout Group.
Lachlan was selected to attend the Mawson Scholarship and Leadership course in October 2013, where he received instruction and practical training in teamwork, communication, decision-making, problem solving, conflict resolution and event management. Lachlan was a finalist in the environment section of the Northern Territory Young Achiever Awards Awards for his work in organising and participating in a camp at Garig Gunak Barlu National Park on the Cobourg Peninsula, where Lachlan and his group cleared beaches of marine debris with the local park rangers to preserve turtle breeding habitats.
He has a passion for environmental conservation and has been involved in several community projects to revegetate the local reserve, campsites and managed land, and was a coordinator for Clean Up Australia Day.
As part of the Venturer Awards Scheme he achieved SIS10 level 2 certificates in bushwalking and canoeing, a certificate in first aid in remote locations and his provisional driving licence.
For his Expeditions qualification Lachlan led a six-day and night expedition along the Jatbula trail from Nitmiluk National Park to Edith Falls.
Lachlan has been active in other sections of the Humpty Doo Scout Group where he assists the leaders of Cubs and Scouts in the delivery of the award scheme and acts as a mentor to the younger scouts. I have seen him with the groups and he certainly is a very lovely young man and will become a terrific adult.
As well as completing the Venturer Award Scheme, Lachlan also achieved the bronze and silver levels of the Duke of Edinburgh Award.
Lachlan was also involved when I organised the animal nursery at the Freds Pass Show. I asked Becky Myers and the Venturers if they could help me care for them, feed them and things of that nature. Lachlan was one of the young fellows who came along. He was a delight to be around. He did not need to be asked to do anything. He had great initiative. He obviously got on well with the six or seven other Venturers who were there and I know his family is proud of him, as are all his friends.
There was a special ceremony at Government House, and he is a good example to young girls and boys coming up in the Scout movement, and generally, because he is at Taminmin College. He is popular and well-liked by his fellow students and the teaching and other staff. Congratulations Lachlan.
I will also talk about the Southern Districts Cricket Club, which is the only cricket club servicing the greater rural area; people from elsewhere can also play. Very special dates in the Southern Districts Cricket Club calendar were 9 and 16 August where they played the PINT Cricket Club to see who would win the Geoff Akers Memorial Cup. This is the round where A grade and B grade need to win to achieve the Geoff Akers Cup. It is a two-day competition.
This match was established in memory of Geoff Akers, who was tragically killed in a road train accident on 27 August 2009. Geoff was a passionate cricketer and long-time president of Southern Districts in two separate stints. He was a major sponsor of the Southern Districts Cricket Club and the women’s cricket team of Darwin, assisting them to compete in the Rose Bowl competition with Alice Springs for many years.
Geoff also helped many of the other cricket clubs around Darwin, especially the Palmerston Cricket Club, friendly rivals with Districts. Geoff was a great supporter of the Lord Taverner’s Club and they now play a memorial match in memory of Geoff. On the weekend of Geoff’s accident, Districts were to play PINT Cricket Club, and it was agreed they would play a memorial match each year. PINT scorer John Coady presented the beautiful cup to the families and Districts committee members with the arrangement that no matter who won the trophy it would always remain at the Districts Clubhouse.
For the very first time, Southern Districts won the memorial cup this year. Many times either A or B grade have won; however, because PINT won both grades the first year, they retained the cup. It is fitting, given that it is the fifth anniversary of Geoff’s passing this year.
The A-grade players who played in the special matches were: Leigh Drennan, the captain; Ian Redpath; Ruben Wakefield; Patrick Gallow; Scott Willington; Sam Ferguson; Hayden Cummings; Jessie Dinnie; Riley May; and Matt Hammond. They defeated PINT in the first innings by 62 runs.
The B-grade team players were: Anthony Dent, captain; Robert Lavender; Nathan Hangan; Jack Atkinson; Dean Fry; Robert Gallow; Daniel Derrington; Scott Wood; Mitchell Townsend; Nic Fawcett; and Kyle Piccinelli. They defeated PINT in the first innings by 15 runs.
It is pleasing to note that the majority of these team members are homegrown players. They have come up through the club beginning in the Under 11s, in some cases starting their cricket career with the Milo clinics run at Districts.
Southern Districts have another Geoff Akers Memorial trophy, which is a shield. This is a clash between Palmerston Cricket Club and the Southern Districts in a one-day competition. This year it was held by Southern Districts, having been won earlier in the year with a clean sweep: A, B, C and U17 all defeated Palmerston.
The club has a small group of hard-working volunteers, and the committee at the moment comprises Anthony Dent, president; Ann Hammond, vice-president; Melissa Mullen, treasurer; Alison Jenkins, secretary; Tiffany Markey, registrar; Andrew Harvey, junior coordinator; Dean Cummings and Daniel Derrington, committee members. These people ensure the players are equipped to play. The patrons of the club are, of course, the member for Nelson, Gerry Wood, and me.
In the past, Districts have taken the trophy for the best prepared pitch in Darwin for two consecutive years, knocking off the Tracy Village Cricket Club and the Waratah Cricket Club. Currently the pitch is being prepared by Bob Redfern, who is ably assisted by Robin Jeffrey.
I regularly visit the cricket at Fred’s Pass, particularly when A-grade people are playing, because it is much faster and there are some massive hits, sixes and fours that are very impressive. I time it to try to meet the players and people at the lunch break, which is a fantastic spread and is prepared by Annie Hammond with the assistance of Gill Atkinson. All the players really appreciate the hospitality at Southern Districts, and I am told they have a reputation that precedes them in regard to the lunch and how they look after visiting players. It is something some of the other clubs can only aspire to. Of course, there are always the ubiquitous two or three big boxes of lollies, which keep up the sugar levels of the hard-working players, particularly when it is a hot day. The club has been busy in the past upgrading its facilities and now has a great set of practice nets; they are second to none. It has recently begun stage one of the extensions of its very small clubhouse.
While they have the best prepared pitch in Darwin, they cannot host any carnival games, as they do not have change rooms. I believe the committee is preparing to approach the minister for Sport and the Chief Minister to have that rectified, so they can host games and we can have first-class visiting teams from interstate come to play in the rural area.
I congratulate all of the players and volunteers on their performance this season, particularly the hard-working volunteers who put so much into the game and the club. The club is patiently waiting the rest of the season. The awards ceremony has been and gone, and it was a well-attended and very enjoyable evening.
Next year will be a good year. I know the Southern Districts Cricket Club and its band of good players, coaches and volunteers will do their very best and hopefully win out the trophies again.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is with great sadness that I speak on the passing of a great leader of our nation, our 21st Prime Minister, Edward Gough Whitlam AC QC.
Gough was a giant, loved by our Labor movement. He was a leader who dreamt big and implemented his dreams. His election in 1972 not only changed the government; it revitalised the nation. In three short years in power, Australia was awoken from its slumber. Suddenly we all had a reason to be optimistic. What is this great man’s legacy?
Despite conservative opposition at the time, Whitlam’s changes are now bipartisan articles of faith. We have him to thank for our universal healthcare; the end of military conscription; the abolition of the death penalty; the establishment of the family court; no fault divorce; the lowering of the voting age to 18; and the principle of ‘one vote, one value’. Gough was a giant of foreign policy. As Opposition Leader, he made that trip to China, unheard of for an Australian political figure at the time. As Prime Minister, the relationship with China was consolidated. To this day, Australia, and indeed our Northern Territory, have benefited from the establishment of diplomatic relations with China, started by Gough Whitlam.
For young men in the early 1970s, for who the birthday lottery could see them sent to fight in an unjust war in Vietnam, Gough was their saviour. He brought our boys home and ended our nation’s role in that conflict. He signed the World Heritage Convention, and because of that we have saved the Daintree, the Tasmanian old growth forests and our own Kakadu for all time.
He embraced the arts and allowed us to shrug off our long-standing cultural cringe. Until Gough Whitlam, the concept of attending university was a dream for all but the very well off. Gough changed that. Suddenly, university degrees could be accessed on the basis of ability, rather than wealth. Perhaps above all he was a leader for who justice and fairness was paramount.
Who would ever forget the iconic moment of Gough pouring a fistful of Territory dirt into Vincent Lingiari’s hand – the birth of land rights. His words that day still resonate with me. We Australians
Vincent Lingiari’s reply was, ‘We be mates now’.
From little things big things grow. We have the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Aboriginal land rights are part of the fabric of our nation and fundamental to our Northern Territory.
Gough backed it up further, bringing in our first Racial Discrimination Act. He established the Aboriginal Legal Service. He removed the final shameful vestiges of the repugnant White Australia policy. He elevated the role of women and opened the equal pay case; women’s pay was immediately increased. He removed the sales tax on the contraceptive pill. Suddenly, women were more empowered, thanks to Gough. He was the first leader anywhere in the world to have an Office of Women. But that is hardly surprising; by his side was an extraordinary woman, the love of his life, Margaret. They were an extraordinary double act, both larger than life. It was a marriage that lasted over 70 years.
I had the honour of presenting a posy of flowers to Margaret as she stood proudly beside her Prime Minister husband, Gough Whitlam, outside the Legislative Assembly, before Cyclone Tracy when that parliament was still intact.
They were literally towers of individuals. Gough Whitlam was an intellectual and political giant. He was a QC who could have dominated as a barrister and very likely ended up as a Supreme Court or High Court judge. But he chose public service, beginning in the Air Force. It began when he joined the Sydney University regiment in 1939; he worked his way through the ranks and became a flight lieutenant, but politics was his true calling.
He strode across the corridors of Parliament House in Canberra like a colossus, dominating at the despatch box, as Opposition Leader and Prime Minister, like no other. He also mastered the tools of modern politics, the first in Australia to deftly use television and polling, and the first to harness creative advertising. His It’s Time campaign in 1972 still stands as one of the great political campaigns of Australian political history.
I hope to have more to say in the coming days if this parliament agrees to the bipartisan condolence motion Territory Labor has sought.
Suffice to say, Australia is a better, fairer, more inclusive, more modern and more progressive country thanks to Gough Whitlam. We are less colourful and less interesting for his passing – a truly great Prime Minister, a truly great Labor leader, a great man, passionate about Australia.
Today we have lost an extraordinary Australian leader who enshrined, for so many of us, Australian values in his policy and his laws.
Vale Gough Whitlam.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, tonight I start to tell the story of the life of Ann Brown, a lady with a no-fuss name for a very dynamic, energetic and no-fuss person who is all action, no talk.
I am taking the time to tell Ann’s story in parliament because on Australia Day this year she was awarded the honour of being bestowed the title of Palmerston Citizen of the Year. I felt it only fitting, as I did last year with Margot Cox, our 2013 Citizen of the Year, to record her life achievements in Hansard.
Ann Brown was born on 3 August 1941 in Glasgow, Scotland, and is a self-confessed 10 Pom. Ann has just celebrated her 73rd birthday. She often tells the story about how she is living in the bonus years. Ann always said her greatest achievement in life would be to reach 60 and everything after that would be a bonus. At 73, Ann is almost always to be found in sneakers because she is literally busy running from one commitment to another.
Ann has many fond memories of growing up in Scotland as a child. One of her earliest memories is receiving a tricycle for Christmas in 1945. She also remembers, perhaps less fondly, the experience of having a surgeon attend her house to prepare the dining table as a theatre bed. Ann was to have her tonsils out and was given a general anaesthetic right there on the dining room table. She remembers the bright white light above her head, and reflects that in many ways it was more practical and sterile than having the procedure in the hospital. Of course, in 1945 Europe was plagued by war and all of the hospitals were full of those injured in the war.
In 1943, Ann’s brother Charlie was born. In 1946, Ann was off to primary school with her lovely new leather school bag. She cherished that school bag and can still vividly remember the smell of the new leather. That year Glasgow suffered through its worst snowfalls on record. Ann probably remembers this so vividly because the schools were closed, which meant she was free to keenly observe the many trucks bogged in the snow on the road in front of her house. I can just imagine Ann as a young girl watching the men attempting to shovel the snow away.
Ann recalled to me how in 1948 she would play at the bottom of her garden in an old bomb shelter full of gas masks used during the 1939 to 1945 war. Young wide-eyed Ann would listen to her mother tell stories about how bombs would fall from the sky causing massive and catastrophic destruction to people’s homes.
In 1949 Ann very gratefully received her first two-wheeled bike. She also noted the frequent absences of her grandmother, who lived with her family at that time. She was suffering from dementia and would wander the streets for many hours, leaving her family worried and having to look for her.
Ann was also bitten by a dog that year and it left a very sour taste in her mouth. Ann has held a lifelong grudge against that dog and virtually all dogs from that day onwards.
In those days, sugar rationing meant there were no lollies or sweets for little girls like Ann. Instead, she remembers the joy of trick or treating for Halloween and receiving lots of fruit and nuts from the neighbours, a very healthy alternative that parents these days wish their children would be grateful for.
Ann’s family moved to Inverness in 1951 when her father got a job as a chartered accountant with North British Hotels. To put it simply, Ann loved her new life in Inverness. Her family had a lovely home with a wonderful garden she loved to play in. It was in Inverness that she began to learn about the animosity between the Catholics and the Protestants. Ann explained to me that the Catholic children used to beat her up and throw stones. Ann, to this day, cannot understand how 10 Hail Marys could forgive that type of behaviour, only for it to be repeated the next day.
Ann’s time in Inverness ended in 1956 when her family moved back to Glasgow. Ann attended Jordan Hill College in her drindle skirts, embroided hooped petticoats and stiletto heels, the epitome of modern fashion. It was in these teenage years that Ann bought her first LP record by Perry Como, Catch a Falling Star.
Ann decided she would become a nurse, and in 1960 attended the Western Infirmary in Glasgow. This was a 1000-bed hospital that Ann learnt to love over her three years training on a salary of eight pounds a month. When Ann was explaining her nursing college experience to me she said, ‘Little did we know when we applied to do nursing that the hours were so long and the uniforms had to be nine inches from the ground with starched collars, cuffs and belts’. Ann and her friends had to live in the nurses home at the infirmary and lived their lives by very strict rules. Training nurses had to be back at the nurses’ home by 10 pm each night and were given only one late pass to midnight each month.
From 1965 to 1966 Ann undertook her midwifery training at Queen Mother’s Hospital in Yorkhill, Glasgow. Queen Mother’s was a brand-new hospital and Ann loved her year there. It was at Queen Mother’s that Ann become involved in a groundbreaking scientific development. Professor Ian McDonald gave most of the lectures to the aspiring midwives, and on one occasion he asked Ann if she would assist him in performing the first ever foetal ultrasound in the entire world. It was Professor Ian McDonald who invented the ultrasound machine and Ann Brown from Glasgow helped him use it for the very first time.
Despite the challenges, Ann and her best friend, Elizabeth Gillespie, who continue to be friends, carried on. It was Ann who said to Elizabeth one day, ‘There must be something better than this. I am going to go to Australia.’ Elizabeth agreed she would go with her to soak up the sunshine, but instead made her way to Canada to start her life journey. Ann could not understand why Elizabeth would want to go somewhere equally as cold as Glasgow.
Ann explained to me that in those days you were granted a two-year visa to work in Australia before you had to return home to the mother country. Ann had many life-changing questions going through her mind at the time of applying for a visa. Ann thought, ‘What am I getting myself in for? Will it be safe in Australia? Will I get a job once I get to Australia? Will Australians accept me?’ Ann recalls these emotions as both exciting and full of trepidation and, with that, Ann left Glasgow in August 1966. She travelled from Glasgow to London, London to Bahrain, Bahrain to Singapore, Singapore to Darwin and Darwin to Adelaide. Somewhere between Bahrain and Singapore Ann’s plane was diverted to an Army barracks where the 300 passengers aboard the plane were left on the runway in the heat.
When Ann landed in Adelaide she was most concerned about how she would get a job. Much to her surprise, by 3 pm that afternoon she had become a midwife in the labour ward at Queen Elizabeth Hospital. At that time many Italian women were having babies in the labour ward and that was a fantastic cultural experience for Ann.
Whilst in Adelaide, Ann enjoyed many doctors’ parties. The midwives and nurses would work all day long, indulge in parties all night long, and then get up, go to work and do it all again the next day. Whilst Ann admits she cannot believe she was able to do that, it created a strong camaraderie in the group. Ann recalls that back in those days she was young enough to handle it.
Ann also enjoyed the roof of the hospital which she regularly used as a suntanning salon. Ann loved suntanning oil and sprawling out in the warm summer sun on the hospital roof. She notes, however, that some 30 years later when she was having her skin cancers cut out, she did not think it was such a good idea after all.
She remembers that she was really well looked after whilst being a midwife and has many fond memories of this first stint of her Australian adventure.
After six months in Adelaide, Ann travelled to Sydney and started work at the Royal Hospital for Women in Paddington. She got the job the day after she arrived. The hospital had a beautiful view of Sydney Harbour Bridge. Sadly, the hospital was knocked down three or four years ago.
At the Royal Hospital for Women, Ann had to wear a large starched veil. Ann chuckled to me as she recalled never getting the hang of it. She reminisced how limp her veils would be and how much she hated them. The labour theatre was the only place you did not have to wear a veil and Ann would find herself there a lot of the time.
After six months in Sydney, Ann travelled to Brisbane. When she arrived it was raining and miserable so she went to the job centre and asked for a job in the sunshine. As Ann’s luck would have it, a couple of hours later she was on a bus and ended up in Home Hill just south of Townsville. Ann recalls feeling confident and excited about the new sunshine experience. At Home Hill she worked in a 14-bed hospital. This was a real eye opener for Ann as she had never worked in a small regional hospital before. Ann told me it was very old school, and they boiled water for the glass syringes and counted the linen in case someone had stolen something.
It was at this hospital that Ann received her driver’s licence. One day in Home Hill, Ann was busy delivering the policeman’s wife’s baby. Whilst the policeman’s wife was in labour, Ann mentioned to him that she did not have a driver’s licence. The police officer kindly said he would take care of it and make the necessary arrangements for her to receive a licence. Ann went the very next day to see the police officer, and in front of her he wrote out a 10-year licence to drive. Cheekily, Ann did not tell him that she did not know how to drive. She then bought a car for $100 and was on her way, terrorising the roads of northern Queensland.
Ann could not afford a very expensive car at that time as she had spent all the money she worked very hard to earn in Adelaide enjoying herself in Sydney. Ann’s friends from Sydney came to visit her in sunny north Queensland and they went on a sailing adventure to Palm Island. That was the first time she had visited an Aboriginal community. Ann recalls the sugar cane country of north Queensland and the spectacular fires as the cane burned along the landscape. It was in far north Queensland that she tasted her first mango and instantly fell in love with them. Ann rightly pointed out that it has to be Bowen mangoes, not turpentine. It was also the first time she tasted paw paw, and she absolutely loved it.
In Ann’s tradition, six months later she moved to the Northern Territory. Ann drove her car to Townsville, across to Charters Towers, and got to Julia Creek where it was flooded because it was January. She had to sit in the pub for four days listening to yobbos, waiting for the road to clear. She then put the car on the train and got on the train only to find it was full of drunks. Ann got off the train at Mount Isa and continued her driving journey.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, it is with much sadness that we learnt of the passing of Barbara Bradshaw, nee Tully, after a long and courageous battle with cancer.
Barbara was a strong, decent person. She was a consummate public servant. She was frank and fearless. Her hard work played a profound role in shaping law in the Northern Territory. She has left a legacy promoting sound public administration. Most people would not realise she was the architect of many of the legal frameworks governing the Territory, and she worked on major legislative reform under both governments.
For those who can remember the Department of Law, she was a long-term employee, and her duties ranged from policy lawyer to Deputy Master of the Supreme Court, from Registrar of Companies to Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, Registrar General, Corporate Affairs Commissioner, and Registrar of Credit Unions and Building Societies.
I knew her best for her work outside the public sector, where Barbara served as the CEO and Director of the Traditional Credit Union and CEO of the NT Law Society. Her last professional role was as Director of Legislative Reform at the Department of Children and Families.
Outside of work, Barbara was fiercely competitive at quiz nights, to the point where she would use her considerable legal skills to argue with the judges if she did not agree with their decision. She was also very generous. She would often invite newcomers to the NT for a home-cooked meal and make them feel at home as new Territorians. Our thoughts are with Barbara’s husband, Robert, and their daughter Mary. She will be greatly missed by many.
Our thoughts today are also touched by the passing of former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. With his passing, we lost a giant. To borrow from another former Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, we lost the brightest star in our political firmament.
My thoughts turn to a different light. Chifley gave us the light on the hill; Gough strode right up to it. He proved you could aspire to something better and make it real. We should always be aspiring in politics and striving to reach the light on the hill. There is every chance Gough is already in heaven and leading a reform agenda searching for the light on the celestial hill.
Gough has left a broad and rich legacy that shaped our nation and our Northern Territory. Indeed, the Darwin we know today is due, in many parts, to Gough, as Prime Minister establishing the Darwin Reconstruction Commission after the tragedy of Cyclone Tracy.
Gough had faith in the north, faith in the Territory, and a sentimental attachment to Gove for his time served there during World War II, where he developed a deep friendship with the Marika and Yunupingu families. Through his actions at Wave Hill he changed Australia and the Territory and formed a permanent bond with the Gurindji. To borrow from Paul Kelly:
You can reach the light on the hill. He will be missed.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, as predicted, the Top End fire season has turned out to be well above average. The volunteer bushfire brigades and Bushfires NT staff have been kept busy dealing with numerous wildfires in our rural areas. In fact, there have been more than 140 major wildfires that our volunteer bushfire brigades and Bushfires NT staff have actively controlled since late June. While controlling these wildfires they have protected many community assets, including homes, businesses, farms and tourist facilities. The work of volunteer bushfire brigade members and Bushfires NT staff is often the last ditch effort to control fire as it threatens residents’ homes and assets. There is no doubt they provide an essential public safety service.
While work is coordinated by Bushfires NT, there is a heavy reliance on the outstanding contribution of our volunteer bushfire brigade members. The selfless donation of their time, combined with their extensive fire management skills, continues to underpin the community’s capacity to manage fire in the rural area.
Even more commendable is the sustained fire control effort they provide. During the current fire season they have collectively donated many thousands of hours, and they regularly commit to turn up at fire lines, ready to combat fires and support their rural community.
The current fire risk in the rural areas surrounding Darwin and elsewhere in the northwestern Top End, where high fuel loads from an above average Wet Season combine with rural residential developments, is still apparent. The current fire risk is greatest in the southern Top End, primarily in the Gulf and Victoria River Downs regions. We are all aware fire is a natural component of the Top End landscape requiring a committed and ongoing community response. Many of our volunteers have been managing fires on an almost daily basis for several months, assisting in the afternoons when fires get what they call a ‘run on’, and working well into the evening until they are extinguished.
It is not just the fire response work our volunteers do that helps make the rural area a safer place to live. Their work commenced early in the Dry Season, when all volunteer bushfire brigades contributed towards extensive fire mitigation efforts to minimise fire risk later in the season. Volunteers undertook extensive planning and consultation with landholders to develop local fire mitigation strategies to better protect their local brigade areas and manage high fire risk areas. They then completed early burning across Crown land, roadside reserves and local shire areas, which resulted in a good mosaic of reduced fuel loads that significantly decreases the current risk of fire.
To date there have been 55 fire ban declarations in the Top End. This is a record number, and reflects the fire weather during this season. Bushfires NT staff have worked many long hours and spent many weekends responding to numerous fires. Their work is often immediate, high pressure and complex. To date, fixed wing aircraft have been used on 73 occasions. These aircraft aim to suppress fire early and quickly to enable ground-based crews to move in and extinguish fires safely. The planes fly low in smoky conditions to maximise the impact of their water drops, and the skill of the pilots is to be commended.
The other vital component of Bushfires NT’s airborne capacity is helicopters. To date, helicopters have been used over 90 times at fires across the Top End and savannah regions. The helicopters fulfil a dual role. They provide water bombing when required, but more often provide Bushfires NT staff with an aerial view from where they can better command the many fire vehicles on the fire line, and a plan to develop strategies for the containment of an incident.
The pilots are long-term Territorians, and their knowledge of country is a vital tool in managing the many incidents they are involved in. Currently fire weather is abating in the northwestern Top End, and the fire danger will continue to moderate in the next two months, as the Dry Season’s southeasterlies moderate and the humidity increases in the build-up.
But with the decreasing fire threat in the Darwin rural area comes an increasing threat in the Katherine region, as the fire season moves south. Bushfires NT staff based in Katherine have been particularly busy, with large fire events affecting broad areas of pastoral estate. Several wildfires have run for a number of weeks, impacting multiple stations and stretching all available resources. Bushfires NT staff have deployed from Darwin, Batchelor and Tennant Creek over the past six weeks to assist and support stakeholders in this large, and in places remote, region.
One wildfire, which started on Murranji Station, has burned two million hectares over 13 stations, and involved over 100 station and Bushfires NT staff in efforts over three weeks. This wildfire has significantly impacted on the operations of the stations as well as neighbouring stations whose staff have assisted. Whilst it has now mostly passed through pastoral estate, it continues to burn in the north Tanami desert. It continues to be monitored by Bushfires NT, as well as local government and police from Lajamanu, and Central Land Council rangers.
The movement of Bushfires NT staff between the regions will continue as the fire season develops to the south and as mitigation efforts are undertaken. In addition, as resources, including fire appliances, become available from the lessening risks in the Top End, a number will be deployed to southern areas and made available for increasing risks there. That is something I am particularly proud of, having worked up with the Chief Executive of the Department of Land Resource Management to ensure the southern regions are given additional resources during the height of the fire season. The fire season is long, but our volunteers and Bushfires NT staff are well placed to deal with these threats.
I commend them for their dedication, their hard work and their tireless efforts. On a personal note, I extend to all of the volunteers particularly – there are many serving volunteers and many who have retired and moved on – a thank you for the massive efforts they put in. I have been involved in bushfires on my own properties and seen just how dangerous and difficult these situations are and how quickly they can develop.
Our volunteers, supported well by Bushfires NT staff, do a stellar job. They are out there every day protecting the property, assets and, potentially, lives of people of the Northern Territory. I commend their good work.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, tonight I update the House, as shadow minister for Arts and Museums in the Northern Territory, on some recent happenings and my thoughts.
Art remains one of the most essential facets in the fabric of the Territory and makes a substantial contribution to its cultural identity.
But first I make mention of the importance to me of the life and work of Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who, sadly, passed away today. It has been a sad day for many Australians; particularly as a Labor Party member it has been sad and emotional. Universal healthcare, free tertiary education and Aboriginal land rights were achievements under his leadership. Gough also reopened the national wage case and equal pay case, and its findings meant Australian women undertaking work similar to that undertaken by men should be paid an equal wage. In a world first, he also appointed the first dedicated adviser for women’s affairs to the Prime Minister. He acknowledged the efforts and importance of women in making them a part of our society.
Whitlam reforms such as these saw Australia move from the status quo of the 1950s and 1960s into a modern nation that successive governments have been able to build upon. He advocated equality for all, irrespective of race, class or gender. His social and economic reforms have transformed Australia unquestionably for the better. I and the Territory Labor team mourn his passing.
Gough Whitlam also had a strident appreciation of the arts, and placed emphasis on the arts industry that had been forgotten under 25 years of conservative rule. Gough Whitlam doubled funding to the arts in his first year of government and created the Australia Council for the Arts, which is still operating today. Such a move was unheard of in post-war Australia, and has since provided hundreds of Territory artists, particularly Indigenous artists, with support.
The Whitlam government pushed forward with the creation of the National Gallery in Canberra and the first purchases of art. Its first purchase was Blue Poles by American artist Jackson Pollock. It cost the government $1.1m and created spirited debate in the political scene. The painting is now estimated to be worth over $100m and is seen as one of the smartest investments in Australia’s arts industry.
The Northern Territory arts scene is continuing to thrive, thanks to the hard work, talent and creativity of the people who consistently contribute to it. However, the industry continues to face uncertain times, given the level of cuts it is facing at the hands of the current government. With $1.3m worth of grants being cut from the sector, we still have not heard which organisations will be losing money as a result of these cuts.
Given that the CLP has consistently touted its commitment to tourism in the Top End, it is somewhat surprising the organisations that generate so much appeal for tourists are losing government funding. I would appreciate the minister outlining which organisations are losing funding and how much. I have been told by numerous arts groups that they are extremely concerned about their future and are unable to properly plan for it within the current environment; apprehension it is putting a roadblock in the future success of the Territory’s arts organisations. I urge the minister to clear this uncertainty as soon as possible.
I recently travelled to Alice Springs and attended the Alice Desert Festival. I met with the general manager, Laura Martinez-Oliveras, and the Events Manager, Mary-Jane Reynolds. I was impressed with the great creative energy within the organisation. The festival is an important showcase for a region where artistic endeavours feature strongly. The contributions of local artists, volunteers and staff were exceptional. However, funding cuts to the festival have affected the number of acts in the program, which resulted in a lower audience turnout. This is particularly disappointing given the increase in events and audience turnout for the Darwin Festival; it is disappointing to see we have not had an increase in the Alice Desert Festival. We need to place added investment into regional festivals, particularly into promotion, and administrative expertise.
I acknowledge the excellent work being done at the Darwin Entertainment Centre. The DEC General Manager, Alan James, has done superb job luring both quality and quantity to the centre. The number and standard of shows has increased immeasurably in the past year, and I commend the job Alan and his team have done. This year has seen Bangarra Dance, the Wiggles – my family’s personal favourite – top notch comedians like Bill Bailey and Alan Davies, and our own Jessica Mauboy all perform at the centre. It has been one of the biggest years by attendance at the Darwin Entertainment Centre.
Lastly I touch on the recently introduced MAGNT reforms, which provide for easier access to the museums and art galleries for philanthropic and corporate donors and contributors. These measures were supported by the opposition when introduced to parliament. I note this morning an apron was donated by Ms Mim McGuiness from my electorate, who, by chance, I visited yesterday at her home in Rapid Creek. Mim and her family donated the apron, which it is thought their mother had made when she lived at the Kahlin Compound or soon after in the 1930s. One of the skills she gained at the Kahlin Compound was needlework and embroidery. The item donated was beautifully handmade, and it is so important to the Territory’s history. I am pleased this type of donation is occurring, allowing important parts of our history to be on show for all Territorians. This is part of the new arrangement so it will be good to see more items and parts of our history on display at the Musuem and Art Gallery.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will read into Hansard a letter from Rob Oakeshott to Crikey.com regarding Ebola and the first person to die of it in the United States, Thomas Eric Duncan. It is very interesting:
I read that last night, and then I opened today’s paper and saw an opinion piece by Andrew Bolt. I do not always agree with Andrew Bolt; sometimes I do. He said in his opening line:
I do not know why our country is not making a bigger effort. We did it with Aceh when there was the tidal wave. Why are we not doing it here? I read that Cuba, for instance, is sending 165 medical people to West Africa. China is sending 59. The argument is that it will take 30 hours, if someone is infected, to come back to Australia. China is probably further away than Australia.
I understand that a person here may not know all the ins and outs of the government’s policy in relation to this, but as a nation we are not leading the way. We are a rich country. As I said before, we always tend to be working in coalition with the United States when it comes to military threats to our country or the world, yet here we have a threat of Ebola and we seem reluctant to go down the same path the United States has.
I was reading something from Yahoo News yesterday which said:
President Obama has criticised many countries in the First World for not making the effort. It is hypocritical that we can fight a war in Iraq but cannot put the same effort into working with the United States to do something for the people of Africa.
Obviously there are issues the government has some genuine fears about, but I have not heard that our country is talking to the United States or asking how we can work with that country. How can we work in with your 3000 troops to help?
We seem to want to be, as Rob Oakeshott said, Fortress Australia. President Obama has said you cannot stand back; you have to go into those countries and try to do something about it.
I noticed another article from the Sydney Morning Herald which says:
I raised this because as a rich nation, as a nation willing to spend millions of dollars on helping people in our own area, and one which spent millions of dollars helping people in Indonesia when the tsunami occurred, why can we not do something in relation to this issue which, if it gets any worse, will be a far greater threat to humanity than all the things that have happened at home or to our near neighbours.
As a nation we can much better. I hope our Prime Minister can change his mind, work with the United States and show that Australia is a willing partner in trying to do something about this terrible disease.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I arose this morning with great sadness to hear of the passing of Gough Whitlam AC QC, a former Australian Prime Minister. I made mention of Gough Whitlam in my maiden speech entering the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The connection was with my family – parents, another two generations of the family, five kids growing up in a three-bedroom fibro housing commission house in western Sydney.
My mother was a nurse, so I am sure she would have appreciated, raising five children and looking after elderly residents, universal healthcare, which was introduced by Gough Whitlam and the Whitlam government. I am sure she breathed a sigh of relief, as I did, when we started to think my elder brother was getting to the stage where he might pull the ball out of the barrel and end up in Vietnam. I can also remember the legacy of Gough Whitlam in compassionate acceptance of Vietnamese refugees to our country and their re-settlement in western Sydney around the Bankstown area, where we made contact.
My father was a working man and certainly would have celebrated the Whitlam era and the Whitlam government, having five children. Between us there is a doctorate, a couple of master’s degrees – one with honours – there is a degree in physiotherapy, and I am sure dad would have been very proud of the fact we had access to tertiary education through the efforts of Gough Whitlam and the Whitlam government.
I remember how the girls in the house studied piano and did ballet, and I remember mum’s involvement in the arts. I am sure she celebrated the change in the Australian arts culture when Gough came to power and influenced policy development throughout the great nation.
There was also a very environmental consciousness in the household, and it filtered down to the kids. I daresay my parents were able to base many of those education and awareness opportunities for the environment and ecology, and its protection, on what was happening on a federal political scale with Gough Whitlam and the Australian Labor government. It seems I was very fortunate, and I travelled, in some respects, in parallel with a great Australian man, political figure and prime minister.
There was a time when I longed to meet Gough Whitlam, but I never had the opportunity. In the later stages I remember contacting anybody in the Labor Party who would listen to try to get Gough Whitlam back to the Northern Territory, for a couple of reasons; I wanted to talk to him about Aboriginal land rights and to use him for a fundraiser in Tennant Creek. I knew, as Tennant Creek knew, if Gough Whitlam turned up for a fundraiser we would have filled the town hall. There would have been thousands who would have paid for a ticket to see Gough Whitlam. All of the CLP would have been there – every lefty, every right winger, the Labor movement and the Aboriginal people would have come in their droves. It never happened; que sera sera.
Gough’s legacy will live on through many more generations as a reforming and great prime minister who had vision and, as other speakers have mentioned who changed the dynamics of this country at a very important period in its history.
Well done, Mr Whitlam. I am glad to say I believe you have joined Margaret, colleagues and other loved ones who shared your life and times. Gough, I hope the next part of the journey will be relaxing, enjoyable and very fulfilling. I thank you as an Australian for the great legacy you have left.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I join with my colleagues on this side of the House in recognising with attentive sadness the passing of Australia’s 21st Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, who had a fair old innings making it to the ripe age of 98.
Although his period of service was relatively brief, just three years, as leader of this country, the changes, the influence and the lasting effect and impact his leadership and reforms had on this nation will stay with us forever. As I watched the news this morning, Anthony Albanese, our federal Labor colleague, was talking about his recollections of Gough Whitlam, and his are not dissimilar to mine, particularly that fateful day on 11 November 1975.
I am sure in the same way people remember where they were when JFK was shot, and perhaps when Princess Diana was fatefully injured in a car accident, they also remember where they were and what they were doing on 11 November 1975. Anthony Albanese recalled, as a 12-year old at school in Sydney, that he was in his history class – his history teacher also happened to be the Labor candidate in the part of Sydney where he lived – and how memorable it was to learn that day about the implications of the actions of the Governor-General.
On 11 November 1975, I was a 13-year old in Year 8 at Clare High School. As kids, dragging our feet into class, our history teacher approached us and we asked, ‘What are we doing today, sir? What books do we get out? What do we need?’ ‘You do not need to get any books out’, he said. Dennis Crisp was his name, and he also happened to be the Labor candidate in the rural seat my family and I lived in. ‘We are having a different kind of lesson today. I just want you to sit and listen. I am going to give you a really important history lesson I don’t want you ever to forget.’ We sat, stunned, and learned of an unprecedented event in Australia, where a Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, had been sacked. That is my very clear memory of where I was that day and the impact it had on me.
As I grew up in and learned more about the influence Gough Whitlam had – we have heard through the media today, and for a short while in the House this evening, the many achievements and hallmarks of Gough Whitlam’s three years in government. Let us remember that during his years in opposition he was laying the groundwork for the many reforms he put into place.
His influence has touched many people, especially in the Northern Territory and in my electorate. In 1944 he was based, during World War II, with RAAF No 13 Squadron as a flight navigator; he had a connection to Gove. There is a photograph of him at Gove Airport. Perhaps it was through that initial contact that he went back there later as a member of the federal opposition, wanting to meet with the people of Gove to look at the prospects of the region for future development, at a time that was also extremely controversial. I have no doubt his visit impacted on and shaped his thinking about the future for Territorians, particularly Aboriginal people.
We have heard throughout the day, and again this evening about the impact he had on changing the lives of Aboriginal people. He recognised their right to own their land and have that ownership recognised, and not only through the establishment of the Woodward Royal Commission, the forerunner to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act which eventually had passage through federal parliament in 1976. The image of, in 1975, the sand pouring from Gough Whitlam’s hand into Vincent Lingiari’s, the leader of the Gurindji people, is indelibly etched on the nation’s conscience. It is a very powerful, symbolic image of the returning of the recognition, first of all, of Aboriginal ownership of land and the returning of that land to the rightful owners, the Gurindji people.
A discussion I had with a friend today was about not forgetting what a great feminist he was. As the Leader of the Opposition noted, always alongside him, rather than behind him – and perhaps sometimes in front of him – was his wife Margaret, a very strong individual in her own right. Some of the many achievements Gough Whitlam put through during his short period in the role of prime minister provided support for grassroots organisations and the establishment of important health services for women that benefitted women’s health and welfare. He supported and saw the opening of rape crises centres, women’s refuges to support women escaping domestic violence and, as we know, established the Family Law Act in 1975 and instituted within that act no-fault divorce, which was something extraordinarily new for its time.
He established and supported parental leave. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, he made access to oral contraceptive easier by removing the sales tax and allowed women to take control of their lives by making it available through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
We heard the member for Nightcliff talk about his contribution to transforming the arts in this country, his reforms to the Australia Council. He also founded the Aboriginal Arts Board, again a connection to my electorate and the important community of Yirrkala, by appointing the late Wandjuk Marika as the first Chairperson of the Aboriginal Arts Board.
He delivered incredible reforms, such as free university education, the introduction of the Racial Discrimination Act, an end to conscription in the dreadful war that was Vietnam, the abolition of the death penalty and, importantly, and really out there for its time on the international scene, the diplomatic recognition of China.
There is absolutely no doubt about the contribution Gough Whitlam has made to this country. I hope the opposition’s request for bipartisan support for a condolence motion in the House, in the same way we have seen in the federal parliament today, may allow us to talk further about the contribution of Gough Whitlam, and to be able to place his considerable achievements in this nation on the public record.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Death of Edward Gough Whitlam AC QC
Death of Edward Gough Whitlam AC QC
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it was with great sadness that we learned this morning of the passing overnight of Australia’s 21st Prime Minister, Edward Gough Whitlam AC QC, at the age of 98. Prime Minister Whitlam was in office at the time of the election of members to the first Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory in 1974.
I ask all members to rise to observe one minute’s silence as a mark of respect for the passing of a former Prime Minister of Australia.
Members stood for one minute’s silence.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of former members of the Legislative Assembly Hon Jane Aagaard, Dr Christopher Burns and Mr Kon Vatskalis. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you. I hope you enjoy your time in the Chamber.
Members: Hear, hear!
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 5/6 class from Milkwood Steiner School accompanied by Wendy Watt and Caryn Dunning. On behalf of honourable members, I hope you enjoy your time at parliament and find it educationally interesting.
Honourable members, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the family of the new member for Casuarina, Lauren Moss. We have father and mother Barry and Anita Jonsberg, and her partner, Jake Lutz. I welcome you all to this special day for you and your family.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Swearing in of New Member for Casuarina – Photographs
Swearing in of New Member for Casuarina – Photographs
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given permission for Channel 9, the ABC, the NT News and a private photographer to be in the gallery to take images during the swearing in of the new member for Casuarina.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Resignation of Member for Casuarina
Resignation of Member for Casuarina
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that on 18 September 2014 the resignation of the former member for Casuarina, Mr Kon Vatskalis, was submitted to me by letter pursuant to section 18 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. I table a copy of the resignation.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Unite in Pink Breast Cancer Campaign
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, you will find pink ribbons on your desk to enable you to show your support for the Unite in Pink breast cancer campaign. Every day in Australia around 50 women are diagnosed with breast or gynaecological cancer. By uniting in pink everyone can make a difference in the fight against these terrible diseases which impact on all of us.
RETURN TO WRIT
Division of Casuarina
Division of Casuarina
Mr CLERK: Honourable members, I lay on the table the Return to Writ issued by Her Honour the Administrator, Ms Sally Thomas AC, on 20 October 2014 for the election of a member of the electoral division of Casuarina on 18 October 2014 and certifying the election of Lauren Jane Moss.
Ms Lauren Jane Moss made and subscribed the oaths required by law.
Madam SPEAKER: On behalf of members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory I congratulate you on your election and welcome you to the Assembly as the member for Casuarina.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 20
Message No 20
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received Message No 20 from Her Honour the Administrator, notifying assent to the bills passed during the August sitting. The message is dated 16 October 2014.
MOTION
Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future – Change of Membership
Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future – Change of Membership
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Wanguri be appointed to the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future.
Motion agreed to.
NORTHERN TERRITORY CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (CONFERRAL OF JURISDICTION AMENDMENTS) BILL (SERIAL 81)
Continued from 20 August 2014.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, during the last sitting we said we supported the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill, and the establishment of a new Civil and Administrative Tribunal. I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for contributing to that debate on my behalf.
However, while the body has been created it does not yet have a body of work. That is the purpose of the bill we are debating. For the tribunal to operate it requires jurisdiction, which this bill will confer. This conferral bill, as was flagged during the debate to create the tribunal, will be the first of many. It is very fitting that the first conferral bill we have is from the Attorney-General. He has established this body, and now takes the first step in providing it with a jurisdiction. It is not quite Neil Armstrong, but it is a first step.
We do not find this bill contentious. Some technical amendments have been circulated, and we support those changes. This bill provides changes to several acts, with the outcome being that rather than applying to the Local Court for the review for an appeal you can instead go to the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, or NTCAT.
This bill amends four acts, and we are debating three bills of the same name during this sittings period. In fact, we are covering all of them today, two of which is being debated in cognate. I double checked with the minister’s office yesterday to make sure I delivered the right remarks for the right bill. It is not often you have three bills of the same name come before parliament, and I am not sure if in future sittings – because we are debating a lot of conferral bills – we will see this trend continue.
I understand that with this bill we will be amending the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act so NTCAT can hear appeals from people aggrieved by a decision. As a result of this bill, if you want a matter heard and determined under the Fences Act, you now go to NTCAT. If you are aggrieved by a decision of the director or an assessor of the Crimes Victims Services Unit, NTCAT would hear your matter. The Interpretation Act is being amended so that from now on when an act refers to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, it will be interpreted to mean the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
That last change is, in some ways, the most important and symbolic. We are making the change so whenever a bill is passed in this House in the future the administrative tribunal is part of the appeals process. We have taken an idea and are putting into the body of whatever happens next. It is now a matter of course that administrative appeals will flow to this body. I follow in the footsteps of the Attorney-General’s second reading speech in being brief and in commending this bill and its amendments to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am pondering over the last statement the member for Fannie Bay made about keeping it brief, in line with the Attorney-General. I assume he only referred to the second reading speech, not the long contributions of the Attorney-General from time to time. They are not necessarily brief …
Mr Gunner: It was an isolated incident.
Mr Elferink: Invite me to warm to my topic, I challenge you.
Mr WOOD: Yes, isolated incidents, thank you very much.
I also support the bill. It makes good sense to have a Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, at the moment known as NTCAT. Obviously a range of acts will have to be changed as we go through this process.
One thing that did confuse me, which I did not mean to raise at this late stage, is in the second reading – and it is also mentioned in the second reading of the bill we will discuss after this one – it says:
- The bill does not, however, confer any jurisdiction on the tribunal. Conferral of jurisdiction will be the subject of a series of separate bills.
I will probably get a good explanation to this, but the heading of this bill is:
- A bill for an Act to amend various laws to confer jurisdiction on the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Bill.
I ask the minister if he could explain why the bill has that heading, but the second reading said:
- This bill does not, however, confer any jurisdiction on the tribunal. Conferral of jurisdiction will be the subject of a series of separate bills.
It would be nice to have an explanation of that.
Obviously this bill covers a range of acts: the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act; the Fences Act, the Interpretation Act; and the Victims of Crime Assistance Act.
I reckon the most controversial one you will need NTCAT for will be the Fences Act. Being from the rural area, where development is going ahead steadily, supported by the local member in places like Coolalinga, the Girraween subdivision – did you hear that, minister? Being a supporter of rural development does not make a person anti-development. In the process of development, minister, many people have fences. Yes, they have barbed-wire fences; that is what rural development is about.
There is a case next door to me where a person bought a block of land recently and found the fence was, in some places, 50 m out of alignment. The person next door had ‘borrowed’ a bit of land while the other landowner was absent. There will be issues from time to time. I remember a case in Virginia where someone had a chook house partly over the boundary. They had to go to court to decide whether that chook yard belonged to someone else. It might sound silly, but a little thing like the Fences Act is very important for many people when it comes to so-called ‘neighbourly’ disputes.
Also in relation to the Fences Act, someone may want to erect a new 6 m chainmesh fence when they are only required to put up three-strand barbed wire. These are the type of things that have to be dealt with by tribunals. It is important that streamlining the system will mean we do not have to set up a special tribunal just for the Fences Act. You will have someone operating who can deal with these issues, and hopefully it will be quicker because you have the process ready to go. As time goes on, we will get through a few of the hiccups that probably will occur with a new process, and it will be better for the administrative processes of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions, and their support of this legislation. It was clear at the outset when the legislation enabling and creating NTCAT, for want of a better acronym – I was going to call it NATCAT but none of the public servants liked that, so it is NTCAT. I thought NATCAT rolled off the tongue. Perhaps only we weird politicians get it. However, it is what it is and what we had passed in this Chamber was the structure of NTCAT. Now we have created the structure we have the house, which is splendidly empty like any new house, and it is about time that in the act of moving into our new house we furnish it.
This bill, being unremarkable and, I suspect, uncontroversial – certainly in this House it is uncontroversial – will introduce to the lavatory the toilet brush and a few other things. There will be other bills that come along later which will furnish the lounge room, the bedrooms, the kitchen and those things. I suspect there might be some controversy over some of those as they step forward. Clearly we have indicated, as a government, that the Liquor Commission could also be dissolved and NTCAT take over its administrative functions. The Labor Party has already signalled some concern with that process so I imagine that will be one of the contentious issues.
It is the intent of government to bring, from the four corners of the Northern Territory statue book, into one place, a process of review. It will not be an absolute process of review in the sense that ultimately all tribunals will rest there. There will invariably be one or two which remain by virtue of the nature of what they do outside that process. By way of example, the Development Consent Authority will be one of those isolated from being collapsed into NTCAT because of the peculiar and particular nature of what it does. There is a specific task for that authority which will have the effect of creating an exempt environment.
Nevertheless, this bill attends to a number of legislative instruments, including the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act; the Fences Act; the Victims of Crime Assistance Act; and the Interpretation Act. I pick up on the member for Nelson’s comments in relation to the Fences Act, and it is probably a classic example of why these tribunals are important.
The hallmark of a civil appeals tribunal is its approachability. Fences are usually neighbourhood-type disputes. One neighbour will disagree with the gauge, height, material used for construction, depth, colour, whether there are barbs, no barbs, sufficient barbs, and those are the type disputes of which great contests are made. If you were to take this matter through to its conclusion nowadays, you would find yourself in the lower court, and that, of course, invites you to get all lawyered up.
You are not necessarily prevented from having a lawyer, depending on the rulings and directions of the president of the NTCAT, but the NTCAT will operate in such a way that it will have a much more inquisitorial flavour. Rather than a magistrate rocking back in their chair listening to submissions from the respondent and the plaintiff then ruling on those submissions, the president or members of NTCAT will be able to make inquiry of the parties before them and not necessarily be bound by things like the rules of evidence. Therefore, you have organisation that is capable of providing a flavour of judgment which will, in its nature, be fairer.
One of the complicating factors with appeals to courts in relation to issues is that many times those courts will not be able to introduce concepts of bias, fairness and reasonableness into their considerations of matters before them. What courts will do in relation to administrative matters before them is ask generally a simple question, and that question is, is the act or the decision of the decision-maker lawful?
It may not necessarily be reasonable or even fair, but is it lawful? If the answer to that question is yes it is lawful and within the power of the decision-maker to make the decision, that is pretty much the boundary as to where the court will go in consideration of the issues before it.
We are creating a system by which the equitable flavour of an inquisitorial system enables it to hear evidence which is outside of the operation of the normal boundaries of the Evidence Act, an environment which will then create a sense of fairness in the community, an organisation which is more approachable, more affordable in its approach, more responsive to the needs of the parties before it and able to give proper and probative weight to whatever matters it determines to.
Those are the matters for consideration before NTCAT in something as simple as a dispute under the Fences Act; the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act; the Interpretation Act; and the Victims of Crime Assistance Act.
I turn my attention to the issues raised by the member for Nelson in relation to the wording of conferral jurisdiction in the heading of the act, while in the second reading speech there is no conferral of jurisdiction. I commend the member for Nelson for his eagle eye on this issue, however …
Mr Wood: Eagle, I am not sure about.
Mr ELFERINK: … I can shower great comfort and reassurance upon the member for Nelson in this issue. The term means, and perhaps could have been expressed slightly more clearly, that it will give it no further jurisdiction than the one that is currently conferred on a Court. It is able to make decisions within its own rules, but cannot appropriate further jurisdiction than is currently available to a Local Court. I hope that clarifies the issue for the member for Nelson. Being the smart fellow he is, I suspect he already knew that but just wanted it on the record.
Mr Wood: I didn’t actually, but I am a smart fellow. As the minister for Lands and Planning.
Mr ELFERINK: That is, in toto, the matters for consideration of this House. However, we are required to go into the committee stage because there are a couple of tweaky amendments that have to be dealt with.
I thank the honourable members for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 defeated.
New clause 2:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move that new clause 2 entitled ‘Commencement’ be inserted after clause 1 as follows:
- This Act commences on the day fixed by the Administrator by Gazette notice.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
NORTHERN TERRITORY CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
(CONFERRAL OF JURISDICTION FOR NATIVE TITLE MATTERS) BILL
(Serial 93)
NORTHERN TERRITORY CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
(CONFERRAL OF JURISDICTION AMENDMENTS) (No 2) BILL
(Serial 92)
(CONFERRAL OF JURISDICTION FOR NATIVE TITLE MATTERS) BILL
(Serial 93)
NORTHERN TERRITORY CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
(CONFERRAL OF JURISDICTION AMENDMENTS) (No 2) BILL
(Serial 92)
Continued from 27 August 2014.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, today we have three bills with the same name. I contacted the Attorney-General’s office yesterday to check that I had the right notes to the right speech in the right order. Even then I was still a little nervous this morning, so I can understand the confusion.
This is a question I asked earlier today, but the Attorney-General had a pressing issue. We know we will have a number of conferral of jurisdiction bills, and I am curious as to whether we might have this problem for a while where we have bills with the same name dealt with on similar issues. I do not know if they will have different names or not, but it could be worth inquiring about.
We debated already one bill that conferred jurisdiction, we are now doing another. As I said in the debate of first bill, last sittings we supported the establishment of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal through the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill, so obviously we also support a conferral of jurisdiction.
We agree that the 35-plus commissions, tribunals and bodies which are constituted under Territory legislation should be merged into one body. We will have a lot of business come before this House, as that conferral of jurisdiction will cover an estimated 117 bills. It will take some time, there will be some detail and there will be many bills. As we flagged last sittings through the member for Nhulunbuy – and as the Attorney-General touched on in the previous debate – we have no doubt that in the detail of some of those changes there will be contention, contest or controversy. We have flagged likely concerns where we feel there is currently an original decision-making body that has independence, expertise or particular knowledge, and we do not want that lost to the appeals tribunal.
We can understand having an appeals tribunal, but the Liquor Commission is an example we and the Attorney-General have mentioned, where we are not convinced that losing that independence, expertise and experience will be a good thing. We are still waiting for that detail to come forward, even though that was flagged earlier this year.
We support this bill, and, as a result, support the conferral of jurisdiction, as we believe the tribunal can provide a simplified, more efficient and user-friendly system. As members, we can all know people who rail against bureaucracy, usually followed by a complaint about the futility of it all.
We want people to know they can participate and there is way for them to have their complaint heard, that there is an easy-to-use system. It is helpful if you have just one system. Instead of all the different acts and tribunals that can hear and do different things, we now have one body, an independent third party which will be easy for people to access and which can resolve complaints.
However, fair warning, the tribunal might not always side with you, but at least you can go there. People often want to know there is somewhere they can go, there is someone who will listen and they will have their case heard. Sometimes that is the greatest frustration. They want to have their case heard, and often they feel a decision is made and that is it. Sometimes they do not know why the decision was made. Through a process like this where a decision can be appealed, you will find out why something happened. The tribunal should offer those things.
As local members we often work with people who want to understand a decision of government, object to a decision of government or want a decision changed. Sometimes avenues already exist where we can recommend those people go through the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General or the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. Sometimes we can appeal an decision ourselves with the minister, through correspondence or conversations, debate in the House or letters. Sometimes these decisions are fought messily in the media. Sometimes we are talking about people who simply do not know how a decision was made, on what basis a decision or what information. They are frustrated because they feel they could have provided more detail, could have answered questions which would lead to a different decision but were not asked them, or know nothing beyond the decision.
Sometimes the issue is delay. We are all aware of the time it can take a government to make a decision. Internally, it may not feel like forever as a piece of paper bounces from in-tray to in-tray, but that could be someone’s life being held up, and it feels like forever to them. These are often Territorians who deserve better.
The administrative appeals body we have established in the Northern Territory can and should provide people with an opportunity to have their voices heard. These are people deserving of a better government. All parties can strive to be better. Part of our job in opposition is to learn to be a better government in the future. We currently have a government that does not listen and strive to be better. There are decisions of this government that should be appealable.
I want to revisit some of the issues the member for Nhulunbuy raised during the last sittings. We represent people who have issues with the CLP not replenishing the public housing stock, to use an example. It would rather sell it or demolish it for private use. We represent people who are concerned about a government which rezones community-purpose land in our suburbs for residential density. I should not use the royal ‘we’. I enjoyed the member for Nelson’s colourful description of this government as doing a Putin in the rural area. I am sure he represents people who want to appeal decisions of this government.
We represent people and stakeholders who believe the decision to allow open speed limits should be reviewable. When the police say open speed limits are dangerous, I listen, and they have said that repeatedly. The member for Nhulunbuy quoted this during the last sittings, but the President of the Police Association, Vince Kelly, who speaks for around 1400 police officers, said:
- I do not believe a responsible organisation representing operational Police Officers could support any government reintroducing unrestricted speed limits on a trial or permanent basis. Dealing with the carnage on our roads is one of the most personally and professional damaging elements of police work for our members – how could we possibly support such a measure?
Yet right now on parts of the Stuart Highway you can drive as fast as you like.
There are decisions of this government which should be appealable. It is fitting that the government most in need of an appeals body introduces an appeals body. It is consistent that it is the lone wolf, the Attorney-General, who often seems to be running a different race to his colleagues in this Chamber, who has brought this reform to parliament.
In the bill we are debating we are seeing the abolition of the Health Professional Review Tribunal and the Pastoral Land Appeal Tribunal, with their jurisdictions being transferred to the new NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and the conferral of jurisdiction of decision-making of dispute resolution across a range of acts. The Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal Act will be repealed. The Residential Tenancies Act; the Caravan Parks Act; the Energy Pipelines Act; the Pastoral Land Act; the Petroleum Act; the Geothermal Energy Act, the Control of Roads Act, the Health Practitioner Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Act; the Health Practitioners Act; the Heritage Act; the Lands Acquisition Act; and the Mineral Titles Act will be amended. I am pretty sure I called all the acts there.
That is a significant body of work for one bill, and we will see similar bills come forward over future sittings. Several of our shadow ministers, who work with stakeholders who may be affected by these changes, will be commenting on this bill.
We support this bill, but, as flagged during our debate last sittings, we express some reservations about the detail that will come forward on how we manage our way through the conferral process.
I conclude by quoting the member for Nhulunbuy quoting me quoting the Attorney-General. In his policy statement on the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the Attorney-General said
- Societies cannot function in a state of everyone having unfettered freedoms and governments will always legislate for the balance in the best interests of the good of all. These decisions surrounding what constitutes the good of all can and should be tested, and a tribunal provides a simple capability to do just that.
As I said at the outset, the opposition supports this bill, we support the amendments that have been circulated for it, and we commend the bill to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I was just thinking what we should have called this bill. The Very Appealing Tribunal Bill might have been good; it is all about appeals.
The member for Fannie Bay raised some good issues, because the right to appeal is a very important part of our democracy. I mentioned the Fencing Act previously. Common acts are used that require resolution – the Building Act. I am not so sure about the Caravans Park Act because by the time the CLP finished with that it was a bit of a limp bill, because I have not seen anyone appeal against it.
The Tenancies Act is stronger. Control of Roads Act, the Energy Pipelines Act, the Geothermal Energy Act, the Health Practitioner Regulation Act – obviously there will be people who use that. The Heritage Act is an important part of the Northern Territory’s basic culture, as sometimes decisions are made for or against keeping parts of the Northern Territory protected by the Heritage Act. The Land Acquisition Act – obviously there will be people who disagree with losing 20 m of their property for a new road. The Mineral Titles Act, the Pastoral Land Act, the Petroleum Act, the Planning Act – the Planning Act affects us all on a continual basis. I note again that it is difficult living in the rural area and in some cases not having the right to appeal. The minister would know already …
Mr Chandler: Come and live in the city.
Mr WOOD: No, I do not want to belong to the city; I want to belong to a well-planned rural and urban centre, minister. I apologise if I got a little carried away during Question Time, but I am not anti-development.
It is an opportune time to say a few things to the minister for Planning: Coolalinga North, Coolalinga South, Girraween subdivision, Girraween Goode Road subdivisions, Weddell, Herbert North, Herbert South, which is Benjamin Lagoon, Howard Springs – that is the one we were talking about today; I supported the rezoning of that land – Howard River Park, Townend Road, Whitestar subdivision at Acacia, Malady subdivision, and the list goes on – they are just some of the developments I supported, including Coolalinga, which is an urban development. It gets me a little riled when I hear people say I am anti-development, and I cannot appeal against you. All I can do is make a bit of noise. The problem I have is that rural people cannot appeal. One of the big issues that will be highlighted by the lack of rights rural people have is if the Lowther Road subdivision goes ahead. It is well under what is regarded as rural, but if people do not agree with a decision that goes against them they have no right of appeal.
If a similar development occurred in Leanyer or Port Darwin people could appeal against it. It is an area which is lacking in the Planning Act, and I hope the minister will be supportive of any changes which allow people in the rural area to be on an equal footing with people in urban areas when it comes to appeals.
Another classic example is the Radford Road development where Zuccoli meets the rural area. The original development plan in Zuccoli included a buffer between the suburbs and the rural area. That buffer has reduced to 1000 m2, with a few trees. The people on one side of the road, living in the Litchfield area, have no right of appeal, whereas if it happened wholly within the Palmerston area, residents of Palmerston could have appealed. That issue has been missed.
The Planning Act is one of the acts often used by people who do not agreed with a decision made by the Development Consent Authority, usually in the case of developers rather than third-parties.
If a developer does not agree with the conditions the Development Consent Authority has placed on them, they will appeal the decision. Under the existing Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal, that is the process followed by someone who does not agree with a Development Consent Authority decision. That will change with NTCAT.
One of the concerns I have is about making sure that if you are creating a single body, people with the right background, especially in planning law, the planning scheme and other decision-making areas are involved. You can have legal eagles, but you also need people who have some idea of what is in the land use objectives and other documents used when the Development Consent Authority makes a decision.
I hope none of that that capability is lost; I hope it is improved. There is only one person on the board of the present Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal, and I think it is a magistrate. Some years ago it was a magistrate who talked about shooting dogs. I think there was something on the front page of the NT News some years ago.
Mr Elferink: Yes, he has since retired.
Mr WOOD: He has since retired, but it raised the profile of that tribunal. Hopefully that does not happen, because you need to make sure NTCAT is something people have a lot of faith in and is seen to be independent and knowledgeable about the matters that come before it.
I have a question for the Attorney-General. On the end of the third page of your second reading speech, it talks about preserving the consequences for land administration in the Northern Territory that flow from the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cth) upon the repeal of the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal Act. Are there any issues with acts that may cross over between the Commonwealth and the Territory in relation to appeals tribunal, and how would that be handled? I am not really up on those issues, but I know we have acts that sometimes cross over between the Commonwealth and the Territory. Are there any issues that should be noted in relation to how NTCAT would work in those cases?
Like the member for Fannie Bay, I also support this motion. I know the member for Katherine will give the right speech at the right time; I also mixed up my explanatory notes, so it has been a little difficult looking at which piece of legislation we are dealing with.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of this historic bill brought before the Assembly by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice on behalf of the Northern Territory government.
As the Attorney-General so comprehensively outlined in his second reading speech for this bill, the significant benefits arising from the establishment of a civil and administrative tribunal are many. Firstly, it will provide the Northern Territory with a single body for citizens and business to use for the fair and independent resolution of disputes relating to administrative decisions, as well as the making of administrative decisions. Secondly, it will establish and execute common provisions for the commencement of actions, tribunal procedures and powers, making it a fairer and easier system for all who use it. Thirdly, establishment of the new tribunal will result in the abolition of many of the single decision-making and administrative review processes that currently exist under individual Northern Territory statutes. This will serve to reduce inconsistency in decision-making on administrative and civil matters, as well as remove the duplication of functions we currently have.
As the Attorney-General informed this House, the new legal framework for administrative decision-making and appeal will appropriately involve a stepped approach. This commences with an agency first conducting an internal review of its own decision. If this does not resolve the dispute, an external merit review of the decision will be undertaken by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal. If this, too, proves an unsatisfactory resolution for one or more of the parties involved, the tribunal is to conduct an internal review of the decisions made by its members. The final recourse a party or parties can have is to seek a review of the tribunal’s decision by the Supreme Court.
In my portfolio responsibilities as Minister for Mines and Energy, Land Resource Management, and Primary Industry and Fisheries, a new Civil and Administrative Tribunal will take responsibility for many pieces of legislation for which these departments are responsible. For Mines and Energy matters, it will replace the decision review mechanisms provided by the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal which are currently applied under a number of the Territory’s mining and energy statutes.
To accommodate the new Civil and Administrative Tribunal, amendments will need to be made to the Energy Pipelines Act, the Geothermal Energy Regulations, the Mineral Titles Act and the Mineral Titles Regulations, and the Petroleum Act. These changes, to be progressed as art of further bills approving the conferral of jurisdictional amendments, are to be brought before this Assembly by the Attorney-General. Altogether, it is expected that 117 acts will be amended as part of establishing the new administrative law reforms, which serves to highlight the significant body of work required to make this historic step a functioning reality.
With respect to the hearing of disputes for mining and energy-related issues, and, for that matter, any others relating to my broader portfolio responsibilities, I am pleased that under the proposed tribunal the president may determine the composition of the tribunal for particular matters or classes of matters, unless a relevant act specifies otherwise. This will allow those with an understanding and experience in a particular matter, field or industry to provide advice, as a member of the tribunal, to assist with the tribunal’s deliberation and resolution of such disputes. Of course, the president of the tribunal also has the capacity to refer a question of law to the Supreme Court for a decision.
The establishment of the new tribunal represents a key milestone in the Northern Territory maturing into a highly competent and increasingly attractive jurisdiction for doing business. This is especially important given this government’s strong focus and commitment to developing the Northern Territory into a world-class energy and mining resource provider. The establishment of a centralised civil and administrative tribunal that is fair and user-friendly characterises this government’s reform agenda, which includes a strong focus on increased efficiency and service delivery.
This also serves as yet another beacon to industry that we are ready and willing to put in place processes that assist those wanting to do business in the Northern Territory, which in turn helps to grow and modernise our economy. I trust that all honourable members understand the significant benefits that will be gained by establishing the Territory’s own Civil and Administrative Tribunal and, further, that they are mindful of the enormity of work put in by the Attorney-General and his department to have this bill before us today for debate.
A move to adopt a centralised administrative appeals tribunal will bring the Northern Territory into line with other Australian jurisdictions, and will cut red tape for Territorians and those wanting to do business in the Territory. Madam Speaker, I support this legislation.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
INAUGURAL SPEECH
Ms Moss – Member for Casuarina
Ms MOSS (Casuarina) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet today, the Larrakia people, and pay my respects to elders, both past and present.
I would also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to Gough Whitlam, whom we lost today. Gough Whitlam irrefutably shaped this country with his bold vision and commitment in areas such as education, health and land rights, and most of us can only dream to have the impact in the communities we work in that he has had.
I am a fiercely proud Territorian, and it is a deep honour and privilege for me to be standing here today as the elected member for Casuarina, a community that holds so many wonderful memories for me and my family. Understanding the weight of this, I look forward to working hard for the people of Casuarina and, in particular, getting into the community to continue to listen, represent and speak up for them.
Before Labor’s historic win in 2001, in a seat formerly held by the CLP since its inception, a big part of Labor’s breakthrough was the election of Kon Vatskalis. Kon Vatskalis has worked tirelessly in the electorate and for Territorians, alongside his electorate officer, Deb Rowland, and he is highly regarded in the community. I am humbled by the opportunity to build on his hard work and thank him from the bottom of my heart for his belief in me.
This is especially poignant for me. As a migrant, like many people in Casuarina and the Northern Territory, when I was a child my family took a huge leap and moved halfway across the world, as my grandad had done from India many decades before, in search of a better life for us, and we found it here. My mother and stepfather, teachers, found work in local schools, and my brother and I grew up amongst a diverse range of peers, and I am still constantly grateful for the beautiful multicultural community we have.
Giving back to this community is an important part of showing my gratitude, and over the years I have been a part of a number of groups and organisations, such as the now Chief Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians, the Australian Youth Forum, the Darwin Youth Organisations Network, Young Social Pioneers and the Headspace National Youth Reference Group.
Noting the lack of attention around a huge personal concern for young Territorians, I started Skin Deep, a group focused on body image and advocating for greater communication about eating disorders. I have worked professionally in roles and projects that I have helped to develop or establish, focused on health promotion and better outcomes for young people. These experiences led me to create my own businesses to enhance time spent on projects with social impact.
Of these things I am extremely proud, particularly standing here today as a young woman. The youth community in Darwin is vibrant, and as the youngest MLA in the history of Territory parliament, I hope to encourage many more young people to engage in this process and have more of a say in the decisions that impact on their lives.
Quite often young people are those who are most removed from our democratic system. There are thousands of young Territorians who are not on the role to vote, and I hope that representing and listening to them helps them to relate to what happens in this House.
However, it is equally important to note that I will be advocating for a community that is rich in its diversity. It has been life changing to hear what is important to the people of Casuarina, from families, seniors, first time voters and many more. I look forward to bringing a unique perspective to a very active team.
I am also a proud union member and thank union members profusely for their support during this campaign. There are a number of industries currently fighting for good conditions in which to continue to provide quality services for the people of the Territory, and they do enormously important work. Unions in the Northern Territory are not just about looking after the workers. Fighting against cuts to teacher numbers often means more than just protecting teachers; it is about protecting quality educational outcomes for our children. Fighting for greater work cover protection for firefighters means the people who protect us are also protected, and fighting to keep our assets in public hands means we can protect vital Territory services and protect workers.
During my campaign I was proud to release a safety plan for Casuarina with the Territory Labor team, which we will continue to refine with further feedback from the community. I was also pleased to hold mobile offices in the Casuarina Coastal Reserve and to engage with visitors from surrounding suburbs and beyond. We have a wonderful area of natural beauty right on our doorstep, and it is our obligation to local residents, now and into the future, to do what we can to preserve and maintain the existing reserve. I would like to thank the local Landcare group, which does an incredible job of helping to keep the reserve beautiful and sharing with others the importance of its flora and fauna.
The campaign also provided many opportunities for me to meet with local groups, including the Family Transitions Network and a local childcare group. The Family Transitions Network is concerned with post-school options for their young adults with disabilities, and I look forward to working with them further over my term. We were heartened to hear the commitment to the growth of the Henbury School in Casuarina, and I look forward to seeing its development over the next two years.
A message I received loud and clear is that the people of Casuarina love their community. We must, however, acknowledge that there are a number of people in our community who are disengaged from what happens in the NT parliament. I will continue to work hard to be as accessible as possible for the Casuarina constituents. Decisions on whether to stay in the Northern Territory, regardless of a love for and deep connection to this place, are being dictated by the growing costs of living. People are genuinely concerned about their children receiving quality education and their access to health services. Throughout my term I will continue to commit to advocate on these issues and I am proud to be part of the Territory Labor team. It is understandable that Territorians are concerned about whether they will be able to enter the housing market as renters and homeowners.
I also hope to keep mental health firmly on the agenda. I am proud to have represented a number of national organisations, working hard to progress and improve the way in which mental health services are delivered across the country. We still have a way to go to collectively reduce stigma, support health services and encourage help seeking, and I am confident that collectively this can be achieved.
I thank Delia Lawrie and the Territory Labor team for their incredible support, not only during my campaign, but in all of my endeavours. I am proud and humbled to be standing here as your parliamentary colleague. To my campaign team, especially campaign director, Kent Rowe, and Cameron Angus, who helped me through this new and exciting time. I am amazed by your knowledge, skills and commitment, and I am so grateful to you. I also extend my most sincere thanks to the campaign volunteers. I could not have done it without you. Your support helped propel me through, and I will be forever thankful for your efforts.
I attribute joining Territory Labor to the values instilled in me by my family, who have worked incredibly hard for their successes in life, and who are here today. My mother, Anita, put herself through university with two small children, juggling work to later become a teacher. She has taught in schools around the northern suburbs, and thanks to her I have an incredibly important sense of the value of education, a strong sense of self and doing what you can to make your community a better place. My stepfather, Barry, also a teacher, fulfilled his lifelong dream of becoming an author, and he has been an incredible role model and supporter of everything I have chosen to do in my life.
My father, Paul, and stepmother, Sue, provided me the great honour of being here in Darwin from the UK for my announcement as a candidate. It is a beautiful time to share this incredible place with them, and seeing Darwin through new eyes always reminds us we can be forever surprised by its beauty, and that of the Northern Territory.
To my brother, Brendan, I have so much respect for you, and I am amazed at your talent with people; your support has been wonderful. To my friends and colleagues, past and present, your love and encouragement makes me the person I am today. To my mentors who have reminded me of the importance of vulnerability and leading with heart, I hope to make you proud.
Finally, I thank my partner Jake. His love has always been unconditional, and he stands by my side day in day out in everything I put my mind to, and gets behind it 100%. He will always be the most important person on my team, and I could not be here without him. I look forward to embarking on this next chapter of my life with him.
To the people of Casuarina, thank you. I look forward to meeting more of you over coming months and representing you in this parliament.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Casuarina, for your maiden speech. I am sure it was the first of many speeches you will make in this parliament, and I am sure you will make your constituents proud, as you have your family. Congratulations.
NORTHERN TERRITORY CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (CONFERRAL OF JURISDICTION FOR NATIVE TITLE MATTERS) BILL (Serial 93)
NORTHERN TERRITORY CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (CONFERRAL OF JURISDICTION AMENDMENTS) (NO 2) BILL (SERIAL 92)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, the new member for Casuarina was fantastic.
We have enabling legislation before us to give effect to the new Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. It is a new tribunal intended to streamline and standardise the consideration and resolution of disputes with government and the review of decisions of agencies, statutory office holders and statutory bodies.
It also provides for disciplinary proceedings in a range of professions, vocations and occupations, for example, against registered health practitioners. As we heard in the previous debate, this reform has been a long time coming. It was the subject of two comprehensive reports of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee in 1991 and 2004. Only Tasmania is yet to implement similar reform arrangements.
We have supported the establishment of the new tribunal and do not oppose this enabling legislation to give responsibilities to the new tribunal. Indeed, it is very timely and will potentially be a very busy tribunal, given the record of this government’s two years in government, an ever-increasing disquiet with decisions of this government and its agencies. Civil administrative tribunals were established in Victoria, Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland in 2009, South Australia in 2013, and in New South Wales in 2014.
In the Northern Territory, the matter of review of administrative decisions and establishment of an administrative tribunal has been developing for some time. In 2013 an administrative law advisory group was established to consider the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee reports, and to advise on the issues associated with establishing a single tribunal.
Importantly, the tribunal will have both professional members – for example, the president has to be a magistrate – and appointed ordinary members, who we would like to be considered as community members. We trust that in determining membership of the tribunal the government will take that important responsibility to heart and do all it can to ensure members are seen to be independent and they reflect the broader interest of a community dispersed across the Northern Territory.
Importantly, the tribunal legislation provides opportunity for mediation as well as tribunal determination. It is our hope that these arrangements make it a tribunal that is user-friendly for ordinary Territorians, including those who do not have English as a first language.
We have supported the establishment of the new Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and look forward to its work, streamlining and standardising, as appropriate, the consideration of grievances and disputes with government and its agencies. Our concern is that in considering these changes the community can be assured they do not weaken opportunities for review of administrative decisions by ordinary citizens. My colleagues have spoken in this House about the importance of a competent, professional public service, and we look forward to public servants knowing this tribunal is developing, and of its important role in ensuring open and accountable government.
Territorians are wary of apparently partisan appointments to key positions, and a parade of planning and resource allocation decisions, including dubious land leasing deals and ground water allocations to mates, leaving many Territorians increasingly concerned about how pivotal government decisions are being made. As we have said in debate to establish the bill, all Territorians see from this government are decisions crying out for examination and review: a water extraction licence granted to a former CLP candidate for Lingiari, and former CLP member for Goyder, a recent director of Foundation 51, an entity to set up to attract undeclared donations, supporting work to bolster the electoral fortunes of the CLP.
In our last debate on the establishment of the new tribunal we heard the Attorney-General say:
- Ministers are, however, answerable only for what they can be reasonably expected to answer. Ministers for Education are not expected to resign because somewhere, somehow, a student has managed to fail the Year 12 assessment requirements. However, ministers may be held answerable for the pursuit of misguided policies … it is clear that ministers and government are effectively responsible only for those decisions which they have – or appear to have – a significant impact.
The ballot box will provide a test of the public’s confidence in any minister and the way they have conducted business. In New South Wales we have seen an ICAC inquiry bring to the surface some grave breaches of ministerial and parliamentary conduct, leading to the resignation of a succession of members of the New South Wales Liberal Party.
Here in the NT we had the remarkable sight of the government endorsing most of the recommendations of the Stella Maris inquiry, except the most important: the establishment of an integrity commission. We have yet to see clear action from this government on the timing and appointment of the inquiry into political donations in the Northern Territory, an inquiry passed by motion of this parliament, catching the CLP asleep at the wheel in this Chamber.
The point is there is keen interest in the role of ministers and ministerial influence on decision-making in the Northern Territory, witnessed by questions about the role of ministers in regard to water allocations, as well as the delegation of powers to public servants. As mentioned in earlier debates, we continue to trust that the government will ensure the public and public servants will have access to clear advice and support in the working arrangements of the new legislation and the tribunal itself.
Increasingly we hear Territorians express concerns about planning issues: the rezoning of community-purpose land for medium-density housing in our suburbs and the rezoning of land zoned for conservation purposes to enable industrial development.
In Alice Springs there is robust debate about building height limits, with proposals to increase the height restrictions from the current five storeys to more than eight storeys being discussed behind closed doors. Central Australians are concerned there seems little opportunity for the community to have a say on the proposals that will have a dramatic impact on the visual and cultural appeal of Alice Springs.
Local people across the Territory have a passion about the need for developments that are sensitive to the landscape, heritage and iconic Territory feel of our towns and cities, including our open spaces. Central Australians who have been around for long enough have long memories. Speak to any long-term Centralian and they will tell you about the fight they had to preserve the old Alice Springs Gaol from the bulldozers of the previous CLP administration. The CLP is infamous for allowing the demolition teams in under the cover of darkness – think about the Hotel Darwin and the iconic Turner House in Alice Springs, both lost to the midnight dozers of the CLP.
Expressions of community concern about planning decisions are increasing in volume and temper as more and more Territorians react to this government’s agenda to cut red tape and change a long-standing planning decision to fast-track urban development. They are aware of increasing disquiet in the rural area in reaction to this government’s planning decisions which directly affect the lifestyle choices and, in some cases, the value of family investment in the rural area.
The member for Nelson highlighted in debate on the establishment of the tribunal how it could address a current inequity where a planning decision can be referred to mediation, including the party objecting. Previously the relevant department could have a role in mediation, but not an objector. That is a timely change.
It is also good that an important feature of the new tribunal is the requirement for it to give reasons in writing for its decisions within 28 days of the hearing of the proceedings. Importantly, the decisions of the tribunal may be appealed to the Northern Territory Supreme Court on questions of law. I am sure many Territorians will seek the opportunity to have decisions reviewed and for more transparency in the events leading to planning decisions and the role of decision-makers.
This legislation also makes arrangements for the new tribunal to hear matters relating to the Lands Acquisition Act and Lands Acquisition Regulations. We recently heard the CLP government has even considered compulsory acquisition of Aboriginal freehold land, so it seems that compulsory acquisition of land is definitely on the government’s agenda.
Similarly, the Planning Act and the Planning Regulations are being amended for the new tribunal to hear and determine appeals against decisions by the Development Consent Authority. This is another potentially substantial body of work for the new tribunal as community concern builds over DCA processes and decisions under the CLP government and the minister crowing to his colleagues about the streamlining and fast-tracking of development projects. These are works that can radically alter the character of our communities which we will have to live with for a very long time.
I also note that the transitional arrangements embodied in this bill also refer any review of administrative decisions under the Heritage Act to the new tribunal. It is likely that the review of decisions under the Heritage Act only occurs from time to time, but when they do they can be important. Our heritage is often vulnerable and once lost it is lost. I am thinking of reviews of decisions relating to heritage conservation applications or development applications impacting on heritage values, whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous, all part of our wonderful history, including burial places, and whether fixed heritage such as buildings or movable heritage items.
We enjoy a wonderful heritage in the Northern Territory, and it is important that it is valued and proper consideration is given of its value to us as a community and its long-term security. Right now we are seeing unnecessary controversy and disputation about changes to zoning potentially affecting a known burial place near Totem Road in Darwin, rezoning that will allow construction of a light industrial area in an area previously zoned for conservation purposes. There seems to be unseemly haste occurring with some deep community concern and heritage protection applications unresolved.
This might be an example of a type of heritage dispute that could come to this new tribunal. I urge that in developing membership of the tribunal the government ensures it includes skills such as a sound understanding of our heritage and an opportunity for expert independent advice to ensure sound consideration of the issues by the tribunal where there is remediation or determination. Needless to say, that should also include capacity for the use of Indigenous and other language translations to ensure appropriate understanding and consideration of cross-cultural issues by all the parties.
I turn briefly to the second bill being considered, conferring jurisdiction, as far as Northern Territory law allows, to the Northern Territory Civil Administration Tribunal on native title matters.
This repeals the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal Act, thereby abolishing the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal Act that has previously had a role in these matters.
We note that an application of this jurisdiction in native title matters is determined by the Commonwealth Native Title Act and provides for the tribunal to be the independent body mentioned in the Native Title Act that may hear and make recommendations about objections and the determination of compensation under the act.
Again we say that native title matters are of great importance to many Territorians and are a fact of doing business in the Northern Territory. How we deal with native title issues can be taken as a measure of our maturity and our approach to land and economic development with native title claimants, native title holders and the respective bodies. Our fear is of the damage that might be done to the Territory by the bloody-mindedness of CLP decision making in respect of native title. Let us not forget it was our current Chief Minister who told the national press last year that he wants to get rid of native title implications which he says have stopped development.
Perhaps as time goes on he is learning more about the application of the Native Title Act, most recently saying he wants more funding from Canberra to facilitate a native title agreement in relation to Ord Stage 3. Instead of chest thumping about native title, the Chief Minister might be better advised to take an approach more in line with respectful business practice in working with citizens with property rights.
Just yesterday Senator Barnaby Joyce released his white paper on agriculture competitiveness that advocates a sounder approach, acknowledging native title groups, traditional owners, Indigenous landowners and Indigenous communities as essential partners in the development of agriculture, echoing the same conclusion of Australian government work on the develop the north agenda, that we should respect native title rights, work in partnership with native title claimants and title holders and work to cooperatively improve the efficiency of the native title process, not attack hard fought for recognition of property rights.
We look forward to the tribunal working independently and diligently in this important area should issues relating to compensation come about. We do not oppose this legislation proceeding and I look forward to the tribunal conducting its work diligently and fairly on behalf of all Territorians, especially those Territorians aggrieved by government decision-making.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, these bills are yet another step in providing the Northern Territory Civil Administrative Tribunal with its initial jurisdiction.
I commend the work done by the Attorney-General in this area. We are about reducing red tape. We looked at various issues when we came into government, and apart from the massive debt we inherited, there was an awful lot of red tape. We decided we needed to fix that so it was simpler for people to understand the requirements of the law, and to make it less costly for people to do business and go through a range of systems. In this instance the appeals processes extend over 35 commissions, tribunals, bodies and other parts of the institution.
It costs a lot of money to run those things, but before I talk about some of the financial issues I will take up a couple of points made by members opposite.
Firstly, the member for Johnston mentioned the Hotel Darwin. I recall very well the debates that went on in, I think, 1999, when the Hotel Darwin, sadly, was demolished. I received briefings then from various people. I do not know whether the opposition would classify them as experts, but there were reports about the concrete cancer that affected the Hotel Darwin. I do not know if the member for Johnston knows this or whether it was part his research before speaking in the House, but the estimated bill to remove sections of the Hotel Darwin and restructure it due to the concrete cancer would have been more than rebuilding it.
I understand why the member for Johnston says those things, because his side do not seem to worry about the bill, and nor did they when they were in government. They did not worry about the bills; they just kept spending money and putting more on the credit card. The cost of restructuring the Hotel Darwin would probably not come into his field of thought. It is terrific if we have great buildings around, but if you wanted to rebuild the Hotel Darwin in its then shape and form it would have costed you X number of dollars, and to repair it would have costed more. I do not know what part of economics the member for Johnston does not understand, but if he did his research and looked at the cost, then perhaps he would know better.
That is just one point. The member for Johnston also said – I wrote down his comments, but I am happy to stand corrected – ‘I am sure NT citizens will look forward to being able to have decisions looked at’. That currently happens, and is carried out across 30 or more different appeals, tribunals, etcetera. I do not know what part of the current legislation the member for Johnston does not understand, but nothing is changing.
It is very important for all members, especially the member for Johnston, to note that the changes proposed in these bills do not create new appeals rights. They simply aggregate them into one tribunal. I understand there are a number of acts – about 117 from memory – that need to be amended to take account of NTCAT. Likewise, the bill transfers a range of appeals provisions into NTCAT’s jurisdiction. Having one organisation to do this, as opposed to 35, has to provide a cost saving. When you come into government and you are looking down the barrel of a $5.5bn debt, it forces you to consider what you will do. It is like an animal that is out of control. The debt is going up, and incoming governments must look at what they can do.
If you look at the last few years of the previous ALP government on this graph, you can see the debt levels. Around 2011 it starts to rise rapidly, and continues through to the 2012 election. This is spending the previous government committed to. When we came into government we had to look at getting rid of that debt and red tape. Given that is the case and we cannot change it – that is what we inherited – one must look for the silver lining. What silver lining is there in a massive debt we have inherited? It causes you to look at how you can reduce debt. It makes you think outside the square. You go to the public service and your colleagues, you have wing meetings and Cabinet meetings and say, ‘We are facing an horrendous problem. How are we going to fix it?’ We have to say to those in charge of spending in the public service, ‘How do we save money? How do we keep the services and reduce the spending?’
My understanding is we found a considerable amount of waste we were able to pare back. We found efficiencies, and that is what this is about; it is part of the efficiencies of government. In any economic argument, the idea of good economics is finding an efficient and effective way to deliver a service better. We have found a very efficient and effective way to run the appeals process.
A number of people on the other side seem to be a little misguided. I am sure the Attorney-General will correct some of those inaccuracies when he replies to the debate today. I quote from the member for Fannie Bay’s contribution to this debate:
- … the Liquor Commission is an example we and the Attorney-General have mentioned, where we are not convinced that losing that independence, expertise and experience will be a good thing.
The only way we will get this $5.5bn projected debt down is to become better at what we do. We have to find more interesting ways, while still trying to maintain economic growth in the Territory and trying to provide more land and housing options, more options in how government does its business, and more options for business to do business, because without business there is no tax. I am no expert, but I have Economics 101, and I do not know what part of economics the opposition does not understand about how you generate wealth?
In William J Bernstein’s book …
Mr Elferink: The Birth of Plenty by Bernstein.
Mr STYLES: You know the book. We on this side have read it. It is a fabulous book. There are a number of things William Bernstein says in his book. He has looked right across the world. The book’s title is The Birth of Plenty: How the Prosperity of the Modern World Was Created. There are four major points in the book that are very relevant. These are the four things you must have in any community, town, city, state, country – in fact, anywhere in the world. He has looked at every community in every country across the world, and those which have been successful and those which have not, and at what is constant.
The first point is that they must have personal property rights. That is always a good thing. The English were the first to have the best property rights. The Northern Territory needs people. We need Aboriginal people to have personal property rights, otherwise they are not going anywhere. You need intellectual property rights. We are going a long way down the track for all people in the Northern Territory, including Aboriginal people, in relation to intellectual property rights of their art, inventions, bush tucker and whatever else. The third point is access to cheap capital. Many of these organisations get access to cheap capital. The fourth point is an efficient and effective transport system. Efficiency and effectiveness are the prime things in generating wealth.
Obviously there are many things that happen, such as Aboriginal land rights. There is a range of things that are appealable, so when decisions are made by courts, etcetera, you can appeal. When we look at what is appealable in relation to things that happen in our community, I quote the member for Fannie Bay:
- The administrative appeals body we have established in the Northern Territory can and should provide people with an opportunity to have their voices heard. These are people deserving of a better government. All parties can strive to be better. Part of our job in opposition is to learn to be a better government in the future. We currently have a government that does not listen and strive to be better. There are decisions of this government that should be appealable.
He also said:
- We represent people who are concerned about a government which rezones community-purpose land in our suburbs …
You must have economic development. If someone says there is a fantastic economic development opportunity and it is in the public interest, we look at it.
Another quote from the member for Fannie Bay:
- We represent people and stakeholders who believe the decision to allow open speed limits should be reviewable.
It is. In this House is where it is reviewable.
- When police say open speed limits are dangerous, I listen, and they have said that repeatedly.
He also said Vince Kelly speaks for 1400 police officers. All due respect to Vince Kelly, who is a friend of mine, but he does not speak for every one of them. He has a particular view, but there are numerous police officers I know who say it is a great idea because there are people – you want to look close to home – who exceed the speed limit. I have said in the House before, when driving from Alice Springs to Tennant Creek when the speed limit was 130 km/h, I set the cruise control and off I went. Families in Toyota LandCruisers and Holden station wagons passed me. They were not doing 250 km/h, but they were doing a speed which suited them, their capacity, the time of day, the weather conditions and whether they were in a good or bad car.
The other thing I noticed was people driving older cars doing the same speed. When I have spoken to police officers in the bush they say many people are still doing exactly the same speed they did before, but others are moving a little faster. People driving from Tennant Creek to Alice Springs can leave in the afternoon and be there before dusk.
It is interesting that you made those statements in this debate, which is why I am responding to them. People have a choice. Sadly, when you look at what is going on in road safety around the Territory at the moment, the majority of people are being killed in built-up areas and it is seat belts and if it is speed …
Mr Gunner: Release the five reports, Pete.
Mr STYLES: They are not reports, they are audits and assessments. This is where you get it wrong all the time. These things are still going on, still being assessed, and when we find things that need to be changed, like speed limits around roadhouses or issues like that, we will change them. That is where you get it wrong.
Let us look at some of the other reasons we aggregate appeals into one tribunal. There is a number of consequential amendments to a range of legislation: the Building Act; the Building (Resolution of Residential Building Work Disputes) Regulations; Control of Roads Act; Energy Pipelines Act; Geothermal Energy Regulations; Heritage Act; Lands Acquisition Act; Lands Acquisition Regulations; Mineral Titles Act and Mineral Titles Regulations, Pastoral Land Act, Pastoral Land Regulations; Petroleum Act; Planning Act and Planning Regulations, and the list goes on. Various acts and regulations need to be changed and we need to drive efficiencies in dealing with appeals under them.
There are over 35 commissions, tribunals, committees and boards which have the power to make original decisions or hear appeals, and review, uphold or overturn original decisions. What they do not do is change legislation or debate the policy of the government or the opposition.
Additionally, the Supreme Court and Local Courts have specific appellant powers under at least a further 54 acts. This is where we get numerous inefficiencies in the way we deal with these matters. I am told that there about 251 pieces of Territory legislation that will need to be reviewed to establish the need for consequential amendments to legislation and to give effect to the function of the tribunal in respect to the original and reviewed jurisdictions.
I close with a few words on the red tape this government has come across. We have a small committee for reducing red tape, and that committee is working overtime to deconstruct some of the impediments to government doing business. Government needs to operate far more efficiently if we are to reduce the amount of debt we inherited. I am very supportive of anything in the government can do in this area, because I have my children and grandchildren living here, and this is their future.
I did not appreciate, when I came into this government, the level of debt we inherited. I looked at this graph which shows the Northern Territory non-financial public sector net debt, and thought it was awful. I realised this is my kids’ future; my children will have to pay this off. Then I got another graph and I looked at the federal government net debt. Here we are with my favourite subject: pyramids. The opposition was great at building stuff, but it did not build too many houses. In its last year of government it wanted to turn off about 2000-plus house blocks. I am very happy for the opposition to correct me, but I think it was about 520 it turned off, which was about a quarter of what was required, and they wonder why we got soaring house prices, etcetera.
There was no choice for young people. The Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment is now saying that in Palmerston you can buy a block anywhere between $160 000 and $380 000 depending on the size of the block you want. That is something this government has introduced. It is about choice and young people have a choice. Who did that? The Country Liberals government did that.
Now back to the debt. After I looked at the debt we were left by the ALP government under the direction and treasureship of the member for Karama, I then looked at the national debt, and my heart goes out to those in the Coalition government in relation to how they will deal with it. The federal Labor Party want to keep the whole thing going, keep winding the wheel, keep it all churning away, and they just increased the federal government debt to $667bn.
I was somewhere recently where they said a billion seconds ago it was 1957, a billion minutes ago Jesus Christ walked the earth and a billion years ago no one was walking on two legs. That is just minutes, seconds and hours, but that means that a billion is a big number. It is a huge amount of $100 bills.
Taxpayers in this country have $667bn owing to other countries, banks and other places. How will we do that? Well if you listen to Labor you just keep spending. I remember something the member for Karama said as Treasurer when we were in opposition. I am happy to stand corrected, but I think she said, ‘We are going to spend our way out of trouble’.
My mother would roll over in her grave if she knew that, because mothers taught most of us in this room basic economics. You can borrow for certain things, but you cannot borrow to pay wages, go to the movies or for some of the luxuries in life.
When we took over government there were 94 unfunded positions in the children and family services area which were not even budgeted for. We borrowed on the MasterCard.
A member: 199.
Mr STYLES: It was 199. There were 199 positions not budgeted for, and we wonder why we have this huge debt level. It is because the previous government was not responsible. If members opposite want to – I am happy to listen to anything they have to add to this – say they are very proud of the $5.5bn debt, which continues to rise – it is borrowed money that someone, sometime, somewhere has to pay back.
I am very happy for them to have a go at me for what I am saying, and I am also very happy to have the debate on the pyramids of debt we have, courtesy of federal Labor and the six-year Rudd-Gillard era.
When we talk about efficiencies in government, which is what we are doing with these bills, we can look at the Howard-Costello era. The debt is going down on the right hand side of the pyramid, and it goes underground. We are digging holes in the ground. On the graph, we can see the hole in the ground because that is where $45bn – billion is a big number so we need a big hole in the ground – in cash was left that we gave to Rudd and Gillard. In six years, they dug up all the money; I do not know whether they filled the hole in.
In 2007-08, Rudd-Gillard took over, and they had $45bn in the bank with zero debt. Today we are looking down the barrel of $667bn in debt. Remember a billion seconds ago it was 1957; a billion minutes ago Jesus Christ walked the Earth; that is how big that number is; it is enormous. I am disgusted with the way the previous government left the finances of the Northern Territory.
Fortunately a fiscally responsible government came to power. I listened to the Chief Minister this morning in Question Time talking about economic development and finding efficiencies, which this legislation is designed to do. I look at other efficiencies, including those in our communities. I look at the opportunities for Aboriginal people to get involved in economic development. I heard the questions to the Chief Minister this morning, one after the other, with the Chief Minister doing an excellent job of firing straight back and saying, ‘This is what we are doing; what did you do, except run up the debt?’ They did not do very much at all.
They say they did this and that, but I challenge them to tell me what they did, apart from rack up a lot of debt. What economic development did you do on the Tiwi Islands, in Borroloola or in Kalkarindji? I sat in opposition for four years, watching what the government did, which was not much at all.
There was a lot of talk and a lot of nothing. There is talk over here, but the difference is that we back it up with action. We have action plans, and you see the action plans every time.
The member for Greatorex talked about the Masters Games. The numbers were up on last year; look at the input. I listened to the interjections of those opposite saying, ‘What about the Arafura Games?’ My challenge to you …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We have the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Bill before the House. I call Standing Order 67: digression from subject. I appreciate there is a certain degree of latitude, but if you could ask the minister to come back to the bill before the House.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order; whilst I appreciate the member’s concern the minister is covering issues raised by members’ opposite. If digression were to be ruled against in this instance, she should have been calling the point of order on her own members.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, you have the call with regard to the statement and legislation.
Mr STYLES: Thank you for raising that, member for Nhulunbuy. It is very good you point that out. Thank you, member for Port Darwin, who rightfully pointed out that the member for Fannie Bay digressed severely in relation to a range of issues, such as 1400 police officers talking about speeding. I do not know what that has to do with it.
What I am talking about, member for Nhulunbuy and those opposite, is efficiencies. I want this bill to get through, and I want to be able to say to members that these are the types of efficiencies you need. This is why we do things. This is why we are doing this. I can stand here and say, ‘This is a great bill. I want you to support it’, and sit down again. But it is important we give our reasons why we support this solidly: because we support so many things in relation to getting rid of red tape and making government more efficient and accountable for the dollars taxpayers give us to spend wisely.
I will continue in relation to how efficiencies have been created by this side of the House. I was at a meeting with the member for Blain yesterday. He was enlightening this side of the House as to the efficiencies he is bringing in as the Parliamentary Secretary for Business, with reforms to get rid of red tape. We talk about efficiencies on our side. I do not know what you did when you were in government, but we on our side talk about this. We kick it around and have a great time discussing this and that. We do not always agree. The Attorney-General went away and said, ‘We will do a bit of this and a bit of that’. We asked him to come back and give us a bit more information. We discuss many things about getting rid of red tape, just like this legislation that is now before the House.
We want to get rid of red tape. How do we do that? How do we do it in Aboriginal communities? There is an enormous amount of red tape to get through to do things there. We discuss that. Some of the appeals work has been done in this bill.
You have to work out what it is you want to achieve, so discussion has to ensue. As part of that discussion, a range of subjects are discussed by every member on our side.
I hope you, on your side, do exactly the same. Sadly, we do not see a very great contribution to the debate. Obviously we have listened to members on your side talk about these bills. You have made a contribution. I do not know whether I would consider it to be the greatest contribution. Do you spend much time discussing it? Do you get ideas and kick them around a lot, or are they put in front of you and you go along with it?
On our side we are seriously trying to reduce the red tape and the debt of the Northern Territory. We find that every time we turn around, the other side has an issue with it. You want economic development. There is one way to get out of the debt-to-income ratio of about 98% we inherited. We can cut services to the bone, and we have not done that. You obviously have to find efficiencies and pull your belt in. The other way you can do it if you want to halve your debt to income ratio, is to double your income. Cutting red tape is one way to do it. This legislation we have before us is about reducing red tape, but that will not pay off $5.5bn worth of projected debt. You have to change the things you do.
We are changing what we do with this legislation. We are also changing the way we do business. That is about generating business. I note in this bill there are Aboriginal appeals in various acts. What did we do? We went to see the federal government. Fortunately, we have a rational federal government in power in Canberra which can hopefully make some decent decisions, albeit the Labor Party, which the opposition is part of, is dead set opposed to cost-cutting measures. It just wants it to keep going. Fortunately, on this side, we can put some of those things in place. This legislation before the House today is part of that. It is about reducing red tape, reducing government spend on it, and paying back debt so we can get the Territory going again. When we get those dollars, we can either retire debt or create economic activity. We have two choices. Fortunately on our side there are discussions about both.
I will not discuss them in this House today, it is not appropriate; however, there are some serious considerations on our side about how to generate wealth in the Northern Territory, as opposed to consuming it. The opposition is very good at consuming wealth and running up debt. Maggie Thatcher said socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money to spend. Sadly, they came very close to running out of other people’s money to spend; they kept spending it. It was the same in Canberra.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Attorney-General for this legislation. There will be significant savings and efficiencies. We will not lose anything like what the opposition is espousing. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I will briefly digress to the challenge from the member for Sanderson, who is consistently careless with the use of ‘projected’. Sometimes it is in the rhetoric, sometimes it is out. ‘Projected’ means that both sides of this House had a plan. It is good to see the media is finally reporting that, after a mini-budget and two Territory budgets, the CLP should start to focus on its own economic management. The media is finally articulating to the public that the CLP, after two years, is continuing with the blame game, because that is all it has, and its own economic management is under scrutiny. That relates to that rapid, rampant increase in the cost of living and giving this new approach to the cash register type cash grab.
I digressed to the challenge of the ultimate barbecue stopper delivered by the member for Sanderson, but let us get back to the bills. I thank the minister for the opportunity to debate them in this House. I also thank the members for Fannie Bay and Johnston, the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Caucus team, who facilitated the healthy debate around these bills and the process. It is good to work in a team that gathers in a room and shares a healthy, robust democratic process of debate, then formulates a position to bring to this House. The opposition supports these bills and this process. It is a pleasure to participate in that team network, because unfortunately I cannot be in Darwin all the time and receive the traditional briefing. I acknowledge colleagues and the Leader of the Opposition for supporting that research, the knowledge and the debate for me.
Since this was introduced at the last sittings I have been very busy on the road in the electorates of Stuart, Namatjira and Barkly, with visits to Greatorex and Braitling, which has been very interesting. Being a bush member on the road in a Toyota with no access to charter aircraft, I get to talk to many people but unfortunately cannot be in Darwin to participate in the traditional briefing process. It is a good time for me, on behalf of many regional and remote residents, to participate in this debate. No doubt the minister will share his ideas in response to some of my questions.
The opposition previously indicated in-principle support for a civil and administrative tribunal. It goes without saying that the tribunal must be adequately resourced to ensure there will be no unreasonable delays in the hearing and determination of appeals. Looking at the second reading speech and through the Labor Caucus debate, in the areas I am responsible to research, I can see this will relate directly to the Energy Pipelines Act, the Geothermal Energy Act and Geothermal Energy Regulations, the Mineral Titles Act and Minerals Title Regulations, and the Petroleum Act. These are areas of incredible work and development within the Northern Territory, not only now but in the future.
I see that this directly relates to the possibility for a massive workload for this new civil and administrative tribunal. The land access issues will be the first ones to emerge in the new caseload of the tribunal, because in regional and remote areas there is already an incredible dialogue and conversation going on about those areas: petrochemicals; minerals; resources; and the exploration programs that will translate into production. There will be a lot of work in this area, and it is important that the tribunal be adequately resourced to be able to deal with it. I am also interested in where the 120 appeals to rating of pastoral lands sits now and if it will become an immediate job lot of the new administrative tribunal – the appeals raised by the pastoral sector under the Local Government Act and the rating of pastoral properties. That is an incredible body of work that probably will be first in the door of the tribunal. I am interested to hear the minister’s comments on that.
That area of the Northern Territory, ironically, relates now to a new process in democracy and administrative appeals. They are going side by side, so once again the opposition reiterates the point that resourcing will be critical in what will be a very busy area, and I have given a few points around that.
It is important that there is no diminution of the rights of appellants under the new arrangements, and the opposition requests assurance from the Attorney-General that will be the case. We have debated that already, but it is a point I have to raise on behalf of constituents. In relation to the Pastoral Lands Act and the Pastoral Lands Regulations, I will quote from the minister’s second reading speech:
- The legislation is being consequently amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in its stead reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal
That makes sense; that is the process. The speech goes on:
- The act is further being amended to abolish the Pastoral Land Appeal Tribunal and to transfer this tribunal’s jurisdiction to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
This act also provides an appeal right to the Supreme Court against certain decisions of the minister subject to a number of specified limitations. The act is being amended to transfer the jurisdiction from the court to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal
A recent case, over seven years, was the campaign against Muckaty Station being nominated as the site of Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste management facility. Having stood shoulder to shoulder and worked through this case for seven years, I challenged the member for Katherine, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, and Land Resources, in debate when the Pastoral Land Act was being amended. I asked if these new changes on pastoral lands would allow a nuclear waste dump. It was a very short response, and very guarded. It is in Hansard, ‘No, member for Barkly, you do not have to worry about that’.
The minister then stood today and talked about the bills, and his contribution to debate mentioned that he is very happy to see that the new Civil and Administrative Tribunal will serve to reduce inconsistency in decision-making. We already have the Chief Minister, the member for Greatorex and the member for Araluen supporting a nuclear waste dump in Central Australia. The first market they are looking at is pastoral properties. We are not quite sure because it is very secretive when you do business with the CLP, but there are pastoral properties being reported in the media as being very interested in locating and building Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste management facility on their land. The minister’s statement today says this will serve to reduce inconsistencies. We have a minister who assures me, as the member for Barkly, that under the changes to the Pastoral Land Act there will be no nuclear waste dumps on pastoral properties, and now we have a Chief Minister openly hawking Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste dump on pastoral properties.
The people of Greatorex are very interested in this, as are the people of Braitling and Araluen, because as Alice Springs residents they know this is in their pocket now, that the ball has been kicked south, and it will be located within up to 50 km of Alice Springs if that site becomes a real and live nomination. Many pastoralists from the Tanami area are also talking. I am a little confused with this inconsistency, when it has been preached that this will help to reduce it.
It would be nice to know what will happen if the neighbours of a pastoral property that might emerge under the Chief Minister’s hawking process want to appeal Australia’s first nuclear waste dump being set up next door to them. It may interest the minister to know that one of the early forums I conducted in public education and awareness on the nuclear waste management facility issue was on the banks of Morphett Creek. More pastoralists than traditional owners turned up to that forum, to inquire and register their complete dissatisfaction with any process that will locate nuclear waste on pastoral property with no consultation, no scientific basis and no environmental protection. They were very vocal that morning, and I remember that as a very productive meeting.
The next stage was that we needed to take this to the Federal Court to win our case and bring some sanity back into the debate. The member for Katherine mentioned in his contribution to the debate that if the administrative tribunal does not successfully resolve an issue, it can go to the Supreme Court.
I would like to hear the minister’s comment on that. After being assured by the minister in previous debate about not accepting nuclear waste dumps on pastoral land, should the Chief Minister be successful in hawking Australia’s first nuclear waste dump on the pastoral sector and a plan is developed to build on pastoral land, and should the neighbours unite and go through the administrative tribunal process with no real resolution to their concerns, will it go to the Supreme Court? I am sure the Attorney-General, a lawyer by trade, will be able to explain that, through me, to the people of the Barkly and the wider community across the Northern Territory, which is still extremely concerned about this process rattling around in the hands of politicians with no understanding of the science or environmental implications, and who have a cash register mentality.
It seems to me that members on the other side, including those in Palmerston, the members for Drysdale, Blain and Brennan, are quite happy for this process to start in their electorates, with waste transported through the port and the beautiful city of Palmerston as it rattles towards the electorate of Goyder. The member for Nelson has said everything in this debate except where he will nominate a laundry-size site in Howard Springs for the world’s nuclear waste. Then it goes through the electorate of Stuart and Barkly on its way to Central Australia to be located on pastoral land.
I am articulating many questions that are coming from the electorate. I am only the spokesperson. Constituents of the Northern Territory are asking these questions. That is why I am on my feet asking on behalf of those constituents from Alice Springs, right up through the Northern Territory.
I am sure the minister, when he wraps this debate, will assure the constituents that should Australia’s first nuclear waste dump be located on pastoral lands under the CLP, the administrative tribunal will be able to deal with any objections. Then, if that does not achieve a resolution, a Supreme Court challenge can be mounted.
That is the fail-safe the traditional owners opposed to the dump site on Muckaty Station had to go through to bring this debate back to a sane level where we are requesting that there be an independent commission set up federally to start to manage this issue on behalf of all Australians – a very simple request, a very simple process. This would sit outside the minister’s new Civil and Administrative Tribunal, represent all Australians, and rationalise the debate. That is one of the major success stories from the Muckaty campaign.
It is very disappointing, as I continue to travel the Northern Territory’s length and breadth, to be asked questions as to why the CLP government is continuing to play politics in this space. I will do my best to raise this in the House whenever I get the chance. That is a fair question, and I expect from this minister a fair answer.
The member for Katherine also mentioned in his speech that this tribunal represents the benefits for doing business in the Northern Territory, for cutting red tape. I am a little concerned when that becomes the objective. When we are dealing with caravan parks, yes, we can manage that. When we are dealing with residential tenancies, we can manage that. When we are dealing with disputes over fences and boundaries, we can manage that. But when we are dealing with Australia’s first purpose-built facility that could take the world’s nuclear waste – because we know that is where the money is, that is the cash register mentality and this is all about getting a footprint on the Northern Territory that can then be processed through the bigger picture of accepting the world’s nuclear waste – maybe this Civil and Administrative Tribunal better stand aside and we instead use a bipartisan approach to get an independent commission from the Commonwealth to make sure our kids and grandkids, and our environment, are protected.
Minister, thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this legislation on. The conferral legislation is another sign of us removing red tape in the Northern Territory and seeking to save on expenditure on tribunals and other analysis bodies which are, no doubt, providing a good model of reference. We have an opportunity to provide much saving on expenditure for a number of processes.
In the red tape reduction process the government has been rolling out, I can think of more than 30 changes we have made to reduce red tape in seeking to provide more seamless processes within the Northern Territory for consumers to conduct their business, and for businesses to conduct their business on an ongoing, regular basis.
It is interesting to see that this week’s CommSec State of the States report provides analysis of the performance of each jurisdiction across eight lines of business. The Northern Territory is now leading in five of the eight areas of business: economic growth; construction activity; retail sales figures; low levels of unemployment; and the purchase of industrial construction equipment. That is a sign the Northern Territory economy is moving further and further ahead, and the conferral legislation reducing red tape is another element of support in the direction we are taking business in the Territory.
I am looking forward to the TAFR in the near future. I am looking forward to a good chat with Moody’s about the performance of the Territory government in driving down expenditure, driving down the $5.5bn Labor debt, reducing our infrastructure payments and making sure we have an environment where people want to invest and grow into the future. That is part of our north Australia development strategy, part of our strategy on building infrastructure going forward. It is also part of our strategy to look at how we operate some of our major assets in the Northern Territory, including TIO and the Darwin port, and identify what business the government should be in, what models of operation we should be in, and how best they should be structured in a model to reduce red tape and provide for greater business integrity. Also, should we have the opportunity of realising the value of those Territory-owned assets, how we reinvest those into the Territory. Certainly, the best option to move forward is to invest that in infrastructure.
From an economic point of view, we would all like to see it invested in economic infrastructure, but we also want to see a balance with community infrastructure. That is why we created a website yesterday asking for Territorians to suggest, should we realise the value of TIO and the port, what that should be spent on. We are already receiving amazing information and ideas, not least the idea – which was my idea but has been affirmed many a time – about rectifying some of the sewer and stormwater issues in Rapid Creek. If we can realise the asset value of something like TIO and put it back into rectification works in Rapid Creek, it has a positive effect on constituents within that area and will ultimately reduce the impact of insurance premiums and policy payouts going forward. I am surprised the member for Johnston does not want to see proceeds of the sale of TIO going to Rapid Creek. I find it interesting he is not standing up for the people there. There is a range of other initiatives we are looking towards in that area.
It is interesting to hear the dog-whistling debate in the Chamber today. Some of the comments from the member for Johnston are not only wrong, they are blatant lies. The idea of someone advocating for height limits above eight storeys in Alice Springs is a flat lie from the member for Johnston, as are many of his other comments. I think he said I wanted to get rid of native title. That is far from the truth and another lie from the member for Johnston. He needs to be careful when lying in parliament on a regular basis because he will be caught out. It is bad politics and will reach a point where we call him out on those lies.
It is like the member for Barkly talking about nuclear waste and lying in the Chamber. The member for Barkly frequently lies, publicly and privately, and we saw him do that today in regard to the nuclear waste debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, please withdraw that.
Mr GILES: I withdraw.
To hear the member for Barkly tell mistruths about nuclear waste in the Territory and the advocacy of pastoral properties – it is nothing more than a blatant lie in anyone’s eyes. If he educated himself on the process he would find that Aboriginal traditional owners in his seat of Barkly want the nuclear waste in the seat of Barkly. I am frequently informed of that. If he was truthful he would say that nuclear waste in the Northern Territory is currently stored in our five hospitals. He would start looking at where nuclear waste is stored right now and would realise the electorate which has had the most recent by-election – on 18 October this year – the seat of Casuarina, holds Royal Darwin Hospital, the biggest repository of nuclear waste in the Northern Territory, much like the Tennant Creek Hospital in the member for Barkly’s electorate, which also holds nuclear waste, as do Katherine Hospital, Alice Springs Hospital and Gove hospital. They are the biggest repositories of nuclear waste in the Northern Territory. Far be it for me to get in the way of having a public debate about whether or not there should be nuclear waste stored in the northern suburbs of Darwin. I do not believe there should be.
We should be able to have a mature conversation about where we should be storing nuclear waste and identifying an appropriate repository. I do not believe nuclear waste should be stored at Casuarina; I do not believe nuclear waste should be stored in the northern suburbs of Darwin, but clearly Labor does. Clearly the member for Barkly, the Deputy Opposition Leader, believes nuclear waste should be stored in Casuarina in the northern suburbs. I wonder what the new member for Casuarina thinks. Does she think Royal Darwin Hospital should be the biggest nuclear waste repository in the Northern Territory? Currently it is.
Clearly the member for Barkly supports that. To provide some education for him, the process is open until 10 November for traditional owners, through land councils, to nominate a site. I am aware that the most popular site of traditional owners to date is an area within his electorate, so traditional owners in his electorate are supporting that; that will be interesting.
I will come out every day and say I do not believe nuclear waste should be stored at Casuarina in the Royal Darwin Hospital, or in the northern suburbs. I will advocate that it is moved to a highly-recommended site that is away from health and hospital services, and from the general population of the northern suburbs.
If Labor wants to campaign in 2016 that they support nuclear waste being stored in the northern suburbs, they should do that. Going by the lies, or debate, we just heard from the member for Barkly, the current Deputy Opposition Leader, he is surely a fan of nuclear waste in the northern suburbs. Member for Barkly, you should talk to your new colleague, the member for Casuarina, and say how proud you are to see the biggest nuclear waste repository being in the seat of Casuarina at Royal Darwin Hospital. Talk to the traditional owners in your electorate who are campaigning for a nuclear waste repository in your own electorate. Member for Barkly, that is very funny.
Let us move on to a couple of important elements within the bill which will be conferred, most notably around energy pipelines. We know a little about energy pipelines in the Northern Territory, because I have been talking about it on a regular basis. Most recently I spoke about it at COAG and had full endorsement from all state and territory jurisdictions on the Territory’s desire to build pipeline infrastructure linking the Northern Territory to the eastern seaboard to do a range of things, least of all present the ability to establish a domestic wholesale gas market for this nation, starting to combat some of the netback LNG pricing arrangements which are driving domestic gas on the eastern seaboard and will undoubtedly have impacts on the Northern Territory. It also presents the opportunity for more exploration and for developers to start to get some of those exploration leases into development. It allows us not only to pursue royalties based on production but also to see the creation of jobs in the development of infrastructure in the Northern Territory, so I am supportive of this from an Energy Pipelines Act point of view.
In regards to the Pastoral Land Act, I reflect on the hard work by the member for Katherine, the minister for pastoral activities, and acknowledge the hard work that has been done, particularly around the reform of the Pastoral Land Act, to allow non-pastoral activities on up to 30% of pastoral properties for a period of 30 years with a 30 year option. That allows for greater levels of diversification in industry, greater levels of agribusiness and horticulture, and for the offsetting of any downturn in cattle trade that may or may not be experienced by a future Labor government that tries to destroy all things cattle trade in the Northern Territory, as saw Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Paul Henderson and Delia Lawrie do over recent years.
I also point out that minister Westra Van Holthe has done a fantastic job in reigniting the live cattle trade into Indonesia. I think around 470 000 cattle crossed our port in the last financial year, the highest number ever. We have about two million cattle in the Northern Territory with an ability to extend that to around three million, with greater levels of engagement and activity with Indigenous Territorians, where much of the land is available for them to get involved in pastoral activities.
The Petroleum Act is one of the key conferral models within this legislation. The Petroleum Act is interesting when you put it in the context of the Northern Territory. You also put it in the context of the five world-class mines in the Territory, all started pre-1976 when the Land Rights Act came in. There is also the matter of hydrocarbons – the gas and oil that comes out of the Northern Territory – and the approval processes for that. There were no approvals in 38 years, since before the Land Rights Act, until this year, under the Country Liberals government, when there was approval for the oilfield at Surprise Creek near Kintore, and gas at Dingo field, with Magellan and Central Petroleum interests.
We unashamedly want to move towards more approvals for hydrocarbon licences. It builds jobs, infrastructure and telecommunications, and it provides hope for many children going to school in regional and remote areas. It is not just about education, it is also about jobs going further.
The Building Act and Building (Resolution of Residential Building Work Disputes) Regulations, the Caravan Parks Act, the Control of Roads Act – I have already mentioned the Energy Pipelines Act – the Geothermal Energy Act and the Geothermal Energy Regulations, the Health Practitioner Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Act, the Health Practitioners Act and the Heritage Act – there are very important conferrals that will be attributed within this act. Several other acts are also attributed through the conferral process.
I say well done to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice for bringing this forward. Every piece of conferral legislation we bring forward reduces red tape in the Northern Territory and allows businesses to get on with their work. It allows jobs to be created, infrastructure to be built and northern Australia to be a bigger and better place than it has been in the past.
I reaffirm that for people like the members for Johnston and Barkly, as well as the Leader of the Opposition, to come in here and make false statements is bad for debate. You will be caught out, as you do it on a daily basis, trying to get yourselves a headline in the media, hoping some new, impressionable journalist will pick up on a false statement.
You have clearly been caught out today, member for Barkly; you have supported the Royal Darwin Hospital being maintained as the largest nuclear waste repository in the Northern Territory. It is embarrassing that you would support the northern suburbs hosting the majority of nuclear waste in the Territory; it is very poor of you. I will be happy to let people in the northern suburbs know that you want nuclear waste to be based in the northern suburbs. We will happily campaign on it, member for Barkly. We will also let traditional owners know you will not support them. It is unfortunate, but I am happy to let everybody know that you will support nuclear waste in the northern suburbs.
I support this legislation. The Attorney-General is resetting the agenda for reducing red tape. It is a positive outcome. Let us hope there is plenty more of it to come as we seek to grow jobs and business, and drive down crime and debt. We have been very successful at in the last two years, and we will continue to be for the next two.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will contribute very briefly to this debate. I thought it was about red tape, but somehow or other we have covered yellow cake.
Mr McCarthy: The yellow cake is processed, Gary.
Mr HIGGINS: Yes, there is a relationship, but I will go through some of my experience with the red tape people have to deal with in business.
I will relate my comments to my own business. If you examine the licensing someone has to go through, the constant red tape we have to deal with, and how much that costs us over time – I am not talking about the standard car registrations, as well as the drivers’ and trailer licences we have to obtain, which are treated as an inconvenience by everyone. For a business like mine at the Daly River, firstly there is boat hire. While everyone who lives in the northern suburbs might have boats, they do not have to register them. If you have a business and you want to hire boats out, you must have licences for them. They have to be registered, you must have a number on them and you must have them inspected every year. Some of the requirements are way over the top.
An example is a Bermuda boat I purchased new. It had Australian standard compliance and could carry three people, with a motor up to about 20 horsepower. It was inspected, and I was advised I needed to modify it by adding a rail around the top of a boat that already complied to an Australian standard. I had to pay an extra $600 or $800 to have those rails added. I could only then put a 15 horsepower motor on it and only put two people in the boat.
If you lived in the northern suburbs you could put half-a-dozen people in that boat and you would be complying with the law. But we had to modify it and add the rails for people to trip on when they were getting in and out of the boat on to the pontoons. That was the first issue.
The second issue was while we had an exemption on the Daly River for the safety equipment carried in a boat, those exemptions did not extend to hire boats. Some of the ridiculous things that applied to that were that you had to carry an anchor, 12 ft of chain of a certain weight, and 50 m of rope, yet during the Dry Season, when you are hiring out the boats, the deepest parts of the river are about 8 m, and no one would anchor their boat in the middle of the Daly River anyway; you use a 12 ft rope and tie on to all of the snags. But we had to comply with all of that.
That was just our boats. Then you get to the camping business and the restaurant. The first thing we needed was an eating house certificate. The restaurant had to be inspected every ear to ensure the people working in it had food-handling qualification, and they took temperatures of all the food. I know these are valid things to have, but they all take time.
The second thing we needed in that eating house was our liquor licence. To have a liquor licence you had to do all the tests to ensure you complied with all the legislation and knew all about it. They then inspected how you locked up your alcohol and how much you had. Originally you had to do returns on how much you turned over in the liquor store.
We needed responsible service of alcohol qualifications. You had to be trained in that. I am talking about a small business that is run by a family; you are adding up all this time, I hope.
We also needed a boarding house certificate. They checked that you had reasonably clean accommodation, which is acceptable. However, as well as the boarding house certificate, you needed tourism accreditation if you wanted to become a member of a tourist association.
Many of these things are automatically controlled. If you have dirty premises and do not maintain some standard, the tourists will not come anyway, and you will go out of business. But we still had to have all of these things.
I thought it was really amazing that I needed a fishmonger’s licence. We are on the Daly River, and I needed a fishmonger’s licence so I could sell fish through the bistro. You are not allowed to sell fish out of the Daly River, so you had to buy fish. I still needed a fishmonger’s licence to sell it, even though I cooked it.
To get your tourism accreditation you have to fill out all the paperwork and make sure you have all the qualifications, licences, insurances and so forth.
When you have a farming business, the first thing you have to prove is that you can handle chemicals. You have to do a ChemCert course. You pay money, do a ChemCert course and become a member of the local association or horticultural society. Once you have the ChemCert certificate, you then do a Freshcare course. When you have done a Freshcare course, the auditors want to check that you are complying with the Freshcare training you had. Some of these requirements are basic things like having a sign in your bathroom that tells your workers to wash their hands every time they have been to the toilet – the standard thing we have in Australia. The standard practice is if you go to the toilet you wash your hands, but we had to have signs everywhere telling people to wash their hands. If you want to sell to suppliers like Woolies, you need their accreditation. These are just some of the licences. I hope I have given people a picture of why people in small business have had the jack of red tape – not yellow cake, red tape.
I recently had power connected at a new property. That property also had solar power. We went to Power and Water and said we wanted to connect power, put it in our name and use the buyback system for the solar power. We filled out all the paperwork to transfer power and water to our name. We then filled out all of the paperwork for the contract that related to buyback of the solar power. I then received an e-mail saying page 14 of the contract I had signed was missing and could I please complete that contract in regard to the property, for which they had the address.
I found page 14 of the contract, and it simply asked for the customer name. They had addressed it to me so they knew who I was; they referred to the property address, which had to be on the paperwork; they wanted an e-mail address, which they also had because they sent me an e-mail. I thought there must be somewhere to sign on the page but there was not. This page could easily have been filled out by the staff at Power and Water, but they were not allowed to do it; I had to do it.
I am trying to give people a picture of some of the red tape that really annoys people in business. On top of the Territory red tape, you have to continually deal with AQIS inspecting for bugs on fruit you are growing, and the Bureau of Statistics sending letters every month wanting to know how many people came through, how many pieces of fruit you sold, and how many acres you have growing this and that. If people do not have an idea of how much red tape floats around, I do not know what will ever convince them.
As to nuclear waste, I am not sure how nuclear waste came into the red tape other than the yellow cake. Much of the time the arguments about nuclear waste do not distinguish between the waste we produce in the Territory, the waste produced in Australia and the waste that might come in from overseas. I would like to see people in this House address it at those three levels.
The first issue is, if we have nuclear waste produced by Territorians in the hospital, it is incumbent upon us to take responsibility for it. The second issue is, as Australians, what waste are we responsible for. The third issue is whether we want to commercialise and take waste from overseas. That is an economic issue that needs to be debated.
I support the Attorney-General’s changes. Any reduction in red tape is a positive in allowing people in small business to get on with what they are trying to do, which is to help the economy of the Northern Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, what a fascinating debate it has been. There is obviously an agreement by the members opposite to use these debates as a frolic to discuss any number of issues they wish to.
The Chief Minister quite ably rebuffed the member for Barkly’s positively insane contribution to this debate. If that is the information the member for Barkly has been giving to people in his constituency in relation to the recent case of Muckaty, which I understand was a Federal Court case, clearly he wants to take a good hard look at himself, because what he is saying is patently untrue and mischievous to the point of being irresponsible and reckless.
Unfortunately, Aboriginal people do rely on the information they receive from non-Aboriginal people, particularly in remote areas, and they trust that information. That information needs to have integrity. Your failure, your deliberate and – I am trying to find another word for corrupt. Your misinformation is dreadful.
If that is what he is telling people in his electorate …
Mr McCarthy: What are you telling them?
Mr ELFERINK: The truth.
The member for Barkly is not telling the truth; it is far from it, and it is deliberately designed to inflame their passions and incite their fears. He is an ogre who haunts their fears, leaping out from under a bridge to scare them every time they want to stick their head out above the parapet.
I can tell you what happened in relation to Muckaty. It was a victory of fear generated by the members opposite. If this stuff was so dreadful, why does the member for Barkly continue to insist that a basement in the Royal Darwin Hospital be used? It is not designed for the purpose of storing nuclear waste, but you cannot stick it in the middle of nowhere.
Mr McCarthy: Stick it in Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: You are really quite dim, aren’t you? If I turned on the light, what would I get, 15 watts out of you?
Mr McCarthy: Sticks and stones will break my bones minister.
Mr ELFERINK: The point is that you are a dishonest human being who misrepresents the truth in a most reckless and dreadful fashion.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62. I suggest that was unbecoming.
Madam SPEAKER: Please withdraw, minister.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
The member for Barkly says he wants to represent and care for Aboriginal people and then, in such a blatant fashion, misrepresents the truth
Mr McCarthy: Rubbish.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, he does and he is a disgrace.
Mr McCarthy: There are a lot of Australians on this campaign, John.
Mr ELFERINK: If they are saying exactly the same thing …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51. I am right next to the member for Port Darwin and I cannot hear him talk over the member for Barkly.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask all members to cease interjecting and calling across the floor. If you have a point of order, address it through the Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Barkly has my irritation on the record, and he knows full well it is true because rarely does he burr up, unless of course he has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He is burring up now because he knows what he is doing is fundamentally and profoundly dishonest. It is a misrepresentation of the truth in such a way to his own constituency that I can only just restrain myself from using the ‘L’ word in relation to what he is saying.
Mr McCarthy: Oh, hit a nerve hey, John? Guilty conscience?
Mr ELFERINK: What are you talking about?
Mr McCarthy: What you’re saying.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, I will say it. You are a liar. I withdraw, Madam Speaker. I got it out of my system.
Clearly members opposite have not the vaguest idea what this legislation does. I was listening with some fascination to the member for Fannie Bay saying this would be a vehicle by which he could overturn government decisions. I am fascinated by that world view and that misunderstanding. The example he used was government decisions in relation to open speed limits.
Mr Gunner: I said they should be appealable, not that they are.
Mr ELFERINK: I hear the correction: they should be appealable. To what authority? That is an even dumber statement. If that is what he thinks then clearly he does not understand how the doctrine of responsible government works and he places no integrity in the democratic system. If he believes what he is saying, then as far as he is concerned, the decisions of this House and of a government duly formed under the doctrine of responsible government should have an unelected superior authority to it. This is the problem with the members opposite; they do not understand hierarchies, and it is completely obvious when they say these sorts of things.
Mr Gunner interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Fannie Bay, in his denials, forgets what he said was:
- We represent people and stakeholders who believe the decision to allow open speed limits should be reviewable. When the police say open speed limits are dangerous, I listen, and they have said repeatedly.
They are reviewable, through the ballot box. To suggest that an organisation like the Northern Territory civil appeals tribunal is the vehicle to review decisions of parliament is such a ludicrous departure from common sense that you would need a visa to end up wherever you were going when departing from common sense in such a profound fashion. I welcome the members opposite having their passports stamped if they are going to that place; hopefully they will have trouble getting back into the country of rationalism.
I am mystified by some of the comments I have heard from members opposite in relation to their understanding of what this organisation does. In spite of their strident criticisms, they continue to support it, so confusion reigns supreme on the benches opposite.
I will place on the record something that must be understood about this stuff. Nothing effectively changes in terms of the powers and capacities which exist in the legislation of the tribunal’s jurisdictions. There are some 49 separate and discrete tribunals across the statute book of the Northern Territory. As we confer these tribunals towards NTCAT, we substantially pare back the numbers of existing tribunals. In terms of what NTCAT does, nothing really changes from the experience of the person in the powers of that tribunal to look at whatever decision has been made. Any decisions that were reviewable before will continue to be so now, and any decisions that were not reviewable before will not be so now. This is not a complex idea.
I hear that the member opposite wants to talk, at some length, about changes in legislative power. There is no change in the reach of the reviewable jurisdiction. It is the vehicle – what is done inside the tribunal in having a single body looking at all these jurisdictional areas, rather than multiple tribunals looking at various jurisdictional areas, which is what we are trying to achieve. It is about a system that is available, identifiable and usable by the public to enable them to step through all of the hoops they would have been able to step through in the past, except for having to spend a squid load of money on lawyers, by way of example. It is not that complex.
I was a little surprised by the member for Johnston’s contribution to this debate. I am normally quite impressed by the real member for Johnston, the speech writer for the human being who meanders into this place, because they usually do a really good job. Unless he has had a change of speech writer recently, I am profoundly disappointed in the real member for Johnston this week, and they should lift their game. Whoever you are up there, I hope you are listening, because on this occasion the real member for Johnston made a couple of tactical errors.
If you read the real member for Johnston’s speech, after it was repeated for the Hansard by the human being who walks into this place, you will find there is a self-contradictory statement in it, namely the criticism of the public service. At the start of the speech there was a criticism that the public service somehow dropped the ball and is not doing its job properly. A short time later the member for Johnston went on to say there must be a professional public service in the Northern Territory.
Most public servants, bar a handful who exist now, were public servants under the former government, providing full, fierce and frank advice then as they do now, and providing services to the people of the Northern Territory. To berate them in the fashion the member for Johnston did, and then go on to describe them as professional is inherently a self-defeating proposition. As a consequence, it renders his pontifications on the public service incoherent and incomprehensible.
I also pick up on the astonishing comment by the member for Johnston in relation to the Northern Territory government seeking to acquire inalienable freehold. Deep sigh, face in palm, breath. Okay. The term ‘inalienable freehold’ means it cannot be alienated from the person who holds or possesses the freehold. That means, by way of legislative instrument or any other technique possible, even if it was the desire of the Northern Territory government to acquire the freehold which is described under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 of the Commonwealth as inalienable, that desire could not be any more fulfilled than my desire to walk upon the surface of the sun. It is not possible. It just cannot be done. Several things would have to occur before we could even begin to contemplate it. Under the current legislative environment, acquisition by the Northern Territory government of inalienable freehold property, whilst oxymoronic in proposition, is beyond the legislative scope of this parliament, jurisdiction and government.
To say we seek to compulsorily acquire Aboriginal land is a little like saying the Northern Territory government has territorial ambitions over Germany. Yet, sprinkling on our ears like little dew droplets of deceit from the member for Johnston, we hear this dark and villainous ambition which we harbour behind our cloak as we cackle evilly, twirl our moustaches and adjust our top hats. I find it astonishing that if you are to criticise us from the opposition benches you would use that vehicle. Of all the vehicles to run and challenge government with, why would you go for the go-kart? Seriously, it is fascinating.
Listening to the member for Johnston articulate that left me bereft, not because I felt as if I had in some way been caught out in my villainous and dastardly ambitions, but because only somebody who has been unconscious for the last 35 years and suddenly woken out of their slumbered stupor could make such an assertion with a straight face.
The other comments the member for Johnston made were in relation to native title. On several occasions – I am getting so worried about the member for Johnston’s speech writer, because the real member for Johnston normally does not get these things so wrong – he articulated native title as a property right. It is not. It is a bundle of rights which give you some access to a change-of-use process, can co-exist with pastoral leases, and does exist, either exclusively or non-exclusively, over Crown land. When the member for Johnston says it is a property right he utterly misrepresents what this right is and how it has been described by the High Court of Australia.
It is frustrating in the extreme to listen to members opposite articulate these things when they are so vacuously ill-informed that the presence of any thought would be welcome over the absence of thought we see presiding between the ears of the members opposite. Please, for the sake of a mature debate to which the member for Johnston referred, find out what on earth you are talking about before you meander into this place, clutching in your sweaty little palms a speech that turns to papier-mch in your hands only shortly after it is clearly demonstrated there is papier-mch between your ears.
I am concerned that members opposite genuinely struggle with these issues, because should they form the next government of the Northern Territory they will have to go back to Law 101 on some of these issues just to get through the most basic briefing notes from their departments.
I also pick up on the maiden speech of the member for Casuarina. I welcome her to this House and understand her enthusiasm. I welcome any breath of fresh air that comes into the Labor Party, because goodness gracious me, as clearly demonstrated today, they know they need it. But the reality of the place we occupy is that it has to deal with governance issues for the people of the Northern Territory. I note after she addressed you, Madam Speaker, which was entirely appropriate, she acknowledged the Larrakia people upon whose land we stand.
The member for Casuarina needs to understand that the Labor Party, whilst in government, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money fighting a native title claim over Darwin. For the edification of members, at the risk of oversimplifying a native title argument, some would suggest that to successfully argue that native title has been defeated is to successfully argue that cultural genocide has occurred because of the breakage of links with the bundle of rights that are native title.
The former Labor government acknowledged – and the Labor Party still does apparently – the traditional owners of the Darwin area after it spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting in the Federal Court the claims of the Larrakia people over Darwin. It is unfortunate that the very organisation that so stridently fought and spent taxpayers’ money fighting a claim now acknowledges that claim in symbolic ways only.
That is the reality of what we do. I support the decision the former Labor government made in relation to fighting those claims. Nevertheless, reading the decision by Justice Manfield leaves one saddened because so little of traditional Larrakia rights exist today, and further saddened by the fact the extinguishing event, if memory serves me from reading the case, occurred in the 1920s or 1930s rather than in more recent times. We persevere with the symbolic acknowledgement of native title holders, but the former Labor government made sure that acknowledgement was nothing more than mere symbolism. It always feels uncomfortable when I hear people from the Labor Party make this acknowledgement when in fact they never gave any real credence to the legitimacy of the claim made against the former government.
This is unlike the former Country Liberals government, which gave some credence to the potential claim so when Palmerston was expanded into the suburbs that exist now, potential native title holders were identified and an arrangement was put in place which ultimately led to a number of jobs and development opportunities going to the claimants, rather than going through a fight in the courts.
It is a curious mix where you will hear members opposite say they fight for Aboriginal rights when in fact they are quite happy to go to court against them.
I thank members for their contributions to the debate, as much as some members struggled with it. This legislation is merely a conferral act to confer jurisdiction to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal for the Building Act and the Building (Resolution of Residential Building Work Disputes) Regulations; the Caravan Parks Act; the Control of Roads Act; the Energy Pipelines Act; the Geothermal Energy Act and Geothermal Energy Regulations; the Health Practitioner Regulations; the Heritage Act; the Land Acquisition Act and Land Acquisition Regulations; the Mineral Titles Act and Mineral Titles Regulations; the Pastoral Land Act and Pastoral Land Regulations; the Petroleum Act, the Planning Act and Planning Regulations; and the Residential Tenancies Act.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction Amendments) (No 2) Bill (Serial 92):
Clauses 1 to 24, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 25:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 26.1. I move that the word ‘its’ be omitted from clause 25(5) and the words ‘the applicant’s’ be inserted. This is a technical amendment and is necessary to preserve the consistency of the provisions of the Caravan Parks Act and the Residential Tenancies Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 49, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 50:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 26.2, omitting the words ‘legal practitioner’ in respect of the proposed section 63(1)(a) and that the words ‘lawyer with at least five years’ experience as a legal practitioner’ be inserted.
This is a technical amendment. The Legal Profession Act differentiates between lawyers and legal practitioners by reference to admission in the former case and the holding of a practicing certificate in the latter. The provision in the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act relating to eligibility for the roles of president and deputy president refer to the eligibility for appointment as a magistrate, which, in turn, is expressed in the Magistrates Act as being a lawyer and having been for at least five years.
In the ordinary course a judicial officer will not hold a practising certificate. If the jurisdictional transfers include provisions requiring that the tribunal include a ‘legal practitioner’, a judicial officer appointed as president/deputy president, or a retired judge or magistrate for that matter, could not sit. This is clearly not what is intended. This amendment corrects the anomaly.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 107, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 108:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 26.3 that the reference to section 57H(5) in clause 108 be omitted and section 57H(5)(b) be inserted. This is a technical amendment necessary to ensure the correct section of the act amended is being referenced.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 109 to 133, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 134:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 26.4 to clause 134(2). I move that the words ‘Commissioner to prepare’ in section 27(1) be omitted and the words ‘Tribunal for’ be inserted. This technical amendment is necessary to ensure consistency in the changes being made to the Caravan Parks Act and the Residential Tenancies Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 26.5 to clause 134(4). I move that the words ‘by the Commissioner’ in respect of section 27(1) be omitted and the words ‘for the Tribunal’ be inserted. This technical amendment is necessary to ensure consistency in the changes being made to the Caravan Parks Act and Residential Tenancies Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 134, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction for Native Title Matters) Bill 2014 (Serial 93):
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 27.1 inviting defeat of clause 2.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 defeated.
New clause 2:
Mr ELFERINK: I further move amendment 27.2, that new clause 2 entitled ‘Commencement’ be inserted after clause 1 and the words shall read:
- This Act commences on the day fixed by the Administrator by Gazette notice.
This is a technical amendment and is necessary to ensure the commencement provision contained in the bill allows the act to be commenced prospectively rather than retrospectively.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 27.3 that the Lands and Planning (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1998, Act No 1 of 1999, be omitted from the schedule. This is a technical amendment and is necessary as this act already has been repealed by the Legislation Repeal Act, No 39 of 2005.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bills reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Before we go to the question I place on the record my thanks to all the people involved in the process of introducing the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal legislation, as well as my thanks to the departments now assisting in creating the conferral legislation. As we step through this process we will probably see more bills associated with this tribunal than you will find in a flock of ducks. That is not a small amount of work for a number of public service departments to pursue.
I place on the record my particular thanks to Andrew Macrides, whose work on this has been nothing shy of monumental. This was cast upon him some 12 months ago as a brand new idea and is a testimony to his work ethic and capacity as a person who delivers for the people of the Northern Territory. We are fortunate to have such a fine public servant amongst us.
I note the former member for Casuarina, Kon Vatskalis, went to the point of crediting and thanking Mr Macrides for his work for the people of the Northern Territory. I want to ensure the efforts of Mr Macrides are recognised across the Northern Territory and by all members in this House, as well as his ability and the formidable intellect he brings to this legislation. Were he here, I imagine Mr Macrides would be blushing by now, but these are accolades well deserved. I am particularly proud to see the work he has done.
I also place on the record my thanks to Mr Bruxner, formerly of the Solicitor-General’s Office, who has taken up the temporary appointment of president for the next 12 months to help us build this from the ground up. This tribunal will serve the people of the Northern Territory particularly well, and I am grateful for the efforts of so many people, acknowledging in particular Mr Bruxner and Mr Macrides
Motion agreed; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Nurse Practitioners in the Northern Territory
Nurse Practitioners in the Northern Territory
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I present a statement on nurse practitioners in the Northern Territory.
I have often said nurses are the backbone of our health system. I am proud to stand before the Assembly to say this government has gone a step further in recognition of their hard work and commitment and has created a policy specifically to generate more opportunities for nurse practitioners.
The Strategic Plan for Nurse Practitioners endorses a target of 25 full-time nurse practitioners to be employed in our workforce by 2016. Through this plan the Country Liberals government will deliver an eightfold increase in nurse practitioners throughout the Territory government’s clinics and health services. The plan also provides a blueprint for establishing nurse practitioner positions in non-government and community controlled health services in our remote communities.
We need a targeted nurse practitioner strategy as the previous Labor government left the Northern Territory well behind other jurisdictions in Australia. While there were just over 1000 endorsed nurse practitioners in Australia, the Territory had only three designated positions, and unfortunately I know of endorsed nurse practitioners who have left the Territory to seek employment in other states and territories.
I am committed to addressing this situation. We need highly-skilled nurses in the Northern Territory and we cannot afford to lose those we already have in the system. To this end, it was apparent to me that a strategic approach for increasing the number of nurse practitioners in the Northern Territory was imperative, and I am pleased to say our strategy has already made some progress. Ten nurse practitioner positions within the Northern Territory health system have been initiated under this strategy since its launch in February this year, which is a significant achievement in just six months. It is evidence that this plan is a significant milestone in the Country Liberal government’s commitment to support career opportunities for nurses.
A nurse practitioner is endorsed to work in an advanced and extended clinical role. It is expected that nurse practitioners will work in primary healthcare, alcohol and other drug services, remote clinics, child health, diabetes, chronic disease and other outreach services. Nurse practitioners can directly refer patients to other healthcare professionals without the need to see a GP, and they can also prescribe a range of medications and order certain diagnostic investigations.
This demonstrates our support for the many wonderful long-term nurses who have provided healthcare to countless Territorians at our homes and in our clinics, hospitals and remote health centres. Increasing the opportunity for nurses to advance their careers and provide even more services to Territorians will benefit not only the 3591 nurses but our health system and the community.
The strategy also imbeds in policy a recruitment plan for the workforce into the future, attracting nurses to the Northern Territory where they can make a real difference to people’s lives as nurse practitioners in our unique urban, remote and regional communities. Increasing nurse practitioners in our workforce will greatly benefit remote communities. More nurse practitioners in the bush will enhance health outcomes for children and for the management of chronic diseases including diabetes, health disease and mental health just to name a few.
The nurse practitioner strategy will ensure that nurse practitioner positions will be in areas that will have the most impact on improving health outcomes and where these roles will work most effectively within the multidisciplinary team. Priority service areas include remote primary healthcare clinics; specialist outreach services; mental health; alcohol and other drugs services; urban community health; and district hospital emergency departments.
Importantly, increasing nurse practitioners within the healthcare workforce is not a strategy aimed at substituting or replacing medical practitioners. Instead, nurse practitioners will work alongside and complement medical practitioners, extending the capability of each healthcare team where these roles are implemented.
Working both collaboratively and autonomously within the multidisciplinary team in advanced and extended roles, the nurse practitioner has a scope of practice that builds on the platform of the skills and knowledge of the registered nurse.
This government has made a significant contribution to nurse practitioner prescribing in the Northern Territory with the implementation of the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act on 2 May this year, nurse practitioners were designated as authorised prescribers. They can now practice to the full extent of their scope with the legislated ability to issue a prescription. Importantly, they can only do this because of the qualifications and experience they must hold before using the title of nurse practitioner.
Under section 95 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act, ‘nurse practitioner’ is a protected title in Australia. This title can only be used by a nurse endorsed by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia. To become an endorsed nurse practitioner each registered nurse must complete a master’s degree and demonstrate practice at the most advanced level within their profession. They must have a minimum of five years’ postgraduate experience, and a minimum of three years as advanced practice nurses within a designated specialty.
Nurse practitioners are safe, provide evidence-based care and engage with people to promote health, prevent illness, facilitate a smooth journey through the complex healthcare system and administer a variety of curative therapies.
Although I can see the benefit of having nurse practitioners within the healthcare workforce, this is not only my opinion. National and international research shows that nurse practitioners have the capability to provide services that are safe, effective and efficient. They provide added value in an environment of fiscal restraint, and have a significant positive impact on health outcomes for consumers. Studies have also identified increased consumer satisfaction with services that employ nurse practitioners, compared with those without them. However, the rate and extent of the implementation of the nurse practitioner role across Australia has varied. There are also many more endorsed nurse practitioners than opportunities for employment.
Looking at the situation across Australia, the areas where there has been most success in implementing nurse practitioner positions are where organisations have worked strategically to match health service needs and specific nurse practitioner roles. Successful healthcare services have supported registered nurses who already have high levels of commitment to the organisation to gain specific skills and knowledge as nurse practitioner candidates, with dedicated positions in place for when they graduate.
Taking this evidence on board, there are three essential elements of the Strategic Plan for Nurse Practitioners in the Northern Territory. It is service-driven, with nurse practitioner education matching service needs, and it is underpinned by a robust clinical governance structure. Each of these elements builds on the experience of other jurisdictions, both good and bad, and incorporates a unique Territory flavour, so that we are well-placed to lead the nation in our approach.
The first element of the strategy is that health services will be the driving force behind identifying where nurse practitioner positions can be implemented. In other jurisdictions most nurse practitioner positions have been implemented where nurse practitioners have taken the initiative. Although there have been some successes, this approach is hit and miss, and there have been significant problems as well.
Our strategy ensures that nurse practitioner positions will be implemented in sites where they are of most benefit to achieving improved health outcomes. For example, two of the three nurse practitioners in place prior to implementing the strategy were employed in mental health. This number will expand further over the next three years, and a unique mental health nurse practitioner position is being implemented in the Emergency Department at the Royal Darwin Hospital.
We all know how hard the nurses and medical team work in the Emergency Department at the Royal Darwin Hospital. They are well-equipped to deal with the many physical injuries people present with at one of the busiest emergency departments in the country. However, not all nurses and doctors have the appropriate skills and knowledge to deal with people experiencing an acute mental health episode or with chronic mental illness who present with an acute injury.
The new mental health nurse practitioner position will provide triage, practical advice and assistance, assessment, short-term management and referral for mental health patients and their families in the emergency department. He or she will take referrals from medical practitioners and emergency department nurses, facilitate treatment consistent with best practice in mental health, and liaise with GPs, psychiatrists, psychologists and allied health professionals and practitioners to facilitate continuity of care for the client during admission and following discharge. This role will significantly extend the mental health expertise within the emergency department team.
Our emergency departments at the smaller regional hospitals are equally in need of specialised team members. Gove District Hospital led the way in the Territory by establishing one of the three nurse practitioner positions prior to the release of the strategy. This position will be joined by two more nurse practitioners over the next two years. In addition, the strategy has provided an opportunity to revise the fit between the role and the changing health service needs within the East Arnhem region.
There is evidence identifying that health problems within the under-three-years age group have serious consequences in cognitive development, poor educational outcomes and chronic disease, including intellectual disability later in life. Achieving targets for Indigenous children in this age group in remote communities and the urban centres of Darwin, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Nhulunbuy is a priority of this government.
It is our intention that nurse practitioners who specialise in child health will be among the 25 positions. We have begun this process by calling for expressions of interest from the current pool of experienced child health nurses working in a variety of contexts across the Northern Territory. A key role also being explored is a nurse practitioner specialising in rheumatic heart disease. This role will not only be an innovation in the Territory but will build on our international reputation for leading healthcare in managing this disease across the patient’s life span.
Nurse practitioners specialising in chronic disease management, including diabetes, will also be included among the 25 positions to be established. Since announcing the strategy, the two government health services have begun to develop position profiles and scope of practice for nurse practitioners to work with patients with diabetes, one in acute care and one to provide outreach services to Aboriginal people in remote communities.
The department is also assisting Sunrise Health Service Aboriginal Corporation and Katherine West Health Board to establish nurse practitioner positions to improve outcomes for patients with diabetes and chronic disease. Significant improvements in health outcomes have been achieved internationally through primary healthcare initiatives that include integrating nurse practitioners into the remote health workforce.
When I launched the strategy, I announced that nurse practitioner positions in remote health clinics will make a substantial contribution to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous health. Since February, an experienced remote area nurse has been selected to extend his knowledge and skills by undertaking the nurse practitioner course in preparation for a role as a nurse practitioner in a Top End community.
The primary healthcare team in Central Australia is examining which clinics will benefit the most from having a nurse practitioner as part of their resident workforce and where outreach nurse practitioners will be most effective.
The government’s healthcare reform agenda has seen the integration of remote health and outreach services within the Top End and Central Australia health services. This reform provides a unique opportunity to redesign the workforce and integrate the nurse practitioner role within the Northern Territory nursing career pathway. As the new services’ framework rolls out, more nurse practitioner positions that streamline the patient journey between acute and primary healthcare services will be explored.
Improving the lives of people experiencing the devastating effects of alcohol dependency is a key commitment for this government. We have made significant inroads so far in providing treatment for alcohol addiction and making positive changes to the lives of people and their families. In line with this commitment, a nurse practitioner position has been established in the alcohol and other drugs division, and a candidate has been recruited to establish this critical role. In the acute setting a nurse practitioner within the gastroenterology team is under consideration.
There is already an advance practice nurse who has completed his nurse practitioner studies specialising in chronic liver disease. Under the strategy there is the potential for a nurse practitioner to work in collaboration with the medical team to improve patient access to services in this area.
We also know our population is ageing, and as we grow older ourselves we all have a vested interest in ensuring good access to specialist services. Palliative care is critical in achieving the type of quality of life we all look forward to when nearing the end of our lives. Nurse practitioner roles in palliative care are well established in other jurisdictions. A designated position has been identified for an advanced practice nurse in this field who has recently graduated from the Charles Darwin University nurse practitioner program and is soon to be endorsed as a nurse practitioner.
The second element of the nurse practitioner strategy is working with educational providers to ensure nurse practitioners graduate with the right skills and knowledge for the Northern Territory. Working with Charles Darwin University has been critical in the discussions that have led and continue to lead each of the positions under development. Our Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer is a professorial fellow and has been instrumental in ensuring the nurse practitioner program at the university addresses the unique context of remote and Indigenous health. This close relationship was particularly important for the course achieving accreditation by the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Accreditation Council. Without this accreditation, students cannot be endorsed. Continuing the close relationship between health service and education is a key platform of the nurse practitioner strategy plan.
So too is providing financial support for nurse practitioner candidates to undertake the required study. Through the studies assistance grants administered by the Nursing and Midwifery Office, this government has prioritised support up to $5000 per year for nurse practitioner candidates.
The third element of the nurse practitioner strategic plan is governance. The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia requires that rigorous governance systems are in place to ensure compliance with the legislated role of the nurse practitioner.
Through the work of my department, this government is ensuring appropriate checks and balances are in place. They will ensure that nurse practitioners employed in government and non-government health services all have the required qualifications and endorsements to fulfil the role identified in their stated scope of practice.
My department will also ensure that nurse practitioners and health services demonstrate that the essential collaborative relationships between nurse practitioners, other nurses, doctors and allied health professionals are in place and that service level agreements for diagnostic services are complied with.
The governance framework also requires that key performance indicators are monitored and audit systems are in place to evaluate compliance with safety and quality standards.
I have spent some time outlining how nurse practitioners can benefit Territorians and the health system. What about the nurses themselves? Sometimes as Health minister it is all too easy to get drawn in by the big picture, the improvements, best practice and great outcomes and lose sight of what is in it for the people. As I draw to a close I will spend a minute or so talking about nurses and why this represents a great advance for them individually.
When I worked in allied health it was easy to see the health profession, while having all the appearance of a pyramid from the outside, is, from the inside, a highly integrated jigsaw, all sectors fulfilling their roles, doing their best to provide complete care for their patients. But as things change – technology, work practices and even the people – they create small gaps in the jigsaw that makes up the Territory’s health system.
It is these sorts of gaps that lead to opportunities, and nurse practitioners can play an integral role in filling some of those key gaps.
Of course, choosing to train as a nurse practitioner is not for all nurses, but it is important to provide this pathway for some nurses to expand their horizons, maximise their opportunities and add to the jigsaw that is healthcare in the Northern Territory. For those who want to take this path, I assure you we are now offering support, positions and training. I am keen for nurses to take this opportunity for their own benefit as much for the help it will provide to the health system.
This strategy makes a real commitment to supporting nurses to work to the full scope of their extended practice roles so they can make an even greater contribution to the health and wellbeing of Territorians.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Health minister for bringing forward this very important statement. We support the work happening to bring more nurse practitioners into the Territory’s workforce. There is no doubt that a strategic plan to encourage and grow the nursing practitioner workforce is a very sensible and good move by government.
Last sittings we discussed, with regard to Indigenous health practitioners, that when it comes to your health, you want to deal with somebody you trust, and there is no doubt that one of the most trusted professions is nursing. Nurses are true professionals, and they are very special people because they go into a career that is all about helping people. They go into a job where every day they take care of people who are at their most vulnerable, and work to keep them healthy. That is a very noble career path to take.
The opposition is very pleased to recognise the critical contribution of nurses to the quality of life, from birth to death, and their dedication and professionalism in delivering quality health services to Territorians no matter where they live. We are all mindful of the key challenges affecting the delivery of health services in the Northern Territory: our geography and service delivery challenges and the necessity, for many years, for our nurses, especially those in the bush, to make critical day-to-day decisions that are often life or death, remembering that very simple events in very remote locations, such as heat stroke, low blood sugar levels or dehydration, can quickly lead to dreadful outcomes for people.
It is an awful feeling when you do not know what to do in a health crisis, when you are confronted when something is going very wrong with somebody’s health. It is a wonderful feeling of comfort when you have a health professional there who knows the steps to take, who is highly trained and has the skills to diagnose and treat the problem, especially when you are far away from appropriate health facilities. In many circumstances, especially in the bush, it is our nurses who provide that knowledge and comfort, but it is not just health emergencies where our nurses come to the rescue.
In the NT one of our key health challenges is the burden of chronic disease amongst our population. Key chronic disease issues in which the NT is leading the way in research, understanding and treatment are renal disease, diabetes and heart disease, to name a few.
Prevention and ongoing treatment of chronic and preventable disease is a pressing issue in the NT with its high numbers of Indigenous people. I remind the House of the COAG Reform Council report from June this year, noting that the rate of potentially preventable hospitalisation for Indigenous people is three to four times higher than the rate for other Australians, and that Indigenous people are three times more likely to die of an avoidable disease.
Our diverse population is also primarily a very young population but, thankfully, increasing numbers of senior Territorians are staying in the Territory, who ultimately require aged care support. This is another area where nursing support is so important to Territory families, especially when they have to deal with the consequences of ageing, like reduced mobility and, in many cases, dementia and other conditions affecting their loved ones.
As the minister stated, in the area of mental health there are already active nurse practitioners. This is an area of immense need in the Territory, and one that seems to be growing in health demands. It should be welcomed when nurse practitioners can play a role in the healthcare of Territorians with mental health issues.
More and more Territorians are now able to receive specialist healthcare in the Territory, particularly as a result of the growing healthcare sector over the last ten years. Initiatives like the Alan Walker Cancer Centre is a key example, where specialist healthcare is required with specialist nursing support.
Last sittings, when we discussed work to build the Indigenous health practitioner workforce, we also spoke of the distinctive cross-cultural challenges in providing quality healthcare in the Northern Territory. It is important to have the capacity to bridge cross-cultural communication, as well as a sound understanding of the diversity of cultural values of our health clients, not only Indigenous culture, but the increasing diversity of other cultures represented in the Northern Territory.
We are all mindful of the key progress made in closing the gap in Indigenous health and life expectancy. The work on building that progress and not letting any important health gains slip away – it is very important we stay focused on closing that gap. We must also stay focused on growing and developing our primary healthcare activities, a space where nurse practitioners will play a critical role.
Health research has shown time and time again that investment in primary healthcare services results in healthier populations and lower overall costs to the healthcare system. We have plenty of evidence of the value of investment in primary healthcare, including the recent example of the 10-year study by Dr Susan Thomas, a study into diabetes treatment which found that every dollar spent on primary healthcare for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory with diabetes can save $13 in hospital treatment.
We are increasingly recognising the need for a special focus on the health and wellbeing of young Territorians in the formative early childhood years. In all these important areas of health work it is our nursing workforce which provides the backbone of our health system. Those of us who have needed the support of our health system will recall, with affection, the comforting hand and advice nurses provide, often in times of confusion and need, and not just to us, but to our families. They can be very comforting during those times.
Nationally, the 2013 Roy Morgan Image of Professions Survey found that nursing continues to be one of our most highly-regarded professions. Ninety per cent – which has remained unchanged in three years – of Australians aged 14 and over rate nurses as the most ethical and honest professionals. It was the 19th year in a row since nurses were first included in the survey in 1994.
We are pleased to see more progress in delivering and developing nurse practitioners in the Northern Territory. Nurse practitioners provide advanced and extended health services to patients, and their practice is designed to enable them to support patients throughout their health treatment. They can reduce the need to see a doctor, prescribe medications and order diagnostic investigations. In our health system they will make treatment far more streamlined for many patients, and hopefully make treatment options quicker and far less stressful for those in need of them.
In the Northern Territory the need for developing this capacity is even more urgent following the Abbott government’s budget cuts to the pre-vocational general practice program that will end this year, a budget decision resulting in the loss of 25 full-time equivalent doctors working in remote communities at any one time in the NT.
Importantly, nurse practitioners can also directly refer patients to other health professionals, assisting in a timely and seamless transition for treatment for pressing or chronic health conditions. The nurse practitioner role provides a new level of service to our community. It is designed to provide timely access to healthcare for all Australians.
As we have heard, a nurse practitioner is a registered nurse who has completed advanced university study at a master’s degree level and who has clinical training which develops the role. Nurse practitioners are able to independently conduct diagnostic tests, interpret the results of those tests, develop patient care plans and prescribe treatment, including approved medications.
Importantly, they also provide guidance and mentoring expertise to our health professionals, both to younger and less experienced nurses and to visiting health professionals. Becoming a nurse practitioner will offer an exciting path forward for many in their careers. It will help many nurses further pursue their areas of interest to the highest level as a nurse and strengthen the Territory’s health system. This is a good thing and I hope it helps retain more nurses in the job in the Territory.
I first encountered a nurse practitioner when I was out doorknocking. I heard her story and how passionate she was about the profession and seeing more nurse practitioners developed in the Northern Territory. As a result of not being able to pursue her area of interest as a nurse practitioner she had left the Territory, the place she loved and where her family was. She was still coming back to do some work here, but it was a real shame to see someone of that calibre who had developed their career in the Territory and had the knowledge of the Territory health system having to leave to pursue her passion and to be a nurse at the highest level. I completely support the moves to further develop more nurse practitioner positions within the health system. It was a story I took on board at the time and it was very soon after that the new strategic plan was released. It was good to hear firsthand from somebody who had a huge interest in the Territory who wanted to stay. It is good to see there will be more opportunities for people in her position in the future.
It is also important to ensure the focus is not only on urban areas but in the bush. I welcome the work that will take place with Aboriginal health organisations such as Katherine West and Sunrise. I hope we see more of this work in the bush.
We are very supportive of this minister’s and this government’s commitment to developing our nurse practitioner health workforce for today and the future. However, we are left questioning some of the challenges that are ahead in doing this, considering we have seen some fairly deep cuts to the health budget.
I acknowledge the work of my Territory Labor colleagues while they were in government in supporting the health system to develop in the Northern Territory, particularly around the work with the CDU and Flinders University health education partnership. That work has helped enable the Territory’s health system further and worked towards building the nurse practitioner workforce. CDU has offered a nurse practitioner program since 2008, but the new reaccredited courses increase the focus on remote and Indigenous health.
We applaud these important measures that will increasingly become more important as we go towards the pathway of some hefty health budget cuts in the future, driven by the Abbott government. The Chief Minister has forecast that these cuts over the forward estimates will mean hundreds of millions of dollars will be cut from the Territory’s health system. There are some very big challenges ahead, particularly within our hospital system, but also programs that will be impacted in the bush. We have seen some very big cuts around the primary healthcare sector. It is very important at this time to see more nurse practitioners, but there are clearly more challenges ahead in being able to deliver them.
Another issue we wanted to raise about nurse practitioners is the incentives to get them to come to the Territory, stay, and to pursue these degrees. The sacrifice they have to make, particularly when they go through study to a master’s degree level, is a huge personal commitment, a big financial commitment and a big time commitment.
We have to be practical about this. We know people are passionate about their careers and they want to go forward and become nursing practitioners, but they want to be certain when they get out of that there will be jobs. Also, we need to have the right mechanisms in place to ensure they have the right amount of pay to ensure they can stay in the Territory.
I have been advised that nurse practitioners are to be paid around the Nurse 6 level. That will equate to around $110 000 a year if the new EBA goes through. It is a huge responsibility the nurse practitioners will be taking on. They already have a very high level of experience, and studying a master’s degree is a big commitment and a big workload. It is something you have to take into consideration. At the previous level of Nurse 5 they still had access to penalty rates and overtime. When they weigh up the wages, some people might be left questioning if they go that extra yard with the study and sacrifice to get to that level.
The cost of living is a challenging factor for many people in the Territory and has driven many people away from the Territory. It is important to ensure we have the right wages and conditions in place to make it practical for somebody to undertake the study to become a nurse practitioner and ensure they can afford to continue living here. It is a big investment to go through all that training, and we want to make sure when people take these positions they stay to benefit the health system.
There are some challenges and I would like to hear more about the structures and retention strategies to ensure we keep nurse practitioners here, because we want to see them stay.
We certainly want to see more nurse practitioners, but the work to get nurse practitioners to come to the Territory, or people to decide to become a nurse practitioner, should not mean we lose focus on recruiting and retaining doctors in the Northern Territory. It is important this is not seen as a mechanism to cut cost where doctors are still required and that we do everything to ensure we keep making the Territory an attractive place for doctors, or for homegrown doctors to stay in the Territory health workforce. We do not want to see any work put to the side because of the strong focus on nurse practitioners. It is essential that work to bring doctors to the Territory continues.
We also need to make sure a strong message is being sent to the health profession workforce that the deterrents we heard about earlier this year have been tackled. For example, earlier this year we saw reports of the Health department using temporary contracts in many cases. It was reported on 27 May that more than 2000 of the department’s 5000 employees were on temporary contracts.
The head of Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, Yvonne Falckh, said at the time:
- Sometimes we get the feeling (temporary contracts) are used as a management tool … as a means of doing what they want.
…
We have also seen numerous reports with regard to bullying throughout the NT’s health system. There has been some fairly comprehensive reporting through local media with regard to that and some deep concerns have been raised. We have seen headlines such as ‘Rampant bullying festers in the Health department’ and an editorial on 27 May with the headline ‘Sickness takes hold in Health’.
We have also heard stories that there are some particularly big issues in remote clinics. It is something the chief executive has acknowledged. It was good to hear during the June estimates that he was encouraging people to contact him directly about issues with bullying so he could personally take them up. However, it was clear there was an issue, given the chief executive had to step in to open those lines of communication. It is important we tackle those issues so the workplace is as attractive as possible to retain people and get them to make the commitment to become nurse practitioners.
Nurses have an incredibly stressful job at times, in some of the most trying conditions within the Territory health system. We have the most chronic sickness in Australia. We have the most horrendous rate of domestic violence and alcohol abuse, and often, tragically, it is our health professionals who have to deal with the consequences of it. They are on the front line. It is an incredibly stressful job where they can make decisions that are life or death for people. With the extra pressure of all these health conditions and some of the horrendous abuse they see day-to-day, it certainly does not make it easier. We need to make sure the workplace is the very best workplace possible.
We have seen some huge issues and hear of ongoing issues with double-bunking in the emergency department. That is just a fact; it does happen. In my conversations with nurses who work in the emergency department, they find it pretty tough going. They are concerned about how it all works, having to move patients around and the standard of practice. They do their very best under very stressful and trying situations and always have the patient’s health and care as their top priority, but there is no doubt there have been some big issues that have placed nursing staff under immense pressure.
We have also heard from many people within Royal Darwin Hospital with regard to the challenges of bed block, with the pressures on them day-to-day to clear the wards to get patients out as soon as they can, and to find beds for patients who need to come in. It has been a challenge and we have seen incredible work done by the health professionals within the hospital. We have seen the nurses working at their hardest, and it is a welcome relief to see we finally have 40 beds open in the medi-hotel open. That is 40 of the 100 beds there. We have had many debates and arguments with regard to the use of that facility. Two years ago we had that facility ready to go, and two years later we are finally seeing it available to alleviate pressure on the Royal Darwin Hospital.
In conversations I had a couple of weekends ago with somebody working within the hospital, they said they had six patients they knew of who would be going straight in there. They could see the immediate benefit the medi-hotel would have on Royal Darwin Hospital. We know 40 beds are available and we have been told that 100, the full capacity of the medi-hotel, will be up and running at the start of next year. That is something we will be keeping a very close eye on, because we want to see the medi-hotel used for its full intended purpose; it was not built without reason.
There was a lot of work done to attract funding to build that facility, so we need to see it used to its full potential. We are looking forward to seeing that happen. Our staff working within the Royal Darwin Hospital would like patients to have the very best standard of care, and they have really been under the pump with the bed block issues.
On a positive note, we welcome the work to build the Territory’s nurse practitioner workforce. We applaud the recognition of the value of further developing the capacity to establish more nurse practitioners in a raft of health areas. We want to see more recruited and retained. It is a really important move to ensure the government has some very clear career paths for our nurses who want to stay and pursue their careers to the highest level.
We welcome this statement. I thank the minister for bringing the statement on in these sittings because the last time I saw it come up I was in labour; t was nice to be able to speak to the statement today. The opposition supports more nurse practitioners in the workforce and we will keep an eye on the work the government is doing as they will be a welcome addition to the Territory’s health system.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of the minister’s statement and to make some general comments in regard to nurse practitioners and nurses generally.
Earlier this year it was my pleasure to be involved in a function for International Nurses Day. Nurses are the unsung heroes, working quietly behind the scenes to support the community’s needs, whether they are medical, emotional or psychological. They are the kind of people who can often soothe the troubled soul, help mend broken hearts and calm a worried mind, in addition to all the health and medical assistance they give to people in need. It gives me great pleasure to support this statement by the Minister for Health, Robyn Lambley.
One of the most famous nurses, who paved the way for the esteemed professional, as most of us know, was Florence Nightingale. Ms Nightingale was a celebrated English social reformer and statistician, and the founder of modern nursing. She came to prominence while serving as a nurse during the Crimean War, where she tended to wounded soldiers and became known as the Lady with the Lamp, after her habit of making rounds at night, checking on patients.
During International Nurses Day, Ms Janie Mason launched her book From hospital to university – a Northern Territory nursing story, and I urge all members who have not read it to avail themselves of it. It is an interesting journey of nursing and nursing practitioners in the Northern Territory. It goes through the history of nursing in the Territory and captures the unique challenges nurses faced, incorporating such things as distance, language barriers, tropical diseases many of them might not have come across before and, in many cases, the competing demands of a very esteemed profession.
I will read from the preface of the book:
- The development of nursing in Australia’s Northern Territory fits within the context of the Australian story of this traditionally, poorly-paid and low-status female occupation – from Lucy Osburn’s First Nightingales in Australia to the professionalising changes of recent decades. There is however much that is different. From the first lonely nurses practising in a very different social and physical environment from their southern counterparts, the Territory nursing story has its own unusual features.
- As a young nurse …
This is Janie Mason talking.
- … not far from a southern hospital training school, it seemed often to be ‘not my place’ as I practised alone, both geographically and professionally isolated. There was no Bush Book then …
- … nor Where there is no doctor, nor CARPA manual …
CARPA stands for Central Australian Rural Practitioners Association.
- They came much later. It also seemed that my training of science of cause and effect could not explain some of my experiences in the Batchelor Hospital of 1964. From then, in our awesome landscapes of bush and sea, my work and life has been part of an exciting and a changing Territory. I have been one of the many nursing pioneers and adventurers who have been part of the evolving story of Territory nursing.
After reading that excerpt, you can imagine a young woman, just out of nursing school, who has never been away from her community or family, going to a remote location in the Northern Territory. Coming to the Northern Territory in the mid-1960s must have been a very daunting, if not scary, move, but clearly many people did it, stayed in the Territory and have contributed to the wonderful history of nursing here.
I will give you an overview of the first nurses in the Territory, again from Janie Mason’s book.
- Alice McGuire, the first Matron of Palmerston Hospital on Port Darwin in the Northern Territory arrived 1 May 1874. Her husband was initially given a job with the Territory Police on her appointment, a pattern of recruitment for skills which still is often necessary to attract a skilled workforce to Australia’s remote north.
- He proved unsatisfactory and was put in charge of the hospital’s vegetable garden and the cows and fowls. This pattern of a single trained nurse, the matron, was to continue until 1886 when a second trained nurse came on staff. There were thus two nurses, including the matron, by the time of the 1887 cyclone which severely damaged the hospital.
McGuire was not a Nightingale. She did not receive her training through a Nightingale School of Nursing. Her husband had been in the military of the East India Company and she had nursed in India from 1862 to 1871. It is probably safe to assume however that her training experience would have been influenced by the Nightingale model, given Nightingale’s influence on military, sanitation and hospital design in India. Despite much dislike of Nightingale in the Military as she fought for improved military medical services in India, it is inevitable that the trend for her nursing reforms should occur in the East India Company’s military hospitals.
Nursing in a modern age, now in the 21st century, has its own challenges, just as they had challenges then. The challenges today, again, range from unique tropical diseases and how they change and morph for a variety of reasons, we have an ageing population and we have chronic health issues in the Northern Territory, both urban and remote. These challenges are in addition to isolation in remote communities, a long way from home and family, social upheaval, resourcing and recruitment. Sometimes, nurses do so much with so little, and despite that they continue to make a difference to many Territorians’ lives.
In my own electorate there is a very high proportion of nurses and retired nurses, who have given their support to all types of areas, including schools, remote health services and hospital positions. They work in aged care; midwifery; ICT; aeromedical, CareFlight as it is now called; and in health clinics and some of the schools in the Palmerston and rural areas. Maybe some of these people will become nurse practitioners, or will encourage some of their younger colleagues to become nurse practitioners. I know they will ensure these opportunities are known to people.
When I was doing some research for this, I asked how many nurses there were at the hospitals in the Territory. I was surprised at the number of nurses employed in these establishments. Royal Darwin Hospital has over 1000 nurses, Alice Springs has about 500, Katherine about 100, Tennant Creek about 46, Gove 57, and in ‘other’, which includes clinics in remote places, there are 647. There are nearly 2500 nurses, and they are the ones we know about. There might be some who have recently retired or work in a voluntary capacity.
This is a good statement, and it will see the delivery of an eightfold increase in nurse practitioners throughout the clinics and health services in the Territory. It is good if we can get an additional 25 people, because we have substantial health challenges in the Territory. Currently we only have the three full-time nurse practitioners, and if we can get more that be a bonus for everyone.
It is expected that the nurse practitioners will work in primary healthcare, alcohol and other drug services, remote clinics, child healthcare, diabetes, chronic disease and other outreach services. Nurse practitioners can directly refer patients to other healthcare professionals without the need to see a GP, which will be a real bonus, especially in rural and remote communities. They will be able to prescribe a range of medications and other diagnostic investigations. Again, that will be a real bonus for people living rurally and remotely.
Nurses are the backbone of our health system in the Territory and we should be leading the nation in rolling out more nurse practitioners to support our nurses. The commitment by the government will go a long way to doing this.
I place on the record some of the people in my electorate I have come across who are nurses, past and present, and compliment them on the work they do, both within the public and private health systems. Mary Vitkus works at the Royal Darwin Hospital. She works in emergency sometimes, but also works in the other wards. Ruth Hanssen is also a nurse involved in the public sector. Mrs Ottley is also one of the current nurses. I have a list of names here but I will not read them all out because some I know and some I do not. They are across all of the rural areas.
There are some nurses I know who have retired. One of them is Narelle Craufurd who lives in the member for Nelson’s electorate. She is one of the nurses who works in a primary school. Tanya Anderson, June de Clifford – Jo Nelder is a retired nurse. Carrol Lynch works part-time in my electoral office and is a retired nurse of many years in the Northern Territory. Heather Boulden is also a retired nurse. She is also referenced in Janie Mason’s book. She is also one of those pioneering people in the nursing profession of the Northern Territory and very much involved with Friends of Fogg Dam. Some of you would know her and the work she does there.
The other nurse I would like to compliment on her past and current work is Margaret Fuller, who lives in my electorate. Margaret Fuller was an aeromedical nurse for 30-plus years, and an outstanding professional, not only in her nursing career, but also her quasi-medical career. She still works part-time at Royal Darwin Hospital and has gone on to do additional training and studies. When Marg Fuller was working in aeromedical with Pearl Aviation, the high standing in which she was held by the company and the government, particularly the company, resulted in them wanting to name an aircraft after her. She declined; she is such a humble person, but is a true professional and a delightful person.
I compliment her and all the other nurses, rural as well as everywhere in the Northern Territory, on the good work they do in the public and private sectors. If there is anything I can do to encourage people to become health and nursing practitioners, I will do it.
Minister, thank you for this very good statement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing on this important statement.
It was interesting listening to the member for Goyder talk about the number of nurses in the Northern Territory. We have to remember how lucky we are when we hear there are three or four doctors in Malawi per 100 000 people. Sometimes when we cry that life is a bit tough in the Northern Territory we need to keep our feet on the ground and have a look around. Some countries really suffer from lack of the facilities we are lucky to have in the Northern Territory.
I totally agree with the member for Goyder about Marg Fuller, who I have known for many years. I worked out bush, and she was a wonderful nurse. I remember coming home from Parliament House with a swollen leg and calling in to the Palmerston Super Clinic when it was free. It was about 11.30 pm after finishing here and she was on duty. The service I received from Marg was fantastic. She also checked my heart to see if I was ticking over okay. She was concerned about my health, and that is just how Marg Fuller is. She is a wonderful person. If you knew her for a long time, you would know she also loves looking after wallabies and kangaroos. She is one of those special people.
I support the reality of having nurse practitioners, but I feel I have an obligation to remember someone else in this parliament, a member of the CLP who, many years ago, brought this forward. Unfortunately that person resigned before the bill he brought forward could come into reality, if the Labor Party had supported it. It was Dr Richard Lim.
On 2 May 2007 he introduced the Health Practitioners Amendment (Nurse Practitioners) Bill. I listened to the second reading and was very much in support of what he said. Much of what the minister said today was in that second reading, about the gaps that had occurred between nurses and doctors and the need to fill some of the requirements that, in some cases, were left out. The Parliamentary Record says:
- There are some X-rays that could be easily and appropriately ordered by a registered nurse practitioner and, again, there will be a restricted list of X-rays that the nurse practitioner could occur.
He said:
- I know of instances where doctors have signed blank pathology forms, blank X-ray forms, and left them at health clinics or even in urban general practice, and the nurse then fills in the type of blood tests, X-rays or ultrasounds the nurse believes need to be done on the patient.
He said things were not correct. He said there was an obvious need to fill that. It is good to put on the record that this has been around nearly eight years. I will read a little of what he said so we understand where he was coming from.
- By creating this registered nurse practitioners category it will prevent all those sort of things from occurring. It will enable our nurses to perform at a much higher capacity. I believe patients in the Territory would receive a better level of healthcare than is currently available to them. The final benefit of that is we will have nurses of various levels of expertise working together in a health team with medical practitioners who would be there to provide strong support for them. If we can do that we will certainly move a long way towards providing better healthcare for the Northern Territory.
He went on to say
- I sent the material to the minister. He will, obviously, adjourn the debate to another time so he will have time to consider this amendment bill. I am pained to urge the minister to allow, or to negotiate with the Leader of Government Business, to allow this bill to come forward in June so that it can be debated through and, hopefully, gain government support. Soon after, we can have legislation to enable Northern Territory nurses to become registered nurse practitioners and fulfil a role that is desperately needed in the Northern Territory.
Unfortunately, to my surprise not long after that Dr Richard Lim retired. I am not being critical, because this is history, but it was never taken up by his own party again, until now; it is a pity. Seven years ago Dr Richard Lim put this forward.
Dr Lim could be a feisty bloke at times and he enjoyed a good debate, even at 11.30 pm in an adjournment, but he had some great ideas. He was a doctor committed to improving the health of people in the Northern Territory. I raise this today because it is important when we are discussing this that we do not leave him out of the history. Obviously what he wanted did not happen, but it would be wrong of us to forget that at least he tried and for whatever reasons that legislation did not go forward in debate.
It is funny how when you talk about nurses, some things in your life stay with you. When I was about 11 or 12 I was in a hospital getting surgery on my arm, as I had polio. You are in a hospital, in an outer suburb of Melbourne on Port Phillip Bay, you have had your operation late at night, and as you come out of your anaesthesia …
Mr Elferink: Did they have anaesthesia that long ago?
Mr WOOD: Some people in my time, like in the civil war, just had whiskey, and a leather belt to bite on. No, it was not that long ago, member for Port Darwin.
For me, nurses are in a very special profession and they are very special people. Late at night, when the pain killer wears off, you are by yourself as a young boy, and a sister comes round – the old days when a sister with a red uniform or a red bib – sits beside you and talks to you. They are some of the things you never forget.
I have been in hospital for an operation for skin cancer for a week, and I know how hard those nurses in Darwin hospital work. Not everyone there is pleasant to the nurses. Some of them think it is a motel. They expect a three course meal and to click their fingers and everything is there just when they want it, even though there are many other patients who are in need of help. Nurses are a very special group of people and perhaps sometimes we do not recognise them enough.
It is not an easy job: cleaning up the floor after vomit; there is faeces, blood, people in pain and who are very sick and worried about their health. To some extent, a nurse has a vocation in life to help people. With this statement today, it is important we recognise what an important role they have in our society.
As the minister said:
- It is expected that nurse practitioners will work in primary healthcare, alcohol and other drug services, remote clinics, child health, diabetes, chronic disease and other outreach services.
They are not easy areas to be working in, especially alcohol and drug services; there are difficult people to deal with sometimes. It is not just about knowing all the ways to administer medicine, take a temperature or check an X-ray, you have to be able to deal with a human beings and the problems associated with humans them when they are under stress, or are dependent on drugs or alcohol. It is not an easy job.
The member for Wanguri was saying the government has to keep these people in the Territory. That is really important. It is not easy to keep people in these jobs, especially in remote communities. We want to make sure they will stay here for as long as possible. Many remote communities admire people who stay for a long time. I am not knocking the teaching profession, but when I worked out bush, many teachers would last a year and then go. There was never a chance to be part of that community. It is important that governments also encourage people, especially in the nursing profession, to try to stay and become part of the community where possible.
I thank the minister for her statement. It is important, and it highlights the need for, and recognises the importance of, nurse practitioners. I also thank Dr Richard Lim for at least getting this debate under way, even if it did take seven years longer.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to this debate, brought on by my colleague, the Minister for Health.
In this year’s budget the Giles government has made the largest allocation ever to the health sector, which is a reflection on our commitment to the Northern Territory community to provide appropriate services, notwithstanding the debt levels the Labor government created.
The Northern Territory is a challenging environment. Providing healthcare services to remote and regional communities and towns, coupled with a small, widely-scattered population, is a challenge in itself.
I draw a comparison to the greater area of Cairns that encompasses about the same population as the Northern Territory. In Cairns there are two hospitals and five or six health clinics. With the same population in the Northern Territory, we have five major hospitals and 79 health clinics. It is a huge number of hospitals and health clinics to service, and trying to find doctors to put in all of these places is a huge challenge, let alone providing other required health services.
Many of the primary access roads to these communities are unsealed. From a transport perspective it is so important that we have those roads sealed. It is so important we have air services in and out of those areas, or are at least able to get people into larger regional centres and major hospitals.
Within the Indigenous population of many of those communities, the proportion of serious and chronic diseases in all age groups is significantly greater than in the major urban centres of the Territory, and the challenges of providing quality health services increase exponentially.
The previous Labor government left the Northern Territory well behind other jurisdictions in Australia. We need a targeted nurse practitioner strategy, and I am so glad to hear that members opposite support another great initiative of the Territory government. Sadly, many of our good initiatives are not supported, but I am very grateful that the opposition supports this one.
The Minister for Health stated that there are about 1000 nurse practitioners in the country, but only three in the Northern Territory. Given the challenges we have with the remoteness of our communities and regional towns, it is essential we have a vibrant and solid nurse practitioner policy, as well as the education facilities to back up the training required to get sufficient numbers to assist in the delivery of quality health services across the Territory. Significantly increasing the number of nurse practitioners is a policy reform that will have significant impact on health service delivery across the Territory.
The Country Liberals plan to deliver an eightfold increase in Territory nurse practitioner numbers in the bush is a great initiative. The ability for a nurse practitioner to refer patients to other healthcare professionals without the need to see a GP, and to prescribe a range of medications and order certain diagnostic investigations, will be a significant benefit to complement existing arrangements.
I heard the member for Nelson say doctors are simply signing blank documents to allow nurses to do these sorts of things in their absence. I imagine that has been going on for many years. With the advent of this legislation and policy, that will stop to a large degree.
Children in remote communities will benefit from more nurse practitioners in the bush, particularly in the management of chronic diseases. Practitioners will build on the skills and knowledge of registered nurses in remote and regional locations. They can be mentors for new nurses who want to take on the frontier to gather experience and knowledge in a wide variety of areas of their profession.
The Darwin-based nurse practitioner accreditation program at Charles Darwin University is a valuable asset to the Territory. I was also very fortunate to visit the medical training facility Flinders University has in conjunction with Charles Darwin University. I was very grateful to talk to a professor there who showed me around the establishment. I saw what fine medical facilities we now have. Combine that with Charles Darwin’s delivery of medical education there, it means we are going ahead in leaps and bounds. All credit to all those involved in providing those training courses.
Even as casual observer you cannot help but notice that a range of courses offered by Charles Darwin University has been a significant factor in helping to overcome the previous historical difficulties in recruiting health professionals to the Northern Territory. There is nothing like training your own! If you keep them and educate them here, they meet people here, settle down, have families here, and those who love the Territory do not have to go away to receive medical training, be it as enrolled nurses, registered nurses, doctors or nurse practitioners.
Increasing opportunities for nurses to advance their careers and provide even more services to Territorians will benefit not only the more than 3500 nurses, but our health system and our community overall. The strategy outlined by my colleague today will provide employment opportunities for graduates from the nurse practitioner program.
Mr Deputy Speaker, an initiative that makes a difference to health delivery throughout the Northern Territory is also welcome. The strategy outlined today should be applauded, and I recommend all members of this House take note of this great initiative, a very good policy.
I support the motion and commend it to the House.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the statement to the House. It is a great initiative for nurses, especially in the Northern Territory. It has always been a struggle for them to get into remote communities, so the strategy will probably work really well.
There is a lot in the statement about chronic disease. Recently I was in Oenpelli for my young cousin’s funeral. Menzies School of Health staff were there doing research on rheumatic heart disease to find out whether it was genetic or not. These are some of the extraordinary things they are doing there. I would really like to know the answer when they have finished their research. I have spoken to the CEO about it today. He came to see us after talking to you, minister. There are really interesting things happening in research within the Aboriginal community, and ways of improving Aboriginal health.
We all know it has always been a struggle for Aboriginal people in remote areas. The arguments in this House have always been thrown back and forward between the two parties about who is doing better. At the end of the day, Aboriginal people want what is best for them. The infrastructure and the amount of money that comes in for Aboriginal disadvantage from the federal government will never be enough to settle the problem, until there are roads, better food – the quantity and quality in the shops. Not everybody has a car to get to Katherine, Gove or places like that to buy proper food. These are the real issues. Chronic disease will exist until we make a difference in that area.
We can all sit here and fight about the same things over and over, but it is not really going to make any difference at the end of the day. The most depressing part is coming in here and listening to members talk about who has been doing better and who has done wrong in the past. If the people out there sat in this gallery, especially the ones who have to bury their people every day, and listened to this argument, they would be pretty disappointed. We bury one person every day. It is sad enough. The health conditions are worse than anything, and it will get worse because of the drug problems. Now ice is going to the community, but there is no talk about that.
Lately my colleague and I have been in my electorate talking to the local police officers about the Sentencing Act and drugs in the community and how it is basically like petrol; you light one fire and it moves to the next place. You put this one out – it is like constantly chasing a fire. The penalties for people selling drugs are not enough for the police officers, and they are constantly fighting a battle which could go on forever.
What are we going to do to make life better for people in the bush? We can have people go out there with all the knowledge and expertise in the world, but when will we utilise the people already in remote communities who can do the job? There are Aboriginal health practitioners but they are not given enough strength, effort or investment to gain that experience. They can have a master’s degree as well.
We are elected to parliament to make life better for everybody and give everybody an equal opportunity in this world, but Aboriginal disadvantage is the biggest issue in Australia – worldwide – and it will be until we change the way we think about it and stop blaming each other. This problem will not go away, and it is frustrating, as an Indigenous member, to repeat myself over and over. It is a great statement and I support it 100%, but I sit here and listen to everything else. The minister put a lot of effort into this. She is going down a great path, she is leading the way, but there is still a lot of work to be done, especially in health in remote areas. Sunrise Health, Katherine West Health Board – there has not been a lot of investment in those areas, because they are NGOs, to have positions for nurse practitioners to invest their time and work in remote communities.
It is a great initiative and I support it, but the biggest problem in remote communities is in renal health. You have renal infrastructure in place which probably two to four members utilise, but there is not one renal nurse working there and looking after these patients, and that is almost in every area. Perhaps the government can look into that, minister. There have been many incidents in the past because renal patients have to come here to be trained to look after themselves when they are out bush, and that is about two years’ training.
Yes, they can look after themselves, but sometimes there are incidents were the nurses in the remote clinics, and the Aboriginal health workers, have to rush in because of bleeding problems and things like that where they have gone through the main artery. Problems like that really exist out there and it is a big issue. Family members do not like to sit around smelling blood or looking at blood. It is an issue. Some family members try to support their loved ones but there really is a need for renal nurses in remote areas where there is infrastructure in place for clients.
Nurses have always been the backbone of the health system, yes. Some of the great nurses who still work in remote areas have propped up remote clinics so well. Barunga, for example, has done such a fantastic job with remote Aboriginal health practitioners. They are practically nurses at the end of the day; they do what nurses do. They are veterans who worked during the Vietnam War, but they came back and put their effort in where they knew it was needed most. They are dedicated. I salute the nurses who came back and did that because they did the work and educated Aboriginal practitioners a little every day, and that is all they need.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the government and the minister for bringing this forward because it is a fantastic initiative, looking at many areas of poor health. It is not just concentrating on putting health practitioners in the bush; it is identifying areas that can start seeing results at the end.
Minister, is we know strategic plans often sit on tables in departments for many decades. I hope this one does not get lost in the bureaucracy. I hope your vigour is replicated by your agency and all these things are looked at. It is really important that you are looking at what is really the backbone of the Northern Territory.
I take this opportunity to thank nurses in my electorate, especially at Papunya. Vicki and Danny, who have been there for many years, really are the backbone of bringing the community together, making sure they identify problems.
Overcrowded houses is a really big health factor. There has to be a combination of the Health minister and the Housing minister, if he is interested, to make sure the two agencies come together. Overcrowding in houses creates many health issues, as you know, Minister for Health. Scabies and hepatitis come from overcrowding. You cannot have renal patients living in houses that have 35, 25, 17 or even 12 people in them.
The disadvantage factor for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory is a big issue, and we need to look at it. This is a key initiative you have brought forward as government to make sure Indigenous issues are looked at. There are plenty of resources.
Mental health is another area, minister, where you have looked at supporting remote Aboriginal communities. Like my colleague, the member for Arnhem, said, there are drugs galore in our communities. I had the problem with my son at the last sittings, trying to overdose on ice. There are no support mechanisms for these children, and that is in Alice Springs. Some of these kids in remote Aboriginal communities like Millingimbi, Kintore, Hermannsburg, Papunya or Ampilawatja – the drugs. We talk about alcohol in this parliament all the time. Put alcohol to one side because you need to start talking about drugs. You need to talk about the impact of drugs on the next two generations of Aboriginal kids in communities. You need to make sure there are counselling services for kids in the communities. Kids are committing suicide because they have nobody to talk to. Parents are struggling because they have nobody to talk to. They cannot go to a counselling service like we can in Darwin, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Alice Springs, and they are minimal services. These communities have nothing.
In my visits I sit down and talk to parents who have just lost their children to suicide, because they have not been able to get that from anywhere else. We see these kids committing suicide all the time. It is suicide through drugs. Yes, statistics are reducing on alcohol consumption, but statistics and data should be showing us all as parents, aunties, uncles and grandmothers that drug use, not just in remote Aboriginal communities but in towns like Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin, is on the increase. You have parents in northern suburb seats in Darwin crying about their children because they are using ice. We have to act on these issues now.
It is a fantastic strategy, minister, to see you collectively harness these other areas to put into the focus of a strategic plan to lead your government. But it is really important and appropriate that we look at overcrowding of houses and appropriate counselling services with our people working in remote Aboriginal communities. I understand we will not be able to put counselling services in every remote Aboriginal community; we also cannot have doctors in every community, but this is the time for us to be talking about these issues and helping Aboriginal people.
Our kids are struggling. I do not know whether anybody here saw Four Corners last night, but it was shocking to all of us as Australians, and it should be a shock to us as Territorians and parents. We need to get together and develop a committee to look at what the human cost of amphetamine use in remote Aboriginal communities and rural towns is to the Northern Territory taxpayer. It is important we have a direction for the next year-and-a-half of this government to help these young Territorians.
These young people are the future generation; they are our kids, nieces and nephews. If you do not have the services in remote Aboriginal communities, how will these parents and the community deal with the struggle and these issues? How will they talk about the impact on the family and cultural structure, and what is happening on a daily basis to their children? Maybe there is a connection between the number of kids coming into child protection that we need to look at as well. Are they mostly coming from drug using parents? They are the kind of programs we need to make sure we are focused on a forward direction as a government and parliament.
It is a fantastic strategy, minister. I congratulate you and I support the statement.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank my colleagues for supporting this statement on increasing the number of nurse practitioners in the Northern Territory.
I was very interested to hear the contribution of the member for Nelson, who talked about the former shadow Minister for Health, Dr Richard Lim. He brought a similar proposal to the parliament approximately seven years ago, which is news to me, but it does not surprise me.
Richard Lim was a medical practitioner, and he was committed to improving health services within the Northern Territory. From the position of opposition you are very limited in how effective you can be, but the story the member for Nelson told me was about how tardy the former Labor government was in this space. A doctor, a general practitioner by profession, brought an important suggestion to the Northern Territory parliament, and it was effectively ignored. It was a lost opportunity, and it took seven years to come around again. That is a sad story, but I am proud we have finally reversed that. We are finally doing something about a matter that should have been dealt with a long time ago.
The other interesting statement, emphasised by my colleague, the member for Sanderson, was that we have many nurses employed throughout the Northern Territory, and we all genuinely value them. These are, by and large, incredible people. I have shared before in this Chamber that many of my closest and dearest friends in the world are nurses, most of who work in the Northern Territory for the Northern Territory government. I have very great admiration for these people, as all who have participated in the debate have said.
With such a large number of nurses employed by the Northern Territory government – at the moment we have about 2365 nurses – only three of those, up until recently, were nurse practitioners. Out of almost 2400 nurses, only three of them had attained the level of being employed by the Northern Territory as nurse practitioners.
Coming into the position of the Minister for Health approximately 18 months ago, these are the types of stories I was uncovering where the former Labor Ministers for Health had not done a particularly good job. Under every stone I found a story of tardiness and, essentially, laziness in not doing the right thing by Territorians. Tonight we are talking about nurse practitioners and how there should be – and will be soon – many more employed within the Northern Territory government. We have lost all those years and are trying to make that up very quickly.
I took on board the comments of the member for Namatjira who urged me to not let another strategic plan gather dust on someone’s desk within the bureaucracy. I will not let that happen. This strategic plan for nurse practitioners I presented to the public in February 2014 will not collect dust. I have put targets on the department that it will reach. We will be reviewing those targets close to the election. The current target is to increase the number of nurse practitioners from three to 25 by 2016. That leads us into the next election.
It is a fairly modest target but a substantial increase on what we were left with by Labor. Essentially, the former Labor government, through its sheer neglect and tardiness, prevented registered nurses from becoming employed nurse practitioners in the Northern Territory. That is something to be deeply ashamed of. I realise most of the Labor members we have in this Chamber were not a party to that sort of tardiness, but some were. Some actively presided over taking their eye off the ball and allowing this to occur. They have done no service to nurses and midwives in the Northern Territory.
The nurses and midwives’ union aligns with the Labor Party and, ultimately, a Labor government. It is that union and that government that has let nurses down in this case. They should be deeply ashamed for not giving Northern Territory nurses the real opportunity to extend their learning and education, and to be employed in jobs in which they could have been performing an extended role, as I described in my statement.
The same story goes to the tardiness around the lack of opportunities and development of the Aboriginal health practitioner profession. That was another story I uncovered soon after becoming Health minister, another rock I looked under where I found another example of tardiness, laziness and the former Labor government taking its eye off the ball, to the extent the profession has languished and become a lot smaller that it was at the beginning of its term in 2001.
I take the comments of my colleagues from both sides of the Chamber on board. Everyone who has spoken tonight has graciously extended their support of strategy, not surprisingly, because it means the whole nursing profession will be progressed and upskilled. There are opportunities now that were not there just a few months ago, or years ago under Labor. Although it has not been a particularly political debate, I feel compelled to end it on a political note: this Country Liberals government is committed to improving health services in the Northern Territory. We are not here to tell stories of rhetoric and nonsense; we are on the ground doing fantastic things to reform and improve working lives and careers, and the health services across the Northern Territory.
The story of nurse practitioners in the Northern Territory will unfold, and I will come back to parliament, undoubtedly within the next 12 months, to give you an update. As I have already outlined, we have gone from having three under Labor to 10 in just a few months. I am hoping we will reach 25, the target number, well before 2016. Hand in hand with that target is making sure these people are trained and the positions are created in a strategic way. That part of the strategy was endorsed by several people in the Chamber tonight: that it is important that areas of the greatest need are aligned with the new nurse practitioner positions.
I listened to the members for Arnhem and Namatjira speak about their perceptions of where these upskilled, advanced nurse practitioner positions should be targeted, and I hear what they say. There is a great need for more specialised mental health positions throughout remote areas of the Northern Territory. In my travels the consistent message I have heard is there are people in our remote communities who are suffering mentally and need expert assistance, as do we who suffer from mental health issues in the urban areas of the Northern Territory. We need to extend our mental health services. Perhaps this initiative to increase the number of nurse practitioner positions in the Northern Territory is one way of providing specialised mental health services to remote communities.
I thank members for those comments. I heard the member for Namatjira clearly talk about the problem of amphetamines in the Northern Territory. This is extremely disturbing. I am hearing more and more that ice or amphetamines are more freely available throughout the Northern Territory. Yes, I watched the Four Corners program last night and it was extremely disturbing. I will have a conversation with my Department of Health executives about how we might address this emerging problem in the Northern Territory.
I also heard of the need, as I mentioned before, to extend the education of, and to upskill, Aboriginal staff in remote clinics.
I heard the member for Arnhem talk about how Aboriginal health is one of the most challenging areas of need we face throughout the Northern Territory, and she is indeed right. Hand-in-hand with bolstering the number of nurse practitioners, we are working on doing the same for our Aboriginal health practitioners, but across the board we need to make sure people who have an interest in health, whether they be at school or have finished school, are given opportunities to get into the health workforce.
That is another area we are working on very actively at the moment. We are engaged in discussions with the Education minister and various executives within his department to look at how we can provide a more flexible education system, particularly for people who live in remote areas who have a desire to become health practitioners of one sort or another.
I listened with great interest to the contribution made by the member for Goyder and her reflection on great nurses within her electorate. The thought that went through my mind is that all of us in this Chamber could probably spend at least half and hour talking about the nurses who live in our electorates and have made amazing contributions to life in the Northern Territory and beyond. I even suggest that during the next International Nurses Week we take time to reflect on great nurses, as did the member for Goyder earlier this evening.
I listened to the member for Wanguri who was very gracious in her support of this initiative. Yes, we have a long way to go in health. We have problems within our health system that we inherited from you and we are working very hard to address them. You recognise that one of those problems that existed during the former Labor government’s time is bed block. We have opened, as you said, 40 beds within the Royal Darwin Hospital accommodation facility, formerly known as the medi-hotel, and we will be opening the remaining 60 beds, taking it to a total of 100 beds utilised by the beginning of next year.
Already making the medi-hotel available for the hospital in the home and step-up, step-down patients has been very well received. I have no doubt we will fill those 100 beds very easily in the future.
When we came to government in August 2012 the medi-hotel was completed. We were told by the departmental executives that the beautiful 100-bed facility we all talk about on a regular basis was completed and ready to be used, but it was left vacant for approximately four months, by Labor, leading up to the election. That seems to have dropped out of the narrative of the medi-hotel spun by the opposition, but I put it on record that it is indeed a fact. It was completed in May, the election was in August, and it remained unutilised for those four months. When we came to government it was astounding that we were shown this amazing facility which staff were trying to keep clean and maintained because it was not being used. The positive outcome is that it is now back to its original intended use, and the stories we are hearing from the Royal Darwin Hospital are extremely positive.
I will not continue with reflecting on the comments of my colleagues. Suffice to say I am very pleased this initiative has the full support of the Chamber. No one has spoken negatively about this initiative, because it makes perfect sense. It made sense seven years ago when Dr Richard Lim, the opposition health spokesperson for the CLP, brought this forward. It made sense to progress it then, and it certainly makes sense to progress it now, seven years later, in getting back to what really counts. It is about making sure our nurses are well catered for, they are given opportunities and that communities right across the Northern Territory benefit from these highly skilled, advanced nurse practitioners.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Biosecurity Measures for Banana Freckle and Cucumber Green Mottle Mosaic Virus
Biosecurity Measures for Banana Freckle and Cucumber Green Mottle Mosaic Virus
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I update the House on the biosecurity incursions crippling two significant horticultural crops in the Northern Territory. Both banana and watermelon crops have been infected with an exotic plant disease, and the only effective method to contain and eradicate these diseases is quarantine and destruction.
Banana freckle was first discovered on bananas in the Northern Territory in 1991, but it was not until July 2013 that a new strain of the disease was found, affecting the Cavendish variety. Ninety-five per cent of the Australian market is Cavendish, so this find was devastating for the industry.
In order to eradicate banana freckle from the Northern Territory and prevent its spread interstate, all banana plants in six zones across the Top End will be destroyed. These zones correlate to areas where bananas are known to be infected with banana freckle. This approach has been endorsed by the national management group, which has representatives from affected industry associations, the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments. It will be the largest nationally cost-shared emergency plant pest response to date in Australia.
The Northern Territory government, through the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, will implement the national banana freckle eradication program, as endorsed by this national biosecurity group. The six eradication zones are in the Darwin region, which includes all properties north of Manton Dam and west of Marrakai and extending to the NT coastline, Rum Jungle/ Batchelor, Dundee Beach, Daly River, Milikapiti and Ramingining. Under the eradication program, all banana plants in the identified zones, including Darwin, will be removed and destroyed. Quarantine and movement controls for banana plants and fruit will apply.
There are four phases to the banana freckle eradication plan. The first phase is the destruction of host material. This primarily involves the removal and destruction of all banana plants in the six zones. It is estimated that this phase of the response will take around seven months, and will be run from now until April 2015. Surveys will also be conducted on the edge of the zones and in other areas across the Top End to confirm the disease is restricted to these zones before its eradication is complete.
Phase two is the host-free period. This phase will last at least six months and include a full Wet Season. During this time there will be movement control on banana plant material being moved in and out of the zones, and surveys to track down and destroy any remaining banana plants or re-growth.
During phase three there will be the reintroduction of banana plants under a controlled replanting and monitoring program administered by the department. This will occur over 12 months. Some of these plants will be used as sentinels to confirm that banana freckle has been eradicated from the Northern Territory.
Phase four will involve the Northern Territory seeking and gaining national recognition that the Territory is free of banana freckle. Application for national proof of freedom cannot be sought until all zones have been through all phases of the eradication program and the Northern Territory is confident that the NT is free of banana freckle. At this stage, this will not be until at least April 2017.
The Australian Banana Growers’ Council will contribute over $10m to the eradication plan which will be run by the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. The eradication program will have a strong emphasis on working in partnership with the community to identify and destroy banana plants within the zones.
Territorians will be encouraged to remove plants and then inform response staff, who will then treat the stumps of plants to prevent their regrowth. In other situations, response staff will remove and treat plants or work with other groups, such as Indigenous rangers, to complete the destruction of banana plants within the zones.
The eradication of banana freckle will deliver a number of outcomes. It will stop the spread of this disease to interstate farms, it will ensure that a re-established Northern Territory banana industry is free from the effects of this disease, and, importantly, it will ensure that Northern Territorians can once again grow banana plants that will be free from banana freckle.
Although the local banana industry is small, there is growing national industry recognition that there is a very real potential for bananas to become a major horticultural industry in the Northern Territory. Experts agree that the eradication program will see the Northern Territory free of banana freckle by the end of 2017.
The banana freckle disease is a double blow for the Northern Territory banana industry, which is still recovering from an outbreak of the soil-borne panama disease in 1997 that caused most commercial growers to cease production. The eradication program, while severe, is designed to get rid of an exotic disease that is present in the Northern Territory and that poses a real threat to the national industry, including the longer-term future of banana growing in the Northern Territory.
Unfortunately, this is also now the case with the Northern Territory’s watermelon industry. In the first week of October the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus, or CGMMV, was positively identified in seven watermelon farms in the Northern Territory, six in the Katherine region and, later, a farm in the Darwin rural area. This is the first time this virus has been found in Australia, and it was devastating news for melon growers here and nationally.
The fruit of CGMMV infected plants can suffer internal yellowing and patches of flesh that is soft, breaks down and becomes watery. The disease can also cause fruit to abort or become malformed. The leaves of infected plants have a mottled appearance.
The Northern Territory is Australia’s second-largest producer of watermelons, with a well-established industry valued at more than $60m per year. There are currently 18 commercial watermelon farms located from Central Australia right up to the Top End. Melons – that is, rockmelons and watermelons – are considered to be the next major crop for the Northern Territory that has excellent export potential. Nationally, the melon industry was valued at $235m in 2012-13. Since the positive identification of the exotic plant disease CGMMV, the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries Biosecurity and Animal Welfare Group staff have surveyed all melon farms in the Northern Territory from Alice Springs to the Top End to determine how widespread the virus is.
The department’s molecular scientist has used the new state-of-the-art Quarantine Containment Level Three facility during testing at Berrimah Farm, Darwin, and also utilised the services of the Australian Genome Research Facility at the University of Queensland to supply sequence data from DNA of CGMMV for definitive confirmation.
Following confirmation of the identity of the virus and recognition of its potential as a serious plant pest, a high-level management response team was immediately established in the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. This response management team, operating from a control centre headquarters at Berrimah Farm, is coordinating surveillance to establish the location and enable containment of the virus.
To prevent further spread, drastic urgent action was necessary. This virus is easy to transfer. It can be transmitted via infected seeds, plants, machinery and, possibly, water. You can spread this disease simply by walking through an infected crop and then coming into contact with crops on another farm.
The immediate response from the department was to survey to determine the extent of the incursion; quarantine all confirmed infected, suspect and nearby at risk properties; identify and establish effective methods for all farms to implement to minimise carryover of the disease; and promptly alert industry within the Territory and interstate to the presence of this disease and how to prevent its further spread. Further, a free-call 1800 hotline was put in place to answer queries from the public.
The infected farms have now been fully quarantined and destruction of crop material and disinfection of machines and equipment is under way. The infected crops are sprayed with herbicide, and all plant material will then be placed in large disposal trenches at least 1.5 m deep for burning and then burial.
All sites will be cultivated to assist with the breakdown of root material, which can carry the disease. A cover crop will then need to be planted to stabilise the site and increase soil activity to enhance plant tissue breakdown. There will be a two-year ban on growing watermelons on farms that have tested positive for CGMMV and are placed under quarantine. If the disease is found to be infecting other crops, this ban will be extended to include the affected crops.
This plant disease is easily transmitted and may persist in an extended period in plant material and soil. The damage it causes to the host plant and fruit is extensive, and results in substantial crop losses. High-level urgent and drastic biosecurity measures are essential if we are to be successful in containing and eradicating this disease.
CGMMV is considered to have a narrow host range primarily limited to the cucurbit species, which includes watermelon, other melons, cucumber, pumpkin, squash, zucchini and gourds.
The disease is also of great concern for our vegetable growing industry. The Northern Territory’s vegetable growing industry has taken off in recent years, with vegetable production in the Northern Territory in 2012-13 close to $60m. Bitter melon, cucumbers and pumpkins, which are known CGMMV hosts, had an estimated value of $9.8m, $7.2m and $9.7m respectively in 2012-13.
CGMMV is a real and significant threat to fresh market, export and cucurbit seed industries not just in the Territory, but Australia-wide. The containment and eradication of this plant pest is vital to ensure the future viability of the Northern Territory and Australian melon industries. Under quarantine conditions the movement of melons in affected areas will need to come to a standstill. No movement or sale of melons or plant material will be permitted from premises under quarantine.
The department takes biosecurity very seriously and works closely with farmers to protect our primary industries and detect, manage and resolve issues when they occur.
I commend the department’s biosecurity office for its quick response to this disease in notifying all commercial watermelon growers in the Northern Territory and beginning surveillance and tracing activities to help stop further spread of the suspected virus.
As you can imagine, dealing with two responses at the one time requires significant resources.
In relation to the banana freckle response, we are transitioning to a project management focus which will see groups of up to 60 people from around Australia dedicated to the response for the duration, which is expected to be three to four years. In relation to the CGMMV response, a significant number of resources have already been marshalled from within the department and other jurisdictions, which has allowed us to take swift action to date. The Department of the Chief Minister is coordinating additional support from across government, which will bolster our ability to contain the spread of this disease as we plan for its eradication.
I have personally visited the control centres of both responses and witnessed firsthand the level of professionalism in dealing with the complexity of these types of operations. I am confident that the department is doing everything it can to achieve the ultimate goal of eradicating both diseases for the longer term viability of the affected industries in the Northern Territory.
It is difficult to estimate the value of these industry losses as melon growers are at different points of production. However, as a guide, for 2012-13 production of watermelons in the Northern Territory was valued at $63.7m and bananas at $5.4m. The Northern Territory government recognises that the economic and social consequences of these incursions for our commercial farmers, hobby farmers and many Territorians in general will be far reaching.
These plant disease incursions are a substantial threat to the Northern Territory’s horticultural industry. There will be social and economic impacts on the industry and on the Northern Territory’s economy in general.
While our commercial banana farmers are potentially eligible for compensation under the National Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed, it is unfortunate that Australia’s melon industry is not a signatory to the deed, so Northern Territory melon growers are not able to access this form of assistance. To this end we have pledged to do all we can to support these horticultural sectors during the eradication and quarantine phase and to be there to help these businesses re-build when it is safe to do so.
The Territory has managed to successfully eradicate a number of exotic pests or diseases of horticultural crops in the past, including citrus canker, Philippine fruit fly and, most recently, grapevine leaf rust. Robust and tough biosecurity measures are warranted to stop and prevent the entry and establishment of further exotic plant pests or diseases that threaten our horticultural industries.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note this statement.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this important statement to the House and informing not only the House but Territorians about this very important issue.
I thank the minister once again for the opportunity I was given to tour the banana freckle eradication response centre and learn about the important work that goes on there. It gave me a full understanding and appreciation of the nature of the issue and the work needed to correct this problem.
I also thank the minister and his office staff for another invitation for an individual briefing session on the national banana freckle response plan. I say to the minister’s staff, I have not replied, I have been on the road in the bush for quite a while, but I look forward to making contact.
There is a tragic sense of irony for the minister when faced with a Commonwealth determination to eradicate an industry, basically, in northern Australia. It rings of the live cattle export ban. I feel for you, minister, that you have been placed in the same situation by the federal government to address …
Mr Westra van Holthe: You are wrong. You are a fool. You come out with comments like that to try to …
Mr McCARTHY: Bring it on, minister. Sticks and stones will break my bones.
We will get down to tin tacks. This is one of the ministers who continually runs a narrative around the live cattle ban …
Mr Westra van Holthe: You are a disgrace …
Mr McCARTHY: He continually uses people’s names and slags off …
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I have everyone seated for a minute. Do not yell at each other across the floor or you will both be out. Member for Barkly, you have the floor.
Mr McCARTHY: As I was saying, it is a tragic sense of irony. I feel for the minister having to deal with the pressure that has come from the federal government, because it directly affects Territorians. We are talking about an industry that will be put on hold. Lives will be changed. Banana production in the Northern Territory will be eradicated with the eradication of banana freckle.
I understand the pressure the minister must be under, and it was very interesting to see how he reacted. It sums up the character of this minister, let alone something else that seems to be resonating behind the scenes. But whatever, minister. That is my statement. I understand what you must be going through, and I raise that point in good faith. This minister continually tries to twist and bend the truth in attacking the previous Labor government.
There is also a very important point here, and it is that banana growing in the Northern Territory will be effectively wiped out for very good reasons. I thank the minister for the education to learn about those reasons.
During the briefing at the banana freckle emergency response office, it was interesting that there was a hint that if the process did not work, they will have to go back with far more drastic approaches, and a far more drastic strategy. This is what the minister has risen in the House to describe tonight. It has reached that next level.
It is important to reflect on the growers and the industry. As a responsible government, being responsible, it will be very important to work through the stages described in this statement.
The first phase of the eradication program is the destruction of host material. Talking to people in Darwin over the last couple of days, I have been told that growers have been instructed to destroy their own plant. The minister highlighted that stumps then will be poisoned to complete that destruction. I am wondering what biosecurity measures are in place to ensure growers destroy their plants completely and effectively to allow the next stage of the process, where the stumps will be poisoned and the ground cultivated before we move on to phases two, three and four.
The question of compensation is still alive and well. The minister outlined in his statement that commercial growers will be compensated; however, hobby and back yard farmers, and people who have grown bananas for many years in their own private premises are unable to be compensated.
I remember there was a degree of goodwill in compensation in the previous eradication campaign, where people where offered a replacement banana plant. I am assuming that will not be available any longer because of the more radical nature of the campaign. Are people being offered any other form of compensation?
The word on the street is that there could be legal action mounted by the Northern Territory commercial grower. I suppose that will challenge the government in resources needed to conduct the campaign and ensure the biosecurity level is maintained with banana growers destroying their own plants, the monitoring campaign and the destruction of the stumps. I am wondering if that talk on the street is real and, if so, if the government is preparing for that possibility, as we know the costs in legal fees in what could be lengthy action.
I also listened very carefully to the situation of the Northern Territory’s watermelon industry. I am particularly interested in the watermelon farms around Ali Curung and Tennant Creek. Reading the statement this morning and hearing the minister deliver the statement, I hoped there would be good news coming from that area in the Northern Territory. I hope they are still, in their growing cycle, under normal production, and there will be the opportunity to continue marketing that crop out of Central Australia. I did not really get that from the statement, but I hope the minister will elaborate on that.
The statement said the Northern Territory is Australia’s second-largest producer of watermelons, a well-established industry valued at more than $60m per year. You are looking at not only a quite sophisticated industry but, as the minister said, the potential for further growth. In that melon industry, is there any compensation? Is there anything government can do to support this industry, because it is a lot wider spread than the banana industry? It would involve people’s livelihoods and businesses, and there is no doubt there are many jobs involved. Those jobs represent the important elements of regional economic development in regional communities. Is there anything the government is doing for that?
When the federal government imposed the live export ban that affected the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory government immediately moved to cease the pastoral land rents to give those producers an immediate level of support. There was a huge shock, a huge impact on northern Australia, but the Northern Territory Labor government moved immediately to try to do something with a cessation of pastoral rents for those producers who were in trouble. Has the Country Liberal Party government thought of anything that can be done for the watermelon growers, those broadacre farmers who have quite sophisticated systems, employ local people and provide families with incomes? It would be good to hear the minister’s creative intellect about that to see if there is something in train to be supportive of the industry.
Towards the end of the statement the minister said there is not a lot they can do, that commercial banana growers – I believe one major commercial grower in the Territory is eligible for compensation; however, the melon growers, those broadacre farmers, do not have much opportunity, so it will be good to see what this supportive government can do.
It was good to see and understand the level of operation at Berrimah Research Farm. I remember talking about the world-class research laboratory on the site. I attempted to convey my concern for the minister, and he reiterated that concern in the statement where there are two major biosecurity issues occurring at the same time. This is a very high pressure situation for not only Northern Territory industries but for the government and the Berrimah Research Farm. It highlights the increased activity, no doubt, at Berrimah Research Farm and the importance of the farm. It certainly would take priority over the minister for Lands and Planning’s rhetoric around encouraging an international developer to reduce the size of Berrimah farm, cut it up and deliver residential development.
This biosecurity issue, no doubt, will be the headline around Berrimah farm, and I assume this government will be putting all the resources necessary into Berrimah Research Farm, the personnel, the systems and the management, because being hit with two major biosecurity issues at once and then having a very firm plan over the next three to four years would certainly solicit that focus and resource allocation.
What about the jobs in the industry and what is government able to provide? I linked a couple of paragraphs that really were good to read. To see the government recognising the economic and social consequences of these incursions then articulating this is a quite radical measure, but a measure that is needed to develop the future of the industry. It would be good to hear from the minister how that will translate into real support on the ground.
I thank the minister once again for this statement. I do not mind locking horns anytime, anywhere, but I found the sensitivity solicited quite interesting. This minister likes to throw around the rhetoric but does not like anybody who wants to chip it back over the net. It was interesting to see that level of emotion and vicious attack with that childish name calling across the floor, minister. We are all in this together
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your adjudication and the opportunity to speak.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a bit hard to be cheerful about what we have to talk about today. I was never a big time grower; I grew quite a few bananas at Bathurst Island and watermelons. The member for Arafura might remember them, because sometimes on Sunday people jumped the fence and took them home in the back of their car thinking I was not looking. Bananas and watermelons have been very much part of the Northern Territory for a long time. What we are talking about today is a much larger industry than I knew of that has been devastated by two serious diseases. It is a very difficult time for the people involved in those industries.
It must be heartbreaking for the farm at Lake Bennett, and there is one starting on the Douglas Daly. From a commercial banana growing point of view, Lambells Lagoon is our biggest farm and it will be destroyed. With that will go jobs and the livelihoods of many people from that small community at Lambells Lagoon, plus the people who own the banana plantation lose the business.
There are other people as well. There are reasonably-sized hobby farmers in the Darwin area. I am sure you will hear from Peter Bekkers, minister. He has supplied bananas to the markets for many years, and there are people affected in my electorate. Some of us have already been through the destruction phase from the initial outbreak of banana freckle, so for some of us it will not make any difference. But for many who thought they were lucky to miss out, it is simply not going to happen.
I raise the issue of the hobby farmers. I understand where the government is coming from. Commercial growers pay a levy; therefore they are covered under the national scheme. I understand that, but there are people who are also dependant on the sale of bananas locally. They do not have anything to do with the interstate trade. They are purely local; they provide a service for the local communities through local markets, and, of course, they earn an income. They too will be severely affected. You only have to go around the markets in the rural area or in Darwin and Palmerston and look at the variety of bananas that are sold, especially the cooking varieties. Those varieties, as well as Cavendish, will disappear. It certainly will be a big change for this part of the Northern Territory.
Thank you, minister, for the briefing I had yesterday. We probably went a bit longer than expected but I had many questions, and we are dealing with a couple of issues that are really of Northern Territory importance, especially when it comes to the effects it will have on the economy and the social fabric of some of these areas. At least there was some good news. The Douglas Daly farms are out of that area. I am not sure how far those farms have gone, but the new farms at the Douglas Daly are not in the eradication areas.
I note that Daly River, Nauiyu, is in it, and that is another place I grew bananas when I first came to the Territory. I know a Brother, called Brother Groves, who for many years grew bananas right on the banks of the river there as well. It might sound a bit strange, but it is like a bit of history disappearing. There will be no bananas there, something you would not have expected to happen.
If we look in the hard light of reality we cannot ignore the fact we have a disease which, potentially, if it got into Queensland, could be disastrous. The decision-making really has come from the biggest state with bananas, which is Queensland. They do not want to see their industry affected. The Northern Territory is regarded as small bikkies when it comes to this matter, and to make sure there is no risk to the banana industry, the Northern Territory has to step up to the mark, unfortunately. It will be quite a long time before we see bananas grown in this part of the Northern Territory.
Hopefully other banana plantations will be able to get going in areas outside of the eradication program, and that might fill the gap, because people will be concerned about the cost of bananas now. They were never exceptionally cheap in the Darwin area, partly due to the high cost of production because of the Panama disease. It will be interesting to see what the price of bananas will now be in the Top End.
In relation to what will happen, there is some concern that there are varieties of bananas that people have nurtured for some time – they are not all Cavendish or Lady Fingers; there are quite a few varieties of bananas. I hope the department has a chance to allow people to at least identify varieties of bananas they would like to keep. One way to keep them would be to take some tissue culture from those plants and keep them in quarantine, with their names on the material. We could at least enable those people to preserve some of the species they have had for many years. If you have tried different bananas you will know they do not all taste the same. We have many cultures in the Northern Territory which have many different tastes, and one of those is different varieties of bananas.
Many people would be sad if there was no way those varieties could be kept through this period. Questions will need to be asked about when plants can be grown again. One of the big issues the government has is that we live in a very multicultural area; people have come from Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia, many countries where bananas are grown, and I remember there was a lot of suspicion about how Panama disease reached the Northern Territory. Many of us believe it was brought in; I do not know how else Panama disease could get here. Before we had Panama disease we had the potential to be one of the largest banana growing areas in Australia. It did not happen, as Panama disease arrived and destroyed most of that.
When the government is delivering this message about why we must destroy these plants, it must put it out in language that is understood by all people. It might have to come out in many languages, whether it is for an Aboriginal community or for people from Asian countries who might not fully understand English; it needs to be delivered in a way so they can understand the reasons the government needs to destroy banana plants. The other side is biosecurity; we must ensure people understand you will not be allowed to bring banana plants to these areas. I do not know whether it is fruit; I presume we can still eat bananas from other parts of Australia, but I presume we cannot bring in plants. There will be a ban on any plants coming into those areas, and it needs to be very clear and well-advertised.
If we are to shorten the time that we cannot grow bananas we must ensure there are no outbreaks of banana freckle in that period. We have to push this idea that you cannot bring plant material in from overseas, interstate or intra-Territory. At Yirrkala there is an enormous banana plantation which was unfortunately devastated by Panama disease, but they are still producing some bananas. There needs to be something there that says you cannot take bananas from Yirrkala to Ramingining anymore, because Ramingining is part of that area where no bananas should be grown.
It will be a difficult issue for government. Minister, I do not envy your task, and you will receive a lot of flak from certain people. Other people will understand it. I have received some of that flak at times from people who did not want to destroy their bananas, and I had to explain why it is necessary. It will not be easy. I even received an e-mails from someone saying they did not want any chemicals used in destruction, so there are little things like that. There must be a program that is user-friendly, because many people will be missing their bananas, especially those who grow them for the markets.
In relation to the cucumber mosaic virus, there is no shortcut with the acronym, so I will just call it that. I enjoyed the briefing. There is a gentleman on the front of this paper, Barry Conde, who has been in the department for many years. He is a virologist and I have known him for a long time. I am pretty sure that is him. If I am wrong, he will tell me. He has spent most of his life working with the department of Primary Industry, especially in the area of disease control. He is someone the department needs, especially in times of diseases like this.
Watermelon and other crops are infected. I doubt if you call something the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus that it just attacks watermelons, not with ‘cucumber’ in the name. It is obviously a problem with other cucurbitaceae plants. You list them in the briefing paper you gave me: watermelon; rockmelon; cucumber; pumpkin; squash; bitter gourds – some of the Asian markets depend on those plants – zucchinis; and gherkins. It is more than watermelons. It is much of that other market.
What effect that will have on our economy and our social fabric, because there are big growers in Katherine – as you said, we are the second-biggest grower of watermelons in Australia. I did not realise we were that big. I knew we were getting big, and I always enjoyed buying watermelons by the side of the highway, whether they came from Katherine or Lambells Lagoon. Obviously that will not happen anymore.
An industry which is maybe seven times bigger than the banana industry is a big industry. It will have effects on the economy of Katherine especially, whether it is people having to look for work, the local agricultural supplier of fertiliser, chemicals, T-Tape and plastic. Many people will be affected by this. In some cases, growers may just have to go away and find another job until the period is over, or they will have to find another crop to grow, if that is possible. I hope the government will be giving advice in that area where possible.
As the minister said, unfortunately watermelon growers will not be entitled to compensation. As they are not entitled to compensation, I hope the business section of the government is looking at trying to help people through this time, because we want the watermelon growers back. I am not saying this in a silly way, but the government says we are open for business, and at the moment we are just about closed for business. If we want to make sure we are open for business in two years’ time, we have to get through this period and help those growers so they do not just leave town and never come back again.
On the issue of biosecurity, I am concerned whether we have done enough. I talk about the Territory and Commonwealth governments. We have had a number of diseases come into the Territory. We know about Panama disease and how it destroyed the potential for bananas. But we have little things like snake bean wilt. It is not really wilt, but it is the same as you get in tomatoes. There is the same problem with watermelons. I did not know until recently that some growers bring in watermelons in tube stock. There was talk that some of that tube stock might have fusarium wilt. There have been some problems with watermelons from that point of view. Now throw in banana freckle and cucumber green mottle mosaic virus, and life is getting tough for some growers.
Luckily we have places like Ali Curung that are free of that problem. I have been to Ali Curung. I am not knocking the people there, it is a beautiful farm, but I ask whether the department is ensuring that watermelon growers in the Northern Territory have strictly enforced biosecurity. One of the things that came from the briefing was there was not much biosecurity on farms. I could come in, knock on the door and walk across the paddock. It is obvious we have to tighten up on many of those things. If we are to protect the Ali Curung watermelon crop, what do we have in place to make sure nothing from the Top End can be inadvertently spread to Ali Curung, otherwise they will have the same problem.
The other issue is biosecurity of seed. There has been a lot of talk about this disease coming in in seed. I used to buy seed from different companies. I am not sure Yates exists anymore. The Australian company was Yates, but I did not buy all my seed from Australia. I bought it from overseas through Bloms, MPK and other companies, some of which do not exist anymore. I understand from the briefing there is the possibility some of this seed was infected with this virus.
I understand you can check for this virus using DNA method. If this is such a disastrous disease that could spread throughout Australia, are we sampling seed coming in from overseas? What are we doing to make sure that seed is pure?
We already know there is an outbreak in California, again believed to come through seed. If we are to protect our horticultural markets and our future, we may have to spend a bit more money on tightening our controls so plant material cannot come in from anywhere else. In Western Australia you cannot get through the Kununurra gate, but it costs a lot of money for that protection, of course. We may have to spend a lot of money to protect those crops.
This is not particularly a Northern Territory matter. It is an Australian government matter to make sure seeds or plant material coming does not carry disease, as appears to have happened here.
The future of our industry depends on whether we can keep our crops clean. It would be tragic to get through the next two years, start growing watermelons again, and all of a sudden we have another outbreak. It is the same with banana freckle. We get rid of all the bananas, and all of a sudden we find someone brings in freckle again.
One good thing I heard at the briefing – you have to take some good out of fairly tragic circumstances – is if all the bananas in the Darwin region are removed, so will many of the pests and diseases that come with bananas. It may be that when new crops are grown, at least for a period of time there will not be so many pests and diseases because the host will not have been around for a couple of years.
Minister, I do not know whether you have looked at the cost to the Northern Territory government. I know some of this will come from the Commonwealth, in the case of bananas, through the levy and compensation. Has the government looked at the cost to itself because you have to employ many people to carry this out? What will the cost be to the economy, and is there any chance the government could afford to give some compensation to the smaller growers who will be devastated by this as well?
It is hard, minister, to talk up what is going on because it is a very serious time. I thank the government people for the briefing. I also thank the …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I cannot emphasise enough that if the government wants to succeed here it will have to sell its message, and it will not be easy. The government needs to tell people why it is doing it, very clearly, to give an understanding. Yesterday I heard the technical names for the different – for instance, when it comes to the spores from banana freckle, we have the Ascospore, which we did not know about. Last time the member for Barkly and I went to the banana freckle centre all we heard about was the Conidia spore, which is spread by water. Now there is another kind of spore which is spread by air.
I do not think people are silly enough not to understand, but it needs to be made clear what is causing this problem, what it will do the industry, how we can overcome it, and to look on the bright side that out of this will come a chance to grow bananas again, hopefully with no disease; we just need to work together as Territorians. That is the thing; if we are to get the Territory economy going in relation to bananas and watermelons then we will have to work together as a team. Yes, it will be hard. Yes, people will say, ‘I do not want to do it’, but the reality is there are times when the individual is not as great as the community. In preserving the industry and looking into the future so this industry can pick itself up and continue, then there will be some pain.
I hope the government can put it forward in a way people will understand. Make sure the biosecurity side is emphasised and that people will not be able to bring plants in. That is the real worry for me, that someone will sneak some in from out bush or someone has a cousin in Queensland and brings a plant in. We need to emphasise that will not be allowed because we only need one banana plant that has freckle and we are back to square one again.
It will be a big job. I do not envy the minister, but I give him my support and hope other members give their support to say we need to do this for the benefit of the horticultural industry in the Northern Territory.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, in July 2013 banana freckle was first noticed on the Cavendish variety of bananas. This variety makes up 95% of the Australian market, so this find was devastating to the banana growing industry. The banana freckle disease was first found in the Howard Springs area of rural Darwin and has spread to a number of other areas, including Milikapiti on Melville Island in my electorate.
To eradicate banana freckle from the Northern Territory and prevent its spread interstate, all banana plants in six eradication zones will be destroyed. These eradication zones are the Darwin region, Rum Jungle/Batchelor, Dundee Beach, Daly River, Ramingining, and Milikapiti in my electorate.
The spread of this disease to Milikapiti on Melville Island proves that quarantining these farms and stopping the transportation of plant matter, along with its destruction, is vital to the successful eradication of this disease. The eradication process outlined by the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries has been endorsed by the national management group, which has representatives from industry, the Commonwealth government and all states and territory governments.
People in the Territory have been encouraged to get involved with the eradication effort by removing banana plants on their properties and then informing response group staff. Response staff will then come and treat the stumps of plants to stop regrowth. If people are unable to remove plants themselves, staff will be available to assist. I encourage all Territorians to contact the banana freckle hotline if they have any questions. The eradication of banana freckle will stop the spread of this disease to interstate farms. It will ensure the re-established Northern Territory banana industry is free from the effects of disease. Importantly, it will ensure that Territorians can once again grow banana plants free from banana freckle. Experts believe that the Northern Territory will be free of banana freckle by the end of 2017.
Unfortunately this is not the only biosecurity incursion affecting Territory producers. As the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries has outlined today, the disease cucumber green mottle mosaic virus was found on six melon farms in the Katherine region earlier this month, and later on farms in the Darwin rural area. This is the first time the virus has been found in Australia, and it has devastated melon growers in the Territory and nationally.
The Northern Territory is the second-largest producer of watermelons in Australia, with the industry valued at more than $60m a year.
The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries informed the House of the process required to eradicate this virus from the Northern Territory, including a two-year ban on growing watermelons on affected farms.
This is not the first time the Northern Territory has faced biosecurity threats; however, these two threats are substantial issues for the Northern Territory horticultural industry. This will, in turn, impact on the Northern Territory economy in general.
In closing, I commend the minister, his department and interstate colleagues, as well as the industry association for their prompt response and hard work in trying to eradicate this disease.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this sad, nevertheless necessary, statement to the House.
I listened to what the minister had to say, and I have been tracking this issue in the media. One can only feel desperately sad for businesses which will be affected by this. A $62m melon industry is under threat, as well as the $5m banana industry. It is a banana industry which recently went through the ravages and pains associated with the Panama disease.
It is a sad truth that we are still fairly ill-equipped to deal with these sorts of diseases, in spite of all of the bells and whistles of the age of miracles and wonder we live in. A virus, which is barely a life form at all – if it is describable as a life form – needs some other cellular body in which to effectively survive and go through its process of reproduction. Unfortunately, that means hosts, and in this instance hosts are invariably the plants we grow to make a living. It is a shame because it means the industry has to take another hit. But like so many times in the past in the Northern Territory, the blunt instrument of government and the capacity of science to deal with these things are still clumsy. Watching scientists deal with these issues is not entirely unlike watching somebody trying to knit a stocking whilst wearing two baseball mitts.
In truth, the proposal is apocalyptic in the sense that what has to be done is like an apocalypse in the very literal sense of the word. This is bearing in mind that the word apocalypse literally translates from the Greek to mean an uncovering, or ultimately leading to a new beginning. It has become, in the Judeo-Christian language, the end: a complete judgment and destruction of everything you know.
Unfortunately, the minister has no tools available to him to do anything – as I said, even in this day of miracles and wonder – but take an apocalyptic approach to the disease that has presented itself in two different types of crops, namely the CGMMV crops he described, as well as bananas with the banana freckle disease. Unfortunately the minister has had to take this approach, and I am saddened because it means there is no simple way to treat this sort of infection. Were it a bacterial infection there might be some plant version of an antibiotic you could use, but we are dealing with viruses which are, in their very nature, a completely different thing.
As a consequence of that, the minister has taken the necessary steps, which are not unlike steps taken in the past. I am put in mind of the BTEC scheme which was ultimately there to protect the cattle industry but, of course, it had a very negative effect at the time it was rolled out.
The black striped mussel scare in the late-1990s was dealt with by way of poisoning the whole of the Cullen Bay Marina with – it was not chlorine, it was …
Mr Barrett: Copper sulphate.
Mr ELFERINK: Copper sulphate, that is it. That was a pretty brutal way in which to deal with it. In the process, every other living creature in Cullen Bay Marina was killed. It was a sterilisation of the Cullen Bay Marina, but it needed to be done. It was a clumsy way of dealing with it in the sense there was only one way to deal with it, and that was to kill everything. That is exactly what the minister finds himself in charge of at the moment, and I do not envy him the duty that has fallen on his shoulders. But he has shown the requisite fortitude to step forward through this process, and has taken the tough decisions which have to be taken to protect the industry.
Whilst I imagine this will literally have led to tears in the night between husbands and wives who run their family businesses surrounded by this, I suspect even the people in the industry understand the minister’s choices were limited because of the lack of capacity of modern sciences to do anything other than count the number of days a place needs to have no host species present for the virus to simply die out.
Consequently, an apocalyptic approach has been used by the minister, and the apocalypse has been visited on the melon and banana industries in the Northern Territory where the diseases occur. That means not only tearing down the trees, but also killing off the residual stumps – a scorched earth policy.
Like all fundamental changes of that nature, it creates a blank slate. I note that one of the members in this House – I am not quite sure who – made a fleeting comment in relation to the fact that not only will we see off banana freckle and some of these other diseases, there is an opportunity to see off a number of diseases, both local and imported, that may be affecting these crops in the Northern Territory.
Should the circumstances occur, God forbid, that this is not contained to the Northern Territory but has already spread to other areas, then dealing with the matter now will, whilst painful in the short term, position Northern Territory growers into an environment where they might find themselves having a substantial portion of the market in the future because this minister had the courage of his convictions and the fortitude required in doing his duty to protect the industry locally.
Nobody in another jurisdiction can criticise the Northern Territory government or this minister for doing the work he has done, and in the fashion he has done it. I imagine other jurisdictions would be grateful for his strident and firm response to these issues.
If it is the case that this has not been contained and this becomes apparent in other jurisdictions, then those jurisdictions we can rightly expect to show the same intestinal fortitude and take exactly the same steps this government and minister have taken to protect not only the future of their industries, but the rest of the industry throughout Australia.
Whilst I dread the thought that were the case, the commercial reality is if it is and other jurisdictions have to take the same steps, then whilst we may be taking the pain first, the benefit of coming out the other end sterile and free of these diseases, while in other jurisdictions they are still dealing with the residual mop-up of the same approach, then perhaps there is a little more to be made in the recovery process.
Nevertheless, It was a sad day when I heard the steps that had to be taken. They are tough and brutal steps, but ultimately are necessary for the future protection of our industry when it comes to these fruit products and our reputation as a jurisdiction in our capacity to respond to these things when they occur. It will give greater comfort to other jurisdictions, no matter what the product moving across Territory borders, that when those products leave the Northern Territory, they come from an environment of policing that is second to none in its responsiveness when an infection is discovered.
That consequently means the reputation of the Northern Territory in a horticultural or, even more broadly, a primary industry, sense will be of a jurisdiction prepared to take the tough decisions when required. This will endorse the Territory product in the eyes of many consumers and other people working in similar industries in other jurisdictions. Your reputation is your AAA-rating for dealing with these issues, and if any jurisdiction was to baulk at having to make the appropriate and tough decisions when these events occur, then their AAA-rating would quickly reduce to something much lower.
As a consequence, I thank the minister for his strength of character and courage in stepping through this process. I congratulate the people from the department. I would hate to have been present when departmental officers had to inform growers their entire crop had to be destroyed, but that is exactly what had to be done and we are stepping through that. My sympathy goes to the industry and the people in it. I am sure the minister will take every step to ensure this transition and process will be as painless as possible. Like all apocalypses it will ultimately, in the traditional sense of the word, lead to a new beginning.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement on because it affects many people in my electorate, as well as in the electorates of the Speaker and the member for Nelson.
The problem with the diseases in bananas and melons is the impact they have on the economy of not just the Territory, but specific families. Many families will be affected by this, and I am not necessarily talking about the commercial growers; I am talking about many of the private back yard growers who go to a lot of the markets I attend. The member for Nelson referred to markets earlier. These people rely on some of this cash income to supplement their pension or whatever.
The position of government is it must always rely on the best advice available. That advice comes from the public sector and is what the minister has relied on.
I too have looked at the centre at Berrimah. I have not looked at any that might be set up for the melons, but I have looked at the banana centre. I also noticed in one of the newsletters from the Chief Minister that over 30 000 properties had been checked up to September. The amount of work being done by these people is phenomenal.
The decision to destroy all the crops was not made lightly by anyone. The minister had many discussions with me about it, and the whole wing, and there was much consultation through industry. I have been disappointed with some of the media reports about people are being critical and saying there has been no consultation. People will always complain, but much of it has been unfairly levelled at the minister, and I would like to defend him on that.
There have been many comparisons of these diseases to various things. We heard of BTEC and live cattle, Panama disease and another one was the cubungi weed in the water that was also sprayed. If you go back through history, there are many things that are similar that had big impacts on horticulture and agriculture, like the prickly pear in New South Wales. There was Patterson’s curse, serrated tussock, cane toads, and here more recently, mimosa and gamba. All of these things have big impacts. At some point you have to take some action. Many people still believe gamba grass should be available to everyone and they should be allowed to grow it to feed cattle, but is has a dramatic effect on natural vegetation and fires.
What struck me with some of this is that the banana industry has signed up to a national scheme and the melon industry has not. I compare that to having insurance. Many people take out insurance on their properties and some do not. People have to accept what might occur if they do not take out insurance. With floods and fires, everyone is quick to jump on the bandwagon and ask for compensation from government. Government has to help where it can, but there needs to be a balance in how much money it outlays in this instance.
Much of what has been on the radio that disappointed me was, if you analysed it, simply money driven, and it was personal money driven. No one was saying they were willing to pull their bananas out because there is a bigger picture. They all said, ‘I do not want to pull my bananas out because I want to sell them next week’. They are not considering their nextdoor neighbour. I am not saying they are being selfish, but people need to take a holistic approach.
I heard Barack Obama the other day say about Ebola, ‘We have to be very careful that we do not create too much hysteria, because it leads to misinformation’. That really needs to be borne in mind with these diseases.
Two weekends ago I had a phone call from one of the senior Vietnamese farmers here, who is very high up in the Vietnamese horticultural society. There was a bushfire that went through the Darwin River and he lost between 2000 and 3000 trees when he was about to pick his mangoes, but I have not heard anyone on the radio ask, ‘What about his compensation?’
I had fewer than 2000 mango trees and I know that that is about 100 tonne a year, so that would be $100 000 to $150 000 to that fellow. You cannot take out insurance, but there are not many people sticking up for him. These are the sorts of things we need, in this House, to take into account. Do not start picking on government or the public service, there is a problem that has to be addressed and we need look at the whole picture. That is what I really want people to consider.
I commend the minister. The department has been doing an exceptional job with both of these diseases
The disease affecting melons will have a bigger impact because many livelihoods will be affected by it. The banana industry is really one very big commercial property, and many people will be affected by that. Most of the others are very small growers who might supplement their income, but they will not be without an income. The melon disease could have a bigger impact. It could extend from melons to cucumbers and other cucurbits; I have trouble getting my tongue around that word. I have trouble getting my tongue around a cucumber too. I hate them, and pumpkins. I would not mind a disease getting into pumpkins; they can get rid of them.
I thank the minister for making this statement. It is a very important issue, and there are many examples – whether we pick on the opposition over live cattle or not, they were in a position where they had to make a decision; we might say it was the wrong one, but that is all well and good in hindsight. Thank you, minister.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that a ministerial statement on the Territory’s banana and watermelon industries is not filled with better news. In reality, we have a biosecurity emergency on our hands, and I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House.
It is critical we receive such an important update on a matter which affects so many Territorians. Not only major communities but others across the Northern Territory will be affected by these exotic diseases, so the minister’s statement is very relevant and informative.
I want to speak from a local member perspective about the impact banana freckle, in particular, will have on the Palmerston community. The outbreak is something I have followed closely. I thank the minister’s office staff for keeping me informed on developments and showcasing the wonderful work the department has been doing.
We have heard that the banana freckle outbreak has the potential to affect so many people over a large area. Ninety-five per cent of bananas consumed in Australia are of the Cavendish variety, and it is frightening to hear the disease was observed on this type of banana for the first time this year. Fortunately, the department is working tirelessly to fight the disease. I took the opportunity to tour the Berrimah veterinary laboratories this year on 15 July, and I make special mention of Dr Andrew Tomkins, who is the Director of Biosecurity and Product Integrity, and Mr Stephen West, who is the Chief Plant Health Manager. Both were very professional and dedicated in their briefings and their explanation of how the facility is working tirelessly to rid the Northern Territory of banana freckle.
The Northern Territory government’s efforts to eradicate banana freckle are part of a concerted national response, as we have heard from the minister, with the national management group endorsing the Territory’s implementation of the national banana freckle eradication program. Over four phases, as outlined by the minister, we hope to achieve complete eradication of banana freckle by 2017, and whilst this is several years away, each phase must be adhered to in order to reach this target.
Of the six eradication zones, which are very large areas, Palmerston falls squarely within zone one. It is sad that all bananas in these six areas must be destroyed, but it is a necessary process. I echo the comments of my colleague, the Attorney-General, who spoke of the fortitude of the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries in taking such a strict but necessary step to eradicate this disease.
I know Palmerston growers who are not farmers or part of the industry have still been deeply affected by this outbreak. They are mums and dads, average Territorians who have a few banana plants in their back yard and are disappointed their plants will have to be destroyed. I hope they know and understand that it is for the greater good. For those of us who grew up in the Territory, we have fond memories of eating bananas from our back yard. In our back yard we have more bananas than I ever know what to do with. Thank goodness we have chickens to help eat them all. On the weekend I made my small contribution to the eradication of banana freckle by knocking down my banana plants.
I feel for the families in my electorate and around the Territory who have to remove their plants and start all over again once we are advised we are clear to do so. We need to remove all the banana plants under this response plan; it will not only eliminate freckle but many other diseases which currently damage our banana trees. When we can start replanting we will have a much healthier product in our back yards.
The eradication of banana freckle will not be achieved by the government alone. This is why it is so important that the community is our partner in this fight and that Territorians endure this short-term pain for a very long-term gain. If we do not all act now and work together, there will be devastating consequences for banana farms, hobby and back yard growers, consumers and the wider community.
I am committed, as a local member, to working with the department, the minister and my Palmerston colleagues to establish ways we can support Palmerston residents with the disposal of their plants, so we can play our part in this battle against banana freckle. I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I start with an apology. During the contribution by the member for Barkly I lost my cool and went against the tradition of this House by shouting across the Chamber. I apologise to the House for that and also to the member for Barkly if he took any offence from the words I used. In saying that, my display of anger was born out of frustration and disappointment that the member for Barkly chose to, in any way, shape or form, politicise the important statement delivered today.
The member for Barkly, who I understand has been briefed on this, chose to deliberately misinterpret what was told to him in relation to the Commonwealth’s involvement in this matter. I need to set the record straight. The Commonwealth had the same level of involvement in the decision to eradicate banana freckle as every other state and territory jurisdiction, along with representatives from the banana industry association.
By contrast, when the live cattle ban was introduced by the Commonwealth government in 2011, it was a unilateral decision made by two very weak people, Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister at the time, and Joe Ludwig, who was the Minister for Agriculture. The difference between the two incidents could not be starker. In the case of banana freckle, this is a decision made by considering the best available science we have in determining how it is to be eradicated, as opposed to the decision made to ban the export of live cattle to Indonesia, which was based on purely political motives whereby the so-called east coast democracy pressured the minister and Prime Minister at the time into making that decision.
Having cleared the air on that issue, I will address some of the matters raised by the members for Barkly and Nelson. I thank everyone who contributed to the debate this evening. These are tough times, and I appreciate the sentiment that has been sent my way in relation to being in a tough spot as the minister who is responsible for dealing with these matters. Although I do not feel a sense of responsibility for the incursions of these diseases, I feel a sense of responsibility to deal with them as best as we can, with the long game in sight.
There have been, as the member for Daly pointed out, some adverse comments in the media. I ask those commentators to consider the long-term effects of these incursions of exotic diseases; in the case of the melons it is a virus and the bananas, a fungus.
If we do not eradicate these exotic pests from the Northern Territory, there will be no industry. It is as simple as that. You heard during the course of the statement I delivered that the final phase of the eradication program for banana freckle – and this will apply, no doubt, at some point to watermelons – is that the Commonwealth, the other states and the industry have to form a view that the Northern Territory is free of that disease.
If we are not declared free of these diseases, there will be no industry. We will not be able to export bananas, melons or any of the other cucurbit crops that may become affected by this virus.
For me it is the long game, and I am patently aware of the pain this will cause. I have met with the Darwin banana farm operators and owners. I recently visited there, on top of other visits when I have been to the banana farm before. I have seen their operations and understand exactly what they are talking about when they say this will hurt them and affect their employees. The employees on that farm are largely backpackers, nonetheless that is still money made and spent in the local community. The backpackers earn the money but they spend it in the local economy.
I have visited quite a number of the melon farms. I have been to Sweet Life and to a number of the affected farms in Katherine. The effect of the watermelon problem will be far more significant to the Northern Territory than the banana problem because it affects more properties. The local stimulus to the economy from those farms will dry up. That will affect Katherine in a very significant way, so I am extremely mindful of the effects on not only the growers, but the broader community.
I will address some of the specific issues raised. The member for Barkly asked what constitutes destruction of bananas for back yarders and asked if plants are cut down, what is next? My advice is that the spores of this fungus do not survive well, or at all, on dead plant material. They need a live host, so once banana trees are felled and rot away, the fungus disappears. That should solve most of those problems, but there are options available to back yard growers. They can cut the banana tree down, let it rot on the ground and that solves the problem. The stump still needs to be treated with herbicide to kill it and make sure it does not grow again. Alternately, the back yarder can cut their banana tree down and take it to the tip. We are still asking everyone who has a banana tree, whether then intend to cut it down themselves or would like some help to do that, to make sure they contact the department through the Banana Freckle Hotline. I do not have that number in front of me, but it is easily found on the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries website.
We want to work with the community in this regard. We are not lumping it on back yard growers, saying cut your own trees down. If you need assistance, please contact the department.
The member for Barkly also raised issues around potential legal action from the Darwin banana farm. I acknowledge that is certainly a possibility. I hope that is not the case, but if it does happen we will just have to deal with it.
In relation to comments from the member for Barkly on watermelons around Ali Curung and Tennant Creek, he was effectively asking will growing, marketing and selling of those watermelons continue. Although I believe the issue we have with the watermelons and other cucurbits is far more significant to the Territory than the bananas, the nice thing – if there is a nice thing with the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus – is that only quarantined areas are affected. Farms not affected by the virus can continue to grow, market and sell their produce interstate. For example, the watermelon farms at Mataranka are not affected by the virus so they can continue to grow. The areas that have been found to have the disease will be quarantined, and they will have to go through what will probably be a two-year program to ensure they are free of the virus.
The member for Nelson talked about the number of small growers who will be affected. I concur that there will be a significant number of people in the six eradication zones who will be affected by this. I acknowledge that a lot of the smaller back yard growers do provide bananas into the local markets. It supplements their incomes or pensions, and it is extremely unfortunate that we find ourselves in the position of having to eradicate bananas.
The member for Nelson raised the issue of compensation. It is a difficult issue to cross, member for Nelson. I am sure you understand that, but there is no consideration being given to compensation for smaller growers. We provided replacement trees of a different species when we had to remove bananas when operating under the first response, but the extent is now such that we probably will not be able to keep that up.
I take the point the member for Nelson raised about not allowing any plant material to come into the Northern Territory. Member for Nelson, I commend you for thinking that broadly and deeply about the issue. I can assure you, member for Nelson, that is already under consideration. I have sought and am awaiting advice on whether we need to prevent the importation of plant material or potentially infected plants from interstate and overseas. That relates more at the moment to the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus.
There are many things to consider before this decision is taken, but it could well be the Northern Territory becomes a jurisdiction where no plant material that can carry CGMMV can come into the Territory unless it is certified as being free of the disease. That is under consideration at the moment. The point that you made about that is absolutely spot on. The last thing we want to do is allow affected material to come into the Northern Territory while an eradication program is under way, or even after the eradication program is complete, only to find ourselves re-infected. That is certainly in my thinking.
The member for Nelson also talked about special banana varieties that might be kept. The first thing that springs to mind is the removal of those plants to somewhere outside the infected zones, but that might present biosecurity problems in itself. I have to take that on notice, member for Nelson, and see if the department can provide me advice on that issue, but it seems quite a difficult one. I suspect bananas within the eradication zones must be destroyed, and bananas outside of them can stay.
Moving back to melons and the CGMMV, we are looking at assistance for two farmers for alternative crops. As I mentioned in the statement, after the eradication, or at least the destruction, of cucurbit crops affected by this virus, a ground cover will have to be grown to help. The department is working on options for alternative crops that could be grown. It could be – I do not say this definitively – that after a cover crop is grown, a non-host plant may be able to be grown the following year. That is ongoing work, and, member for Nelson, this is a changing beast. Every day something is new. We have to remember this is a brand-new disease to Australia. This is the first time cucumber green mottle mosaic virus has presented in Australia, or at least been found. We know it has been in the US, and you mentioned that California has had to deal with a couple of outbreaks over the last few years. My department is in touch with Californian authorities to drag from them as much information and intelligence about dealing with this problem as it can.
It may appear that the Territory is in a crisis state, with two significant biosecurity incursions over the last year, and the Territory has had other biosecurity problems in the past, but compared to somewhere like Queensland we fare pretty well. Queensland has probably had the most biosecurity incursions of any of the jurisdictions, so we rate reasonably well.
My primary concern is the protection of future industries in the Northern Territory. I have said before, and I say again – I do not say this flippantly or with a cavalier attitude – that for short-term pain, we hope to achieve long-term gain. I ask everybody involved with bananas or the melon industry to do the right thing. By and large, people have been very good. There have been a few occasions over the past few months where it has been difficult for my team to deal with some bananas. People are a bit emotional about access to their yards, what they may have grown there; and the attachment they have to them. We ask people to cooperate with authorities on this matter. It is too important to the Northern Territory’s horticultural future.
We are looking down the barrel of significant costs with this; the response to banana freckle will cost somewhere in the vicinity of $25m, as I mentioned in the statement. It is the largest national response to a biosecurity incursion in Australia’s history. Of that, around $4m is being put in by the Northern Territory, both cash and in-kind. It is important to point out too that the banana industry is putting in a significant amount of money as well.
As for melons, I can only imagine the process for those will be very similar to what we have gone through for bananas. The cost is yet to be determined. We have a dedicated team working on the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus. They are internal resources, with a few people brought in from other departments. We have also brought people in from other states, and the Commonwealth has been cooperating as well.
Mr BARRETT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the minister to conclude his speech.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: We have a team working on this; we have a virologist who has come from Queensland and have other professionals heading our way. As I said, this is changing daily. I expect that if we do the right thing and the people of the Northern Territory do the right thing we can overcome these problems. We can put ourselves in a good position if we take strong decisions and action now to make sure we get on top of these incursions.
As I said, for me it is the long game. We must do whatever we can to protect the industry. I have not speculated in the statement about the source of the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus. As the member for Nelson mentioned, it is suspected to have come in on seeds. Part of the response is some tracing to try to determine how this has happened. If it has come in on seed, then I fear for the Australian industry because a large number of the seeds used in the Northern Territory have come from the US. Those seeds, as I understand it, are distributed by a distributor in Queensland. I will eat my hat if the Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction to have obtained seed from that source. I worry that this will be in other states as well, which will affect the whole watermelon industry across this country.
The member for Nelson also raised the issue of the Commonwealth’s biosecurity responsibilities. When I discovered that this cucumber green mottle mosaic virus was going to be a problem, I made a telephone call to the federal Minister for Agriculture and informed him of what was going on. We had some early discussions about the fact the melon industry was not eligible for compensation. He and I are having a sensible, ongoing discussion about what the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory can reasonably be expected to do to assist farmers. That is fairly and squarely on my mind at the moment. At this point in time I will not commit to cash compensation, but we will help farmers, if we can, to find alternative growing locations, and help with information about alternative crops. We will not leave any stone unturned in trying to assist the industry to get back on its feet.
The Commonwealth is also looking at its biosecurity issues and considering how the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service can change its procedures and protocols on the importation of plant material that could carry this virus. When I hooked up on a teleconference this afternoon with the federal minister and all the state ministers about some other matters, I raised this once again and alerted them to the situation in the Northern Territory. The federal minister was very quick to state that he was very pleased his department and my department were working very closely on all matters that relate to the cucumber virus.
All that can be done is being done to deal with these incursions into the Northern Territory. We take biosecurity very seriously; I have said that many times publicly and in this place. We will continue to do that because dealing with these issues early, quickly, decisively and strongly gives us the very best chance to have industries into the future. Without that, we do not have a chance.
Madam Speaker, once again, I thank all members for their contributions, which were, by and large, very sensible. I am happy to continue to provide briefings to members who have a particular interest in this. As things change, I am more than happy to take the time to update the House as opportunities present themselves.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Consultation on the Sale of Public Assets
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter:
- Dear Madam Speaker
I propose for discussion this day the following definite Matter of Public Importance: the failure of government to properly consult Territorians on the sale of their public assets: the Territory Insurance Office; the port; and Power and Water assets.
Yours sincerely
Delia Lawrie, MLA
Leader of the Opposition
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I speak on this definite matter on public importance because Territorians truly value their public assets. We have seen the community’s reaction before against any prospect of the sale of the Territory Insurance Office. Just two years ago Territorians went to the general election. At that election Territorians were not presented with a case from the CLP for privatisation of public assets. In fact, Territorians will recall the CLP campaigning against selling our Territory Insurance Office. The campaign was led by Terry Mills, the Opposition Leader at the last election, who went on to become the CLP Chief Minister.
Territorians were not given the opportunity to have their say in the way they should on such an important agenda. Now the CLP is trying to push through the sale of public assets under the disingenuous guise of building the Territory. While the Chief Minister is just a temporary Treasurer, he would do well to reflect on the record of past Northern Territory Treasurers and Chief Ministers who saw that their number one job was delivering funding to the Northern Territory for critical infrastructure.
This Chief Minister has abysmally failed to deliver for the Northern Territory. There is not one cent out of Canberra that was not already a funding deal secured by the former Labor government. Now he wants to sell our public assets to pay the billions in unfunded CLP election commitments. Territorians, if asked, I believe, would say a resounding ‘no’. The CLP is deliberately not providing Territorians with the tools to do that.
The Chief Minister is a master of cynical promotion. The Building the Territory website is a case in point, released the day after the Casuarina by-election. There is no doubt he should have been more up front with the Casuarina voters. The website does not provide a poll for Territorians to register their vote on the issue of public asset sales, not just TIO, but also the Power and Water assets in Generation Corp networks, Retail Corp and Darwin port. This suggests the deal is being done and the windows are being dressed to present a happy front on a very bad issue.
In fact, in this House earlier today the Chief Minister, speaking about TIO, indicated there had been much interest in the asset recycling program, suggesting a decision was already made to sell TIO. He admitted in Question Time today that it has been before Cabinet for consideration since March this year. That is months of hiding the truth from Territorians who went to the last election with the firm belief the CLP stood firmly against the sale of TIO. The CLP has no mandate from voters, from Territorians, to sell TIO, the port or any of the assets contained in Power and Water, GenCorp and Retail.
Labor demands that the CLP government calls a referendum on public asset sales or takes it to the next election so Territorians can have their say. The Chief Minister is being his usual disingenuous self with Territorians.
The CLP’s bush promises were not even listed on the election commitments they submitted to Northern Territory Treasury before the last election. The Northern Territory Treasurer at the time advised that the CLP’s election commitments did not add up and there was a funding shortfall of $120m. We know the CLP costings submitted to the Northern Territory Treasury did not include all those bush contracts made across our communities – all remaining unfunded, totalling billions of dollars. There were billions in promises made to the bush and now the Chief Minister wants an assets fire sale, against the interest of Territorians, to find the billions to fund the unfunded election commitments. It is clear the Chief Minister has an agenda to sell the Territory Insurance Office to fund these unfunded bush commitments. The problem is it provides financial risk to Territorians.
We are a small community and Territorians know the value of their own TIO. Territorians understand that selling TIO risks skyrocketing insurance premiums, adding to the cost-of-living pressures. We heard before the 2012 Territory election that the CLP did not support the privatisation of TIO. We saw them campaign actively against it.
On 5 December 2005, former CLP Chief Minister, Terry Mills, talked about the unique insurance needs in the Territory on ABC radio, including the need for storm surge insurance. He stated that Territorians need that level of protection and will only get adequate protection if we provide ourselves with our own insurance office.
In the same interview, Terry Mills highlighted the experience of the Katherine floods. What does the member for Katherine say about the sale of TIO? Territorians who were not insured with the TIO but other insurers were exposed because they were not covered in the same way TIO policy holders were covered for flood. The former member for Katherine, Fay Miller, told this House in an adjournment debate in 2006 that without the TIO, businesses in Katherine would be forced to close because they would not be able to gain insurance coverage from private insurers. The Chief Minister is not interested in this issue. He is just interested in a quick fire sale.
The current Chief Minister has also conveniently failed to recognise the recommendation contained within the inquiry into the development of northern Australia. The inquiry headed by the Nationals MP Warren Entsch recommended to the federal parliament that the model of TIO be expanded across northern Australia because it is the best insurance available, saying it is affordable and consistently available.
The developing the north report recommends expanding TIO as a model of insurance across northern Australia to address the insurance affordability crisis in other states. It does the opposite of recommending the sale of TIO. The head of the report stated that insurance in north Queensland skyrocketed by an extra $5000 a year compared to other states, making it unaffordable.
Selling TIO risks skyrocketing premiums, access to adequate cyclone and flood insurance and, so importantly for people who have gone through a major disaster, timely insurance payouts. We have seen businesses and households go to the wall in Queensland waiting for private insurance companies to pay up following the floods.
Territorians want TIO to remain in public hands to ensure cyclone and flood insurance is affordable and, importantly – this is the point the Chief Minister will refuse to accept because he simply does not want to know the truth – it ensures insurance payouts are paid promptly. The Territory government is ignoring this in a cynical exercise to sell TIO to provide the cash to pork barrel for votes.
A government owned TIO can avoid the crises seen in states like Queensland where businesses literally went broke waiting for insurance payouts after the floods. Territorians do not want their TIO privatised. They made that abundantly clear. Without it, residents in flood regions like Katherine, and storm surge zones like Rapid Creek, Cullen Bay and Bayview, will be left vulnerable. Keeping TIO in public hands is critical to ensuring timely insurance payments for flood and cyclone insurance, avoiding the crises we have seen in other states, like Queensland after the floods.
Ever since the CLP came to government, its agenda has been for privatisation. We have seen its agenda to split Power and Water and have been deeply and gravely concerned about the impact it would have on the delivery and cost of essential services across the Territory.
It is clear the CLP is positioning our major assets across Power and Water for sale, and when I say that, I still recognise the corporations it has split. They have been through a fattening up exercise, imposing significant tariff hikes on families and businesses; they have reaped in about $125m in profit, $106m in profit directly from the tariffs and $250m in profits across the corporations. That is $106m in profit literally ripped from the pockets of Territorians, families and businesses.
Mr Barrett interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: It is referred to in the Statement of Corporate Intent; you might want to look up the $259.4m net profit after tax figure, member for Blain. You are so interested in this conversation that you might want to look at the direct operating revenue profit of $106.6m. That is the result of CLP tariff hikes ripping money from the pockets of Territorians, families and businesses. That has stretched people’s budgets to breaking point; they have already had to cop the 25% increase on power tariffs, an extra $2000 a year simply to keep the lights on. We know there is another 5% on the already high tariff price about to hit families and businesses in January – more pain for families and businesses. The CLP is taking a profit before people agenda because it is hell bent on selling cashed up assets like Power and Water, assets owned by Territorians, and which they rely on for their essential services.
The privatisation of any of the Territory’s utilities will add to the high cost of living we are already suffering under the CLP. A private power company would be motivated to make profits for their shareholders, not provide an affordable, reliable service for Territorians. Elsewhere in Australia the privatisation of electricity has resulted in higher prices and reduced reliability – more blackouts.
A report entitled Electricity Privatisation in Australia: A Record of Failure was released in February this year. It is authored by an Australian Laureate Fellow in economics at the University of Queensland and prominent commentator on Australian economic policy, and highlights that electricity prices are highest in privatised states. In privatised states customers’ bills include the cost of almost 10% per annum interest on the corporate owners’ debt on electricity assets, compared to government borrowing costs closer to 3%. Customer complaints have risen profoundly for privatised states. Privatisation has rarely produced favourable outcomes for consumers. The report states:
- In some cases, governments have sought to increase the sale price of assets by raising costs to consumers in the lead up to privatisation …
Does that not ring a bell in the Northern Territory? It is exactly the model the CLP has applied to Power and Water, fattening it up for sale.
In privatising Darwin port, transport costs will rise for everyday imported goods, and these costs will be passed on to businesses and families. The Territory government has an obligation to come clean on the real effects of selling, or, in their terminology, leasing. What is the cost effect on the hip pockets of businesses and Territorians of selling Darwin port?
A wide range of businesses use the port to transport goods, including cars, livestock, whitegoods, furniture and all manner of dry goods. All of these businesses will face higher transport costs through a commercialisation lease – sale by backdoor methods – of the port. Businesses will be at the mercy of a commercial operator; many businesses operate in a retail environment where under recommended retail pricing they will not be able to lift their prices to pass on the full cost.
Some businesses can pass on the full cost, and that is a direct, massive hit on the pockets of Territorians. The proposed sale – or the tricky, slippery word ‘lease’ – of Darwin port is creating an environment of uncertainty for business. The oil and gas sector, a critical part of our economy, a key port user, has publicly called on the government not to sell or lease the port. Selling or leasing the port would be a quick cash grab which would cost Territorians into the future. Territorians have invested significantly in the port. It is making returns to our taxpayers. It makes no sense to sell the port now, at a point in our economic momentum where the oil and gas sector will bring greater returns in revenue. Why would you sell it now when the onshore resources sector has seen reduced yields going through the bulk minerals loader? It is insanity.
Territory Labor stands strongly against the sale of these public assets. You have no mandate to sell. With your slick PR machine, your ads and your fancy website, nowhere in any of that are you giving Territorians the opportunity to say whether they are for or against the sale. That is the most disgusting thing I have seen you do, and I have seen many bad things done under your leadership, Chief Minister. Get real!
If you stand by your convictions and your flimsy case, then put the question to Territorians whether or not they support the sale of these critical public assets: TIO; Power and Water assets; and our port. Do you have any conviction for your flimsy arguments? If you did, you would test it. The challenge is here. Take our referendum on the sale of public assets. Ask Territorians whether they want you, Chief Minister, to sell their assets, because that certainly was not a CLP policy going into the 2012 election.
Territorians should not be made to pay for your incompetence, inability and repeated trips to Canberra where you come back empty handed. Here we are, the focus of developing the north in our nation, and you are unable to secure a single cent in new infrastructure funding from the Commonwealth. You go around the Territory re-announcing roads projects funding secured under Labor. Little wonder you sit somewhat uncomfortably, because your incompetence is exposed. Do not let that exposure cripple key areas of essential services: our port, our insurance, our Power and Water.
You have no mandate, nor does your government, to sell any of our public assets. We will fight you on this. If you have any conviction in your flimsy, wafer-thin arguments for selling, then put it to the people, instead of a shopping list of suggestions people might want money spent on, as though it is some sort of Christmas gift wish list. Ask them on your website: do you want public assets sold or not? Feel free to list them separately.
Territorians do not want them sold. There is no amount of spending of the extra $33m you put into the Department of Chief Minister for self-promotion and spin that will satisfy Territorians on the sale of these crucial assets. They will not be duped. They will stand strong and fight you on this. You have made many mistakes since knifing the former Chief Minister and taking on the suit of Chief Minister. You have a chance to not make this one if you take it to a referendum and let Territorians tell you not to sell their assets. They are not yours for sale; you have no mandate.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, one of the most embarrassing things about leading the Northern Territory in the Chief Minister’s role is having to let people know you represent members of this Chamber who are so poor in their professional standards and so disgraceful in the way they perform, both in parliament and in public, that it is derogatory to the Territory.
For the Leader of the Opposition to start dog whistling about how disgraceful it would be to put any proceeds of asset sales into Aboriginal communities, again trying to pit black against white, right at the start of her speech, is abhorrent.
I ask the member for Johnston how he feels about that, because it is the second time today the Opposition Leader has tried to pit black against white in the Northern Territory. That is an abhorrent position to take ...
Ms Walker: Are you serious?
Mr GILES: I am quite serious. When the Leader of the Opposition said money from asset sales going to remote communities would be bad, that was dog whistling and shows a xenophobic attitude towards Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
Ms Lawrie: No, I did not say that
Mr GILES: That is a complete disgrace. You know exactly what you did. I know your political tactic. I listened intently to what was being said and I thought the dog whistling trying to drive racism was absurd. It is hard to find words for it, and it is the second time today you have done it.
To play to the northern suburbs as a way of offsetting Indigenous votes is appalling. If Michael Gunner was in charge he would have the decorum not to do that. I am serious; it is disgraceful. It is interesting to see the position you have taken following Saturday. You have moved straight towards the model of making misleading and incorrect statements in this Chamber and making things up. I understand how you do that, and that is embarrassing.
Your contribution to this debate was in the context of asset sales, and I think how it operates in other states in Australia, how Labor has led the asset sale debate with a mature conversation in other parts of Australia. South Australia and the ACT were the first jurisdictions to move towards asset recycling. South Australia in particular has moved a long way forward in its assessment of assets and how it supports the economy. I wish the intellectual aptitude of Labor oppositions or governments around Australian jurisdictions, and at the Commonwealth level, could infiltrate into the opposition in the Northern Territory, but that will be a challenge.
To correct one of your lies, Leader of the Opposition, Power and Water Corporation does not make a profit. Power and Water Corporation is provided a $77m subsidy each year, which assists it to be in a position where it can try to make its books look good. If you want to see how Labor managed the Power and Water Corporation when in government, look at the way it treated assets in the write down so it could make it look like it was performing in a better model than it is now.
Let me get to the nub of this MPI. It is important to remind the House of the $5.5bn debt legacy we inherited when we came to government. The opposition, which was in government at the last election, did not have an economic policy going to the election. Now in opposition it still does not have an economic policy, and I doubt it will have an economic policy in the next election campaign either. It did not have one on Saturday. In fact, it did not have a policy at all apart from being negative ...
Ms Lawrie: What is yours?
Mr GILES: Ours is to pay back your debt and get the government in surplus. We have set a time frame to get rid of your debt and get the government into surplus by 2017-18 – a fiscal imbalance you would call it, former Treasurer, the Territory’s worst Treasurer.
In our May budget we tackled two issues head on: the cost of living and the boom and bust economic cycles. My government has been tackling cost of living through the largest back to school children and living allowances seen in the Northern Territory and Australia. We have also tackled fuel prices head on, something the opposition never did. I am told today fuel is 158.9c at United on Bagot Road. E10 – a95 RON fuel and unleaded is at $1.63. You have not seen $1.63 for a long time. You have not seen it since we intervened. It is important to remember that in 2011 the fuel prices went up and the gouging occurred, when you were the Treasurer. They never went down after they came up in 2011. You were the Treasurer and you failed again.
To see 95 RON petrol, considered to be premium unleaded, at 158.9c today at Bagot Road United is a fantastic outcome, with price leading being undertaken by United. I congratulate David who was at the summit for starting to lead that debate. He gave me a personal commitment that he would do that, and we are doing something on fuel prices.
We are tackling the cost of living in housing and rents by releasing more than 5000 blocks of land in the two years since we have been in government.
We have tackled red tape head on, so it is easier to do business in the NT. We have launched a new government web-based system of paying government invoices to NT businesses, reducing red tape and helping their cash flow.
We are driving economic growth in the mining and resources sector through the release of free geodata and pushing ahead in connecting the NT with a gas pipeline to the national network, something fully endorsed by COAG when I was there.
My government has tackled the disastrous mess left by the Labor Party with the ban on live cattle exports. The Leader of the Opposition did nothing for our cattle producers and let her mates in Canberra destroy our cattle industry overnight. She stood back like a little puppy dog. We have re-established the live cattle trade, particularly thanks to the hard work of the Primary Industry minister, the member for Katherine, to a point where I think cattle is now selling for about $2.45, and we have had the largest number of live cattle go over the port in the Territory’s history: around 470 000. It is the best it has ever been. We have also started the live buffalo industry with a health protocol to Vietnam and a new health protocol going into Cambodia. The people on the other side, who could not work in an iron lung in the private sector, would not understand some of that.
Unlike the Labor Party, the Giles government has a plan for the future. We will not stand by and wait for handouts from Canberra. We are determined to get on with governing the Territory on a sustainable economic footing. The challenge facing the Territory is to address the boom and bust cycle.
Before I outline the short- to medium-term plan, let me turn to the medium- to long-term strategy. North Australia represents 36% of Australia’s land mass, one of the most underdeveloped parts of the world. The Northern Territory sits right in the middle of this vast area and of the northern Australia policy, and has the closest deep water port to Asia, natural resources in abundance, room to expand, well-established business links into Asia and a government that is unashamedly pro-business and pro-investment. The potential is significant.
The federal government is developing a white paper on the development of northern Australia, and we have gone to considerable lengths to make sure we lead this agenda and are leading it well. We have established an office of north Australia development to drive the Territory’s role in the region, and we have appointed a new commissioner for Indonesia and Asia, who is now based in Jakarta. We see this as a nation-building project that will increase exports, employment and terms of trade, and will secure Australia’s position among the world’s top economies.
Because we are stuck right in the middle of the north, we are making the Territory the gateway for the rest of the nation into Asia and Asia into the country.
Let me turn to our short- to medium-growth plan. The challenge with the INPEX project is the drop off in capital expenditure at the end of the construction phase of this project, an industry which the CLP started. The key is to continue to drive the development of infrastructure projects, which are the building blocks of our future growth – something Labor never addressed. These building blocks are vital for the entire economy. It was the CLP which delivered the Adelaide railway line by completing the Alice Springs leg. The Labor Party called it a failed dream, opposed it and talked the project down at every opportunity. The same way they are talking down the pipeline. It was the CLP who dared to bring the gas industry to Darwin. Labor mocked us bringing the gas industry to Darwin.
Mr McCarthy: Which pipeline?
Mr GILES: Darwin LNG, they mocked the plan. We are now developing the gas pipeline linking the Northern Territory to the eastern seaboard, and we hear that the Leader of the Opposition opposes that too. She opposes every economic agenda: northern Australia; natural gas; and the pipeline.
We have developed and expanded our Defence infrastructure and are keen to enhance those facilities. It was the CLP government which grasped the strategic benefits of northern defence. It was Labor that opposed it and set up the white elephant of the Defence Force hub. It was the Country Liberals that just opened the first business in the Defence Force hub.
We must continue to put infrastructure building blocks in place; there are several alternatives to building and growing these infrastructure blocks. One of the solutions is to borrow even more money and put us further into debt. No doubt that would be Labor’s plan. The other solution is to recycle assets, in line with the federal government’s asset recycling program and a recommendation from one of the Labor Party’s own Chief Ministers, but more about that later.
The federal government’s nation building program will be equal to eight new Snowy Mountain Schemes being built right across Australia in the next six years through government asset recycling. Labor states, South Australia and the ACT, have also started this process, with South Australia already announcing the sale of its MAC scheme. Selling government assets started in 1993; Labor’s great national leader, Paul Keating, sold the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas. Other states and Territories, including Labor ones, did it all, but not this opposition, which fails to see opportunity.
Let me turn to TIO, the ports and Power and Water in turn. The Giles government has launched a new website, www.buildingourterritory.nt.gov.au, where the community can propose infrastructure projects that could be funded through any future sale or lease of public assets. Through its possible sale, TIO could serve all Territorians in a new way by providing the funds to unlock our potential, creating the jobs and industries of the future for our kids. The federal government’s asset recycling initiative also offers a 15% financial incentive for us to sell eligible assets and reinvest the proceeds into new economy-growing infrastructure.
The government is also looking at ways to attract private sector investment in the Darwin port, so we can make it more efficient, improve economies of scale and bring freight costs down into the future. This is another way we can drive down the cost of living for Territorians by increasing economies of scale, particularly the amount of containers coming over the port.
I say clearly that no final decisions have been made. However, we are looking at selling TIO and leasing the port to provide a substantial return to Territorians in being able to free up TIO and expand the capacity of the port in trade into the Northern Territory.
You cannot build the Northern Territory without building infrastructure. The Office of Major Infrastructure and Investment has been tasked with identifying economic and community infrastructure projects that might be pursued, and has put forward some of the government’s ideas to help start the conversation. These include: flood mitigation works around Rapid Creek; roadworks to remove the bottleneck at the end of Tiger Brennan Drive as it approaches Darwin city; an Indigenous cultural centre in Alice Springs – Labor will be upset about that because it has ‘culture’ and ‘Indigenous’ in it – a second port at Glyde Point; a new sporting venue for Darwin; and a long-term infrastructure development fund to finance the building of the Northern Territory into the future. What we really want is ideas from the public about what projects Territorians would like us to pursue as a priority if we go down this path, including community and economic infrastructure.
TIO was established at a time when there were no other insurance providers in the Northern Territory, and now there are 15. TIO premiums are not always the cheapest, but operate in a very competitive market. When the Opposition Leader was in government, Labor was intent on selling TIO. She was in the Cabinet which signed off on selling TIO, but they could not muscle up to do it. Back then, Labor commissioned Rothschild to investigate a TIO sale process, which recommended the sale of TIO. Labor went down that path and tried to sell it, but they pulled out at the last minute when they did not have the ticker to go through with it. A year later, TIO lost nearly $60m in the global financial crisis. In the past ten years, it has only returned $16m to Northern Territory taxpayers.
The Northern Territory should look at recycling assets which can provide substantial community and economic infrastructure to Territorians, both now and into the future. Australia is facing a slowdown of the economy following the mining boom downturn, and the federal government is encouraging us to recycle those assets with a 15% initiative. We need to build infrastructure. It is not about borrowing, it is about using what we have to protect the children’s future.
A little about Power and Water: under Labor’s watch, PWC debt grew from $230m to more than $1.3bn. This was not, and is not, sustainable. The $1.3bn Power and Water debt we inherited equates to $1400 per household in the Northern Territory. It is not, and will not be, sustainable. That is why we have had to act.
Although it is early days of the PWC reform, we have seen an opening of the books and, finally, some transparency into an inefficient government owned utility, the last one in Australia in fact. It will take a little longer for the three corporations to settle down and find their feet, but it is an important part of our building blocks for the future. We must have a reliable, stable and modern electricity, water and sewerage corporation which can sustain growth into the future, and we are working very hard on that.
In regard to the port, yes, we are looking at a 99-year lease on our port. We are in market; we have been in market all year. We have been talking about it in this Chamber and publicly uphill and down dale. It is not my fault if you have only just started listening, Leader of the Opposition and Labor. I have said we have appointed Flagstaff Partners and run a two-stage process. I have said we are looking towards what legislation will be required to invite a partner to support the Northern Territory in expanding the capacity, both quay line and hardstand, and competitiveness of the port moving into the future. It is an opportunity.
I must point out though that much of the work we have been doing has not been a philosophical event we have come forward with as we came into government. We have done work and research into how we take the Territory forward. One of the pieces of research we had was a report by the Economic Development Advisory Panel of 2013 titled Recommendations for the Northern Territory Government’s Economic Development Strategy. The three panel members were Mr Doug McTaggart, former Under Treasurer in Queensland, Mr Ian Smith, who many know from Bespoke, and none other than former Chief Minister, Mr Paul Henderson. That report came down in 2013.
In that report, former Chief Minister Paul Henderson and his two colleagues recommended the sale of TIO and the port to finance infrastructure investment into the future to grow the Northern Territory. Why was it good enough for the former Labor government to recommend the sale of the TIO? Why was it good enough for the former Labor Chief Minister, Mr Paul Henderson – who has taken a pragmatic approach to development in the Northern Territory – to say TIO assets should be recycled to provide value back to Territorians, and for the port to be in the same boat, but it is not good enough for Labor? Why is it that every other Labor opposition or government around the country can have a mature and articulate debate about this, but you and your colleagues cannot?
Maybe if Michael Gunner, the member for Fannie Bay, was the Opposition Leader, we could have a sensible debate and work out how we get the best outcomes through a process to protect TIO’s brand, flood and cyclone insurance and the jobs at TIO moving forward. But, no, you will run a populist regime, dog whistling, attacking Aboriginal people in the Territory to protect your core vote, while not having an articulate debate about the future of infrastructure in the Northern Territory.
We will debate internally on this side. We are happy to work with Independents about how we progress this. We know there are structural issues with TIO and its sustainability going into the future. We know we have to invest in the port and how we can get a greater level of capacity to be more competitive and grow trade in the Northern Territory. We know we need to do these things. I am happy to have the debate with anybody, and happy to have a conversation about how to make them occur.
Ms Lawrie: Don’t ask them.
Mr GILES: You will not be involved in this, because I know you have not had a brief yet. You do not want to understand how TIO works, Leader of the Opposition.
I table the report by former Chief Minister Paul Henderson recommending the sale of TIO and the port. This matter of public importance is an important issue. It is unfortunate you treat it as a dog whistling exercise and not the important issue it is.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will speak on this MPI mainly in relation to TIO. It is a bit difficult in some ways talking about this when you see different governments and oppositions. I will read this media release regarding TIO from Terry Mills dated 12 January 2006.
- The Chief Minister and the Treasurer were deliberately deceiving Territorians in their desperate campaign to sell the Territory Insurance Office to help ease their budgetary crisis, according to the shadow minister for TIO Terry Mills.
I hear from this government exactly what was being argued then.
- ‘This would at least be understandable if Ms Martin and Mr Stirling did not know how the TIO worked’ Mr Mills said, ‘but they do’.
‘The claims that the Government has propped up TIO with $27 million is untrue –
Mr Mills said the TIO was a very viable and profitable business.
He went on to say:
- The CLP stands firmly opposed to the sale of TIO and will fight to see it retained.
Then I have from Syd Stirling, Treasurer, on 8 February 2006:
- The Martin Labor government has completed a scoping study into the Territory Insurance Office (TIO) and decided it will remain in public hands.
Treasurer Syd Stirling said government wanted to properly examine TIOs future sustainability and make sure it remains a fit and healthy organisation.
‘We have decided that TIO will remain under Territory ownership and in Territory hands …
He went on to say:
- ‘The scoping reports into TIO said there is some risk ahead in what is a tough world insurance environment; however, we have decided we can manage risk.
I am a little confused because I received a briefing recently from Richard Harding, CEO of TIO, and I appreciate that very much. I very much respect Richard Harding. There was also a member of Treasury there, and I remember the discussions we had about opposition to the Labor Party selling TIO, and there was also influence from Treasury then. I am not saying Treasury should not be analysing the case of whether TIO is not viable into the future, but in 2006, after concerns about viability – I do not have latest annual TIO report. I gather it has been printed, and it would have been nice to have it for the debate today.
The chief executive’s report shows the 2008-09 deficit before tax was $59m. In 2012-13 there was $106m profit. I am not an economist, but if in 2006 we were worried about whether it was viable or not, but we hung on with it and said we would stick with it and now it is making a $106m profit – in his report the chief executive said:
- For the third year in a row, all three streams of our business have delivered a surplus, despite the volatility of external forces and increased competition. This is a far cry from days gone by when underlying performance was patchy. Our board can now have confidence that our business is viable, sustainable and ready to weather the risks ahead.
He goes on about the outstanding results with the MAC scheme; the number of active claims; the insurance delivering a healthy surplus of $20m that year, up from $17m the previous year; the banking business returning an underlying profit of $2m before tax; and how TIO has helped improve Territorians’ resilience to extreme weather events.
Chief Minister, I understand where you are coming from and that if someone offers a nice bait saying, ‘You sell this and we will give you that’, it is very tempting. I need to put that away for a while. That is the federal government and its philosophy is we should sell assets. My difficulty is that I saw what people wanted back 2006. Over 15 000 wanted TIO to stay, regardless of whether it was losing $59m at the time, because it was more than just an insurance company.
That is probably hard to put a calculation on. It is probably hard even to put a dollar on, but many people are passionate about the TIO. We did not force 15 000 people to sign petitions. Those partitions were just sitting on tables; we did not stick them in people’s faces and say please sign them. An old ABC interview talked about 15 000 people being about one-third of the Labor Party’s vote in the Northern Territory at that time, saying that was a considerable number of people, politically, who did not want to see the sale of TIO.
I can understand where you are coming from but I cannot accept this argument to get rid of TIO purely because the federal government has offered you lots of money. I know that is tempting and it sounds good.
Mr Giles: But you also know that is not why we are doing it.
Mr WOOD: Hang on, wait until I finish. I am saying there is no reason why you cannot debate how to make TIO more viable and more averse to risk in the future. That is a reasonable debate, but the onus is on the government not to try to sell TIO based on what the federal government will give you, because that was not an argument for most Territorians. It might have been an argument for Syd Sterling when he was Treasurer to try to reduce debt, which you are saying as well. You just said, ‘We are in debt and we cannot do some of the things we want to do’, in regard to infrastructure programs’. Chief Minister, if you want this to go through you really need to put it to the people.
Most of those 15 000 people are still around. The TIO does employ many people, 235 to 250. It has a connection with the community through sport and many of the other promotions it does, such as road safety. It has been looking at things like how well older houses in the Northern Territory are standing up in case we have a cyclone. When I looked at that I wondered whether the government could be involved with the TIO in looking at whether we need to invest in some of the older houses in the cyclone areas to reduce the risk of a major payout by TIO.
We forget that one of the big natural risks in the Northern Territory is cyclones. Over all these years we have been building houses that are cyclone proof. So if you are bringing more and more houses up to a standard where they can resist a cyclone you are reducing a large payout by our insurance company.
You have to weigh up some of those things. Places like Townsville and Cairns have large numbers of houses that are quite old and if they are hit by a cyclone they are not up to the standard of what you have in Darwin. But all houses today are built to stringent cyclone standards, partly to reduce the risks for insurance.
Chief Minister, I argued against Syd Sterling as a member of the Labor Party selling it, now I have the Labor Party saying you should not sell it. It seems funny, politically, for me, feeling like I am arguing all over again.
Terry Mills said in 2006 there was no way it should be sold. I have another media release from Dr Richard Lim; I mentioned him before. ‘No way you should sell it.’ You mentioned Rothschild; the Rothschild report noted that TIO had nowhere to expand due to the Territory’s small population base. That is an argument I am getting now from TIO.
When I had the briefing they said they have issues the size of the base of the people who support TIO. ‘We are a small insurance company, therefore we could be at higher risk.’ But that argument was also put to us in 2006 when they were not doing too well, and there is now a $106m profit. Is that argument real? Do we need another Rothschild investigation to provide us with an independent assessment of where TIO stands? If Treasury, which I assume also gives advice, says this is a good deal and TIO is at risk if it cannot gain more customers so it can spread risk out if there is a disaster, let us have an independent assessment of that. In 2006 they had Rothschild look at it. I am not afraid of the debate about the future of TIO, but I am concerned that it not only be about dollars in the Northern Territory.
When you announced you were looking at selling TIO, the boss of the Motor Trades Association walked into my office at Howard Springs and said, ‘Where is your poster?’ He was not happy, because he knows TIO has always treated local people, especially panel beaters and spray painters, very well, compared to QBE or one of the big companies down south. They would be concerned, as a group, about getting rid of TIO.
I am concerned about the loss of jobs. You say they could continue and we might be able to keep the brand; all those things would need to be taken into consideration.
This debate cannot simply be based on economic grounds. You could say life moves on, but TIO is something people are used to. I was at the fish and chip shop at Humpty Doo on Monday night, and a bloke there said, ‘No way will the government sell TIO’. He might not know anything about the economy, but I am trying to give you an indication that people are passionate about TIO. If you think selling TIO will make Territorians better off, it is up to you to show them that.
This is not up to me; I am happy for it to be left as it is. TIO is making money: MAC, banking and insurance. It has enough money to sponsor sporting groups all over the Territory. We have the TIO Stadium, and people have ‘TIO’ on the back of their shirts. It is an important part of the community. I will not go down the path of saying this is a good idea, because I am not yet convinced it is. You are saying, ‘We will fix the problem of floods at Rapid Creek and get you a new sporting facility’. I do not know what the new sporting facility is. Is it a pool for the rural area?
Mr Vowles: Tennis, I think.
Mr WOOD: Is it tennis? It might be badminton. We could do with that, because I did not see any reps in Alice Springs playing badminton; they are probably all retired because they have no home. But that is the bait. I do not really want to use that.
We should deal with this issue in a mature way and ask the people, ‘Where do we go with TIO?’ Because they are passionate about it. If you do not ask people, there will be a backlash; people will say, ‘It is our TIO, and you have not taken us into account’. Your website only asks what asset money should be spent on. It does not ask if we should sell TIO. That is the basic question. You need another column there to say, ‘Do you think we should sell TIO?’ It would be interesting to see what answer you receive.
At present, I do not believe we should sell TIO, because I am not yet convinced. I am not worried about Mr Abbott’s assets. I understand that is something attractive, but once you sell an asset, the old story is that you have sold it and you never get it back again. That is where we must be very careful in going down this path. I am not sure it is a great argument that we are the only place in Australia that has a government-backed insurance company. One of the arguments about selling Power and Water was to provide more efficient services to the community, yet I understand that power and water charges in many states have now rocketed up. Gas prices have gone up, and they are all private.
Mr Giles: That has nothing to do with privatisation.
Mr WOOD: I know the cost of gas is going up anyway.
I will leave it at that. I am interested in hearing more in this debate.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I rise to support this matter of public importance and condemn the Giles government for its attempt to hoodwink the electorate.
When the Mills government went to the people in 2012 there was no mention of a fire sale of public assets. Sure, you made some promises, many of which you have broken, but everyone on that side of the House was suspiciously silent on asset sales. There is a reason for that. If a wholesale sell-off had been part of the CLP’s agenda, you would now be sitting on this side of the House.
Territorians gave us a clear message in 2006 that assets like the Territory Insurance Office need to stay in public hands, and we listened to them. In more recent times we have been gauging the mood of the electorate following the Chief Minister’s comments to this House in which, on a number of occasions, he refused to rule out asset sales. The mood of the people has not changed.
My electorate office has been inundated with calls from constituents urging me to fight the sell-off. At the Rapid Creek Markets people have been giving me the clear message that the TIO must not be sold. More recently, at the Casuarina Square stall Labor set up to help the new member for Casuarina, Lauren Moss, the first petition people wanted to sign was the petition not to sell the TIO. Consultation is not your sweet spot, is it, Chief Minister? We are listening, you are not, and there will be a political price to pay. Make no mistake, if you sell the TIO, you will pay.
I had to laugh when I looked at a website set up by the government seeking public comment on the TIO sale. I thought there must be a place on the website where I could register a no-sale message. Surely, I thought, if the Chief Minister is genuine about finding out what people really think there would be a simple question: do you want the TIO privatised – yes or no? No such luck. Why is that question not being asked? Is it because you already know what the answer will be?
I am no pollster, but based on my interactions with constituents I reckon the feedback is running at about 80:20 against. Very few Territorians want TIO sold, so why the bogus website? You have to concoct a veneer of support for this measure so you have called in the spin doctors. The website is the result. It is a cynical public relations exercise asking Territorians what should happen to any proceeds from the sale of TIO. It is a con job.
My message to constituents is do not fall for it. When you give your feedback, you simply need two words: no sale. When the website asks how the money is to be spent, just write ‘no sale’. Send a message to the CLP, as you did on Saturday with the election of the new member for Casuarina, my new colleague, Lauren Moss. If enough Territorians write ‘no sale’ the government might get the message. The consequences for Territorians of not speaking up are loud and clear and do not bear thinking about.
The TIO is the tip of the iceberg. Next it will be our port. Against the wishes of all stakeholders who use our port, the government will have it on the auction block next. Then what? Power and Water? There is no doubt about it. Adam Giles will not be happy until it is all gone – a mad frenzy of ideologically driven sell-offs, no doubt to his silver circle mates at the expense of Territorians, families and jobs. Make no mistake, there is a consequence of privatisation that follows like night follows day: prices go up. Right now the government has control of the pricing.
TIO, the port and Power and Water are levers of our economy. In government hands, the government has the power to pull the levers for the betterment of Territorians. Out of government hands, the government loses that control. When companies own our assets, who are they responsible to? Not us. They answer to their shareholders, their owners. What do shareholders and owners expect? They expect a return on their investment. With TIO, premiums will rise. With the port, berthing and handling charges will increase. With Power and Water, the price of electricity and water will rise and the government will be powerless to do anything about it. So why does Adam Giles want a fire sale of what rightly belongs to Territorians? It is a grab for cash.
The Giles government has failed when it comes to securing federal dollars from the Abbott government. In Joe Hockey’s budget earlier this year, the big loser was the Territory. Then Treasurer Dave Tollner and Adam Giles either did not advocate the Territory’s position robustly or Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey chose to ignore them.
Cuts flowed across all major portfolio areas. Health, education and funds for Indigenous programs were slashed across the board, and there is more to come. The federal government is slashing $80bn over 10 years from health and education to all states and territories. Two years into the Mills/Giles government and the political reality is settling in. We have a general election in less than two years and Adam Giles needs money in an attempt to buy his way back into power. Instead of responsible fiscal management they have decided to sell the farm. Make no mistake, if TIO is sold for anything like the $500m we have heard, the CLP will embark on a pre-election spending spree the likes of which we have probably never seen.
All those bush seats where the CLP has failed to keep any of its promises will be barnstormed with wads of cash. Their pre-election bribes will be rolled out one after another. Maybe the CLP will keep its promises if that happens, but I doubt it.
The CLP must realise that if TIO falls into private hands, Territorians in flood and cyclone zones will be more vulnerable. Will flood and cyclone damage be covered? People in my electorate of Johnston are furious that the Chief Minister has linked flood mitigation in Rapid Creek and Millner to revenue from the sale of TIO.
This is despite the fact that shortly before the last election the CLP offered $1.5m for flood mitigation, with more to come should it be needed once the government-commissioned report into the flooding problem was made public. This is despite the fact that more than two years after it was elected the CLP government has undertaken no substantial flood mitigation works in the Rapid Creek catchment area. This is despite the fact that while the government is consulting with local residents about how they can protect their homes in the event of flooding, not one cent has been allocated to undertake the necessary remedial works. It is a bitter irony not lost on my electorate. Residents will only get flood mitigation if they support the sale of TIO, which will inevitably result in reduced coverage for storm and flood damage.
We have seen a strong pattern across the board of the CLP’s methodology: promise one thing before the election, do something else after it. To list a few examples, this deceptive strategy applies to public sector job cuts, the cost of living, teacher numbers and infrastructure: promise one thing, do something else after you are elected.
Sadly, flood mitigation in Millner can also be added to this list of broken promises. The government should undertake the necessary flood mitigation works as a matter of priority, not wait until after another Wet Season with potential flooding risk to the families of Millner and Rapid Creek. In other words, the CLP government should honour the commitment it made concerning flood mitigation in Millner and Rapid Creek before the last election. This is a reasonable expectation of the community. The Chief Minister should not be twisting the arms of Territorians to support the sale of TIO in return for election commitments the CLP has already made.
Added to the list of quid pro quos for the sale of TIO is a new sporting venue for Darwin. What does this mean? It means all those sporting clubs in Darwin, all those families who participate in sport or watch sport, will only get a new sporting venue if they support the sale of TIO. They will only get a new sporting facility if they support new insurance arrangements that will compromise their coverage for storm and flood protection.
The Chief Minister’s approach to the sale of TIO is coercive and has caused lots of anger in my electorate of Johnston. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the federal government’s own inquiry into the development of northern Australia acknowledged TIO as the gold standard in insurance models for natural disaster zones. Nationals MP Warren Entsch, no less, recommended to the federal parliament that TIO be expanded across northern Australia because it is the best insurance available. It is affordable and consistently available. Chief Minister, why will you not listen? We know you do not listen to Territorians, but please listen to your own side of politics.
In summary, it saddens me to have to make this contribution to this debate. The mad rush to sell what are rightfully Territorians’ assets begs belief. I put on the record my dismay that the government is taking this route and I commend this matter of public importance to the House.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I respond to what really is a scaremongering tactic of the opposition. This whole business of what we have a mandate to do and not to do is highly hypocritical. Did Labor have a mandate to put us into debt to the tune of $5.5bn? I do not think so. I do not think it had a mandate to spend willy-nilly on the things it did and put us all into a situation where we are in debt and have no money to pay for roads, schools, hospitals and all the things we need to, but, conversely, we do not have a mandate to put out for debate whether or not these public assets should be sold.
I beg to differ. We do have a mandate to discuss these very important issues, whether or not, for example, TIO’s relevance in its service to the community has expired. We need to debate whether or not it is time for TIO, like in all other jurisdictions around Australia, to be sold and the government owned insurance office be privatised. That debate has been had everywhere else in Australia, but not here to any great satisfaction. I heard the member for Nelson talk about how Terry Mills, in 2006, said no to privatising TIO, but 2006 is a long time ago; that is eight years ago.
Government is a business. It is prudent for us to look at all our government owned corporations, our assets, and review them to make good decisions on whether or not they are viable, sustainable and relevant, or are such a risk to this contemporary society that they should be considered as possible sale items. That is what we intend to do. No decision has been made. Cabinet has not presided over any decision on the sale of TIO or the port.
We are definitely looking at these very closely. When we first came to government, when I was honoured to be the Treasurer of the Northern Territory, one of the first issues put before me was the future of the Territory Insurance Office. It was prudent at the time that they did that because it was a contentious issue, and has been for a long time. The original rationale for the establishment of the Territory Insurance Office in 1979 was to ensure the availability of mandatory workers compensation and motor accident insurance in the Territory. So it has just celebrated its 25th birthday. Since that time TIO has evolved to provide a wide range of commercial insurance and banking products; however, there are a number of factors that limit the future financial sustainability of TIO, including its small size and concentration of risk. In addition, the availability of insurance and banking products from private providers in the Territory has significantly increased.
That was part of a brief given to me in August 2012 when we first came to government. It was provided by Richard Harding, who is the CE of TIO, with the endorsement of his independent board of directors. He was diligently alerting a new government to the fact TIO and the government carry a considerable amount of risk and competition within this sector had increased substantially in the last 25 years. You might have heard the Chief Minister mention there are now 12 players in this industry in the Northern Territory, 12 options for people when they purchase insurance services, as opposed to probably one or two in 1979; there would not have been any more than a handful. There is now a very competitive environment. Do not forget that we have a very small population in the Northern Territory. We have less than 245 000 people, and we apparently have 12 options when it comes to choosing which home or car insurance to purchase.
The point I am making is that the landscape has dramatically changed over the last 25 years. What we have heard from the member from Nelson – I appreciate his insight into this debate – is that over the years, whether it be Labor or Liberal CLP governments, people have considered that the sale of TIO needed to be explored. There were problems going back decades in the risk government held in respect to its relationship with TIO.
TIO is the administrator of the Northern Territory government’s Motor Accident Compensation Scheme. It provides commercial insurance products and services, and it provides banking products and services. Treasury regulates TIO, and its insurance policies and deposits are guaranteed by the Northern Territory government, which is where the risk lies.
Another section of the brief I was given some time ago about TIO says the sale of TIO would deliver significant financial returns to government, As the opposition has alluded to, but that is not the main motivating force behind reigniting this debate. It also says to relieve it of significant financial risk would relieve the government’s risk exposure through the legislative guarantee of TIO’s customer deposits and insurance contracts, which is considerable. It would also remove government’s exposure to catastrophic risk, which most of us in this Chamber are aware of. If we were wiped out by another Cyclone Tracy in the Top End, our government would be in serious financial strife, which the Opposition Leader would know. As the former Treasurer of the Labor government, the member for Karama knows exactly the risk we carry with TIO. Sadly, one day, there will surely be a very serious cyclone, and that could have a catastrophic impact on our financial situation in the Northern Territory.
We must be prudent and responsible, and we must look at how sustainable it is to keep what we all love and adore, that being TIO. But we cannot make decisions, as the member for Nelson alluded to, based on emotion first and foremost. We must be prudent, and a good government. A government is a business, and like any business you must review your assets regularly. You have to review your car fleet. Are your cars looking a bit sad and breaking down regularly? Do they need replacing? Do you need a new site for your business? Do you need a refurbishment? Do you need new machinery? Do you need to upgrade and change what you do, which may mean selling bits and pieces and replacing them?
The sale of TIO is not that simple, and I would not degrade it to the operations of a small business. It is a big business, and we have that emotional attachment, but it is our responsibility, as a responsible government, to make sure we have this debate. That is what we will do, and the Chief Minister has sparked this initiative. It has been mulled over for some time, like the former Labor government mulled it over for many years. We have the courage of our convictions to make changes and reforms. We are able to make difficult decisions. I have said in this Chamber time and time again how astounded I was by the lack of courage the former Labor government had. When it came to making hard decisions, they ran a mile.
Power and Water is a classic example. We have documented evidence the Labor government intended to increase the power and water tariffs but did not. They could not do it when it came to the crunch. They knew it was responsible, it was prudent, and that Power and Water had clocked up a debt of $1.3bn, but they could not make the difficult decision to increase tariffs. It had to be done, it was done and people have moved on since then, realising that, as in every other jurisdictions around Australia, you have to pay more for those utilities. It is a fact of life.
We had to make the hard decision. Yes, it was painful. You would not know what pain was on the other side of the Chamber because you have never made a decision that was difficult and caused you pain. All the decisions you made were about spending. You thought you had a mandate to spend, not to act in a prudent, responsible way as a government. We are doing something completely foreign to the opposition. We are striking up a difficult debate and conversation in the community about the sale of TIO.
I have the greatest admiration for the Chief Minister for going down this track because there has been a level of procrastination around this. We need to bite the bullet. We need to make a decision which is good for all Territorians.
Who is to say that the sale of TIO will mean an increase in tariffs or premiums? There is no evidence to say when you have 12 competitors in the market that selling the Territory Insurance Office will increase premiums. In fact, I argue the opposite, but I am no expert on it and neither is the opposition. Competition would suggest lower premiums.
Look what has happened since the Chief Minister intervened in the fuel debate. Look what happens when you name and shame service providers and retailers of fuel, for example. Prices go down and consumers benefit.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we have a mandate to put this on the agenda. We are not committing either way at this stage. We want a healthy, robust democratic debate about the sale of TIO, and it will happen sooner rather than later.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will focus on three issues: 1) opposition’s complete misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of how business works; 2) the benefit of the possible use of an infrastructure fund for future development; 3) a few facts about the Territory Insurance Office.
Last week I had the good fortune to sit through six hours of opposition questioning on the Power and Water Corporation and the two new corporations as a result of the government’s reform agenda. We understand that under Labor’s watch PWC debt grew from $230m to more than $1.3bn.
Earlier this year, the government started to reform PWC, which was badly needed. This reform is in line with nearly 20 years of reform in the electricity and gas markets in the rest of Australia, reform which the Leader of the Opposition, as the then Treasurer, supported with all other Labor state and federal ministers through COAG, but did nothing about implementing any of the reforms.
Although it is early days of the PWC reform, we have seen an opening up of the books and finally some transparency into an inefficient government owned utility, the last one in Australia, in fact. It will take a little longer for the three new corporations to settle down and find their feet, but this is an important part of our building blocks for the future. We must have a reliable, stable and modern electricity, water and sewerage corporation which can sustain growth into the future.
During last week the opposition tried and failed to scare Territorians about the accounts for PWC. I will not go over the entire six hours again but, fundamentally, the opposition has no idea how accounting works. It is clear from its $5bn debt it also has no idea how to run an economy in the Territory. The opposition made the wrong financial assumptions and was shown to have no idea about normal accounting practices. The Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee was told the NT taxpayer continues to subsidise electricity, sewerage and water services by about $77m, resulting in a net loss of $20m for PWC last financial year. The opposition has made ridiculous assumptions about the annual accounts for PWC, highlighting its lack of economic skill, which saw the PWC debt jump from $200m to more than $1.3bn when Labor was in government.
The hearing was told that PWC follows normal international accounting practices in relation to valuing its assets. While the opposition claimed these revaluations came through revenue from customers resulting in a claimed profit, anyone who understands basic accounting could see the opposition is completely wrong. It is about a write down of assets that happened under Labor’s watch because the organisation was in such dire financial straits. Now that write down has been reversed and the true value of those assets has been added back into PWC’s bottom line. It is a paper profit only. PWC remains running at a loss, but under the CLP reforms there will be more efficiencies and less loss over time.
The CLP reformed PWC in line with the rest of the Australian national energy market, which is vital for developing the recently announced gas pipeline to the eastern seaboard. The hearings were told that PWC has large amounts of excess low-cost gas which can be sold into the eastern markets and ultimately put downward pressure on any future electricity price increases. Without reform, this gas would be sitting in the ground and costing NT taxpayers a huge amount of money regardless of whether it was used or not, a contract Labor signed. This excess gas asset can be sold into the total Australian market and turned into a benefit for Territorians would which not have been possible without the reforms to PWC.
The opposition has always misunderstood how the economy works and wants to continue to keep running inefficient and old systems which contributed to the massive debt the CLP inherited. They talk about PWC, but the Leader of the Opposition did nothing in the past 11 years to make the corporation more efficient.
The point I am trying to make is we have a dichotomy. In relation to the recent announcements by the shadow Treasurer relating to the bottom line figure on Power and Water Corporation, they either do not know how to read a balance sheet or are deliberately trying to mislead people in the Northern Territory.
Either of these two scenarios effectively precludes them from being able to comment on how we are financially managing anything in the Northern Territory, including TIO. Quite frankly, I am disturbed that they either cannot understand a balance sheet or would deliberately try to spread information to scare the public in relation to Power and Water and TIO.
The $300m re-rating improved the debt-to-equity ratio of Power and Water Corporation, and that is a very important metric when you are looking at the viability of a company. The reforms have also improved the cash flow so they are only making a net loss now of some $20m as opposed to a much larger number under Labor. The reforms are having a positive impact on Power and Water Corporation and it hurts them to see that.
Let me turn to the issue of a possible infrastructure fund. There are benefits around this concept to ensure there are guidelines for reinvesting Territory funds into other important and worthwhile assets for the good of the community and the economy. The government has a number of assets which could be realised and put into this fund.
The government put together an Economic Development Advisory Panel which made some recommendations for the Northern Territory government’s economic development strategy. This advisory panel was made up of some very interesting people: Mr Doug McTaggart, an economist; Ian Smith; and Mr Paul Henderson, Labor Chief Minister of the Northern Territory from 2007 to 2012. One of the suggestions the panel made is:
- One option for consideration is the establishment of an infrastructure fund. This would have the advantage of ensuring the funds remain allocated to new infrastructure projects.
This is the type of thinking the Northern Territory needs. The fund would be set up to use proceeds of assets, to reuse the money in more productive assets and/or more pressing community and economic needs. It could include partnering with the private and non-government sectors.
Under Labor none of this was even on the horizon, yet the Leader of the Opposition calls for a referendum on this issue. The NT needs infrastructure to ensure its continued growth and security. If we do not go down the path of looking at recycling our assets, then the only way of building what the community wants and needs is to go further into debt. That is something the Leader of the Opposition knows all about.
This government has tackled the debt, but not at the expense of community needs. This government is doing what all the other states are doing and have been doing for many years.
Coming into politics and parliament, I remember speaking to the then Treasurer about the current economic situation in the Northern Territory, and I was staggered. I know the Australian situation, when I was working in finance, had jumped from -7 to +43 thanks to the Rudd-Gillard government. Here I thought it would be bad, around 60-70%. When I found out the debt to gross state product was 98%, I was floored.
That would make Spain, Greece and Ireland blush. The amount of debt that was racked up is unbelievable. It is a scorched earth policy. It means any government coming in following that mess cannot do a thing. The people of the Northern Territory are hogtied. It is disgusting and despicable. As a Territorian who studies economics and has grown up in the Northern Territory, I find it to be an unmitigated disgrace.
This government is working to correct these issues and to put together this infrastructure fund. We need some money for that infrastructure fund so it can move the Northern Territory forward.
Some background on the TIO: the Territory Insurance Office was established in 1979 to ensure Territorians had access to compulsory workers compensation insurance and motor accident compensation cover. Since that time the Territory Insurance Office has evolved into a general insurance company, providing a wide range of insurance products, as well as a banking business providing primarily home loans and holding customer deposits. The strategic imperatives for the creation of TIO no longer exist.
The Territory Insurance industry is a vibrant and competitive one with in excess of 12 insurers competing for customers. Most large national insurers offer products in the Northern Territory. The Territory is also well served by the banking industry with the big four banks and a raft of second tier banks and credit unions also providing services. This reflects the global nature of finance and the insurance industry.
All insurers operating in the Territory offer cyclone cover and all but one offer flood insurance. Even in the area of cyclone cover, TIO is no longer the cheapest. Its prices sit in the middle of the market.
TIO now exists in a market where it is no longer providing unique service nor is it keeping competitors prices low. TIO remains the last government owned insurer and bank in Australia, with other states having privatised in the late 1980s and 1990s.
TIO is limited by its legislation to only offer services within the Territory. This means it is one of the smallest insurance companies in Australia, competing against national and multinational corporations. TIO is exposed to natural disaster risk, exacerbated by the fact that all of its customers are concentrated in the Northern Territory. TIO’s competitors have more capacity to diversify risk and to fund risks from much greater premium pools. Diversified insurers with access to global capital markets are a more efficient and effective means of managing the risks to which TIO is exposed.
TIO’s competitors can also achieve significant economies of scale. This makes it more difficult for TIO to compete in a small market against competitors that operate on a national and international basis.
As TIO is government owned, the risks associated with natural disasters, as well as the financial wellbeing of TIO, are ultimately borne by Territory taxpayers. Given that mature and developed insurance and banking markets operate in the Territory now, these risks are no longer justified.
The government is committed to ensuring Territorians have ongoing access to flood cover, and this would be a key consideration in any decision to privatise. As noted, most insurers operating in the Territory offer flood cover. Options for working with industry and the community on appropriate flood mitigation initiatives and planning measures to support the ongoing availability and affordability of flood cover will be examined in detail. Such measures have been developed in other jurisdictions, including north Queensland, and these provide an example of what would be implemented in the Northern Territory.
The recent Productivity Commission review into natural disaster funding also provides useful recommendations in this regard. The Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia has recently released the Pivot North report, which found that insurance costs in northern Queensland are higher than those in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Some conjecture about the role of TIO in this outcome has been part of the review. TIO is about to meet with the joint select committee to provide advice.
It is clear there are many factors that affect the difference in costs between north Queensland and the Northern Territory. The largest of these is the nature of the underwriting risk. North Queensland’s exposure to highly intense cyclones and large catastrophic insurance losses is significantly higher than in the Territory. In addition, the Territory’s building code is significantly stronger, and as a result of Cyclone Tracy, the vast majority – in TIO’s case it is 99% - of the building stock has been built subject to that code. TIO is a commercially managed business, and operates on the same basis as other commercially managed insurers. There is nothing in the ownership structure or role of TIO which would result in differences between insurance costs in these two markets.
The Northern Territory must move forward. We must continue the reform so many other states have undertaken, not just with TIO and looking at reforms with possible privatisation, but through Power and Water as well. We need to provide for the community and provide an economic future for generations to come, not just drive up debt like the Leader of the Opposition. There is another way, a sensible, prudent, smarter, more modern way.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, there is one position the opposition is putting forward: why not wait until an election?
The member for Araluen talked about debate. The Chief Minister has already listed these assets for sale, and the member for Araluen said nothing has been decided – in a dysfunctional Cabinet process – and that it is all up for debate. Then what is the problem?
The Territory opposition is putting it very clearly. Take it to the next election and let the people decide, or, what do you have to hide? It is a very clear alternative position. I will use the government’s rhetoric that it is sick of whingeing, whining and carping. I am sick of a government whingeing, whining and carping about an opposition that challenges them. We have a government that refuses to accept challenges them. ‘Do it our way. Just trust us.’ Unfortunately, the community is deciding very rapidly that this government is not to be trusted. There is a simple alternative. Give us all your neo-Liberal debate, let it go on the public record, and take it to the next election – very clear.
The Chief Minister rolled out a story about the CLP having done extensive research, since coming to government, on the sale of public assets. That is rubbish. The Chief Minister is a clone of Campbell Newman. It goes to the whole way the CLP was elected; there was some serious support from Queensland Liberals, a campaign director from Queensland was funded and put into the Territory and there was a serious cash splash from some Liberal benefactors in the bush, and, bingo, the CLP took power. The Chief Minister continues to trot out the rhetoric of Campbell Newman. The relationship is well and truly cemented.
What the Chief Minister fails to realise in his style of debate is that the Territory is a very small jurisdiction. We have a very small population base in a massive, challenging geographic area, with regular cyclones, floods and fire. The Chief Minister trots out this rhetoric about other jurisdictions, other big states, with millions and millions in population. The Chief Minister does not get it because – I have to remind myself – he is a newcomer. He roared over the border to try to get a federal seat in Canberra. I remember that result. I remember the Leader of Government Business, Hon Chris Burns, when he challenged the member for Braitling and laid out his electoral results when he stood for Lingiari. It was northeast Arnhem Land that really shattered his glass jaw, because that was the most devastating of all the results.
I was so busy trying to learn how to become a member of parliament, I did not really have time for that. But after seeing this guy progress with his arrogance, mistruths, rhetoric and denial, then I reckon, fair crack, you deserve it, Chief Minister. I have worked out that you do not get the Territory; you are a newcomer, a new chum. You are trying to overlay this big-state matrix into your neo-Liberal jargon. I have it on very good authority that the CLP Cabinet processes are most dysfunctional, and you are either misinforming your Cabinet ministers, bullying them, or giving them half the story. You are a big part of the problem.
The other reason I say, as a member of the opposition, ‘Take it to the next election, get your mandate from the people’, is what is this urgency? The urgency is the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has no signature economic project. He has not been able to secure anything in two years. He talks about a gas pipeline, and fuels the debate with personal gain for his electorate in Central Australia, when the APA says the commercial model that will stack up is the gas pipeline between Tennant Creek and Mount Isa. But the Chief Minister already has made announcements that the gas pipeline will go from Alice Springs to Moomba, which ignores any economic logic. Once again, it is a jobs-for-the-boys mentality and a personal-gain mentality. What I read into it, being a bit of an old crusty chum around the Territory, is a desperado.
Chief Minister, we can see you are getting very desperate in the second half of your electoral term and are looking for a quick cash grab. You will sell the family jewels, sell the farm with no mandate from the people. You are a new chum here. You need to show some respect.
I will briefly mention the SEGRA Conference in Alice Springs, which was the regional economic development conference. It was opened by our Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. The Chief Minister, in a rapid-fire convoluted way, talked up the Northern Territory. I was very proud to be a Territorian, sitting at a table with the Chief Minister talking up the Northern Territory. Then he attacked Aboriginal land rights and started to spin, to a full house of regional delegates, that it was all about 99-year leases, private asset ownership for Aboriginal people and scrapping land rights to deliver economic develop. ‘We will sell grandmother’s country for economic gain.’ Once again, the same rhetoric, this short-term gain, this cash grab, this Campbell Newman blueprint in new country with no respect for traditional owners.
I followed Mr Mundine, who was at that conference, and asked for assurance that traditional owners would not be used and abused by global corporate sharks with grandmother’s country being sold. Unfortunately, I left that conference with the question still unanswered.
The Chief Minister talks about the big infrastructure projects for the Northern Territory. It was funny that following the Chief Minister was the Deputy Prime Minister, Hon Warren Truss, who delivered a comprehensive list of mega-infrastructure projects for regional Australia, including the Melbourne to Brisbane railway line, but there was nothing for the Northern Territory. I asked myself and a few people at the table where I was sitting, why is our Chief Minister not with the Deputy Prime Minister announcing this major mega-infrastructure roll out. It was obvious by the end of it there was nothing in it for the Northern Territory, except the dollar for dollar deal to start work on the Outback Way – $20m from the Territory and $20m from Canberra – when there were other announcements all over regional Australia with mega-infrastructure projects.
With no signature economic project, no real relationship with Canberra – many visits but coming home with empty pockets – it looks like the Chief Minister is at a very desperate stage where he is willing to bluff his way through Cabinet, show complete arrogance to the Northern Territory and start to roll off the family jewels, the money makers of the Territory economy, because he is going to an election and is in a desperate state.
I come from the breadbasket of minerals, resources and energy in the Northern Territory: the Barkly. We also contribute in a major way to the live cattle export and are very interested in frozen beef being exported out of the Northern Territory to international markets.
Chief Minister, there are many opportunities coming online for the Northern Territory. These are the money makers of the Northern Territory, the future funding initiatives for our schools, hospitals and kids. This is the way to grow the Territory, so I am wondering why you would sell the supply chain logistics.
I do not understand the member for Blain when he says we will sell the family jewels and put the money into more productive assets. The member for Blain, the self-professed economic guru and homegrown Territory boy, says the Chief Minister will have a fire sale of Territory assets and invest in more productive assets for the community. What was it you were talking about on radio, Chief Minister? It was a sports ground was it not, when you are prepared to sell off the supply chain logistics that represent the emerging economy of northern Australia?
Having had the privilege of working with Darwin Port Corporation, I understood that fostering these projects within the Northern Territory would start to create economic benefits via the private sector. The rail operator would be investing in passing loops when new customers come online. The Darwin Port Corporation would be investing in new quay lines and a new port area when new customers come online. The Darwin Port Corporation would be organising new live stockpiles and bulk load out conveyers when new customers come online.
Chief Minister, I am not quite sure why you want to sell it off in 2014 when it is one of the jewels in the crown of our economic future. I am not sure why you want to drop it into private hands that will control the port pricing market as well as reap the benefits of all the major projects that will come online. I do not understand why the Marine Supply Base is not in your thinking, as it was with the previous government and Chief Minister, as the Aberdeen of northern Australia, as the collective that will draw all the offshore exploration and production in the oil and gas sector back into the capital of northern Australia, Darwin, to enhance our economic development.
It will be a bit late in 2017 to talk about this if you have sold off the port on a 99-year lease in 2014 or 2015 in your run in to an election, seriously needing to fill your pockets with cash to pork barrel the electorates. I do not get it. I do not understand what assets would be more productive than being able to control the most integral part of the supply chain logistics that will see, enhance and really put the substance into Darwin and the Northern Territory as the gateway to Asia.
Chief Minister, it is really simple in terms of this debate. We have our position and we put it very clearly. We do not mind your position; we do not mind the neo-liberal Campbell Newman type approach, but we will debate it. But let us have one bipartisan agreement that we will both put it to an election in 2016. I do not see why you will not do that, Chief Minister, other than this unknown that you foster, with mistruths, spin and clouded rhetoric. Face up, fess up, take it to an election. Very simple. It is a mandate from the people. The member for Nelson talked about the locals in his area already in this debate.
The Territory opposition has brought this to the House to debate. The Territory opposition has a very clear, pragmatic alternative. It challenges the members for Araluen and Blain, and the Chief Minister directly: being respectful, advised and being informed by the constituents of the Northern Territory, who we have been elected to represent. We do not have this holier-than-thou power as political representatives. We need to move with the people. We need to take the advice of the people, and we need to acknowledge Territorians, pioneering families who have worked hard in the Territory who can advise us and will advise us.
Chief Minister, take a deep breath. Hopefully you will listen to this part of the debate. It is offered in good faith, and I seriously hope the CLP changes its tune on the final step and puts it to the people.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, this matter of public importance goes to the heart of three very important parts of the Territory: TIO; the port; and what formerly was the Power and Water Corporation, which has been split into three businesses.
I have been overwhelmed since going to the public when we first had word the government was looking at selling of TIO. We started a campaign to ensure Territorians had a say. We tried to demonstrate to the government how much TIO means to Territorians and their views on it.
We have a petition. I have one out the front of my office and I have no problem seeing sheets and sheets of it being filled out. I was recently at the stand at Casuarina Square where we were supporting the new member for Casuarina in the by-election. We had the petition there and people never hesitated to stop and sign the petition, because TIO is an organisation they feel a great deal of ownership of and a great deal of care for. There are some pretty good reasons they feel that way and so strongly about TIO.
One of them is because it offers insurance products they can afford and know they can rely on in the Territory, such as flood and cyclone coverage, and they know TIO has not let them down. It is an organisation that has been there for them through thick and thin, and it has a great model for a jurisdiction like the Territory.
Let us face the facts. We have a small population and some fairly different and challenging weather conditions, to say the least. We have seen the adversity it puts us through. We have seen what happens during cyclones and floods. People need the support of an organisation like TIO in the Territory. It has done a really good job for a long time. The service level you receive from TIO is excellent, many people tell me that. I try to put as much of my personal insurance through TIO as possible, and it has been a terrific insurer. TIO also employs many Territorians.
People feel very strongly about keeping TIO in the Territory, owned by Territorians, rather than it being used as a cash cow, quite frankly, to help the CLP government fund the 2016 election. That is what it is about. Today in Question Time the government revealed it has been looking at this since March.
We have put several questions to the government in regard to the future of TIO, the port and Power and Water – Territory-owned public assets – and they have been shifty with their language towards those issues. They have not been forthcoming with their plans.
On Monday, straight after the Casuarina by-election, we saw a full page advertisement in the Northern Territory News for the launch of a website about TIO. If the government is pursuing such a popular decision, why did it not promote it during the Casuarina by-election campaign? It is very clear it is because you know Territorians do not want TIO to be sold. It is that simple; it has been a great insurer that has not let Territorians down. I really hope the government listens to Territorians and gives them a chance to have a say on their insurer.
I welcome the Leader of the Opposition bringing forward this matter of public importance, because Territorians should have a say. The CLP did not go to the 2012 election and tell Territorians its intention was to sell TIO. It has no mandate to sell TIO, and Territorians deserve to have a say on its future. Today we put this to the government: you should do the right thing by Territorians, and if you intend to sell TIO then get a mandate to do it. Put it up at the 2016 election and see what Territorians have to say. Give Territorians a real chance to have their voices heard in this process, because once you sell TIO it will be gone forever and we will not get it back.
I keep hearing these arguments about other insurers in the market, but, again, the government does not seem to get it. You are basically putting these insurance policies on the market; Territorians will be at the mercy of private insurance companies driven by profit. It is about profit before people, and this is why TIO has been such a good model for Territorians for so long. I hope the government seriously listens to Territorians, because they do not want TIO sold. They do not want to be left to the mercy of private insurers. They want to be able to afford their insurance premiums, and want know that when things go dreadfully wrong they have good coverage. That is what TIO has done for a very long time.
I turn to Power and Water. Prior to 2012, the government gave no indication it wanted to separate it on taking government. There was no talk from the CLP about its plans for Power and Water. In fact, their actions were very different to their words with regard to Power and Water, because we know one of the CLP’s key commitments at the 2012 election was to reduce the cost of living for Territorians. They signed contracts and ran hard on that commitment to reduce the cost of living for Territorians. What did the CLP do as soon as it gained government? They hiked power and water prices right through the roof. The cost of power, water and sewerage has gone up dramatically under the CLP. We are talking about an extra $2000 a year for the average Territory family. We are taking about $8000 a year just to keep the lights on and the water running. That is on top of rent payments, other bills and fuel prices.
They went to structural separation with very little consultation. They rammed it through without enough time for proper planning. We saw that last week at the PAC committee meeting. It is unbelievable that two new government owned corporations could not provide completed Statements of Corporate Intent to the PAC committee, which by legislation, they are meant to do. They did not have the financial data to be able to complete them.
We are talking about billions of dollars of infrastructure at Power and Water Corporation where you rammed through a split without doing the planning or preparation. Now, financially, Jacana Energy and Territory Generation are flying blind. They do not have a true picture of their finances. Territory Generation did not have a complete picture of its assets. You would expect when you were messing with billions of dollars of Territory asset you would have done the work and some cost-benefit analysis. You would have some evidence to show Territorians there might be some benefit to splitting the corporation at the cost of millions of dollars to the Territory.
It leads me to think there was more of an agenda around the eventual sell-off of Power and Water assets – more public assets going up for sale. Where structural separation has taken place in other jurisdictions it has led to the privatisation of essential service assets. We have seen it time and time again. The privatisation of utilities leads to higher prices, fewer jobs for people working there and less reliability. Repairs and maintenance goes down. It is a fact. It has happened time and time again down south. We have now seen it happen in the Territory. The government had no mandate to do it.
It was very clear that Jacana Energy and Territory Generation have some very attractive assets that could be sold. For example, almost 80-odd customers of Jacana Energy account for 34% of their revenue. So far, Jacana Energy said they have lost a couple of those customers. The structural separation will not benefit the average household – the mums and dads in the suburbs or the people living in the bush. This is about big businesses and big customers, and it is a very attractive asset for the government to sell.
Territory Generation has some nice new assets in its generators. The new legislation enabled the government to dispose of assets within the new Territory Generation Corporation. That is also a concern.
We ask the government to start listening to Territorians about TIO, the port and the future of Power and Water assets. If you are to sell any more public assets, have a mandate to do it. Go to the next Territory election and listen to what Territorians have to say. You have no mandate to sell TIO or privatise and sell Power and Water assets. Territorians deserve to have a say. So far you have made some huge changes with no mandate to make them.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we ask the CLP government that if is to privatise these assets, realising once they are gone they are gone forever, at least get permission from the Territorians who own them.
TABLED PAPERS
Travel Reports – Members for Johnston, Arafura and Greatorex
Travel Reports – Members for Johnston, Arafura and Greatorex
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I table five travel reports from the members for Johnston, Arafura and Greatorex, pursuant to clause 4.1 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will speak about some achievements and positive exploits of groups and people in my electorate.
As you know, the Dry Season is a busy time for many of sports and youth groups. The people I talk about tonight are just a small example of the sterling people we have in the rural area and the commitment they give, not only to the group they belong to but the broader community.
The first person I congratulate and commend is Lachlan Casburn, who was awarded the Queen’s Scout Award for exceptional work done within his Scout Venturer Unit at Humpty Doo Scout Group. His hard work within the community and scouting in general has resulted in his nomination for this prestigious award. It is the first time anyone in the Territory has won this aware in about 10 to 15 years. It is very special. The award originates from England, and was presented at a very special ceremony at Government House by Her Honour the Administrator.
Lachlan commenced his scouting journey in 2008 as a scout at the Palmerston Scout Group before moving to Humpty Doo Scout Group in 2009. He achieved the Scout Medallion Award early in 2011 and became an Adventurer later that year. For those who do not know, Venturers are scouts in the older teenage years.
Lachlan is in the process of moving from Venturers to Rovers. He has been a driving force within his Venturer unit, promoting activities and encouraging other Venturer Scouts. He has been the Chairman of the Unit Council and a regular organiser and participant in activities and camps of the Humpty Doo Scout Group.
Lachlan was selected to attend the Mawson Scholarship and Leadership course in October 2013, where he received instruction and practical training in teamwork, communication, decision-making, problem solving, conflict resolution and event management. Lachlan was a finalist in the environment section of the Northern Territory Young Achiever Awards Awards for his work in organising and participating in a camp at Garig Gunak Barlu National Park on the Cobourg Peninsula, where Lachlan and his group cleared beaches of marine debris with the local park rangers to preserve turtle breeding habitats.
He has a passion for environmental conservation and has been involved in several community projects to revegetate the local reserve, campsites and managed land, and was a coordinator for Clean Up Australia Day.
As part of the Venturer Awards Scheme he achieved SIS10 level 2 certificates in bushwalking and canoeing, a certificate in first aid in remote locations and his provisional driving licence.
For his Expeditions qualification Lachlan led a six-day and night expedition along the Jatbula trail from Nitmiluk National Park to Edith Falls.
Lachlan has been active in other sections of the Humpty Doo Scout Group where he assists the leaders of Cubs and Scouts in the delivery of the award scheme and acts as a mentor to the younger scouts. I have seen him with the groups and he certainly is a very lovely young man and will become a terrific adult.
As well as completing the Venturer Award Scheme, Lachlan also achieved the bronze and silver levels of the Duke of Edinburgh Award.
Lachlan was also involved when I organised the animal nursery at the Freds Pass Show. I asked Becky Myers and the Venturers if they could help me care for them, feed them and things of that nature. Lachlan was one of the young fellows who came along. He was a delight to be around. He did not need to be asked to do anything. He had great initiative. He obviously got on well with the six or seven other Venturers who were there and I know his family is proud of him, as are all his friends.
There was a special ceremony at Government House, and he is a good example to young girls and boys coming up in the Scout movement, and generally, because he is at Taminmin College. He is popular and well-liked by his fellow students and the teaching and other staff. Congratulations Lachlan.
I will also talk about the Southern Districts Cricket Club, which is the only cricket club servicing the greater rural area; people from elsewhere can also play. Very special dates in the Southern Districts Cricket Club calendar were 9 and 16 August where they played the PINT Cricket Club to see who would win the Geoff Akers Memorial Cup. This is the round where A grade and B grade need to win to achieve the Geoff Akers Cup. It is a two-day competition.
This match was established in memory of Geoff Akers, who was tragically killed in a road train accident on 27 August 2009. Geoff was a passionate cricketer and long-time president of Southern Districts in two separate stints. He was a major sponsor of the Southern Districts Cricket Club and the women’s cricket team of Darwin, assisting them to compete in the Rose Bowl competition with Alice Springs for many years.
Geoff also helped many of the other cricket clubs around Darwin, especially the Palmerston Cricket Club, friendly rivals with Districts. Geoff was a great supporter of the Lord Taverner’s Club and they now play a memorial match in memory of Geoff. On the weekend of Geoff’s accident, Districts were to play PINT Cricket Club, and it was agreed they would play a memorial match each year. PINT scorer John Coady presented the beautiful cup to the families and Districts committee members with the arrangement that no matter who won the trophy it would always remain at the Districts Clubhouse.
For the very first time, Southern Districts won the memorial cup this year. Many times either A or B grade have won; however, because PINT won both grades the first year, they retained the cup. It is fitting, given that it is the fifth anniversary of Geoff’s passing this year.
The A-grade players who played in the special matches were: Leigh Drennan, the captain; Ian Redpath; Ruben Wakefield; Patrick Gallow; Scott Willington; Sam Ferguson; Hayden Cummings; Jessie Dinnie; Riley May; and Matt Hammond. They defeated PINT in the first innings by 62 runs.
The B-grade team players were: Anthony Dent, captain; Robert Lavender; Nathan Hangan; Jack Atkinson; Dean Fry; Robert Gallow; Daniel Derrington; Scott Wood; Mitchell Townsend; Nic Fawcett; and Kyle Piccinelli. They defeated PINT in the first innings by 15 runs.
It is pleasing to note that the majority of these team members are homegrown players. They have come up through the club beginning in the Under 11s, in some cases starting their cricket career with the Milo clinics run at Districts.
Southern Districts have another Geoff Akers Memorial trophy, which is a shield. This is a clash between Palmerston Cricket Club and the Southern Districts in a one-day competition. This year it was held by Southern Districts, having been won earlier in the year with a clean sweep: A, B, C and U17 all defeated Palmerston.
The club has a small group of hard-working volunteers, and the committee at the moment comprises Anthony Dent, president; Ann Hammond, vice-president; Melissa Mullen, treasurer; Alison Jenkins, secretary; Tiffany Markey, registrar; Andrew Harvey, junior coordinator; Dean Cummings and Daniel Derrington, committee members. These people ensure the players are equipped to play. The patrons of the club are, of course, the member for Nelson, Gerry Wood, and me.
In the past, Districts have taken the trophy for the best prepared pitch in Darwin for two consecutive years, knocking off the Tracy Village Cricket Club and the Waratah Cricket Club. Currently the pitch is being prepared by Bob Redfern, who is ably assisted by Robin Jeffrey.
I regularly visit the cricket at Fred’s Pass, particularly when A-grade people are playing, because it is much faster and there are some massive hits, sixes and fours that are very impressive. I time it to try to meet the players and people at the lunch break, which is a fantastic spread and is prepared by Annie Hammond with the assistance of Gill Atkinson. All the players really appreciate the hospitality at Southern Districts, and I am told they have a reputation that precedes them in regard to the lunch and how they look after visiting players. It is something some of the other clubs can only aspire to. Of course, there are always the ubiquitous two or three big boxes of lollies, which keep up the sugar levels of the hard-working players, particularly when it is a hot day. The club has been busy in the past upgrading its facilities and now has a great set of practice nets; they are second to none. It has recently begun stage one of the extensions of its very small clubhouse.
While they have the best prepared pitch in Darwin, they cannot host any carnival games, as they do not have change rooms. I believe the committee is preparing to approach the minister for Sport and the Chief Minister to have that rectified, so they can host games and we can have first-class visiting teams from interstate come to play in the rural area.
I congratulate all of the players and volunteers on their performance this season, particularly the hard-working volunteers who put so much into the game and the club. The club is patiently waiting the rest of the season. The awards ceremony has been and gone, and it was a well-attended and very enjoyable evening.
Next year will be a good year. I know the Southern Districts Cricket Club and its band of good players, coaches and volunteers will do their very best and hopefully win out the trophies again.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is with great sadness that I speak on the passing of a great leader of our nation, our 21st Prime Minister, Edward Gough Whitlam AC QC.
Gough was a giant, loved by our Labor movement. He was a leader who dreamt big and implemented his dreams. His election in 1972 not only changed the government; it revitalised the nation. In three short years in power, Australia was awoken from its slumber. Suddenly we all had a reason to be optimistic. What is this great man’s legacy?
Despite conservative opposition at the time, Whitlam’s changes are now bipartisan articles of faith. We have him to thank for our universal healthcare; the end of military conscription; the abolition of the death penalty; the establishment of the family court; no fault divorce; the lowering of the voting age to 18; and the principle of ‘one vote, one value’. Gough was a giant of foreign policy. As Opposition Leader, he made that trip to China, unheard of for an Australian political figure at the time. As Prime Minister, the relationship with China was consolidated. To this day, Australia, and indeed our Northern Territory, have benefited from the establishment of diplomatic relations with China, started by Gough Whitlam.
For young men in the early 1970s, for who the birthday lottery could see them sent to fight in an unjust war in Vietnam, Gough was their saviour. He brought our boys home and ended our nation’s role in that conflict. He signed the World Heritage Convention, and because of that we have saved the Daintree, the Tasmanian old growth forests and our own Kakadu for all time.
He embraced the arts and allowed us to shrug off our long-standing cultural cringe. Until Gough Whitlam, the concept of attending university was a dream for all but the very well off. Gough changed that. Suddenly, university degrees could be accessed on the basis of ability, rather than wealth. Perhaps above all he was a leader for who justice and fairness was paramount.
Who would ever forget the iconic moment of Gough pouring a fistful of Territory dirt into Vincent Lingiari’s hand – the birth of land rights. His words that day still resonate with me. We Australians
- … have still much to do to redress the injustice and oppression that has for so long been the lot of black Australians … Your fight was not for yourselves alone, and we are determined that Aboriginal Australians everywhere will be helped by it … The people of Australia will help you in your plans to use this land fruitfully for the Gurindji.
…
Vincent Lingiari, I solemnly hand to you these deeds as proof, in Australian law, that these lands belong to the Gurindji people, and I put into your hands this piece of the earth itself as a sign that we will restore them to you and your children forever.
Vincent Lingiari’s reply was, ‘We be mates now’.
From little things big things grow. We have the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Aboriginal land rights are part of the fabric of our nation and fundamental to our Northern Territory.
Gough backed it up further, bringing in our first Racial Discrimination Act. He established the Aboriginal Legal Service. He removed the final shameful vestiges of the repugnant White Australia policy. He elevated the role of women and opened the equal pay case; women’s pay was immediately increased. He removed the sales tax on the contraceptive pill. Suddenly, women were more empowered, thanks to Gough. He was the first leader anywhere in the world to have an Office of Women. But that is hardly surprising; by his side was an extraordinary woman, the love of his life, Margaret. They were an extraordinary double act, both larger than life. It was a marriage that lasted over 70 years.
I had the honour of presenting a posy of flowers to Margaret as she stood proudly beside her Prime Minister husband, Gough Whitlam, outside the Legislative Assembly, before Cyclone Tracy when that parliament was still intact.
They were literally towers of individuals. Gough Whitlam was an intellectual and political giant. He was a QC who could have dominated as a barrister and very likely ended up as a Supreme Court or High Court judge. But he chose public service, beginning in the Air Force. It began when he joined the Sydney University regiment in 1939; he worked his way through the ranks and became a flight lieutenant, but politics was his true calling.
He strode across the corridors of Parliament House in Canberra like a colossus, dominating at the despatch box, as Opposition Leader and Prime Minister, like no other. He also mastered the tools of modern politics, the first in Australia to deftly use television and polling, and the first to harness creative advertising. His It’s Time campaign in 1972 still stands as one of the great political campaigns of Australian political history.
I hope to have more to say in the coming days if this parliament agrees to the bipartisan condolence motion Territory Labor has sought.
Suffice to say, Australia is a better, fairer, more inclusive, more modern and more progressive country thanks to Gough Whitlam. We are less colourful and less interesting for his passing – a truly great Prime Minister, a truly great Labor leader, a great man, passionate about Australia.
Today we have lost an extraordinary Australian leader who enshrined, for so many of us, Australian values in his policy and his laws.
Vale Gough Whitlam.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, tonight I start to tell the story of the life of Ann Brown, a lady with a no-fuss name for a very dynamic, energetic and no-fuss person who is all action, no talk.
I am taking the time to tell Ann’s story in parliament because on Australia Day this year she was awarded the honour of being bestowed the title of Palmerston Citizen of the Year. I felt it only fitting, as I did last year with Margot Cox, our 2013 Citizen of the Year, to record her life achievements in Hansard.
Ann Brown was born on 3 August 1941 in Glasgow, Scotland, and is a self-confessed 10 Pom. Ann has just celebrated her 73rd birthday. She often tells the story about how she is living in the bonus years. Ann always said her greatest achievement in life would be to reach 60 and everything after that would be a bonus. At 73, Ann is almost always to be found in sneakers because she is literally busy running from one commitment to another.
Ann has many fond memories of growing up in Scotland as a child. One of her earliest memories is receiving a tricycle for Christmas in 1945. She also remembers, perhaps less fondly, the experience of having a surgeon attend her house to prepare the dining table as a theatre bed. Ann was to have her tonsils out and was given a general anaesthetic right there on the dining room table. She remembers the bright white light above her head, and reflects that in many ways it was more practical and sterile than having the procedure in the hospital. Of course, in 1945 Europe was plagued by war and all of the hospitals were full of those injured in the war.
In 1943, Ann’s brother Charlie was born. In 1946, Ann was off to primary school with her lovely new leather school bag. She cherished that school bag and can still vividly remember the smell of the new leather. That year Glasgow suffered through its worst snowfalls on record. Ann probably remembers this so vividly because the schools were closed, which meant she was free to keenly observe the many trucks bogged in the snow on the road in front of her house. I can just imagine Ann as a young girl watching the men attempting to shovel the snow away.
Ann recalled to me how in 1948 she would play at the bottom of her garden in an old bomb shelter full of gas masks used during the 1939 to 1945 war. Young wide-eyed Ann would listen to her mother tell stories about how bombs would fall from the sky causing massive and catastrophic destruction to people’s homes.
In 1949 Ann very gratefully received her first two-wheeled bike. She also noted the frequent absences of her grandmother, who lived with her family at that time. She was suffering from dementia and would wander the streets for many hours, leaving her family worried and having to look for her.
Ann was also bitten by a dog that year and it left a very sour taste in her mouth. Ann has held a lifelong grudge against that dog and virtually all dogs from that day onwards.
In those days, sugar rationing meant there were no lollies or sweets for little girls like Ann. Instead, she remembers the joy of trick or treating for Halloween and receiving lots of fruit and nuts from the neighbours, a very healthy alternative that parents these days wish their children would be grateful for.
Ann’s family moved to Inverness in 1951 when her father got a job as a chartered accountant with North British Hotels. To put it simply, Ann loved her new life in Inverness. Her family had a lovely home with a wonderful garden she loved to play in. It was in Inverness that she began to learn about the animosity between the Catholics and the Protestants. Ann explained to me that the Catholic children used to beat her up and throw stones. Ann, to this day, cannot understand how 10 Hail Marys could forgive that type of behaviour, only for it to be repeated the next day.
Ann’s time in Inverness ended in 1956 when her family moved back to Glasgow. Ann attended Jordan Hill College in her drindle skirts, embroided hooped petticoats and stiletto heels, the epitome of modern fashion. It was in these teenage years that Ann bought her first LP record by Perry Como, Catch a Falling Star.
Ann decided she would become a nurse, and in 1960 attended the Western Infirmary in Glasgow. This was a 1000-bed hospital that Ann learnt to love over her three years training on a salary of eight pounds a month. When Ann was explaining her nursing college experience to me she said, ‘Little did we know when we applied to do nursing that the hours were so long and the uniforms had to be nine inches from the ground with starched collars, cuffs and belts’. Ann and her friends had to live in the nurses home at the infirmary and lived their lives by very strict rules. Training nurses had to be back at the nurses’ home by 10 pm each night and were given only one late pass to midnight each month.
From 1965 to 1966 Ann undertook her midwifery training at Queen Mother’s Hospital in Yorkhill, Glasgow. Queen Mother’s was a brand-new hospital and Ann loved her year there. It was at Queen Mother’s that Ann become involved in a groundbreaking scientific development. Professor Ian McDonald gave most of the lectures to the aspiring midwives, and on one occasion he asked Ann if she would assist him in performing the first ever foetal ultrasound in the entire world. It was Professor Ian McDonald who invented the ultrasound machine and Ann Brown from Glasgow helped him use it for the very first time.
Despite the challenges, Ann and her best friend, Elizabeth Gillespie, who continue to be friends, carried on. It was Ann who said to Elizabeth one day, ‘There must be something better than this. I am going to go to Australia.’ Elizabeth agreed she would go with her to soak up the sunshine, but instead made her way to Canada to start her life journey. Ann could not understand why Elizabeth would want to go somewhere equally as cold as Glasgow.
Ann explained to me that in those days you were granted a two-year visa to work in Australia before you had to return home to the mother country. Ann had many life-changing questions going through her mind at the time of applying for a visa. Ann thought, ‘What am I getting myself in for? Will it be safe in Australia? Will I get a job once I get to Australia? Will Australians accept me?’ Ann recalls these emotions as both exciting and full of trepidation and, with that, Ann left Glasgow in August 1966. She travelled from Glasgow to London, London to Bahrain, Bahrain to Singapore, Singapore to Darwin and Darwin to Adelaide. Somewhere between Bahrain and Singapore Ann’s plane was diverted to an Army barracks where the 300 passengers aboard the plane were left on the runway in the heat.
When Ann landed in Adelaide she was most concerned about how she would get a job. Much to her surprise, by 3 pm that afternoon she had become a midwife in the labour ward at Queen Elizabeth Hospital. At that time many Italian women were having babies in the labour ward and that was a fantastic cultural experience for Ann.
Whilst in Adelaide, Ann enjoyed many doctors’ parties. The midwives and nurses would work all day long, indulge in parties all night long, and then get up, go to work and do it all again the next day. Whilst Ann admits she cannot believe she was able to do that, it created a strong camaraderie in the group. Ann recalls that back in those days she was young enough to handle it.
Ann also enjoyed the roof of the hospital which she regularly used as a suntanning salon. Ann loved suntanning oil and sprawling out in the warm summer sun on the hospital roof. She notes, however, that some 30 years later when she was having her skin cancers cut out, she did not think it was such a good idea after all.
She remembers that she was really well looked after whilst being a midwife and has many fond memories of this first stint of her Australian adventure.
After six months in Adelaide, Ann travelled to Sydney and started work at the Royal Hospital for Women in Paddington. She got the job the day after she arrived. The hospital had a beautiful view of Sydney Harbour Bridge. Sadly, the hospital was knocked down three or four years ago.
At the Royal Hospital for Women, Ann had to wear a large starched veil. Ann chuckled to me as she recalled never getting the hang of it. She reminisced how limp her veils would be and how much she hated them. The labour theatre was the only place you did not have to wear a veil and Ann would find herself there a lot of the time.
After six months in Sydney, Ann travelled to Brisbane. When she arrived it was raining and miserable so she went to the job centre and asked for a job in the sunshine. As Ann’s luck would have it, a couple of hours later she was on a bus and ended up in Home Hill just south of Townsville. Ann recalls feeling confident and excited about the new sunshine experience. At Home Hill she worked in a 14-bed hospital. This was a real eye opener for Ann as she had never worked in a small regional hospital before. Ann told me it was very old school, and they boiled water for the glass syringes and counted the linen in case someone had stolen something.
It was at this hospital that Ann received her driver’s licence. One day in Home Hill, Ann was busy delivering the policeman’s wife’s baby. Whilst the policeman’s wife was in labour, Ann mentioned to him that she did not have a driver’s licence. The police officer kindly said he would take care of it and make the necessary arrangements for her to receive a licence. Ann went the very next day to see the police officer, and in front of her he wrote out a 10-year licence to drive. Cheekily, Ann did not tell him that she did not know how to drive. She then bought a car for $100 and was on her way, terrorising the roads of northern Queensland.
Ann could not afford a very expensive car at that time as she had spent all the money she worked very hard to earn in Adelaide enjoying herself in Sydney. Ann’s friends from Sydney came to visit her in sunny north Queensland and they went on a sailing adventure to Palm Island. That was the first time she had visited an Aboriginal community. Ann recalls the sugar cane country of north Queensland and the spectacular fires as the cane burned along the landscape. It was in far north Queensland that she tasted her first mango and instantly fell in love with them. Ann rightly pointed out that it has to be Bowen mangoes, not turpentine. It was also the first time she tasted paw paw, and she absolutely loved it.
In Ann’s tradition, six months later she moved to the Northern Territory. Ann drove her car to Townsville, across to Charters Towers, and got to Julia Creek where it was flooded because it was January. She had to sit in the pub for four days listening to yobbos, waiting for the road to clear. She then put the car on the train and got on the train only to find it was full of drunks. Ann got off the train at Mount Isa and continued her driving journey.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, it is with much sadness that we learnt of the passing of Barbara Bradshaw, nee Tully, after a long and courageous battle with cancer.
Barbara was a strong, decent person. She was a consummate public servant. She was frank and fearless. Her hard work played a profound role in shaping law in the Northern Territory. She has left a legacy promoting sound public administration. Most people would not realise she was the architect of many of the legal frameworks governing the Territory, and she worked on major legislative reform under both governments.
For those who can remember the Department of Law, she was a long-term employee, and her duties ranged from policy lawyer to Deputy Master of the Supreme Court, from Registrar of Companies to Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, Registrar General, Corporate Affairs Commissioner, and Registrar of Credit Unions and Building Societies.
I knew her best for her work outside the public sector, where Barbara served as the CEO and Director of the Traditional Credit Union and CEO of the NT Law Society. Her last professional role was as Director of Legislative Reform at the Department of Children and Families.
Outside of work, Barbara was fiercely competitive at quiz nights, to the point where she would use her considerable legal skills to argue with the judges if she did not agree with their decision. She was also very generous. She would often invite newcomers to the NT for a home-cooked meal and make them feel at home as new Territorians. Our thoughts are with Barbara’s husband, Robert, and their daughter Mary. She will be greatly missed by many.
Our thoughts today are also touched by the passing of former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. With his passing, we lost a giant. To borrow from another former Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, we lost the brightest star in our political firmament.
My thoughts turn to a different light. Chifley gave us the light on the hill; Gough strode right up to it. He proved you could aspire to something better and make it real. We should always be aspiring in politics and striving to reach the light on the hill. There is every chance Gough is already in heaven and leading a reform agenda searching for the light on the celestial hill.
Gough has left a broad and rich legacy that shaped our nation and our Northern Territory. Indeed, the Darwin we know today is due, in many parts, to Gough, as Prime Minister establishing the Darwin Reconstruction Commission after the tragedy of Cyclone Tracy.
Gough had faith in the north, faith in the Territory, and a sentimental attachment to Gove for his time served there during World War II, where he developed a deep friendship with the Marika and Yunupingu families. Through his actions at Wave Hill he changed Australia and the Territory and formed a permanent bond with the Gurindji. To borrow from Paul Kelly:
- … one day a tall stranger appeared in the land
And he came with lawyers and he came with great ceremony
And through Vincent’s fingers poured a handful of sand.
From little things big things grow.
You can reach the light on the hill. He will be missed.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, as predicted, the Top End fire season has turned out to be well above average. The volunteer bushfire brigades and Bushfires NT staff have been kept busy dealing with numerous wildfires in our rural areas. In fact, there have been more than 140 major wildfires that our volunteer bushfire brigades and Bushfires NT staff have actively controlled since late June. While controlling these wildfires they have protected many community assets, including homes, businesses, farms and tourist facilities. The work of volunteer bushfire brigade members and Bushfires NT staff is often the last ditch effort to control fire as it threatens residents’ homes and assets. There is no doubt they provide an essential public safety service.
While work is coordinated by Bushfires NT, there is a heavy reliance on the outstanding contribution of our volunteer bushfire brigade members. The selfless donation of their time, combined with their extensive fire management skills, continues to underpin the community’s capacity to manage fire in the rural area.
Even more commendable is the sustained fire control effort they provide. During the current fire season they have collectively donated many thousands of hours, and they regularly commit to turn up at fire lines, ready to combat fires and support their rural community.
The current fire risk in the rural areas surrounding Darwin and elsewhere in the northwestern Top End, where high fuel loads from an above average Wet Season combine with rural residential developments, is still apparent. The current fire risk is greatest in the southern Top End, primarily in the Gulf and Victoria River Downs regions. We are all aware fire is a natural component of the Top End landscape requiring a committed and ongoing community response. Many of our volunteers have been managing fires on an almost daily basis for several months, assisting in the afternoons when fires get what they call a ‘run on’, and working well into the evening until they are extinguished.
It is not just the fire response work our volunteers do that helps make the rural area a safer place to live. Their work commenced early in the Dry Season, when all volunteer bushfire brigades contributed towards extensive fire mitigation efforts to minimise fire risk later in the season. Volunteers undertook extensive planning and consultation with landholders to develop local fire mitigation strategies to better protect their local brigade areas and manage high fire risk areas. They then completed early burning across Crown land, roadside reserves and local shire areas, which resulted in a good mosaic of reduced fuel loads that significantly decreases the current risk of fire.
To date there have been 55 fire ban declarations in the Top End. This is a record number, and reflects the fire weather during this season. Bushfires NT staff have worked many long hours and spent many weekends responding to numerous fires. Their work is often immediate, high pressure and complex. To date, fixed wing aircraft have been used on 73 occasions. These aircraft aim to suppress fire early and quickly to enable ground-based crews to move in and extinguish fires safely. The planes fly low in smoky conditions to maximise the impact of their water drops, and the skill of the pilots is to be commended.
The other vital component of Bushfires NT’s airborne capacity is helicopters. To date, helicopters have been used over 90 times at fires across the Top End and savannah regions. The helicopters fulfil a dual role. They provide water bombing when required, but more often provide Bushfires NT staff with an aerial view from where they can better command the many fire vehicles on the fire line, and a plan to develop strategies for the containment of an incident.
The pilots are long-term Territorians, and their knowledge of country is a vital tool in managing the many incidents they are involved in. Currently fire weather is abating in the northwestern Top End, and the fire danger will continue to moderate in the next two months, as the Dry Season’s southeasterlies moderate and the humidity increases in the build-up.
But with the decreasing fire threat in the Darwin rural area comes an increasing threat in the Katherine region, as the fire season moves south. Bushfires NT staff based in Katherine have been particularly busy, with large fire events affecting broad areas of pastoral estate. Several wildfires have run for a number of weeks, impacting multiple stations and stretching all available resources. Bushfires NT staff have deployed from Darwin, Batchelor and Tennant Creek over the past six weeks to assist and support stakeholders in this large, and in places remote, region.
One wildfire, which started on Murranji Station, has burned two million hectares over 13 stations, and involved over 100 station and Bushfires NT staff in efforts over three weeks. This wildfire has significantly impacted on the operations of the stations as well as neighbouring stations whose staff have assisted. Whilst it has now mostly passed through pastoral estate, it continues to burn in the north Tanami desert. It continues to be monitored by Bushfires NT, as well as local government and police from Lajamanu, and Central Land Council rangers.
The movement of Bushfires NT staff between the regions will continue as the fire season develops to the south and as mitigation efforts are undertaken. In addition, as resources, including fire appliances, become available from the lessening risks in the Top End, a number will be deployed to southern areas and made available for increasing risks there. That is something I am particularly proud of, having worked up with the Chief Executive of the Department of Land Resource Management to ensure the southern regions are given additional resources during the height of the fire season. The fire season is long, but our volunteers and Bushfires NT staff are well placed to deal with these threats.
I commend them for their dedication, their hard work and their tireless efforts. On a personal note, I extend to all of the volunteers particularly – there are many serving volunteers and many who have retired and moved on – a thank you for the massive efforts they put in. I have been involved in bushfires on my own properties and seen just how dangerous and difficult these situations are and how quickly they can develop.
Our volunteers, supported well by Bushfires NT staff, do a stellar job. They are out there every day protecting the property, assets and, potentially, lives of people of the Northern Territory. I commend their good work.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, tonight I update the House, as shadow minister for Arts and Museums in the Northern Territory, on some recent happenings and my thoughts.
Art remains one of the most essential facets in the fabric of the Territory and makes a substantial contribution to its cultural identity.
But first I make mention of the importance to me of the life and work of Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who, sadly, passed away today. It has been a sad day for many Australians; particularly as a Labor Party member it has been sad and emotional. Universal healthcare, free tertiary education and Aboriginal land rights were achievements under his leadership. Gough also reopened the national wage case and equal pay case, and its findings meant Australian women undertaking work similar to that undertaken by men should be paid an equal wage. In a world first, he also appointed the first dedicated adviser for women’s affairs to the Prime Minister. He acknowledged the efforts and importance of women in making them a part of our society.
Whitlam reforms such as these saw Australia move from the status quo of the 1950s and 1960s into a modern nation that successive governments have been able to build upon. He advocated equality for all, irrespective of race, class or gender. His social and economic reforms have transformed Australia unquestionably for the better. I and the Territory Labor team mourn his passing.
Gough Whitlam also had a strident appreciation of the arts, and placed emphasis on the arts industry that had been forgotten under 25 years of conservative rule. Gough Whitlam doubled funding to the arts in his first year of government and created the Australia Council for the Arts, which is still operating today. Such a move was unheard of in post-war Australia, and has since provided hundreds of Territory artists, particularly Indigenous artists, with support.
The Whitlam government pushed forward with the creation of the National Gallery in Canberra and the first purchases of art. Its first purchase was Blue Poles by American artist Jackson Pollock. It cost the government $1.1m and created spirited debate in the political scene. The painting is now estimated to be worth over $100m and is seen as one of the smartest investments in Australia’s arts industry.
The Northern Territory arts scene is continuing to thrive, thanks to the hard work, talent and creativity of the people who consistently contribute to it. However, the industry continues to face uncertain times, given the level of cuts it is facing at the hands of the current government. With $1.3m worth of grants being cut from the sector, we still have not heard which organisations will be losing money as a result of these cuts.
Given that the CLP has consistently touted its commitment to tourism in the Top End, it is somewhat surprising the organisations that generate so much appeal for tourists are losing government funding. I would appreciate the minister outlining which organisations are losing funding and how much. I have been told by numerous arts groups that they are extremely concerned about their future and are unable to properly plan for it within the current environment; apprehension it is putting a roadblock in the future success of the Territory’s arts organisations. I urge the minister to clear this uncertainty as soon as possible.
I recently travelled to Alice Springs and attended the Alice Desert Festival. I met with the general manager, Laura Martinez-Oliveras, and the Events Manager, Mary-Jane Reynolds. I was impressed with the great creative energy within the organisation. The festival is an important showcase for a region where artistic endeavours feature strongly. The contributions of local artists, volunteers and staff were exceptional. However, funding cuts to the festival have affected the number of acts in the program, which resulted in a lower audience turnout. This is particularly disappointing given the increase in events and audience turnout for the Darwin Festival; it is disappointing to see we have not had an increase in the Alice Desert Festival. We need to place added investment into regional festivals, particularly into promotion, and administrative expertise.
I acknowledge the excellent work being done at the Darwin Entertainment Centre. The DEC General Manager, Alan James, has done superb job luring both quality and quantity to the centre. The number and standard of shows has increased immeasurably in the past year, and I commend the job Alan and his team have done. This year has seen Bangarra Dance, the Wiggles – my family’s personal favourite – top notch comedians like Bill Bailey and Alan Davies, and our own Jessica Mauboy all perform at the centre. It has been one of the biggest years by attendance at the Darwin Entertainment Centre.
Lastly I touch on the recently introduced MAGNT reforms, which provide for easier access to the museums and art galleries for philanthropic and corporate donors and contributors. These measures were supported by the opposition when introduced to parliament. I note this morning an apron was donated by Ms Mim McGuiness from my electorate, who, by chance, I visited yesterday at her home in Rapid Creek. Mim and her family donated the apron, which it is thought their mother had made when she lived at the Kahlin Compound or soon after in the 1930s. One of the skills she gained at the Kahlin Compound was needlework and embroidery. The item donated was beautifully handmade, and it is so important to the Territory’s history. I am pleased this type of donation is occurring, allowing important parts of our history to be on show for all Territorians. This is part of the new arrangement so it will be good to see more items and parts of our history on display at the Musuem and Art Gallery.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will read into Hansard a letter from Rob Oakeshott to Crikey.com regarding Ebola and the first person to die of it in the United States, Thomas Eric Duncan. It is very interesting:
- Dear Thomas
Thank you. For dying of Ebola. In America.
You have done what 3000 deaths in West Africa couldn’t do.
You have scared the ‘advanced’ world into lifting its head, and finally looking at the enormous tragedy unfolding.
You have now forced pressure onto First World governments. Those same governments wanting to look strong and in control through military might in Iraq and Syria, yet questionably weak when juxtaposed with Ebola.
- Australia’s all-rhetoric ‘shirt-fronting’ Prime Minister Tony Abbott had been silent on Ebola until your death. Now, at the very least, he is getting asked about it, and is being forced to talk about it.
His initial reaction is a typically insular one. He says Australia will not send health workers to West Africa due to their personal risk of infection. This plays as a typically coded message to his ‘Team Australia’, that infectious disease outbreaks are for the West Africans to deal with alone. Clean, white Aussies wash their hands and have toilets, after all. Not our problem.
On its own, this view makes perfect sense as part of an ongoing government theme built on dismissing ideas of global citizenry. The inward nails of climate change, refugees, and Internet connectivity, have all been driven into our new Fortress Australia.
That Ebola is someone else’s problem fits nicely as the latest plank to this fortress. Who said neighbours were for loving anyway? The world’s just too complex for any of that warm and fuzzy relationship stuff.
And this is where your death helps. It is timely in exposing this fortress as tough on rhetoric, but weak on reality.
Because now, in the very same press conference, Prime Minister Abbott is staunchly promoting Australian military involvement in Iraq and Syria, yet denying Australian health support for West Africa. Change the topic and he flips the argument. There are no principles behind the rhetoric of a principled stand.
- What your death is doing is showing up the political tough talk on Islamic State as militaristic and muddled when compared to Ebola. Why one, and not the other?
Military crisis? All hands on deck.
Health crisis? All for themselves.
The unprincipled, muddled state of global citizenry. A good ol’ fashioned conspiracy theorist has never had so much ammunition to argue the military establishment is running the show.
If only Ebola was worshipped as some kind of fundamentalist religion, or the disease outbreak occurred in the oil fields, I suspect either of these might draw a more determined response.
This is exactly why your death matters. You engaged the media. And by doing so, you engaged the First World.
By dying of what you did, where you did, you have reaffirmed that disgusting formula of modern news – one death in America equals 3000 deaths in Africa.
And governments will now respond.
Prime Minister Abbott will not be able to hold his selfish health position of turning a blind eye to Ebola. Ebola is leaving Islamic State for dead when it comes to threats on humanity. People pressure, and more and more horrific deaths, will demand greater action.
So thank you, Thomas. You have saved many lives through your unfortunate death. You have engaged those with the power to stop Ebola spreading into millions forecast.
Now, along with your death, the only thing missing is a graphic Ebola death on YouTube, shared and liked, we’d then see the ‘advanced’ world moving in a way it should have long ago.
RIP Thomas Duncan, and all the unnamed like you, you have died from a highly contagious, but preventable disease. Yes, preventable.
I read that last night, and then I opened today’s paper and saw an opinion piece by Andrew Bolt. I do not always agree with Andrew Bolt; sometimes I do. He said in his opening line:
- Ebola is ghastly enough. But must we all suffer the moral posturing of politicians such as Tanya Plibersek?
I do not know why our country is not making a bigger effort. We did it with Aceh when there was the tidal wave. Why are we not doing it here? I read that Cuba, for instance, is sending 165 medical people to West Africa. China is sending 59. The argument is that it will take 30 hours, if someone is infected, to come back to Australia. China is probably further away than Australia.
I understand that a person here may not know all the ins and outs of the government’s policy in relation to this, but as a nation we are not leading the way. We are a rich country. As I said before, we always tend to be working in coalition with the United States when it comes to military threats to our country or the world, yet here we have a threat of Ebola and we seem reluctant to go down the same path the United States has.
I was reading something from Yahoo News yesterday which said:
- US officials say privately that Australia and Canada should be providing more healthcare workers.
President Obama has criticised many countries in the First World for not making the effort. It is hypocritical that we can fight a war in Iraq but cannot put the same effort into working with the United States to do something for the people of Africa.
Obviously there are issues the government has some genuine fears about, but I have not heard that our country is talking to the United States or asking how we can work with that country. How can we work in with your 3000 troops to help?
We seem to want to be, as Rob Oakeshott said, Fortress Australia. President Obama has said you cannot stand back; you have to go into those countries and try to do something about it.
I noticed another article from the Sydney Morning Herald which says:
- Aid agency Oxfam has warned that Ebola could become the ‘definitive humanitarian disaster of our generation’ if more is not done to halt the spread of the virus.
Oxfam, which works in the two worst-hit countries – Liberia and Sierra Leone – on Saturday called for more troops, funding and medical staff to be sent to tackle the West African epicentre of the epidemic.
Chief executive Mark Goldring warned that the world was ‘in the eye of a storm’.
‘We cannot allow Ebola to immobilise us in fear but … countries that have failed to commit troops, doctors and enough funding are in danger of costing lives’, he said
‘The Ebola crisis could become the definitive humanitarian disaster of our generation’ ...
- Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott last week refused calls to send frontline health workers to Africa.
I raised this because as a rich nation, as a nation willing to spend millions of dollars on helping people in our own area, and one which spent millions of dollars helping people in Indonesia when the tsunami occurred, why can we not do something in relation to this issue which, if it gets any worse, will be a far greater threat to humanity than all the things that have happened at home or to our near neighbours.
As a nation we can much better. I hope our Prime Minister can change his mind, work with the United States and show that Australia is a willing partner in trying to do something about this terrible disease.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I arose this morning with great sadness to hear of the passing of Gough Whitlam AC QC, a former Australian Prime Minister. I made mention of Gough Whitlam in my maiden speech entering the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The connection was with my family – parents, another two generations of the family, five kids growing up in a three-bedroom fibro housing commission house in western Sydney.
My mother was a nurse, so I am sure she would have appreciated, raising five children and looking after elderly residents, universal healthcare, which was introduced by Gough Whitlam and the Whitlam government. I am sure she breathed a sigh of relief, as I did, when we started to think my elder brother was getting to the stage where he might pull the ball out of the barrel and end up in Vietnam. I can also remember the legacy of Gough Whitlam in compassionate acceptance of Vietnamese refugees to our country and their re-settlement in western Sydney around the Bankstown area, where we made contact.
My father was a working man and certainly would have celebrated the Whitlam era and the Whitlam government, having five children. Between us there is a doctorate, a couple of master’s degrees – one with honours – there is a degree in physiotherapy, and I am sure dad would have been very proud of the fact we had access to tertiary education through the efforts of Gough Whitlam and the Whitlam government.
I remember how the girls in the house studied piano and did ballet, and I remember mum’s involvement in the arts. I am sure she celebrated the change in the Australian arts culture when Gough came to power and influenced policy development throughout the great nation.
There was also a very environmental consciousness in the household, and it filtered down to the kids. I daresay my parents were able to base many of those education and awareness opportunities for the environment and ecology, and its protection, on what was happening on a federal political scale with Gough Whitlam and the Australian Labor government. It seems I was very fortunate, and I travelled, in some respects, in parallel with a great Australian man, political figure and prime minister.
There was a time when I longed to meet Gough Whitlam, but I never had the opportunity. In the later stages I remember contacting anybody in the Labor Party who would listen to try to get Gough Whitlam back to the Northern Territory, for a couple of reasons; I wanted to talk to him about Aboriginal land rights and to use him for a fundraiser in Tennant Creek. I knew, as Tennant Creek knew, if Gough Whitlam turned up for a fundraiser we would have filled the town hall. There would have been thousands who would have paid for a ticket to see Gough Whitlam. All of the CLP would have been there – every lefty, every right winger, the Labor movement and the Aboriginal people would have come in their droves. It never happened; que sera sera.
Gough’s legacy will live on through many more generations as a reforming and great prime minister who had vision and, as other speakers have mentioned who changed the dynamics of this country at a very important period in its history.
Well done, Mr Whitlam. I am glad to say I believe you have joined Margaret, colleagues and other loved ones who shared your life and times. Gough, I hope the next part of the journey will be relaxing, enjoyable and very fulfilling. I thank you as an Australian for the great legacy you have left.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I join with my colleagues on this side of the House in recognising with attentive sadness the passing of Australia’s 21st Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, who had a fair old innings making it to the ripe age of 98.
Although his period of service was relatively brief, just three years, as leader of this country, the changes, the influence and the lasting effect and impact his leadership and reforms had on this nation will stay with us forever. As I watched the news this morning, Anthony Albanese, our federal Labor colleague, was talking about his recollections of Gough Whitlam, and his are not dissimilar to mine, particularly that fateful day on 11 November 1975.
I am sure in the same way people remember where they were when JFK was shot, and perhaps when Princess Diana was fatefully injured in a car accident, they also remember where they were and what they were doing on 11 November 1975. Anthony Albanese recalled, as a 12-year old at school in Sydney, that he was in his history class – his history teacher also happened to be the Labor candidate in the part of Sydney where he lived – and how memorable it was to learn that day about the implications of the actions of the Governor-General.
On 11 November 1975, I was a 13-year old in Year 8 at Clare High School. As kids, dragging our feet into class, our history teacher approached us and we asked, ‘What are we doing today, sir? What books do we get out? What do we need?’ ‘You do not need to get any books out’, he said. Dennis Crisp was his name, and he also happened to be the Labor candidate in the rural seat my family and I lived in. ‘We are having a different kind of lesson today. I just want you to sit and listen. I am going to give you a really important history lesson I don’t want you ever to forget.’ We sat, stunned, and learned of an unprecedented event in Australia, where a Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, had been sacked. That is my very clear memory of where I was that day and the impact it had on me.
As I grew up in and learned more about the influence Gough Whitlam had – we have heard through the media today, and for a short while in the House this evening, the many achievements and hallmarks of Gough Whitlam’s three years in government. Let us remember that during his years in opposition he was laying the groundwork for the many reforms he put into place.
His influence has touched many people, especially in the Northern Territory and in my electorate. In 1944 he was based, during World War II, with RAAF No 13 Squadron as a flight navigator; he had a connection to Gove. There is a photograph of him at Gove Airport. Perhaps it was through that initial contact that he went back there later as a member of the federal opposition, wanting to meet with the people of Gove to look at the prospects of the region for future development, at a time that was also extremely controversial. I have no doubt his visit impacted on and shaped his thinking about the future for Territorians, particularly Aboriginal people.
We have heard throughout the day, and again this evening about the impact he had on changing the lives of Aboriginal people. He recognised their right to own their land and have that ownership recognised, and not only through the establishment of the Woodward Royal Commission, the forerunner to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act which eventually had passage through federal parliament in 1976. The image of, in 1975, the sand pouring from Gough Whitlam’s hand into Vincent Lingiari’s, the leader of the Gurindji people, is indelibly etched on the nation’s conscience. It is a very powerful, symbolic image of the returning of the recognition, first of all, of Aboriginal ownership of land and the returning of that land to the rightful owners, the Gurindji people.
A discussion I had with a friend today was about not forgetting what a great feminist he was. As the Leader of the Opposition noted, always alongside him, rather than behind him – and perhaps sometimes in front of him – was his wife Margaret, a very strong individual in her own right. Some of the many achievements Gough Whitlam put through during his short period in the role of prime minister provided support for grassroots organisations and the establishment of important health services for women that benefitted women’s health and welfare. He supported and saw the opening of rape crises centres, women’s refuges to support women escaping domestic violence and, as we know, established the Family Law Act in 1975 and instituted within that act no-fault divorce, which was something extraordinarily new for its time.
He established and supported parental leave. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, he made access to oral contraceptive easier by removing the sales tax and allowed women to take control of their lives by making it available through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
We heard the member for Nightcliff talk about his contribution to transforming the arts in this country, his reforms to the Australia Council. He also founded the Aboriginal Arts Board, again a connection to my electorate and the important community of Yirrkala, by appointing the late Wandjuk Marika as the first Chairperson of the Aboriginal Arts Board.
He delivered incredible reforms, such as free university education, the introduction of the Racial Discrimination Act, an end to conscription in the dreadful war that was Vietnam, the abolition of the death penalty and, importantly, and really out there for its time on the international scene, the diplomatic recognition of China.
There is absolutely no doubt about the contribution Gough Whitlam has made to this country. I hope the opposition’s request for bipartisan support for a condolence motion in the House, in the same way we have seen in the federal parliament today, may allow us to talk further about the contribution of Gough Whitlam, and to be able to place his considerable achievements in this nation on the public record.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016