2015-09-17
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 6 students from Moulden Park Primary School accompanied by D’Elise Keitaanpaa. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, yesterday was an interesting day, if not an extraordinary day. Some of the behaviour and performance in this parliament was less than professional, and less than satisfactory. I ask honourable members to reflect on why they are here and who they represent.
Guests are not allowed in this Chamber during the lunch breaks unless they have cleared it with me or with the Clerk’s office.
All the items on the table are still protected by parliamentary privilege and the cameras still work while people are here. If you want to bring guests in, come through your respective lobbies and make sure either my office knows about it or the Clerk’s office through the Serjeant-at-Arms.
One final thing for those who are not aware, but I am sure you all are, guests in the galleries are tolerated. To the people who come in here; it is not a right, it is a privilege. There was an incident yesterday in one of the galleries where someone’s peaceful enjoyment of being in this parliament was disrupted. I put everyone on a warning that these galleries will close, with the exception of school groups, if I ever see something like that happen again. It is not a right, it is a privilege to witness parliament.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation, with leave of the House.
Yesterday I made some comments in this House which, upon reflection, were unwise. This is in relation to the comments I made yesterday with regard to a figurative response to the member for Nightcliff.
What I said was a figurative turn of phrase; however, upon reflection, it was unwise and for that I unreservedly apologise.
As the member for Nhulunbuy said the other day:
I do. I genuinely wish I was often better than I am. From time to time, one will use a phrase in error, which I did when I said yesterday that I was:
All members of this parliament would realise, that was a figurative turn of phrase. I have heard of members in this House being beaten up; I have heard varying references from both sides of this House about attacking the opposition and those sorts of things. They are not literal phrases or references. They are figurative terms. Nevertheless, it is the hallmark of a gentleman – which I try to be – that when I make a mistake, I stand up and acknowledge that mistake fulsomely and openly.
I did not realise this would cause the stir it did, but in hindsight of course it did. I apologise without reservation to the member for Nightcliff in relation to the comment I made. It would be nice to think that all of us were of a better standard. I often plead to this House for better standards and I expect as much of myself. When, unfortunately, even a turn of phrase which is used as a metaphor can lead to embarrassment, then it is the duty of each member of parliament when they do that to apologise for it, which is what I do today.
I am not proud of the comment I made yesterday. It was never intended in any fashion or way to be seen as any form of physical threat. In fact, I say proudly and openly in this House that I have never lifted a hand in anger to any woman at any time. But even language needs to be revisited. It is the language I used yesterday which I now, upon reflection, can only say sorry for.
The media uses language like this all the time, ‘Mr X lashed out’, ‘Government launched an assault’, ‘The opposition attacked government’. These are metaphorical phrases and they are all phrases that suggest violence. If the media or anybody else, in common parlance, uses the expression ‘lashes out’ they are not talking about somebody physically walking out with a whip. Nevertheless, we as parliamentarians need to be better than that but often we are not. When we are wrong, it is incumbent upon us to acknowledge we are wrong and then get on with the business of trying to improve ourselves.
Yes, I am a passionate member of parliament. Yes, I believe in what I do and I do so stridently and with all the best intents in my heart. However, I can also say I am not perfect, and have never claimed to be perfect. However, I live by the philosophy that when I am wrong I have to promptly admit it.
On this occasion I am wrong and I accept the error of my ways. I will seek in every way to improve the quality of performance that I offer the people of the Northern Territory.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Bail Amendment Bill (No 2) 2015 proposes to amend the Bail Act to allow the Youth Justice Court to consider the use of an electronic monitoring device as a condition of a bail conduct agreement. The bill will thus provide an additional level of supervision for youths subject to a bail undertaking issued by the Youth Justice Court.
Section 27(2)(a) of the bill empowers a court to impose a conduct agreement as part of a bail undertaking. The conduct agreement requires an accused person to observe specified requirements as to their conduct while on bail. The conduct agreement clauses of the Bail Act apply to both adults and youths. Section 27A of the Bail Act contains the conditions that a conduct agreement may include. Section 27A(1)(ia) relates to the use of an electronic monitoring device and section 27A(1)(ib) relates to the use of an improved voice recognition system.
These provisions were inserted into the Bail Act by the Justice (Corrections) and Other Legislation Amendment Act in 2011.
A Youth Justice Court is currently precluded from considering an electronic monitoring device or voice recognition as part of a conduct agreement, due to the use of the words ‘other than a Youth Justice Court’ in section 27A(1)(ia) and 27(1)(ib) of the Bail Act. This means that in circumstances where a youth court is of the view that the devices would assist in ensuring compliance with the bail undertaking, they cannot consider ordering the fitting and use of devices as a condition of bail.
Stakeholders have noted that precluding a Youth Justice Court from even considering electronic monitoring hampers the court’s ability, the ability of police and the ability of the Department of Correctional Services to properly monitor compliance with the bail and unnecessarily limits options available to a Youth Justice Court when considering conditions for bail.
Clauses 5(2) and 5(4) of the bill omit the words ‘other than a Youth Justice Court’ from sections 27A(1)(ia) and 27A(1)(ib) respectively, thereby allowing a Youth Justice Court to have the ability to consider whether an electronic monitoring device or voice recognition system should form part of a bail undertaking for a youth appearing before it.
Courts cannot simply order the fitting of these devices on their own motion. The Department of Correctional Services must provide a report to the court under section 28 of the act. The report relates to the suitability of a person to be fitted with a device, and the court must consider the report when deciding to exercise its discretion to order the fitting of the device.
The criteria the Commissioner of Correctional Services uses to assess the suitability for the fitting of the electronic monitoring device include the youth’s ability to comply; the suitability of their residence; the level of support and supervision from carers or guardians; the impact the device may have on other residents, for example, siblings; and the proximity of Correctional Services staff to manage the requirements of the device.
This bill contains a number of other amendments that relate mostly to electronic monitoring. The amendments are as follows.
Firstly, section 27A(1)(ia) of the Bail Act does not contain a condition that an electronic monitoring device not be tampered with, removed, destroyed or otherwise interfered with by the accused person. Such a requirement is an integral part of the bail undertaking where the device is issued and has been inserted through clause 5(3) of the bill. The clause ensures there is a clear obligation on accused persons fitted with the device not to tamper with it or destroy it.
Secondly, the purpose of issuing the electronic monitoring device is to assist in the monitoring of an offender who is subject to a conduct agreement. This includes ensuring that curfews, residential conditions and exclusion areas are complied with. The tracking abilities of the device also provide an incentive for the accused person not to reoffend or breach a condition as their location can be plotted at all times. Therefore, when a breach of condition of bail relates to tampering with, the destroying of, damage or removal of an electronic device, the Bail Act must treat the type of breach more seriously than other breaches, as arguably the only reason a device would be tampered with or destroyed would be to assist in an undetected breach of the bail undertaking. Section 38(2A) of the Bail Act already contains a mechanism whereby a court must revoke bail if a breach of condition relates to a prescribed matter. Clause 8 of the bill inserts a new prescribed matter where a breach of bail relates to contravention of section 27A(1)(ia).
Thirdly, the Bail Act does not contain provisions relating to costs recoverable by the Northern Territory where an electronic monitoring device is damaged or destroyed. Such a provision has been included in both the Correctional Services Act, section 198 refers, and the Sentencing Act, section 39Q refers, relating to damage to devices issued under those acts. Clause 9 of the bill rectifies this oversight by including a provision substantially similar to the sections discussed above in the Bail Act regarding costs recoverable to the Northern Territory where a device is tampered with, damaged or destroyed.
Fourthly, clauses 4 and 5(1), 6 and 7 of the bill contain miscellaneous amendments to the Bail Act that ensure the terminology is consistent within the act and between acts. The amendment at clause 4 cures an incorrect cross reference to the Correctional Services Act. The amendment at clause 5(1) relates to inserting the word ‘using’ before the words ‘a drug’. The Misuse of Drugs Act and the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act use the term ‘use’ rather than ‘consume’ when referring to drugs, and this amendment simply ensures consistency within this terminology.
The amendments at clauses 6 and 7 relate to omitting the word ‘condition’ and inserting the word ‘provision’. Again, the amendments simply ensure consistent terminology is used through the act. Finally, clause 10 inserts a transitional provision. The transitional provision is required to ensure the bill contains a clear explanation as to what matters the amendments apply to. Clause 10 notes that the amendments to section 27A apply to any grant or variation of bail that occurs after commencement and the clause notes that the amendment of section 38 applies to any breach of bail that occurs after the commencement.
The amendments provide a Youth Justice Court with an additional option to consider when considering conditions of bail and will assist Northern Territory Police and the Department of Correctional Services in enforcing compliance with the bail undertaking. The use of an electronic monitoring device may also provide a deterrent to the subject persons from committing offences while breaching bail whilst fitted with the device, given their location can be monitored without the need for physical surveillance by law enforcement authorities.
The Youth Justice Framework 2015-2020 contains an action item relating to intervention and prevention. The aim of Item 2 is to ensure that ‘young people at risk of offending are identified early and targeted to prevent or divert them from engaging in antisocial or offending behaviour’. Item 2.3 relates to programs to increase eligibility and compliance with bail conditions, and it is hoped that in providing greater scope to the Youth Justice Court when considering bail conditions will assist in achieving the aim of this item.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CHANDLER (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill I introduce today will provide police with expanded powers to conduct random drug testing of drivers on Northern Territory roads. It will also make our current procedures for roadside drug testing more efficient for police and the driving public.
The use of prohibited drugs is a growing issue for this government and the Northern Territory. As well as harming the broader community, it is well known that certain drugs can impair driving performance and increase the risk of crashes and serious injury on our roads.
Drugs affect a driver’s judgement, concentration and ability to react quickly and appropriately. Stimulants, such as ice and ecstasy, can lead to aggressive driving and cause drivers to take risks which they would not normally take. The trauma from road crashes related to drug driving causes grief and distress not only to victims, but family and friends of those involved. Recent evidence indicates that drug driving is now becoming more prevalent than drunk driving, with up to 13% of fatal road crashes caused by drivers under the influence of prohibited drugs. This risk becomes even higher where the drug ice is involved.
This particular drug is known for contributing to aggressive driving behaviour and drug-fuelled road rage incidents. For example, in a 2014 incident in Melbourne, a driver under the influence of ice collided with a stationary vehicle and, subsequently, assaulted a heavily pregnant woman and other passengers before being apprehended by police.
This government is already taking strong actions to crack down on this behaviour. We have conducted a parliamentary inquiry into ice use in the Northern Territory, and our police continue to work closely with the Commonwealth government National Ice Taskforce to combat the spread of this dangerous drug.
The bill before you today will continue these efforts to stop prohibited drug use, reduce its harmful impact on the community and improve the safety of our roads. Under the current legislation, Territory police can test all drivers for alcohol levels. However, police are only allowed to test for prohibited drugs in limited circumstances: where a person is driving a heavy vehicle over 4.5 tonnes; a driver is suspected of being under the influence of prohibited drugs; or the driver was involved in a crash. There is no power to conduct random drug testing of other road users, such as light vehicle drivers and motorcyclists, in the absence of a suspicion of a motor vehicle crash. Yet in all other Australian jurisdictions, save for Tasmania, police are empowered to conduct random drug testing of drivers.
This bill before the Assembly today removes these limitations and gives police the power to direct any driver to pull over and submit to random drug testing, similar to random breath testing to detect drunk drivers. With these amendments, police will be able to randomly test any driver, motorcycle rider or driving instructor for the presence of prohibited drugs in their saliva. Roadside testing will continue to focus on detecting cannabis, ecstasy and methamphetamines such as ice and speed. These drugs are illegal. They are the most commonly used drugs in the community and can have a serious impact on the skills and sound judgment required for safe driving.
This amendment will bring the Northern Territory up to date with other jurisdictions. All other jurisdictions, as I said, save for Tasmania, have successfully implemented random roadside drug testing regimes similar to that which is proposed in this bill. Research shows that these regimes are having a positive impact on road safety, with one Victorian study finding that the current rates of random testing are saving 20 lives per year and reducing total driving fatalities by up to 15%.
The amount of tests conducted will depend on the extent of drug testing proposed. For example, police operations may include targeted roadside drug driving testing campaigns similar to random roadside breath testing campaigns. In order to support this expanded regime, the bill introduces secondary roadside saliva testing to streamline the procedures used for roadside drug testing.
Under the current testing arrangements police begin with a random roadside drug test through the window of a driver’s car. The driver is required to lick the test pad of a preliminary testing device and an indicative result is known within a few minutes. At this point, most drivers should test negative, and will be free to go. If the driver tests positive, or the police officer otherwise suspects the driver is under the influence of drugs, the person is taken to the nearest hospital or health centre for a blood test.
Under the new legislation, a driver who tests positive to the preliminary test or is otherwise under suspicion of being under the influence of drugs may be detained by police and escorted to a drug testing unit or the nearest police station to undergo a second saliva test. If this test is positive, the driver’s licence will be immediately suspended for 24 hours, and the saliva sample from the drug test will be sent to a laboratory to confirm the presence of drugs. Drivers will be able to request a portion of this saliva sample from the laboratory for the purposes of independent testing at their own expense.
In most cases this procedure will negate the need for a blood test, which is costly and time consuming for both police and the person being tested and unnecessarily expends our health sector resources. Drivers who are escorted to a hospital or local health centre by an officer may wait for an hour or more to have a sample of their blood taken. By replacing this with a 10-minute roadside saliva test, we will significantly reduce the costs and the imposition on the public. This will enable more drivers to be tested under the new regime more efficiently, and make the road environment safer for Territorians by removing more dangerous drivers from behind the wheel with immediate effect.
The current power to require a blood sample will remain as an optional alternative to a second-stage saliva sample at the discretion of police. This will allow for circumstances in which a person is unable to provide a second saliva sample due to an injury or medical condition, a second saliva test sample is refused, the saliva sample is insufficient or secondary saliva-testing kits are unavailable, particularly in remote areas.
I note that this regime does not change any of the existing penalties for drug driving offences but it will introduce a new offence where a person fails or refuses to submit to a saliva test. The offence is modelled on and carries the same penalty as the offence for failure to submit to a breath test. The bill also makes minor amendments to sections of the Motor Vehicles Act relating to drivers who have had their licences disqualified by the registrar of motor vehicles after being convicted of certain offences. Similar to drink drivers, convicted drug drivers will now need to complete a drug driver education course before being able to re-apply for their licence to drive. This course will aim to deter drivers from future offences by educating them about the risks associated with driving under the influence of drugs.
The Northern Territory community are entitled to be kept safe from the impact of drug drivers on our roads and this government is taking a tough stance against those who infringe on this right. This bill will support a number of proposed reforms, sought to be introduced by government to reduce prohibited drug use and its associated harm to the community, such as the proposed expansion of police powers to search for drugs in vehicles and declare specific roads as drug transit routes under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Expanding police powers under the Traffic Act to catch and deter those who choose to drive under the influence of drugs is a sound initiative that will make our roads safer in the future.
I am hopeful and sure honourable members will support this important road safety reform. I commend this bill to the House and table the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 16 September 2015.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, I will talk about the initiative the Department of Business and the Office of Asian Engagement, Trade and Investment is working on to improve our engagement with Asia at this important juncture in history. Opportunities exist for us with the comparative advantages in our economy to start to move the Northern Territory forward. We have all hoped for this for a long time. We have been waiting for the right time, the right dovetailing of different variables to get this process into line.
I will start by discussing the economics of free trade without looking at some other issues that have been raised in this House. Free trade is all about comparative advantage. A comparative advantage exists where one nation has an ability to produce something – a good or a service – at a cheaper price than another company or economy based on its natural attributes. For example, the Northern Territory has lots of space with very few people living in it. Its rainfall patterns and grass cover make it a great place to produce cattle. It is not a great place necessarily to raise cattle into slaughter stock but a great place to raise cattle.
Our Asian neighbours are countries which are very small with very high populations. They are very densely packed. Whilst these nations actually have better fodder for cattle, they are not very good at raising cattle. The number of people that exist means the opportunity costs of that economy producing their own beef is incredibly high compared to ours. So with a nation that might have lots of people in a very dense area we say, ‘We have a comparative advantage in raising cattle. You guys have a comparative advantage in making iPhones.’ One nation makes iPhones, the other nation breeds cattle so they exchange and trade.
Generally, that happened in history at a local level between nations until the mercantile era when gold became important because it could bankroll wars. This is where protection started coming in for a number of reasons. First of all, they tried to protect gold. You were allowed to import gold, but no one was allowed to ever export it so the national stock of gold within the country would always improve.
Nations also started looking at certain types of industries and seeing them as strategically advantageous. For example, Australia is not suited well for the manufacturing industry, especially light manufacturing.
It would be a strategic loss for a nation to lose the ability to manufacture things it might need in a crisis. In the United States this is very obvious where, even though they are not fantastic at it, the United States maintains a heavy manufacturing industry with vehicles. The reason for that is not because they make fantastic vehicles at economically viable prices, it is because they want to maintain the capacity, if the need arises, to make trucks, tanks, aeroplanes and ships.
This is a strategic advantage to them, so they do not want to give it up. They do not want to outsource all the manufacturing of heavy machinery to other places and keep only financial, legal and education services, things they also have advantages in.
What we are looking at with comparative advantage is that the actual default between economic entities should be free trade. Protection of certain industries should only be provided on a strategic basis, not to protect an industry which is effectively inefficient.
Economics points out the importance of markets, which are proven over a long period of time to be the most effective, efficient mechanism to allocate resources. This is about the allocation of resources because the fundamental problem in economics is the limited amount of resources and the unlimited amount of wants. We need to globally look at what resources exist, who is best placed and positioned to manufacture these resources into useful things and then trade with each other. That is in a perfect world scenario.
Firms will outsource something on a cost basis. They only keep things in if they have a technological advantage, even if it is more expensive for them to do it, or because it is of such strategic importance to the firm that they do not want to be at the mercy of the supply chain.
If we look at this from two perspectives – the strategic purpose argument in protection – protection can be very dangerous for a country, particularly where we are protecting industries we do not have a comparative advantage over.
We saw this in the 1970s and 1980s, with the demise of the textile industries in Australia. Unions representing their workers were vocal and strong in trying to protect textile workers, and I understand that.
Effectively you could buy something of the same quality, for a very small fraction of the price, from overseas. We do not have a comparative advantage in manufacturing textiles and it was an industry Australia needed to, as a company, move away from. We needed to move into and evolve areas of industry in this nation that had a comparative advantage.
For example, our medical research sector is up there with the best in the world. What we would like to see in a perfect world is a shift of resources from one thing to another. Unfortunately, that kind of structural shift in economies is tricky because it is not that easy to get a textile worker and train them into a research scientist.
Over a period of time we allow that industry to go through the process of becoming much smaller, and we allow the other industry to become much bigger. We encourage one industry over another at an educational level so, slowly, over a number of years the nation will have a comparative advantage.
That is basically the economics of free trade, that protection should only be used for strategic purpose, not for the protection of an industry where we do not have a comparative advantage. If we look at that, protection can stall the evolution of an industry and cause us to become inefficient in resource allocation of our nation, which hurts our nation long term because, as we all know, we are living in a globally competitive environment.
The next thing to understand in this Asian engagement strategy is the importance of the exchange rate. Australia is an interesting country because commodity prices and the Australian dollar track beautifully, generally. When commodities come off, people do not like having their money in Australia because essentially a lot of the money that is generated in Australia, particularly of late, has been commodities-related, whether that be agricultural commodities or commodities like iron ore and coal.
It is interesting to look at the history of the exchange rate. Australia had a weak dollar compared to the US dollar while all our industries, particularly many of our mining industries, were firing hard. This caused us to have a comparative advantage in these fields because our dollar was so low. We were able to sell things that other countries could not because our dollar was generally weak compared to theirs. Other nations would look at our commodities and say, ‘If we buy it from Australia, it is cheaper’. We do not see the effect of that here so much because we have a mature and developed economy. All that meant was a boon for the industry in that area because it was helped along by the Australia dollar.
Then came along the global financial crisis and because commodity prices had been going up, irrespective of the Australian dollar, long-term contracts were set up in Australian dollars for our hard commodities like coal and iron ore, and also our agricultural commodities like wheat and the like, even though wheat generally goes on shorter-term contract pricing. Iron ore in particular did not have a spot price. Iron ore was done on long-term contracts and we saw in the global financial crisis our banking sector was not negatively affected to the extent of other sectors in the world. This was probably due to, honestly, good luck rather than good management. The Australian banks, because they had been lending so heavily to those sectors that were comparatively advantageous to this country, were not sitting there with a whole lot of capital that needed to find a global home. They were not investing in these AAA-rated securities that were later found out to be toxic.
Therefore, we did not lose the amount of money off the assets side of our balance sheet that other nations did, so our banks were incredibly healthy.
When Basel III came out, which was an indicator of where they looked at how much money a bank had available to it at any given time in reserves to protect itself, the Australian banks came out very well. At one point the Commonwealth Bank was in the top five banks in the country because of the financial position it was in. That was fantastic for Australia because it made the Australian dollar go up. Australia was seen as a safe place to park money. We all remember when the Australian dollar was trading higher than the US dollar. Most people in the country would have noticed this because many people travelled to the US and Internet shopped in the US, and bought things cheap and had them shipped here.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a past member of parliament, Marion Scrymgour, and I think a Deputy Chief Minister too. Welcome to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr BARRETT: When we looked at this situation the Australian dollar was in, suddenly we had long-term contracts with fantastic prices for commodities and the Australian dollar went up. While the rest of the world was having some serious issues, Australia was getting an awful lot of money in from overseas because overseas countries, China in particular, were locked into a commodity price in Australian dollars and the Australian dollar was high. This cushioned the blow the global financial crisis had in many other nations. We did not feel the GFC to the same effect here that other places did.
Since then we have seen commodity prices come right off and the long-term commodity contracts wash through. We have also seen the Australian dollar come down against the US dollar. That has made our commodities, even though their prices are cheaper, more attractive in Australian dollars. The Australian dollar has fallen which has played to our favour.
This fall has made our service industry more attractive. I was recently at the Westpac breakfast. We saw a direct correlation between the strength of the Australian dollar and overseas enrolments in our tertiary education sector. When the Australian dollar was low, people from overseas were accessing our tertiary education system. When the Australian dollar rose to around the United States equity mark with the US dollar, people stopped enrolling in Australian universities. It was too expensive to live here in terms of other currencies.
So, in terms of this exchange rate history, we have a new standard and stability has returned. We have seen where the Australian dollar should have been sans the mess that was the GFC. This now changes the kind of environment we are moving towards. The commodity price has come off oil, iron ore and energy prices so we had to structurally shift our economy. Industries of strength change over time and flexibility is a key feature. I cannot overstate the importance of having a flexible economy. Those jobs that existed in the mining sector where people were getting $180 000 to drive a truck are no longer there. The economy needs to shift structurally. The Australian dollar has helped that.
At the Westpac breakfast we looked at what is happening globally and where the Northern Territory is situated. The growth of the Chinese middle class is an important point. People have been talking about China not growing at the same rate it had been. China has grown between 7% and 10% annually for many years. The base of that figure increase has increased. Now people say, ‘Oh no, the Chinese economy is only going to grow at 5%’. If we think about that mathematically, let us say that economy was on an index.
Mr Elferink: That is 5% of a huge economy.
Mr BARRETT: Yes, 5% of a huge economy is a higher number than 10% of a much smaller economy. China growing at 5%, when we look at the materials and products they need in tonnage, is still up there. They still need lots of stuff. I believe there was a year when China imported more than half of the global concrete. That is a massive statistic. That shows the amount of infrastructure developed.
This growth in China has created a middle class that will dwarf the size of the Australian population. With the low Australian dollar, these people are looking to educate their children offshore. They are looking to expose themselves to other countries, which means they want to come here for tourism. They want to invest here. When China talks about its population, its rounding error is greater than the Australian population. When we talk about the holistic numbers, there are parts of China that have more millionaires than we have people. These people are looking to educate their kids offshore. We are in a sweet spot.
An economist from Westpac said, ‘This is what I recommend the Northern Territory government should be doing in this current global Australian dollar commodity price and location context. We need to be building infrastructure, rail, pipelines and roads. The low Australian dollar has improved our competitiveness, so we need to be working on our cattle industry and working on our agricultural industry. Because of the low Australian dollar we need to be building hotels. Because of the low Australian dollar we need to be encouraging building up our education services.’
If we look at this as a whole, this government has already announced plans for a six-star hotel that will be aimed at the Asian market. This government is already engaging in agricultural expansion through the fantastic work of the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. We have seen a fantastic expansion of the aquaculture industry in the Legune Station prawn farm. We have seen CDU improve its services and access to Asia. It has recently built student accommodation because they are in a sweet spot for accessing this.
Looking down the list, it was fantastic for me to see that everything the chief economists are saying, about where the Northern Territory is situated and what we need to be doing, is exactly what we are doing. Not only that, but we are engaging in what needs to happen in the future by commencing this initiative with our Asian engagement strategy.
We need to continue to improve services here. The port leasing initiative of this government will move us in the right direction. The initiatives in rail expansion into Queensland and the gas pipeline into Queensland is where this is going. What are our challenges? When the economist looked at it, he said, ‘Our challenge is that nobody knows the Northern Territory exists’.
This is hilarious, but my wife recently went on a trip overseas with members of her family to Phuket. She was talking to a local who asked where she was from. She said Australia, and the person said, ‘Yes, Australia, that is fantastic; where in Australia are you from?’ She said the Northern Territory and he said he had never heard of it. She said, ‘Surely you have heard of Darwin. It is just over there; it is the closest capital city to you.’ The person then made a joke of it and said she must have made it up.
We need to get on the radar. We also need to access the global capital market. The Northern Territory economy is too small to come up with the capital for the infrastructure, service and agricultural development to build this economy. We need to access markets for capital, and we need to get on the radar of individuals there to develop trade.
Our government has been working on this in various ways. The Minister for Asian Engagement and Trade is planning trips away. The minister for Agriculture recently came back from a trip, and I applaud him for coming back from Indonesia with a great result, where the Indonesians increased the quota of cattle they take from this country. That was a fantastic result and I take my hat off to him.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
Mr STYLES (Asian Engagement and Trade): Madam Speaker, I want to deal with a couple of issues raised yesterday by the member for Johnston.
He said a former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Terry Mills, was sacked. The former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, in his role in Indonesia, was not sacked. The company’s contract was terminated. You need to be very clear, when you stand up in this House, with what you say to members and what is put on the Parliamentary Record.
I do not have exactly what was said, but it is something along these lines of, ‘He was sacked when other people thought he was doing a good job’.
He quoted the Indonesian Consul, who was very new in the position at the time. He probably did not know a great deal of history, nor did he know the company was being performance managed, and there had been a number of warnings over a period of time regarding how that company was conducting its affairs.
The member for Johnston appears not to have his facts right. That is probably the best way I can articulate it. The member for Johnston also said the ALP had a fantastic trade plan; I think it was from 2009 to 2013 and they supported live cattle to Indonesia and Vietnam. Well, it is very clear what occurred in this House if you go through the Hansard and the debates in 2011. We were in opposition at that stage when the good Mr Ludwig, a member of the federal system and a Minister for Agriculture, I think it was, stopped the live cattle trade. By the stroke of a pen, without doing a great deal of homework, he said, ‘Oh this is terrible. We are going to stop that.’
I am not going to put on the public record some of the issues that occurred from that because they were very sad and disgraceful. Some people took their own lives as a result of that. That is not something that is published but that was the end result for a number of people in the Territory. They decimated the trade. I say to the member for Johnston, how dare you stand up in this House and try to rewrite history and say, ‘We supported the live cattle exports to Indonesia and Vietnam’. I do not know what your policy said because I have not had a chance to read it, but what your policy says and what you do in this House appear to be two entirely different things.
We are seeing that a lot at the moment. For instance, yesterday the member for Fannie Bay said, ‘We have a very welcoming culture’. Sadly, it would appear that is something said but not followed through, because on the other hand we have the NT Labor Party supporting the campaign to stop the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. How absurd is that? You stand in front of a bunch of people and say, ‘We welcome everyone. We have a culture of welcoming people’, and then a few days before and after, you are out marching in the streets saying, ‘We do not want Asian people here’. They are saying that Chinese people are going to come in and take all our jobs. When you listen to the rhetoric in the media and on the news it says – I hear the scoffing coming from those members opposite. But here is one of the things they have put out, ‘The China free trade deal will kill jobs in the Territory’.
I wonder if they have read this stuff because what will kill jobs is pushing people away from tourism and away from coming here to invest in joint ventures or direct foreign investment, or whatever other deals can be stitched together with the business community through the Foreign Investment Review Board. They are the things that will drive jobs away.
On this side of the House, we are about creating jobs and generating wealth. You just heard another excellent presentation by the member for Blain on how to generate wealth. In his book, William Bernstein pointed out very clearly that there are a number of things you need to have sustainable wealth creation. The book is titled The Birth of Plenty: How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created …
Mr Barrett: A good book.
Mr STYLES: It is a good book. I encourage those opposite to read it because it has a lot to do with many of the issues they are very strongly opposed to, such as personal ownership of land for Aboriginal people. We want people from overseas to come over and invest with Aboriginal people. Listening to those opposite, I do not think they want too many people to be successful because what they say does not encourage Aboriginal enterprises or businesses.
We have been trying, along with the federal government, the Coalition, to get these things in Aboriginal communities so they can get investment. But the problem is that Aboriginal enterprises have to be in positions where they can accept investment and comply with what those investment requirements are. For Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory to receive foreign investment and foreign ventures, they will have to change some of the ways they deal with their land and what they do because people will not invest where they do not have guaranteed land tenure over a period of time. They need to be able to lease it or do head leases. The progressive Tiwi Land Council has done a great job. They are doing deals and getting direct foreign investment.
What is the result of that? Jobs. The last I heard over 100 jobs have been created on the Tiwi Islands. These are not ‘walking around and make cups of tea’ jobs; these are real jobs with real economic benefits for Territorians. It means foreign investment coming in. So what do we say to those people? ‘We do not want your money or free trade agreements with you.’ We have free trade agreements with other countries. Why do people suddenly say, ‘China is going to come in and overrun us and take all of our jobs’?
I quote from another flyer, ‘Stop the China free trade agreement. Tony Abbott’s only plan for jobs is to send them offshore.’ They are talking in one sense about how they are going to take jobs from Territorians. Now they have a different message. This one says, ‘The China free trade agreement will kill jobs in the Territory’. The other one says, ‘Tony Abbott’s only plan for jobs is to send them offshore’. So now we are sending stuff offshore. If the unions want to go and bash this, why are they not outside INPEX? There is probably about $25bn worth of money being spent there which is being spent overseas. Why are they not there protesting against that?
Arthur Calwell, a great Labor leader from 1949, or maybe 1947, is famous for his ‘reds under the bed’ outlook. Is this a re-emergence of Labor Party policy from those days? I do not know. I would like those opposition members to tell us exactly what they mean when they start supporting this sort of stuff. The member for Karama can be seen in front of a huge crowd saying, ‘Go away’. I quote from the member’s website; it says, ‘Delia Lawrie added four new photos at 3:14pm’. Her quote is, ‘We are union and we are proud’. There was a big crowd on the Esplanade with slogans like, ‘Stop Abbott, giving away jobs in the China free trade agreement’, and, ‘Fighting for our kids’ future is a worthy cause’.
The previous Labor government secured INPEX and got it for Darwin. Congratulations. That was a long haul over many years. Back in the late 1990s people were talking about the gas reserves there and developing them. Thanks goes to the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, for being the lead person in securing that foreign investment.
What is the difference? Are we now picking winners and losers as to who we will engage with in Asia? Because you have some direct foreign investment here by INPEX, Total, China resources from Taiwan, and a number of smaller partners in that conglomerate.
At my launch yesterday of the Asian Engagement, Trade and Investment Strategy a Labor sheet was given out. It said:
I do not know what is secret about the trade deal. You can read it. Perhaps they think it is secret because they cannot find it. We will get a copy of it and we will deliver it to you so you do not have to go looking for it. You can read what it is about. It is about partnering with people around the world. It just so happens that this is with China. There have been free trade agreements supported by Labor governments. In fact, listen to the rhetoric coming from your own party and former leaders. Bob Hawke, a very popular Labor Prime Minister, is saying you just need to get over it and get on with it.
Another former Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, had the same deal – get over it and get on with it. Bob Carr, former Foreign minister and former Premier of New South Wales, is simply saying, ‘What is wrong with you people? Get on with it.’
You have Labor Premiers around this country saying they all accept this is a good deal for Australia; it brings in investment and allows our products to go from Australia into China. The National Farmer’s Federation cannot believe these people are trying to kill jobs in rural areas. This is about export and getting the debt down, which the Coalition inherited from the former Labor government. Even Labor leaders are saying you have to do this. They know the mess the Coalition inherited and they would be very grateful, as usual and as history dictates, for the Coalition to fix the economics of this country.
We heard yesterday in this House how badly the Labor opposition understands economics, but I am not surprised because none of them have any experience in economics or business. I struggle to understand what happens in their little group meetings when they talk about that.
On this side, we have people who have been in small business and multimillion-dollar businesses. We have had stockbrokers and people who understand finances and can read a balance sheet.
We have a range of people over here, lawyers, business people and people with community experience. I understand why they do not get it, because there is no experience over there. They say, ‘If we have the privilege of being the next government’ – I hope we have the privilege, for our kids’ and grandkids’ sake in the Northern Territory. This opposition to this China-Australia Free Trade Agreement is amazing.
You can read the document – I am happy to get briefings for you if you are struggling to understand it – about what you can and cannot do. They want people to think governments of this country do not care about people and will say, ‘The gate is open. Everybody come in.’ That is what they want you to believe. That is their view.
The real situation is people have to go through hoops. Chinese companies know they cannot grab a pile of people, ship them out to Australia and tell them to do a particular job.
People are asking what will happen in the future when the cycle turns and Labor has a go. I find it scary trying to explain to them that, sadly, they do not understand. They do not seem to get it and they do not want you here. I am echoing what they are saying to me.
We have Chinese delegations turning up here. We have re-engaged in Asia. Sadly, the previous government dropped the ball in Asia. They will tell you they went on all these trips, but we did not see much coming out of them.
Since my last trip to China, we had eight delegations turn up. We had people from Taiwan and all over Asia turning up here to talk to us. I am going back soon to take information to the people I spoke to in June. We have all the shovel-ready projects in a prospectus. We will talk to those people and encourage them to come to Darwin and look at what we take back.
There are people in China asking what is happening in relation to the anti-Chinese sentiments. They monitor Facebook, and they see this stuff, such as the member for Karama out the front saying, ‘Chinese people, go away; we do not want this.’ That is the message it sends. They will say, ‘No, we are friendly. We love all these people and we want to do this.’ The problem is the actions outside the Chamber do not match the rhetoric coming from members opposite. All that material being spread around goes directly against what the member for Johnston said yesterday. ‘We are very engaging. We like Asia. We want to do business and we supported the live cattle industry.’ You did not.
In that instance I recall very well, as would the member for Katherine, as the then shadow minister for Primary Industry, Labor’s lack of support for primary industry, national farmers and the cattle people. There were people growing hay who were not selling any and looking at a massive amount of stock because the change happened with a click of the fingers, the stroke of a pen and some brain explosion Senator Ludwig had about not supporting cattle.
This destroys our reputation as a reliable partner. We have to build that back up. Do not get me wrong, I am sure if you asked members and ministers who travel to Asia – and I am sure the member for Katherine would support me in saying these are questions they ask. These are legitimate questions our future trading partners ask. ‘If we do this deal, what is this?’ They are required as directors, as we are as directors in this company, to do what they call due diligence and risk management. When they sit in the boardroom and in a minister’s conference room and talk about what the opportunities are. I am trying to sell the Northern Territory so we get the investment which brings jobs and economic activity which creates wealth. Those opposite, they are fantastic …
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move the minister be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Vowles interjecting.
Mr STYLES: Mr Deputy Speaker, I pick up on the interjection by the member for Johnston. He is crying, ‘Do we have to listen to this?’ Well, yes you do. What you do, member for Johnston, is give us the ammunition. You stand over there and say all these things. ‘We are supportive of this, we are supportive of that.’ Your leader went out yesterday to a rally outside Parliament House and said, ‘We have a culture of welcoming people’. But the qualification appears to be, if you are Chinese, you are not welcome. You do not like hearing that. Then over a period of time you keep giving us ammunition. Then when we send the ammunition over there, you say, ‘This is terrible. I do not want to listen to this.’ What a joke! Look at the ammunition you have given us ...
Mr Vowles: We are waiting to hear what you are going to do. It has been three years. You should be talking it up.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Johnston!
Mr STYLES: I pick up on that interjection, ‘What have you been doing over three years?’ I will tell you what we have been doing over three years, member for Johnston. We have been repairing the damage you and your side of politics did. You should talk to some of your former ministers and colleagues, because in 2001 when you got into government you cancelled all these offices. You just sacked everyone over there, got rid of all the people who had spent years building relationships.
What are the three most important things in real estate? Location, location, location. It is not rocket science. What are the three most important things in dealing with Asia? Relationships, relationships, relationships. When Labor got into government in 2001 they killed those relationships.
Mr Vowles: That is not true.
Mr STYLES: You say, ‘That is not true’. Check the facts. Find out …
Mr Vowles: That is simply not true.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STYLES: Go for a freedom of information order and see when you sacked all those people, because I have spoken to ministers and people who were around at that time and I asked, ‘What happened?’ I found out. There were a few trips taken and that was very good, but it is about building relationships.
How do you go there and get eight delegations to come here? How do you win the Joint Conference of the Australia-Taiwan Business Council? How do you win that in Darwin? You have to do a lot of work building relationships. For the edification for the member for Johnston, there is the little thing about three cups of tea. The Chinese explain it by using the saying ‘three cups of tea’. The first cup of tea they will sit down and chat with you because Asians do not do business with you on the first meeting. You have to go there and foster a relationship. If the member for Johnston took the time to learn about this and study that area, he would find they will not do business with you on the first meeting. They want to go out with you and have dinner. That is the first cup of tea.
Then you might go back a month later and have the second cup of tea. They will have dinner with you again. They will want to go to lunch with you and talk. Then you will have the third cup of tea and if they are happy with your performance and determine whether you are genuine or trying to pull the wool over their eyes, they will then take it further and do business with you.
We all do that sort of thing. The Chinese, Malaysians, Singaporeans, Taiwanese and the Japanese do it in a way that is quite courteous and proper. That is about doing business in Asia. Go and do a few courses with Mr Guppy and he will give you some basics. I was fortunate I learnt this when I was a kid because I had Chinese people living in my home.
Detectives and police officers do exactly the same thing. We will sit down and say, ‘Tell us the story’. The next day we will go back and say to some not very nice person, ‘Tell us that story again’. On the third day you go back and say, ‘Tell us the story again’.
If they are genuine, they will give you the same sort of story. If you are not, then they will see straight through you. That is when you go looking for evidence and you determine who is telling lies and who the truth. That is exactly what Asians do. You have to build relationships. Some of these relationships have been broken. They were broken during the 11 years of the previous Labor government. Some good people went there and tried to do things but generally the whole policy was, ‘We are not going to do too much up there because we are going to do things over here’.
That is fine, you were in government and governments can choose what they want to do. I am not saying that was right or wrong. What I am saying is your side of politics chose to do something differently. We are about running the economy and getting the economy back on a decent footing so we can pay back the debt you ran up.
This is a very important issue in relation to the debt. I do not have my graph with me. I took it upstairs to get it updated. There were pyramids of debt run by Labor both in the Territory and nationally. I can see them over there holding their heads. They do not want to hear this, but the people in the Northern Territory listening and watching this need to look at the historical stuff available in this area. The Asian Engagement, Trade and Investment Strategy is a result of a lot of consultation.
The member for Johnston asked in an interjection, ‘What have you been doing over the last three years?’ We have been doing a lot. If you look at things starting to happen in the Territory, these things do not happen overnight. Perhaps the member for Johnston believes you can just do these things overnight. You can go for a trip there and come back and say, ‘Look what I have got’. It does not. It takes years to build these relationships.
On my last trip I took some people from the Northern Territory who have had relationships with people in Asia for over 25 years. We were very fortunate to have these people who were prepared to take us. They only took us and agreed to participate because they trusted we were there for very genuine reasons. They took us to meet some very influential people who can help generate wealth in the Northern Territory. That was the bottom line. They know people who want to invest which could create economic activity and jobs. They know people who will take our exports as a result of the infrastructure put in place to produce agriculture, horticulture, sugar, and all those things in the Ord River area. They want to participate in getting minerals. There is a hunger in Asia for minerals. It may be a bit slack at the moment, but we all know it is cyclical. It will come back. We need those relationships in the Northern Territory.
I spoke to someone on Monday who is right across this. I went to him for advice and asked how we are travelling, what we need to do, and if we were on the right track. We got a tick and that person will take us into Asia and introduce us to all the people they have met over the last 25 or 30 years. These are the decision-makers who will say they can invest in the Territory. They said, ‘You have lost a lot of ground over the previous government’s time because other governments have gone there’. They looked at what the Northern Territory did. We used to be the leaders in this.
The federal government came to us when the CLP was previously in government and said they wanted to go into Asia, and asked if we could introduce them to the right people. That is how good we were. We were the leaders. Sadly, we lost that and we are now clawing our way back into Asia to get where we used to be. It is still a long and hard road, but I am prepared to march along it for as long as I can to make sure kids in the Northern Territory have the brightest future they can.
We cannot do it as easily as we normally could when members opposite are trying to push these people away. Investors will want to have their investments guaranteed. The example I used the other day is if one of those members opposite wanted to build a house in China, had three months to build it and could not find someone, they would want to take someone from here to finish the project, rather than someone take that project off them and lose everything.
The things built into the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement relate to workers. When Australian workers cannot be found, and the project will either stall, stop or fail, then companies have the ability to bring people in to complete that project.
There is a lot to say on this statement and I wish we had a bit more time. I commend the statement to the House.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Continued from 22 August 2013.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Deputy Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move the following amendment: that the word ‘now’ be omitted and ‘this day in six months’ be inserted in its place.
This amendment has the effect of changing the question before the Assembly, which is that the bill be now read a second time, so that the bill will be read a second time on this day in six months.
I understand the Attorney-General wishes to speak to the amendment and I will, therefore, leave the details of this to him.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak to the amendment to the motion that the bill now be read a second time. This amendment is consistent with Standing Order 180, which will result in the defeat and disposal of the bill now before the Assembly.
Standing Order 180 comes from a long-standing tradition in our standing orders, originating in the House of Commons, adopted by many Westminster parliaments, which creates a fiction that by deferring a debate to an uncertain future of six months hence defeats the bill and disposes it from the Notice Paper.
This mechanism, to the knowledge of all in the Assembly today and the Clerks at the Table, has not been used in the Territory, certainly not in my years. My understanding is this motion has never been used and will soon be expunged from the books if the House condescends to taking on the new standing orders. It is the purists’ nod, if you like, to allow a motion to be used once, and once only, before it disappears.
The reason for this disposal is quite straightforward: the bill before the House, which was introduced over two years ago, is the Monitoring of Places of Detention (Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture) (National Uniform Legislation) Bill (Serial 36), and was introduced on 22 August. It was introduced as a result of the former federal Labor government seeking to attend to and sign up to an optional protocol to the Convention against Torture as part of its international relations structures. All indications were that the treaty was going to be signed, and states were invited to join the Commonwealth in ratifying the treaty in their own jurisdictions.
We thought and argued about it long and hard in Cabinet, but finally said, ‘Okay, that is cool’, because we run an open correction system anyhow. We generally tend to let people know what is going on within our corrections system – the good, that bad and the ugly. We decided we had nothing to hide and, in fact, this would have been targeted much more at detention centres than necessarily the prisons in the states. Nevertheless, the ratification in the Northern Territory would have been the effect of this legislation.
The problem for this legislative instrument is that it cannot come into existence by virtue of the fact that with the change of government in Canberra, the new federal government then determined not to pursue the matter. I checked with the federal government recently as to the likelihood of this instrument being signed into existence, and the indication was there was no future for this optional protocol to be applied in Australia.
As a consequence, this bill is simply pointless, and therefore needs to be expunged off the Notice Paper, which is the purpose of this motion. Oddly enough, when the question is put, to achieve this outcome honourable members will have to vote ‘no’, rather than ‘yes’. It is one of the quirks of the legislative instrument. Other than that, I have nothing further to add.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, yes, we are supportive of this step. We are aware that this legislation sat on the Notice Paper for almost three years. We understand entirely the reasons why it has sat there that long and why we can dispose of it today.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I am thrilled to be in the Chair as we now embark on some history here in the Northern Territory. Indeed, Attorney-General, you are quite right. The last time this was used was in the House of Representatives in 1961. You are right; it has never been used in the Northern Territory or in any other Australian jurisdiction since 1961. This is, indeed, the first and last time it will be used in the Northern Territory. We may even get a mention in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association magazine, so keep a close eye out for that next edition.
Motion negatived.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, it gives me an immense amount of pleasure to talk today in this House about the great work of Northern Territory Fisheries’ Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program.
This program is changing lives, providing jobs and opportunities for Indigenous people and communities across the Territory. The Northern Territory has a vast, isolated coastline with some of the world’s most remote and spectacular beaches. Our Territory’s marine areas provide habitats that hold large populations of many species such as birdlife, dugongs, turtles and, of course, fish. Our waters contain healthy populations of fish. Our tropical underwater life is particularly magnificent. We have healthy populations of species such as sawfish and sharks that are threatened and endangered in many parts of the world. The combination of great distance and a sparse population means that while the Territory coastal areas are pristine, it is a difficult task to police these areas and effectively manage all fisheries. With over 5100 km of mainland coastline and 2100 km of island coastline to monitor and patrol, practical limitations on government resources mean threats or incidents can pass unnoticed.
Coastal Aboriginal communities have strong customary links with our aquatic environments and rely on fish for food, culture and potential economic development opportunities. Given the intimate knowledge of local Indigenous Territorians of our remote coastal areas, it makes sense that we encourage locals to help police and manage these areas. In the late 1990s the Northern Territory government recognised the value of supporting Indigenous marine ranger groups, which have recently been established through funding provided by the Australian government. Over time the Northern Territory government’s support grew from simply supplying grant funding to a fee-for-service model where rangers are now paid for surveillance trips, contributions to research and assistance with the management of the Territory’s marine resources.
The Northern Territory government has built an enviable national reputation in the field of Indigenous marine ranger support, coordination and training. Indeed, Indigenous marine rangers now carry out a range of coastal and marine liaison and management activities, including coastal patrols, reporting unusual or illegal activity, recording marine debris, and threatened species research. The Northern Territory government, through the fisheries division, has driven the development of certificate level training in fisheries compliance tailored specifically for our Indigenous rangers. In partnership with the water police section, Charles Darwin University and interstate training providers, more than 100 Indigenous marine rangers have now received this training.
The benefits of this training are quite clear. Rangers are now able to provide surveillance information, which has been accepted as evidence of fisheries breaches by the courts, leading to successful prosecutions. That is a real watershed moment for the success of these training programs. More recently, and following a similar model of course development, a training package in scientific measurement and analysis was developed and delivered to 17 rangers to allow them to actively participate in fisheries research programs.
This training and the chance to be involved in aquatic resource management has been enthusiastically received by both the marine ranger and aquatic science communities. Logistically, it also makes economic sense because rangers already living and based in remote areas from where fish samples are required can provide these samples more efficiently and cost-effectively than deploying a team of researchers and technicians from Darwin. In addition to the training courses already developed and delivered, rangers are currently undertaking higher certificate level courses in fisheries compliance. Additional courses will cover requirements for the development of things like seafood handling, marine safety, small business operation and fishing practices in support of economic development initiatives to encourage Indigenous-owned fishing businesses.
This is also part of a commitment the Country Liberals government made under the Blue Mud Bay negotiations. This government is working hard to achieve win/win outcomes for traditional owners and fishers throughout those Blue Mud Bay negotiation processes. My Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has developed a package of initiatives in support of Indigenous development opportunities in order that we can provide permit-free fishing access to intertidal waters overlying Aboriginal land. A key part of this package is the government’s commitment to enhancing marine ranger programs across the Territory. This includes providing stronger powers for marine rangers so they can undertake compliance and enforcement on our many waterways. It will ensure rangers can work in partnership with government agencies to monitor our vast coastline, rivers and waterways.
Elements of the package include training of marine rangers in scientific and technical skills in fisheries research, a fish mentoring program to provide training and skill development in commercial fishing to allow more Indigenous Territorians to participate in the seafood industry, and better consultation with Aboriginal communities over fishing and marine management.
Overall the package will deliver a number of key outcomes, including improved fisheries compliance in remote areas, more skilled and trained Indigenous Territorians undertaking fisheries research and compliance activities, more skilled and trained Indigenous Territorians participating in the seafood industry, and increased involvement of Indigenous Territorians in fisheries management, research and aquatic resource conservation.
This government, through the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, provides funding, training and additional support to 10 Indigenous ranger groups. These ranger groups are located on the Tiwi Islands, in Borroloola, Wadeye, Upper Daly River, Warruwi, Maningrida, Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt, Ngukurr and Galiwinku.
The department’s Fisheries group has a strong relationship with remote communities that has been developed through extensive and regular consultation over the past 15 years. This relationship has been forged through a partnership approach to problem solving.
Fisheries has also initiated formal consultative committee meetings where communities and other stakeholders can discuss and resolve local marine issues.
As time has progressed, so too have the Indigenous marine rangers with their operational assets on par with local police capability. This is fantastic. Ranger duties include regular coastal patrols to undertake surveillance and monitoring of aquatic pests, fish kills, unusual fish patterns or movements, marine debris and the deterrence of illegal fishing activities.
Many marine ranger groups are becoming more involved in Fisheries’ research-related activities, while some rangers have also been engaged in coastal search and rescue. The Fisheries division has led the development of specific compliance training for Indigenous marine rangers, in collaboration with Charles Darwin University and the Northern Territory Water Police.
Fisheries carries out extension activities relating to fisheries compliance and monitoring to support the rangers in the field. This has led to ongoing marine ranger fee-for-service in research contracts and research project engagement across the Territory coastline.
These projects include research for juvenile snapper, adult snapper and barramundi stock monitoring, including otolith, or ear bone, extraction; sawfish surveys; and aquaculture projects.
Two ranger groups are engaged in research contracts to monitor environmental conditions, bringing in a new income stream. An Indigenous ranger who completed a Certificate II in Measuring and Analysis has recently been employed with the Fisheries division as a research technician.
Water police activities are coordinated with Northern Territory Fisheries staff to heighten the capacity of Indigenous marine rangers where joint patrols are conducted in remote areas of the Northern Territory coastline.
The Fisheries division has developed and is currently delivering a Certificate III in Fisheries Compliance to develop the IMRCP capacity to deliver on Blue Mud Bay commitments and provide career progression paths for our rangers.
The first training block was delivered in May 2015 and the final block is scheduled for August 2015, so it should be well under way or completed. This new training is improving their capabilities and skills in investigating illegal activity on land and water.
Indigenous marine rangers from across the Northern Territory are making our waterways safer than ever. The Country Liberals government is committed to empowering Indigenous people to manage and protect their own environment, creating jobs and economic growth within communities.
The Northern Territory is without doubt a global leader in Indigenous engagement in the management of fisheries. We are also the only place in Australia where Indigenous rangers are being trained as fishery officers. The work these rangers do in the community is invaluable to the conservation and sustainability of Northern Territory fisheries.
The primary objective of the government funding is to recognise and support traditional owners’ aspirations and to exercise their traditional right to be engaged in the management of fisheries.
Indigenous marine rangers identify and report remote threats to the Territory’s fisheries. Those threats can be environmental, such as ghost nets, fish kills and aquatic pests or non-compliance commercial and recreational fishermen. Operational support is delivered by three permanent Fisheries staff and two dedicated water police officers.
Scientific-based training of Indigenous rangers is an emerging area of growth and underpins their knowledge for collaborative fisheries projects in aquaculture, stock monitoring and data collection. The Fisheries Act is currently being amended to accommodate increased fisheries compliance and enforcement powers for marine rangers. These changes will allow appropriately qualified and experienced marine rangers to be provided with Fisheries compliance and enforcement powers. The extent of the powers will be commensurate with the skills, qualifications and experience of the rangers.
At least two tiers of Fisheries inspector – a Class 1 and a Class 2 – will be created in addition to the already existing functions of a Fisheries officer. To support this increased training requirement the government, in the 2015-16 budget, included provision to support an expansion of the Indigenous marine training Ppogram. The expanded program, to be based in Nhulunbuy, will deliver a range of training courses designed specifically to increase the skills and capacity of Aboriginal people to support their participation in marine resource management and the seafood industry. The program will initially target delivery of certificate training in seafood handling as well as fisheries compliance and scientific measurement and analysis. It is envisaged it could quickly be expanded to deliver courses in things like marine safety, small business management and commercial fishing and aquaculture.
The Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program is providing meaningful employment in remote communities and the rangers themselves work with a significant source of pride. They are also seen as excellent role models in their communities. The Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program is enhancing our capability for fisheries compliance and monitoring. This program is a global leader and a standout success.
I could not be more proud to be part of a government that is driving this important life-changing program.
I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, today I support the minister’s statement and start by congratulating him and Cabinet members for this program. It is a program that is empowering coastal communities and my people to engage in caring for their own country and making sure coastlines and fisheries around them are protected and managed in a good way for all people to enjoy.
As the minister said, the Northern Territory Fisheries’ Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program is also providing real jobs and economic opportunities for Indigenous Territorians. That is what this government is about. Economic growth for a region in real and meaningful ways by this program is another example of how we on this side are delivering results to Indigenous Territorians. It is a great program because it is very simple. It understands that all of us local people who live in coastal areas have the local knowledge and experience to help monitor and manage the coastline and adjacent offshore areas.
Our people, as Indigenous marine rangers, are working in Primary Industry and Fisheries and in coordination with the water police.
Last year on 26 November I stood with the Chief Minister and we announced the historic deal for fishing access on the Tiwi Islands, something Labor could not do in 11 years of government. The agreement with the Tiwi people allows permit-free access to key fishery areas of Bathurst and Melville Island, as well as Vernon Island. This is an agreement that satisfies the fisheries business aspiration of Tiwi traditional owners, but also benefits recreational and commercial fishers. This is yet another example of the Giles government creating a real opportunity for all Territorians.
The company, Tiwi Island Adventures, has, under this new arrangement, created a new opportunity for the Tiwi to grow its fishing business and is providing jobs for local people and real income for the island. It allows visitors to visit the townships of Wurrumiyanga and Pirlangimpi where they can buy fuel and supplies or visit the art gallery and pump money into the local economy. But it also has led to enforceable boundaries agreed around rivers and creeks in exclusive access areas, and this is where the Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program becomes really important. Under the agreement, there is a total of $135 000 a year to support the marine rangers program, a commitment to enhance the power of marine rangers with a one-off $30 000 payment to build a new recreational fishing camp, an enhanced Aboriginal cultural licence for community members, and a code of conduct to ensure visitors respect the rights of traditional owners.
Unlike Labor, we want to support the Tiwi Islands to grow their own local economic opportunities, develop tourism and fishing businesses, and create jobs so they can break out of the cycle of welfare dependency, which is what the Chief Minister said last year. That is happening today.
Let me now turn to the details of what is going on in some of the Northern Territory areas I travel to. I start with the Tiwi Islands. The senior rangers of the Tiwi board members are currently receiving Certificate III training in fisheries compliance. Three locals who received Certificate II compliance training with Tiwi rangers will be conducting compliance activities in water policing soon.
The work of Tiwi Marine Rangers also complements the land-based work of Tiwi land rangers, particularly managing quarantine issues. On Warruwi the rangers have been involved in aquacultural development of trepang and clams to see what sustainable and economic opportunities might come for local people. One ranger is currently receiving Certificate II training in compliance, Lesley Lamuyayani, and eight rangers have had Certificate II training in compliance in the past as well.
One of the main activities the rangers are involved with at Warruwi is to clean up all ghost nets. Marine debris is a major problem not only for the 5000 km of the Northern Territory’s coastline, but also for most major coastlines and oceans around the world. The Warruwi rangers program will receive ongoing funding of $60 000 per year from the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, thanks to the Country Liberal government.
In Maningrida three rangers are currently receiving Certificate III training in compliance, including Victor Rescue and Dion Cooper. Twelve rangers have earned certificates in training compliance in the past. This program has been involved in compliance activity this year with water police and that has led to increased sustainability in fisheries. The Maningrida rangers have also been awarded a contract to assist the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries in barramundi research this year. They also received ongoing funding of $60 000 per year. Four rangers in Galiwinku have received Certificate II training in fishery compliance. They have been involved in projects to develop Aboriginal coastal and licensed fisheries in the East Arnhem area. Again, they have received ongoing funding of $60 000 per year from this government and have been able to use some of this to purchase vehicles and vessels for their important work looking after fisheries and coastline in their area.
I congratulate all the rangers on this important program while working hard to undertake training, working with the community, protecting internationally significant turtle sites, picking up marine debris, undertaking coastal surveillance while working with law enforcement and other agencies, looking after marine bird life and the rookeries, counting population numbers of various species and even assisting the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service with ship inspections to guard against introduced species.
I congratulate all involved in this program for the work they do at agency and ranger level towards developing better and appropriate visitor site management plans, increasing community awareness of the important work they do, the input they have into coastal and marine management strategies, and how they can all help to protect the high natural and cultural values of regions in their work.
As the minister said in his statement to the House, the Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program is changing lives. It is providing jobs, as I have just highlighted, and it is providing much wanted economic development opportunity in our community. Most importantly, this program is helping manage and protect the marine fisheries of the Northern Territory and the important coastal assets of Australia.
The minister has outline the communities that are involved in this important program, including those I have mentioned, but also Wadeye, Borroloola, Upper Daly River, Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt and Ngukurr. Our government is creating real opportunity for all these communities, and all Territorians, to enjoy the great natural resource we have in our coastal fisheries, and real opportunities for local people with local training, skills development, jobs and economic development. I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement on. As the shadow for Primary Industry and Fisheries it is not a bad experience that we get along and do some good for the Territory.
I will start with my support for this ministerial statement. I congratulate the minister and his department for the work he has done in this area. It has the total support of the Labor Party and we will continue to support it, if we are given the responsibility of government.
I believe there is a very clear future for many coastal communities in the Primary Industry and Fisheries sphere. It is my dream to see communities from Wadeye to Borroloola engaged in the fishing industry and all of its spinoffs. I understand some of the preliminary steps have been made with the establishment of the smaller commercial licences for local catch, which allow communities to develop a fishing industry to provide for their local areas.
Over the long term, I think it is critical for this to be developed to a larger commercial operation. These industries are tied up by commercial agreements and contracts and I understand the complexity of this, but I believe every effort has to be made to develop an Indigenous fishing and seafood industry.
We should take this opportunity. There are some large coastal communities to develop an Indigenous coastal areas program. This has implications across a range of industries. The coast of the Territory provides tourism opportunities. It provides opportunities in the seafood and cultural industries. The coast provides opportunities in science and research. It provides Defence opportunities through Coastwatch. The list can go on. The development of jobs in communities must be a major priority of government. It will be in a Labor government. By creating employment and jobs, we can have a major impact on education and training. I am convinced that the coastal industries provide the opportunity to drive a strong training and skills program in our schools.
If you think about the many industries that come out of this coastal location, think of the training opportunities for our young people. I believe we should be placing a clear seafood industry training program in schools like Milingimbi, Yirrkala, Borroloola and Wadeye. These programs could move to develop smaller local seafood industries but they could also be used to promote conservation and land management programs like those of the Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program. By focusing on these sorts of programs, schools will become more relevant, and therefore more appealing to students. The spin-offs would be increased attendance in school, increased literacy and numeracy, and increased employment skills.
It does not take too much imagination to see that if we develop this series of Vocational Education and Training programs in the schools, they could lead to more advanced programs to be based in regional centres. For example, students may be able to take on skill sets in Certificate I and Certificate II level programs in their own communities that would give them access to a range of jobs in these coastal industries. If they need to or want to progress these skills, they may be able to go to Nhulunbuy for further training. This would give Nhulunbuy an industry in advanced training of coastal industries. This is where the Certificate III, Certificate IV or even diploma level courses could be run. If young people then wanted to go further and study at a higher level, the options of the Australian Maritime Colleges in Adelaide and Tasmania, or even a branch of these schools at some future time in Darwin, would be the way to go.
That is one way to go and this statement today highlights another way to upskill and learn through conservation and land management. This leads to Indigenous ranger programs, as outlined by the minister. Ranger programs allow people to undertake important work in a way that is appropriate for them and in time frames that work for them. There are many ways this can work. I strongly support the work of the rangers and the department. More needs to be done, though. I thank the minister for his statement and look forward to hearing more about the work as it progresses.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 4/5 students from Maningrida School, accompanied by James Stephens. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. You have come a long way. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving that this House censures the government for its appalling and aggressive behaviour towards parliamentarians in this Assembly, and the Chief Minister for losing control of the behaviour of his members of parliament, and further, that this House from now on adopts the principles of the White Ribbon Workplace and we commence the accreditation process immediately.
What happened in this House yesterday can only be described as appalling, aggressive and aimed at intimidating other members of parliament. It is behaviour that deserves censure, and warrants the acceptance by this House of the suspension of standing orders to do so. It is behaviour that is not acceptable on the street or in any workplace, and it is certainly not acceptable in this place, where we are supposed to represent the highest ideals of the Territory. The behaviour starts at the top and the member for Araluen has told this House exactly what happens in the party room of the CLP.
This is why we must suspend standing orders today.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government will accept the censure motion.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly censures the government for its appalling and aggressive behaviour towards parliamentarians in this Assembly, and the Chief Minister for losing control of the behaviour of his members of parliament, and further, that this House from now on adopts the principles of the White Ribbon Workplace and we commence the accreditation process immediately.
The Attorney-General last night failed community standards for his behaviour in the workplace. His words were violent, and his actions intimidating and aggressive. His frustration at not passing legislation on urgency could not be contained and he acted in the most unparliamentary of ways in this Chamber.
I told this Chamber last night that as an experienced and confident member of this parliament I felt bullied. He banged his hands on the table. He shouted at me. He threw his spectacles down. His display was appalling and I was shocked to see his face and the way he was yelling at me.
I was not the only subject of his aggressive and appalling behaviour. He told the member for Nightcliff yesterday evening that:
The reason? Because the member for Nightcliff advised him that we already knew about the breaking news he was trying to tell the House as a tactic to fill in time.
The minister later gave an adjournment speech designed to bully and intimidate the member for Wanguri for asking a question in the House about why the opposition has been denied freedom of information requests related to this government’s travel – again, a disproportionate response to a valid question in this House.
The Attorney-General persistently referred to the member for Araluen as ‘she’ in the Chamber instead of her deserving title of member for Araluen. He had to be reminded by the member to refer to her title.
On radio this morning the Attorney-General alleged the reason for his aggressive behaviour was because of the ‘thunderously stupid and naive’ arguments I made for not supporting rushed legislation on urgency.
Our position was supported by five crossbenchers. The majority of the House did not believe such serious laws should be considered on a whim. We stand by our position and the community will applaud us for considering more carefully the implications of giving our police new search and seizure powers in new legislation, and more, legislation that had not been run past the peak legal bodies of the Northern Territory.
The Attorney-General leads the Territory’s domestic violence agenda. His argument sends the message that if you think someone has made a stupid point, you are justified in acting aggressively and intimidatingly towards them, and point blank bullying them. The Attorney-General may have apologised, but it does not excuse that foremost in his mind, when under pressure, he resorted to blustering, bullying and violence instead of debate.
The Attorney-General is the first law officer of this land. The Attorney-General is the Minister for Children and Families. The Attorney-General is a White Ribbon Ambassador and this week congratulated Justice Kelly on her powerful stand against domestic violence, in this House. The Attorney-General has, by his actions, let down our community and diminished our standards with his violent words, and his threatening, and what I consider violent, actions.
Unfortunately the Attorney-General’s behaviour was not the only unparliamentary behaviour in this Chamber.
The member for Blain was also offensive to members of this House. His response to a tabled document in this House alleging further charges may be pending from the police investigation into travel was entirely disproportionate and unacceptable. He was mouthing off and making aggressive gestures towards the members for Nightcliff and Wanguri. The member for Nightcliff had the good sense to raise his aggressive gestures with the Deputy Speaker in the House immediately.
Late in the evening the member for Blain then most sarcastically withdrew comments when he called members opposite ‘a joke’ for successfully changing the makeup of the Public Accounts Committee. These changes reflect the new representation of the parliament, supporting two Independent members of the committee, including one as the chair. These changes are sensible. The member for Blain could not contain his behaviour and added ‘sweetheart’ after his contrived apology. The member was forced to withdraw his comments.
Most damning of all is the silence from this government – silence from the Chief Minister, silence from the Minister for Women’s …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We need a copy of the motion being circulated.
Ms WALKER: What does this silence mean? That this is an accepted behaviour in the culture of the Country Liberal Party government? This is why I seek that this parliament participates in the White Ribbon Workplace Accreditation Program. It needs to start here.
Independent assessors would review our workplace and provide suggestions to improve the conduct of the parliament for the health and safety, wellbeing and productivity of women in this building, not just in this Chamber. Participating in the assessment would ensure we meet three key standards: leadership and commitment; communications and training; and practices and procedures. Taking this step would restore confidence that parliamentarians are expected to reflect the standards of the community.
I now turn to why this government is a minority one. Last year we saw the members for Namatjira and Arnhem leave in the most dramatic of circumstances due to ongoing and persistent bullying in the workplace. The words used by the member for Greatorex towards the member for Namatjira are unrepeatable in this Chamber. That was not the sole reason for the member for Namatjira resigning from the party. It was the fact that the Chief Minister refused to discipline his minister for his most disrespectful comments. Indeed, his response to media inquiries was that:
Yesterday’s behaviour escalated from the time of questions until the parliament rose at around midnight. The Chief Minister took no action to discipline his Attorney-General. Even this morning, in this Chamber, the Attorney-General did not apologise to me. He sought for us to understand his frustration instead of doing the honourable thing.
The member for Araluen was most scathing of the CLP when she departed from the party. Her comments in this Chamber are unforgettable:
There is a theme here, and we are calling it out. It is not okay to act aggressively towards members of this parliament and make them feel so threatened. It is not okay to bully and bulldoze the opposition to get your way, simply because a member may not agree with you. As I said yesterday, this is a House of debate. We welcome it, we thrive on it and we want to debate matters to get better outcomes for all Territorians.
We censure the government today because the behaviour has failed community standards and expectations. We censure the government today because the way they conduct themselves internally in their party room behind closed doors has spilled over into parliament and public life, and it is unacceptable. We censure the government today because the public needs to know the Chief Minister is the head of a government that has no control and is chaotic and dysfunctional. This is the crux of the issue.
The government found itself in this embarrassing and frustrating position because it had no legislation to debate in the House this week. It had no government business this week for debate except for four ministerial statements. This is a first-term government that has been reduced to a minority because of the most disrespectful way the members conduct themselves inside and outside of this House.
Let me be very clear. In a regular workplace there would have been an inquiry or investigation into the matters raised about the members for Port Darwin and Blain by their supervisor. I can almost guarantee this will not occur.
The Chief Minister is paralysed because he does not have the majority support of his party. It is unlikely the Attorney-General will be disciplined. It is very unlikely that he will be sacked. Ultimately, this is what it comes down to with this current government: they will tolerate intolerable behaviour to cling to power. They always have, and always will, put their self-interests ahead of the people of the Northern Territory. They are not honourable and have no integrity.
We stand here today to stand up for women and girls, our sisters, mothers, aunties and the women right across this country. We say, ‘No more to this kind of behaviour’. I commend this motion to members of the House.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am not surprised to see a censure motion brought before the House today. It is the tactic of those opposite to use every opportunity they can to score cheap political points. What I am surprised about is that it has fallen at the beginning of Question Time.
Question Time, which is one hour per day for the number of days parliament sits every year, is an opportunity for the opposition to examine government, and ask questions about what the government is doing for the true benefit and welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Ordinarily, what we hear from the opposition, I have to admit, are never questions that relate to the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. It is always about them trying to score cheap political points. In some ways this censure motion is a surprise, but it is not.
I listened carefully to the member for Nhulunbuy and her protestations about things said yesterday in this House. She referred to things said by the members for Blain and Port Darwin. I have to ask the question, when did we become so thin-skinned in this House?
Yesterday was a difficult day for government in some respects. We brought before the House a suspension of standing orders to debate some important legislation on ice and police powers. We genuinely believed those powers should be given to police as soon as humanly possible. The reason for that is every day that goes by, the potential for more of this horrendous drug to be brought into the Northern Territory increases and continues. Every day our police do not have these powers to intercept ice as it crosses our borders, under the terms of the new legislation as it was proposed, means that someone in the Northern Territory, old or young, may become affected by ice.
I do not know if there is a worse drug. I do not know if there is a greater reason to give the police the powers they need in order to make good what they can, to prevent the scourge of ice coming into the Northern Territory.
I stood in the House yesterday and gave an impassioned plea to those opposite about supporting urgency. I stood here, with hand on heart so to speak, talking about my experiences as a police officer and the reasons I truly believe the urgency motion needed to be supported. But as I stood here delivering my speech, I looked across the other side of the House – and I am not going to say who it was – at one of those members opposite mocking me as they sat in their chair. I am not going to make a big deal out of that because I expect that; that is normal argy-bargy across the House. I am not even going to say, if asked, who that member was because it is not important. But it shows that even when government members are passionate about what they believe in, even when they deliver the words designed to convince those members opposite to support the government on a certain course of action, those members opposite can cheapen and belittle the efforts of members to do their job. Disappointing as it was, we let it pass.
It is a house of debate, as the member for Nhulunbuy quite rightly pointed out, but it is a house of passion. The majority of us here truly believe in the cause of our government and in the things we do. I am sure those opposite also believe in the things they do in their philosophical positions. We often get passionate about it. We get frustrated in this House a little at times too when things do not go our way. I accept that. It is a normal human reaction to vent a little when one is annoyed and frustrated. We sometimes even say things that one does not carefully think through or consider might cause some damage or harm. But it happens a lot.
I do not think members on this side of the House are on their own. If I hark back to a little history, I can come up with plenty of examples where remarks have been made in this House that members have found offensive. Let us start with the member for Nhulunbuy. Here are a few derogatory and offensive remarks she has made to the Minister for Housing, Bess Price. On 19 March 2014 she said:
On 29 April this year:
Or what about on 4 June this year:
The member for Nhulunbuy referred to the Minister for Housing, clearly an Aboriginal woman, as ‘white noise’. How incredibly offensive and, let us say, racist, is that? The member for Nhulunbuy can apparently quite comfortably stand in this House, berate members of the government for some of the things that have been said over here, yet the hypocrisy runs deep. Those comments by the member for Nhulunbuy over the course of this year have been quite disgraceful, in my view.
Let us not stop there. On 4 December 2013, the member for Johnston called a member of this House ‘a grub’. On 27 March this year, Mr Vowles struck again, calling minister Chandler ‘an idiot’. What about earlier this year calling the Chief Minister ‘a knob’.
Mr Vowles: I stand by that.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Back to the member for Nhulunbuy. Do you recall calling the Minister for Correctional Services a garden slug?
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member for Johnston to withdraw that statement.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, please withdraw that comment.
Mr VOWLES: Which one?
Madam SPEAKER: You know the one. Just withdraw.
Mr VOWLES: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Or calling the member for Namatjira, King Brown. You could argue that some people would find some of those comments offensive, other people might not. At the end of the day, it is a place that encourages robust debate. It means that some people lose control of their language and here are just a few examples of the members opposite losing control in the course of a normal debate. I suspect on those days they were not quite as pent up and passionate about an issue as we were yesterday in relation to giving police powers to tackle ice.
I was not in the House when minister Elferink made the comments that are being referred to today. I will quote Hansard. This started as a result of the Minister for Justice giving the House an update on the capture of Peter Kamm, the prisoner who was on the run.
Mr Elferink said:
Then there was an interjection from Ms Fyles:
Then Madam Speaker interrupted the minister and said:
Minister Elferink then went on to talk about the topic he had intended to speak about with no further interjection or reference in relation to what had been said.
I have operated in this House for long enough – a bit over seven years now. What I have seen is that every time somebody hears something in this House they find offensive, they will call a point of order and ask that those comments be withdrawn. Often you, Madam Speaker, will direct that comments be withdrawn by people who make offensive or untoward comments. I did not see a word in the Hansard from the member for Nightcliff, the member to whom the minister’s comments were referring – no point of order, no interjection, no request for those so-called offensive words to be withdrawn.
I was not here, I have to admit, but I would offer to the House that the member for Nightcliff probably just accepted what was said in the spirit and context of the debate. It was not until later that members opposite decided they could gather some political traction out of this and deal with it by going to the media. The actions of those opposite and the way they have handled this thing reeks of political opportunism.
Yes, the minister apologised. He accepted what he said was the wrong thing to say, and I commend the minister for doing that. At the same time the members opposite, in my view, are simply seeking to take political pot shots at the government and the minister. They aim to pile on a bunch of feigned indignation around comments which have been taken completely out of context.
This government takes domestic violence very seriously. We have been tackling law and order issues for a little over three years and made enormous headway into reducing domestic violence across the Northern Territory. There can be no suggestion this government is not doing its bit to deal with the scourge of domestic violence. We have seen, even in my own electorate with the introduction of the temporary beat locations, an enormous drop in not only violent crime generally, but alcohol-related crime and domestic violence as well.
The opposition cannot, with any honesty, assert this government is not focused on reducing domestic violence as much as we can within our community. To then try to tie these comments to the issue of domestic violence is just political opportunism by the members opposite. I see the member for Nhulunbuy over there, shaking her head. I guess that is all part of the feigned indignation I see coming from those members opposite time and time again. It is extremely disappointing.
Here we are, again, in this House talking about ourselves. I do not know how many times I have stood here – many of my colleagues have said it is high time we stopped talking about ourselves and started talking about the things that really matter to Territorians, about what this government is doing to make the lives of Territorians better. More jobs, lower cost of living, petrol prices that are the lowest in the country, and house prices falling, those are the things Territorians want to hear about. They do not want to hear about us.
We do it too often. We are 35 minutes into Question Time and not a single question has been asked or answered about things that matter to Territorians. I am sure people listening and those who will read the reports will wonder, ‘Why on earth do they not just tell us about what they can do and are doing to make our lives better?’ I can imagine the frustration that must be contained within the general population of the Northern Territory, those who are not politically stoked up like we are, but ordinary people who want to know the government is getting on and doing the job.
The member for Port Darwin has apologised for what he said last night and accepted the error of his judgment. It is high time we move on from this and start talking about what matters to the people of the Northern Territory rather than get stuck on navel gazing, which the opposition loves to do.
I do not support the censure motion. I suppose we will hear from at least one or two other speakers before the end of this debate and I will be interested to hear what they have to say.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, as you know, I do not normally vote on censure motions and I will not do so on this one. I will give my reasons.
I have been in this parliament for a long time and know there is robust debate in this parliament. I do not accept the behaviour of certain members of parliament yesterday; it was inappropriate. But that behaviour is not based on gender.
I, for one, have copped stacks of abuse in this parliament. As much as I do not like it – for some people it is par for the course – it probably keeps me in good stead. If I go out in a couple of Saturday’s time and umpire a game of footy, I will probably get the same thing, but I can at least give people a yellow card.
We need to stop and look at ourselves – I raised this issue last night – because we have a code of conduct. That code of conduct is what we are supposed to operate under. It is called the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards. There is a paragraph in section 10 which says:
Why should our behaviour be any different than the way we are at home, or when we meet people in the street? Why does this place seem to be exempt from ethical behaviour? Why is it a belief that you can throw mud around this place just because you have parliamentary privilege? Things were said to me the other day that were straight-out untruths and I had to put up with that. We really need to look at ourselves individually and as a unit and ask what is wrong with this place. Are we so tied to our political parties that we have to hate one another? Where is the bond that should be between us that says we will do things for the benefit of the people of the Territory, or are we going to do things for the benefit of our political parties or political future? We have our priorities up the pole. That is part of the reason we get the behaviour we get – one side against the other side. We need to make changes and the only way these changes are going to come is from both the leader of the government and the Leader of the Opposition.
Once upon a time this Parliament House was next door. My understanding was the bar was at the back and everybody met there after the argy-bargy of parliament. Where do people meet today? They do not. We are as separate as two countries. We do not mix. We do not have dinner together anymore. We do not have a bar – not that I am a drinker, but at least it was a way of people getting together. We have lost that and have become two sides instead of an unified parliament. By all means have different opinions.
I put a suggestion and you can take it for what it is. The Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition meet an hour before we sit in parliament and have a chat about issues and see if we could work together better. That is not to say we will not debate issues. Somehow we have to get back to things we agree on.
That is not gender based, that is based on us as individuals operating in this House.
We can discuss this. We can accuse people of saying things backwards and forwards. That will get it off our chest and make the headlines, but will it achieve anything? If you want a change, then our leaders have to show leadership. If they really believe our behaviour in this place is down in the gutter, then let us lift it out of there. We need our leaders to do it. So, whilst I understand the reasons behind this, and am appalled by some of the behaviour, we need, as a parliament, to look at ourselves, rather than pick on one side or the other and say, ‘Come on. Let us show the people of the Northern Territory we are working for them, not for us.’
Then we could at last lift the job of being a politician from the bottom of the list of what people think is a worthwhile vocation to something people will aspire to. I feel so ashamed sometimes that people rubbish politicians. That is why I say I am a member of parliament, because people have lost faith in us. Yet, we should be working hard to say, ‘This is a worthwhile job. Young people going to school, how about you think about having a future in politics, where you can work for people, do things for people, help people?’
The way it is at the moment, we will continue to go downhill. If something comes out of this debate today, I hope it is something that will come from the leaders of both sides of this parliament. Thank you.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, when someone stands in your workplace and says they feel like slapping you, it is not okay. It is never acceptable. I found the behaviour yesterday threatening and bullying, as most people would. We deserve to come to work and feel safe. Yesterday we saw behaviour that was unacceptable within this parliament and our community. Yes, parliamentary debate can be feisty and robust, but that is never an excuse to threaten violence. It is unacceptable, and we will not tolerate it.
The Deputy Chief Minister, in this Chamber, is meant to be a leader in our community, somebody who is meant to be part of the solution. Instead he is part of the problem. As a community, we should not be defending or minimising. If we do not take these issues seriously, how can we ever solve them? Instead, we have stood together today, the women of the opposition and the crossbenchers, with the support of the Speaker, to call this behaviour unacceptable. The Deputy Chief Minister’s speech was a classic ‘blame the victim’ response. It is not acceptable.
Yesterday the aggression and behaviour in this parliament was not acceptable for our community. We will not tolerate it. This is an extraordinary decision today to censure before any questions, but we must show our community how strong we are. To have the Deputy Chief Minister claim that because I did not call a point of order yesterday it was okay, that is not correct, as the Hansard record will reflect.
Madam Speaker said:
Madam Speaker called out the Attorney-General at the time. We know this behaviour is not acceptable. Therefore, I support this censure motion. We have seen four women leave the parliamentary wing from this CLP government. I will let them share their stories, as they have already. We need to stand up and say this behaviour is not acceptable on behalf of all Territory women.
I am privileged to be able to speak in this parliament. I have a voice, and we need to use that to send a message, a public message, that we must call out this behaviour whenever it happens. We must not defend by saying people are thin-skinned, or they did not interject, or did not speak up. That is not how we will solve this issue. We will solve this issue by calling it out and standing up to it.
Yesterday we experienced, in this Chamber, very aggressive and threatening behaviour. It was not just from the Attorney-General. We saw the member for Blain make aggressive gestures towards me and the member for Wanguri. In fact, and I am quoting Hansard, I was referred to as, ‘sweetheart’. That is not acceptable behaviour for our community or parliament. It is unacceptable bullying behaviour and we will stand against it. In no other workplace would this be condoned. Just because the perpetrator apologises, that does not mean it is acceptable. It does not erase it. I am sure most perpetrators in the hard light of day would say sorry, but that does not mean we condone the behaviour.
Chief Minister, if the minister will not resign, you need to sack him because he is perpetuating a culture that says it is okay to be aggressive towards a woman who frustrates you or questions you. That is exactly what we saw yesterday. The Deputy Chief Minister, in trying to defend the indefensible, has just reiterated that. The government was frustrated. Just because you are frustrated does not mean you behave like that. It was not lost upon the McKell Institute this morning that the chief law officer of the Northern Territory had told a female MP that he felt like slapping her.
The McKell Institute noted that over 60% of assault offences in the Territory are associated with domestic violence, with 82% of those victims being women. The statistics here in the Territory are undeniable, as the Attorney-General reflected in this House on Tuesday.
We are not shrinking violets. We will stand up for this, as we did at lunchtime today outside, united with your support to call this behaviour out. We are up for robust, feisty debate; do not get me wrong, but we saw this behaviour yesterday and it was unacceptable. Maybe because we hear ourselves regularly behaving as we do, we think it is okay. It is not. To take it one step further, there is no place for workplace abuse. There is simply no excuse for it. Anyone with a shred of decency would acknowledge they have a problem and in the Attorney-General, the Minister for Children and Families’ case, he would resign.
The Attorney-General heads up the framework for tackling domestic violence in the Territory. This week in the House the Attorney-General spoke out about tackling domestic violence, saying this government has been strident in its prosecution of those who perpetrate violence against their own families. We maintain and will continue to maintain that domestic violence is not only something needing restraint; it is a crime that should be treated as criminal activity.
I remind the Attorney-General that violence is not only physical, it is verbal and psychological. The Attorney-General’s actions towards my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, were violent. His comment to me was intimidating and threatening. That is how I felt. The member for Nhulunbuy should not have to experience aggression like she, and we, experienced yesterday in this Chamber. It was threatening and bullying, simply because you did not like a point of view. You did not get your own way.
You plead for a better standard. We need to adopt the principles of White Ribbon in the workplace and commence that action immediately. We need to tell our community we value the input of all members in this House. We need to show our community we are committed to acting. We will not sweep this under the carpet simply because the Attorney-General issued a hollow apology.
Yesterday you helped guide me through aggressive and threatening workplace behaviour. It is my job as the opposition Whip to make sure people are ready to speak and encourage debate, but the behaviour we witnessed yesterday from those opposite, particularly the Attorney-General, is simply unacceptable.
Our parliaments, as I have said, are feisty places full of robust debate, but it is never an excuse to threaten violence. To not have the Chief Minister even acknowledge this issue, what message does that send to Territorians? How does he regard these comments? What are his thoughts? Surely he thinks they are unacceptable and, if his Attorney-General does not resign, he needs to sack him. It is unacceptable for Territorians. They have made that clear this morning through social media, comments and messages. We need to stand up to bullying, workplace threats and violence in our community.
We need to show Territory women and families we will not accept even the threat of violence and bullying, or any intimidating behaviour in our workplace. We have heard stories of the bullying within the CLP party room, but yesterday when they lost control of the floor of this parliament, we witnessed bullying and intimidation roll out onto the floor of this House. That is unacceptable.
Today we are calling on the Attorney-General to resign. If he does not resign, we call on the Chief Minister to sack him. It does not come down to someone being thin-skinned. It does not blame the victim. Passion and frustration are no excuse for offensive and violent behaviour. This will not be swept under the carpet. Any one of those opposite who has convinced themselves that this was not violent behaviour, watch the footage. The throwing, the banging and punching of the table is not acceptable. We have to call out anyone who thinks it is, let alone articulates such comments, and we will.
You are excusing the indefensible, Chief Minister, purely through your lack of words. Remorse, empathy, understanding and compassion were all lacking in the member for Katherine’s response. They are lacking in our Chief Minister. He is sitting across the Chamber laughing about it. It is not acceptable. How do you excuse threatening to slap a woman? When do you excuse thumping and punching a table within the parliament? It is simply not acceptable. We will not stand for the Deputy Chief Minister today trying to brush it under the carpet and come up with excuses.
How can the Attorney-General and the Chief Minister be believed when they swear ‘no more’ when this behaviour has occurred within these walls, within this parliamentary Chamber? Would you accept, Attorney-General, if someone behaved like that to your daughter or your wife? I am sure not. The answer is a simple no. You are wrong in your behaviour and you need to accept the responsibility and the consequences.
I support this motion. We have an Attorney-General, the Leader of Government Business and Minister for Children and Families, who cannot go on with his portfolios. You cannot be the first law officer of the Northern Territory. Simply by not saying anything, the Chief Minister is condoning this behaviour. This is one of the most serious motions this House can debate, and the sooner the government accepts that the better. Yesterday we saw unprecedented threats and aggression in this Chamber because the government did not get its way. We will stand up to that on behalf of all Territory women.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, this place is often the theatre of hypocrisy and is used by the opposition and Independent members as a place of performance. But yesterday we saw that performance in full light when 13 members of this House, none of whom were on our side, decided to vote to stop police being given powers to stop drugs at our borders.
But today I have seen the lowest of lows, the height of hypocrisy, come out of this untrustworthy and unprofessional opposition. In fact, I find the members for Nhulunbuy and Nightcliff the greatest offenders of decorum in this House, the greatest offenders against standing orders and the most offensive members in this House. The members for Nhulunbuy and Nightcliff are on the record, probably more than any members, for interjecting across the Chamber, not just interjecting but screaming in the most unparliamentary and derogatory manner at this side of the House. The barrage of snide, inappropriate remarks flows freely from their lips every sitting day.
And here they are in this House using this issue of domestic violence for political gain. It is shameful. It is the most disgusting politicisation of an issue I have ever seen in this House.
The member for Nhulunbuy’s manner in this House would not be tolerated in workplaces outside of this Chamber. Coming into this House as a woman and claiming you cannot take what you so readily give is hypocritical and cries wolf. The links drawn by the opposition are pathetic and unparliamentary. You have no credibility on this issue and you are diminishing the equal footing that women have fought so hard to achieve. Playing the gender card is a dangerous hand to deal and you have undermined women today.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I support this censure motion.
I have listened very carefully to all the speakers today. Let us talk about this place a bit. Yesterday was a tough day at the office for all of us. I felt and experienced things I had not felt before. Granted, often in this place we put ourselves out there. We put ourselves in uncomfortable positions and ask some tough questions. Yesterday I asked a really tough question of the government. It was not one I asked lightly. It was one I felt had to be asked of the government.
We ask each other tough questions. We drive each other because we want to see good things happening in the Northern Territory. We have all signed up for this job because each and every one of us in our heart, in this place, in this Chamber, wants to see good things for the Northern Territory. I truly believe that. It can be really hard because, ideologically, many of us come from different perspectives. We come from different backgrounds, upbringings and experiences.
I do not think anybody felt good walking out of this place yesterday. From my perspective, I watched this place break down and I felt ashamed.
Yesterday I saw behaviour from some of the members that was aggressive. There were some physical aspects to it. It was a type of behaviour that shocked me. I walked out of the Chamber a few times, tried to digest it and saw the responses of other people around me and how taken aback they were. I felt horrified because I thought, ‘My goodness, have I become so complacent that I no longer react when I see that type of behaviour, more or less see it on the floor of parliament?’
It is a tough place. We ask each other some very tough questions and it can be incredibly uncomfortable. There is still a certain level of behaviour people expect. Yesterday that got pushed to a level that was not acceptable by the standards of most Territorians.
When I looked around and saw the response of my colleagues to what they had seen and heard I thought, ‘My goodness. How have I gotten to the point where I have become so used to this type of behaviour?’ I thought I would have to take a good hard look at myself here because how on Earth could we fight against violence, how are we meant to stand up for women and their families, if we do not make a stand for it ourselves in here?
I understand there is heat and passion in this place but there is a certain way in which we need to conduct ourselves. The way we were conducting ourselves here yesterday was not it. I was quite taken aback by it, but I am incredibly heartened by and proud of the strength I have seen from my colleagues who have said, ‘No, you have to stand up for this. Why on Earth are we in this job if we do not stand up when we see these types of wrongs?’
I am proud of their strength and courage, and the other women who have gone out today and stood side by side and said, ‘Enough. This is not to be tolerated, particularly in this place.’
I support this censure motion.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I guess I have the title of mother of the House, and the member for Nelson is father of the House. We came into parliament at the same time in 2001. We have seen a lot of passion and frustration, and robust and feisty debate. We have seen words thrown across the Chamber from members to each other, descriptive words. But I have to say, we cannot, as members of parliament, ever accept another member of parliament saying to someone across the Chamber, ‘I feel like slapping you right now, figuratively speaking’. That is not okay. That is a new low which has gone too far down, and enough is enough.
Member for Port Darwin, think about it. None of us, surely, would accept someone speaking to a woman like that. None of us would be okay if our daughter, wife, sister, mother or friend came home from their workplace and described that conversation. ‘I feel like slapping you right now, figuratively speaking’ is not okay. It is not the result of robust, fiery and passionate debate. It is violent, aggressive, intimidating and threatening language, which, by its nature, is abuse. It is not okay.
This morning in front of the media pack, you said you would not apologise. On radio you were not apologising and then you came in, after all that, and gave, at best, a disingenuous apology. When the perpetrator says sorry and thinks that excuses their actions, are we meant to accept that? As a society, in the laws we make, in the guidelines we issue and the oaths we swear to stop violence in our community, we do not accept it; yet you expect us to accept it here because you will throw accusations at us, accusations that blame the victim and promote hypocrisy.
If one of your colleagues had been spoken to in such a way you would, I hope, stand up and call the perpetrator to account. We are calling on you to do the right thing in this motion, Chief Minister. If your Attorney-General, the first law officer of the Territory, the Minister for Children and Families, and, importantly, the Leader of Government Business in this House – the person whose position, with the exception of Madam Speaker, is the most crucial to the orderly running of this House – can be excused by you, what have we descended to?
As to the other incidents, the shouting, the banging on the desk, the throwing down of the glasses, that was not okay. It was threatening, intimidating, bullying and aggressive behaviour. Enough is enough. I sincerely hope the member for Port Darwin understands he has gone too far. I sincerely hope he takes it upon himself to resign, go to the backbench and understand that there are genuine consequences of your actions. I truly hope that.
I am saddened to hear the contribution of members opposite – the blaming of the victim and the accusations. No, it is not that. I have spent my time as mother of the House on the backbench with my colleagues. I can sincerely say the women were not okay with the way they were treated yesterday. This is not a stunt or hypocrisy. This is genuine and we are saying it must stop. There must be consequences for this behaviour. It must stop.
I have seen colleagues genuinely and deeply upset. It is real. No opposition party lightly gives up a Question Time period. That is how serious this is and how deeply affected we have been by it. A shred of empathy or remorse would not have been a bridge too far, because we get how the ‘blame the victim’ scenario now feels.
Please think about this. Please choose to do the right thing. Please take up the commendable suggestion to make this an accredited White Ribbon Workplace. But please also take responsibility for your actions, member for Port Darwin. Resign and spend some time on the backbench as a consequence of you going far too far in workplace bullying and abuse.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I stand with the members for Nhulunbuy and Nightcliff and other female parliamentarians in this Chamber. This is a tough workplace. We know when we come in to parliament it is going to be a tough day at the office.
I remember a conversation with the member for Barkly where he had spent the morning before parliament at a radio station with some young people having a laugh. Then he thought, ‘I have to go to work now and when I go to work I will be abused’. That is what happens at work. It is not a good workplace sometimes. But there are lines. While we accept it is a tough place, there are lines, and that line was crossed yesterday in quite a significant way. It was crossed several times yesterday. Yesterday was not a good day for the NT parliament.
People expect us to be community leaders on an issue that is affecting the community broadly. They expect us to call these things out and set standards. One of the problems we have in this debate across the community is when people feel they can tell other people how they feel; they believe they can define for other people their emotions or how they should respond to things.
We need to understand the importance our behaviour can have to others. We need to understand there are lines in this community and when these debates occur, you cannot minimise what has happened to somebody else. You cannot take actions like slapping or punching a desk, and reduce them to the equivalent of mocking, as the Deputy Chief Minister did. You cannot say that someone else is ‘just thin-skinned’. That is clearly a reduction or a minimisation of what has occurred.
People expect more from their community leaders. They expect a response, for wrongs to be called out and for leaders to hold others to account, and for us to set the standard and lead the way. Instead today, in this Chamber, rather than setting a standard to deal with what is now a community problem, we have seen defence, excuse, minimisation, reduction, all the classic things we tell other people they should not accept when they have these debates or they stand up for themselves in the family home or workplace.
We are now seeing here in public debate the exact playing out of what is wrong with this community debate across the country – a debate about violence like this and violence against women. We have to make a stand. There was a line crossed in this Chamber yesterday. The female parliamentarians in this Chamber have taken that stand and I applaud them for it. I am very proud of what they have done and the courage it took to do it.
This morning before parliament started, I thanked my colleagues for how they responded to what I felt was an incredibly difficult day for them yesterday. I am even prouder today of how they responded to it. This is an incredibly serious issue. We take this issue seriously. We have foregone Question Time so this issue can be debated. We believe this is the biggest issue we are talking about now, and not just because of what happened in the Chamber yesterday. This is part of a pattern of behaviour from the government. It is about a debate that continues in this country, state to territory and nationally, about how men, in particular, behave towards women.
We have to set a standard. That is why we brought this censure motion, due to the appalling and aggressive behaviour towards parliamentarians in this Assembly, and the Chief Minister for losing control of the behaviour of his members of parliament. It is an important censure. Those are incredibly important points. The Chief Minister needs to show control of his side, to stand up and not be silent.
Importantly, the motion also says we will adopt the principles of the White Ribbon Workplace, and commence the accreditation process immediately. We want to take positive action. We will call out the poor behaviour and take positive action. This workplace needs to become a better place to go to work for all parliamentarians. If we adopt these principles, all parliamentarians will benefit.
We are calling out the actions of the Attorney-General and the silence of the Chief Minister and people in leadership positions. We are appalled by the defence from the Deputy Chief Minister, the man who wanted to be Chief Minister. We are calling them out and saying this workplace can be better, and we believe this White Ribbon Workplace process will lead to a better workplace. That is what we are talking about and standing up for today. I thank my colleagues. I thank the Independents for the stand they have taken on this issue that is plaguing this country.
Unfortunately, we saw this in our workplace yesterday. We know it is a tough place to go to work, but we have to always remember there is a line and that line was crossed yesterday. That is why we are taking this stand and moving the censure motion. That is why we are calling out the aggressive behaviour of the government, the actions of the Attorney-General and the silence of the Chief Minister. We are also saying there is a way forward, and we should adopt the principles of the White Ribbon Workplace.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is interesting the member for Nhulunbuy raises these allegations. How interesting she feels it is sexist, or unacceptable. Just last week, I stood up and delivered an adjournment speech, speaking about bullying and intimidation, and how fed up I am with it. A little self-reflection is needed. They say people should not throw stones in glass houses.
I am new at this game. I saw a lot of bullying and intimidation going on when we were all Country Liberals. It is ironic that these three women said how disgusted they were with the Minister for Children and Families saying the ‘slap’ word. It takes me back to March, Mr Deputy Speaker, when the International Women’s Day Forum was on, when the member for Namatjira accused you of calling her the ‘c’ word. I was so surprised the member for Araluen jumped in and supported her.
Mrs Lambley: You were not even there, Bess. How would you know?
Mrs PRICE: I was sitting across …
Ms Anderson: No, you were not
Mrs PRICE: … and knew you did not call her that name.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs PRICE: You will have your turn. I brought it up with her and said, ‘He did not say that word’, and the member for Araluen’s reply was, ‘I know he did not, but I do not like him because he does not like my husband’. I was threatened and bullied as well, not by a man, but by a woman.
The member for Namatjira, in one of the wing meetings, when she was angry with the member for Goyder, threatened her and said she would throw her out onto the balcony. She laughs because she did that.
Ms Anderson: I did not threaten people out on the community.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs PRICE: Here she goes again, the windscreen wiper of Central Australia. She did not support the ice legislation; she wants our kids to take ice and kill themselves.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 62: offensive. I do not think anyone wants people to take ice and die, so could the member withdraw that offensive remark?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, can you perhaps rephrase that and withdraw the remark which the members opposite feel was offensive?
Mrs PRICE: I felt bullied and intimidated as well when I stood here and spoke in a foreign language. It is not my first language. That is bullying to me.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, minister, but I ask that you withdraw that remark. It has been raised as a point of order.
Mrs PRICE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I did withdraw. The fact of the matter is English is my third language. I am different.
Ms Anderson: Stop using that as an excuse.
Mrs PRICE: She is the worst bully and here she goes again; that is bullying.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Namatjira!
Mrs PRICE: That is bullying. You always do that.
Ms Anderson: You speak English as well as anyone in this House. You are a failure to black people.
Mrs PRICE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 62; I would like her kicked out of this room.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Namatjira, the minister has requested that you withdraw those comments under Standing Order 62. I ask that you do so, please.
Ms ANDERSON: I withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind honourable members of Standing Order 66, which prohibits quarrels in the Chamber.
Mrs PRICE: Mr Deputy Speaker, the kind of reply she gave was intimidating as well. I want to remind people this is the kind of intimidation that goes on in this House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, let us just take a breath. This is a very sensitive subject; it is obviously very emotive and is striking a chord. All sorts of emotions are flying around; I understand that, and it will generate some sort of interjection, but can we please keep things in an orderly manner. I again remind members about Standing Order 66, no quarrels across the Chamber, let alone Standing Order 51, regarding interruption, which I know we are all aware of.
Mrs PRICE: I do not care for such banter. This is a serious place and we are are here for serious things.
The member for Nhulunbuy has continued to cast me as incompetent. She even told me I was weak. When her childish games are called out, she takes any advantage she can find. She is not standing up for women and girls; she is cynically exploiting the plight of women for political purposes.
Political point scoring is not appropriate and it is wrong to use violence against women as a tool to play political games. Yesterday the member for Nhulunbuy and the opposition decided to play political games with the Northern Territory’s epidemic, but we all see the impact. I do in my electorate, and even in Alice Springs. How interesting the member for Nhulunbuy had no questions about women’s policy at estimates. She showed no interest then.
I have the utmost respect for my colleagues and what they are doing for women in the Territory. We are leading the nation in the prevention of domestic and family violence. Minister Elferink and I have developed the nation’s most comprehensive integrated response to domestic violence. We were the first jurisdiction to sign up to the national plan to reduce domestic violence.
The Northern Territory Domestic and Family Violence Reduction Strategy 2014-17: Safety is Everyone’s Right is a comprehensive approach to tackling domestic violence. We have developed a policy framework for Northern Territory women with four key focus areas: women’s safety; health and wellbeing; economic security; and leadership and participation. Through the Office of Women’s Policy this government is supporting the plight of Territory women through many grants and sponsorships, supporting women in research, study and events that support women to participate to advance economic, social and civil rights. This annual grant funding is $40 000.
This government believes the rich diversity among Territory women and girls is worth celebrating. This government is committed to a strong society where everyone feels safe in the home, the workplace and communities. Additionally, we recently hosted a visit by Rosie Batty, the Australian of the Year. She was surprised to see how far the Territory was ahead compared to the rest of the nation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Chief Minister and the Treasurer have let minister Elferink and I get on with the job for Territory women, Territorians and the women of this place. I do not support this motion.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the opposition for bringing this motion forward. I support this motion. Unlike other people we do not have to read off notes, we can talk from the bottom of our hearts. I give credence to this House as to how we can rise above the ugliness that has been spread.
I will talk about my relationship with the member for Port Darwin before he became the member for Port Darwin. I do not think the member for Port Darwin is a bad person; he is a good human being. Through all the anxiety and matters that happen inside this House, all of us go beyond that threshold. We all know, on this side of the House, the amount of work one bloke on that side does. He is the Leader of Government Business, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Children and Families, and he has to keep this House in order.
I knew John a long time before I became a politician. He was the member for Macdonnell. I talk very highly of John as a local member, because he also represented me in Macdonnell. He was a good bloke. He came across accidents Aboriginal people had been involved in and he helped them. Apart from his kangaroo tails and cards and stuff like that, he is a genuinely good person.
We all make mistakes in this Chamber. We have all abused each other across this Chamber. I will go to the bloke who sits behind me, the member for Nelson, and what he said. I urge the Chief Minister and the Opposition Leader to sit down for an hour, or maybe half-an-hour at the beginning of every sittings. It does not have to be every day, just at the beginning of every sitting, to sort something out. Or when something happens, both of you get together straightaway.
Chief Minister, you would have noticed the animosity or the aggression yesterday. We all did on this side of the House. It is up to both of you to put out the flames and keep this House in order.
I am supporting this motion based on the fact that we, as members of this House, should not tolerate any form of violence. I know it gets heated inside this House – very heated. We call each other names and we put each other down. We have to rise above that. Territorians vote for us to give them a good quality of life, ease the cost of living, make sure the roads they travel on are fine, and the buses they catch are reliable. They want the economic opportunities we have in the Northern Territory. It is not in anyone’s interest for any of us to be putting each other down, but we should call out something wrong when we see it. That is the way we deal with problems, and find solutions for problems we identify. The Attorney-General is not a bad man; he is a good human being. Many Aboriginal people respect him. They respected him as the member for Macdonnell. When people pass away in my electorate, the first thing people say to me is, ‘Can you let John Elferink know that so and so passed away’. I do via text message. I text John and I say, ‘John, Auntie Elba passed away. Ruthie has asked me to inform you.’
It goes to show you that Aboriginal people still have respect for that man. But from our frustration, ugly things can happen. We have to call it out. I am supporting the motion. John, this is not a personal attack on you. It is about the higher end of stuff. We have got to get rid of this violence ourselves. How can we be talking and debating issues inside this Chamber about violence when we inflict it on each other. There are kids out there watching us all the time. We are supposed to be setting an example for these kids. Let us set the right example, let us get the ugliness out of this Chamber. Then the ugliness out there will stop. We are on opposite sides and we can have a robust debate but let us have it with common courtesy for each other as human beings and not be so ugly. We will transfer that ugliness to other people and other people watching. I support this motion but this is not a personal thing about you, John. You are a good human being and a good worker. I know for a fact Aboriginal people support you.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the censure motion put forward by the member for Nhulunbuy. I have listened with great intent to the debate on this very important issue this afternoon. This is not a political issue for me, not at all, not anymore. It was, but it is not anymore. I have extracted myself from the Country Liberal Party where I became very unhappy with a range of things. One of those things was how I felt I was being disrespected and mistreated by certain people within the parliamentary wing. I look across that side of the Chamber and am pleased to say that most of them are fabulous people. I have the greatest respect and the highest regard for almost each and every one of you. But there are people over there who made my life hell. I am on the public record as saying that and I do not need to say anything more.
I believe each of us has to operate from a value base. We have to operate from a value base which, usually for me – I cannot preach to other people but I suspect that many people share the same values as me, that is integrity and honesty, which basically are words synonymous with integrity and respect. As the member for Namatjira very clearly articulated, we all fail ourselves at times. I have called people different names at times. I called the Treasurer a sick puppy yesterday and I withdrew that immediately. That was not something I was proud of, but in the scheme of things it is probably quite a lame name to give him. Most of us at times walk out of here and feel quite disappointed about how we behaved and the things we said and did in the debates we participated in.
Today is about drawing a line in the sand; it certainly is for me. I have not enjoyed this week. I felt I was fairly treated aggressively by the Chief Minister on Tuesday, and by the Treasurer yesterday. I felt pretty miserable walking away from Parliament House yesterday after hearing what had happened between the Attorney-General and the member for Nightcliff. I was happy to stand earlier with a group of women, the Labor women and a contingent of Independent women, out the front of Parliament House to say, ‘Let us draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough’.
The most awful characteristic of this parliament is where unseemly behaviour is acceptable. People are quite damaged by that. You can become damaged by what happens in this place. There are people in this Chamber today who feel damaged as a result of what happened yesterday. I guess I have a thick skin these days and it takes quite a bit to knock me down to the floor. I have been there and done that; I am up again and I do not intend to go back down there soon.
What I would like to say is of a similar vein to what the member for Namatjira has just said. I think the Attorney-General, the member for Port Darwin, is a good human being, and he is a man I respect. Like me, he has some quirky, strange ways about him, but he is essentially a good man. However, what he said yesterday in this House was unacceptable, and I do not know how he will get out of this. You cannot have the chief law officer of the Northern Territory making a threat of that nature to a female politician. Unfortunately, John, you have crossed a line and I feel very sorry to be part of that sad event.
In closing, this is not a political issue for me. I do not care what quarter in this Chamber this behaviour comes from. It makes no difference to me. It did, but it does not anymore. I do not need to throw stones in any direction. I will never be part of a Cabinet again, unless there is a dreadful hung parliament or something radical happens at the next election and they have to invite Independents into Cabinet. There is nothing in it for me whatsoever, but to ask that we maintain a level of decency and all go away today and be reminded of our values and where we stand. We need to stick by our values and remind ourselves what those boundaries are because at the moment they are very blurred in this parliament.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not intend to speak for long. I want to put on the record my enormous respect for the member for Port Darwin. He and I have had a few tussles in the past. I say that figuratively speaking, but he is an honourable and decent human being. I cannot for the life of me imagine the member for Port Darwin ever being physically aggressive towards a woman or a man.
I am glad I am supported in those views by the members for Namatjira and Araluen. I think anybody who knows the member for Port Darwin knows his character, his commitment to the job and his extraordinary discipline in maintaining rectitude in what is quite a difficult environment to keep a cool head in.
Furthermore, my high regard extends to the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister, the members for Sanderson, Blain, Arafura, Daly and Brennan – all decent, 100% gentlemen. I have had a tussle with most of them, figuratively speaking. But this place is about debate and people need to understand why we come here, why we have some of the ornaments in this place we have, why that table is there, why the table is so wide. The width of the table is slightly more than two sword lengths wide. The idea is that someone sitting on one side of the table cannot stab the person on the other side of the table. It is there figuratively. It is there to remind us that this is a bloodless battle. In fact, they say politics is a bloodless war. We are at war, and that is the great strength of our parliamentary democracy in this country, that we come into this place and argue in the most robust way.
People often call this place coward’s castle because we have a thing called parliamentary privilege. You have to ask why we have parliamentary privilege. Fundamentally, it is about freedom of speech and the ability to express yourself without fear or favour, with the understanding that people will come here with open hearts and minds and say exactly what is on their minds. This is not a place where people walk around on eggshells worrying if they will offend people on the other side. This is a place where you have robust debate. It is the great strength of the Westminster system and Australia. It is the great strength of our parliamentary democracy that this behaviour is encouraged.
Politics is not the business of the meek. If you are a wilting violet, a political career is probably not for you. If you are a thin-skinned person who cannot take a little criticism, you really should not be in this place.
We have all said – and I am probably the worst offender – things that humiliate others. When you make those comments, your blood rises, your temper goes up, you become full of beans and you are ready to go.
Only last night I was talking about boxing on with the member for Nelson. Do people literally think that the member for Nelson and I will box? I have talked about the member for Johnston, about giving him a little clip on the way through. Does anybody think I have given him a little clip? We talk in reference to violence because this place is set up on the idea that we will have violent debate. That is the strength of the democracy and is something that, as parliamentarians, we should be proud of, not shirk from.
I am proud that we can come in here and call each other names. Ultimately, the more we do that and the tougher the debate gets, the better the outcomes. I love to sit at times and listen to the member for Nelson talk about consensus government, where there are no parties involved. You would not have a table in the middle like this and we would all sit around, hold hands, talk it over in a very nice way and come up with something. We have that system in Australia; it is called local government.
I do not know how many people would like this place to operate like Litchfield, Tiwi or Palmerston Council. That is the member for Nelson’s idea of consensus government; you do not have parties and everybody seemingly gets on. It is a fantastic aspiration, but is very difficult to achieve. It somewhat undermines the history and the strength of the parliamentary democracy we have in this country.
I am genuinely sorry if the members for Nightcliff and Nhulunbuy had their feelings hurt. I do not want them to feel hurt, but seriously! This is a storm in a teacup. This man here is an absolute gentleman. Anybody who does not think that does not know him. If you are looking for somebody to point out to say, ‘Oh, that guy is politically incorrect all the time and says the most offensive things’, that is me! I am the one in the parliament who does that. I cannot contain myself at times. I am from the old school where we were brought up to believe sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Calling me names is like water off a duck’s back. I do not get offended easily.
I do pride myself on the fact that I can take it. I can put it behind me. I have dignity within myself. I have strength and confidence in my abilities. I am not the sharpest tool in the box. I am not anything special. I am human, but at least I come here with confidence knowing there is nothing anyone can say that will hurt me. We have to get back to the business of governing.
This whole culture of victimhood is just getting beyond the pale. Everybody is striving to be a victim now. I watched, on YouTube, our Attorney-General and the comments he made. I cannot imagine a bigger storm in a teacup than that. Anybody who listened to the debate last night would know those comments were some of the most benign. Such is the nature of the man that he got up today and apologised for making those comments.
Clearly, he was so hurt that he had offended the members for Nhulunbuy and Nightcliff so much that he had to apologise. I would not have. I would have said, ‘Toughen up, princess! This is politics. This is a tough debate.’ This focus on the minutiae, these little slips of the tongue, devalues real issues in the community that we should be focusing on.
It devalues all of that. People need to understand why we are here. They need to look around the parliament. They need to understand what the mace is doing there, why the table is so wide, why we have parliamentary privilege. All those things have a reason. As I say, politics is not a game for the meek.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand why the members opposite have brought this forward. For the sake of the Parliamentary Record, there are certain things I would like to get on the record. I will go into the background of things.
I have often preached about the decorum and conduct of members because I am often concerned with how we diminish this place with our conduct. We have seen that in a number of ways. Some members will remember when Labor government members started making all sorts of suggestions in relation to my personal background. I am not going to visit them in detail, but that is the sort of thing when we had reached a nadir.
I am probably the only male member – I would even go out to say possibly the only member – who, when I did my Arts degree, studied feminist philosophy. I can tell you the difference between a radical, liberal or Marxist feminist, and do so in some detail. As a police officer over a number of years, I put the bodies of women killed by their husbands into body bags. Over those years, I formed some very deep impressions as to what occurs in our community. Part of the reason I got into the political domain is because I wanted to change that. I entered this House in 1997; I was the member for Macdonnell for eight years and continued to see many of the things that bothered me during those years. I campaigned for an interpreter service in the face of the then CLP government and, finally, they caved and gave us an Aboriginal Interpreter Service in the Northern Territory, because I believed it to be necessary, especially in relation to the protection of women.
Quite honestly, this burns. What is happening here today is cutting deep because I am affected by this. Upon becoming the Attorney-General, I set about convincing my Cabinet colleagues to spend millions of dollars on the Safety is Everyone’s Right domestic violence campaign. I have never in my life offered violence to any woman at all. I often think to myself, and my wife occasionally reminds me, what will your daughters think when they look at the Parliamentary Record? Do you want them to be proud of you? The answer is yes, I do want my daughters, my wife and my mum to be proud of me, and if my dad was alive today I would want him to be proud of me as well.
I was given the opportunity to protect women and children in our community, and I have done so passionately and earnestly since the day I entered this House. I thank the member for Namatjira, and some of the other members for acknowledging the work I have put into this Territory. I remind honourable members of Ms Walker’s comments on Tuesday in this House; she said:
I do take my role very, very seriously.
Yes, there are times I get frustrated in this House; I wear my heart on my sleeve. There are times when I feel absolutely buoyant and there are other times when I feel less so. Now is one of those occasions. Last night I heard, as many other people did, a number of insults being thrown around this room. I spend many hours on my feet in the Chamber. What I did was use a term which has been often used in this House, but I used it in relation to the member for Nightcliff. The member for Nightcliff has been insulted. For that, I sincerely apologise.
I continue to work for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory, and will continue to. I will let the public decide. I hope, if they are served the facts, the comments from people like the member for Namatjira are incorporated into the public discussion because I want some balance in relation to this. This is a difficult topic for me and it is a difficult debate. Nevertheless, I have promised to serve the people, the children and the women of the Northern Territory, and I will continue to do so.
Am I perfect? Hell, no. Are there 100 things I have done that I want to undo? Absolutely. Are there a million things I have said that I would like to unsay? Yes, there are, not only in this House but in life. Unfortunately, I have a lot of moving parts, I suspect, and I live my life passionately. I am engaged with my life.
I love the work I do. I love serving the people of the Northern Territory. I have done it since the very first day I pulled on a police uniform at the age of 17. I am committed and passionate about the people of the Northern Territory. Yes, on this occasion I erred because I used a phrase which has been used many times in this House. If honourable members google the phrase ‘federal politics slap down’, page after page of the word is used in relation to political reporting around this country.
Nevertheless, in the modern, current context, that expression is no longer valid. That is clear from this debate today. For that reason, I apologise. I apologised this morning, and believe me, it is not a vacuous or hollow apology; it is very sincere. I do not like causing pain. But having made that observation, in pursuit of those things that are important, it is, nevertheless, important for me not to lose my courage or commitment.
The US Marine Corps works by the philosophy of honour, courage and commitment. That is what I try to do because they are noble values. They also have the motto Semper fidelis, which loosely translates from the Latin to be always faithful. I like the philosophy behind that as well.
Will I make mistakes? Yes, I make lots of mistakes. To every one of my public servants in the public service when they go to work I say, ‘Take a risk. Go out there and serve the people of the Northern Territory. Be the best you can possibly be, and when you screw up, I will back you. As long as you are on the right side of gross negligence or criminality, I will support you as the minister.’ I have done so time and time again, proudly, because a person acting in good faith is a person who should be encouraged. I believe most people in this Chamber act in good faith – not always – and we all make mistakes. I acknowledge I make those mistakes like everybody else. But I am still on my quest. I am still committed to the people of the Northern Territory and I will do so with all the passion, drive and energy I can bring to the job.
I will stand judged by the people of the Northern Territory at the next Territory election, and like all politicians I will accept their judgment. I am not happy about today. I will take this opportunity to reflect upon the things said and done in this place. But having made that observation, as this debate passes into the annals of history in this House, old habits will be resurrected; old behaviours will become new again. I, for one, will commit to trying to restrain myself and not go down that path.
Having made that observation, if this is what the members of this House are calling for, I will also do what I have to do as Leader of Government Business to hold those members to account. I will not be afraid. I will not be cowed in my pursuit of things that are important. I will push through this mistake and I will push on. I will do it showing respect to the people who are around me, as I have always done. I have said on a number of occasions that I always try to show respect. It is time for us to set a course forward to serve the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
The Assembly divided:
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Note Statement – Fisheries’ Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a terrific statement. I encouraged it a lot over the last 17 years or so. I have had a lot to do with the Wangamaty Landcare Group in the Malak Malak ranges on the Daly River.
We have heard a lot about rangers on the coast, and I want to add to some of the inland ones, specifically in the upper Daly and the Malak Malak ranges. One of the things you see in the ranger program – which the minister has addressed in his statement – is how the Daly River is unique, since it is the only river in the Northern Territory with a land claim on the river bank. This section of river is very similar to the coast where you have Aboriginal title.
For a group of people like the Malak Malaks to own such an extent of a river like the Daly makes it very hard to look at jobs around that facility. I see the ranger program as opening up a hell of a lot of opportunities for them. I am not just talking about jobs as rangers; you need to look at other economic opportunities.
When you look at some of the training given to these rangers like getting licensing for boats or coxswain licences – many of the Daly rangers have had this training. Quite often this training gives people piloting the boats on the rivers more skills and qualifications than just about every amateur fisherman in the Northern Territory.
It gives these rangers an opportunity. If they then want to set up their own small business, they can. One of the great opportunities they have – once they get confidence in boat handling and get their coxswain licences – is to do things like guided fishing. Many people in the Territory make a lot of money out of guided fishing. These are people who usually come from somewhere other than the Daly. Often at the Daly you will see people from interstate. This is one of the reasons I have pushed to ensure we have a good ranger program on the Daly River.
With this program we are getting fantastic support from Fisheries and the water police. One of the questions I have often asked Fisheries and the water police is why these rangers are unable to do some sort of compliance checking. I am not necessarily talking about enforcement, but I note the minister mentioned compliance and enforcement in his speech. Initially, I was simply talking about compliance. One of the things that was obvious to me was how water police would inspect things like the cherabin pots.
There are simple little rules. We are paying police officers full salaries and they are highly paid. They were going up and down the river and pulling cherabin pots to make sure they were the right size and had names on them. To me, that would be a simple task to pass over to the rangers and would achieve protection of our fish stocks. I am talking about the cherabin stocks as well
The other thing we get out of these rangers is their monitoring of things. They are up and down the river every day or a couple of days a week, whereas most of the other people there are tourists who might go up and down the river once or twice a year, or have their favourite spot and off they go. The rangers are very good at spotting changes and can pick up many things, like mimosa.
One of the other things they pointed out to me at the Daly is wild cotton. I do not know if people can remember, but there was some cotton grown around Dorisvale, I think – the minister for Primary Industry might remember – many years ago. There are some outcrops of cotton downstream. There is a benefit from having people going up and down the river continually.
I used to be the unit officer with Emergency Services on the Daly. One of the problems we always had was fishermen would go down – I am not picking on fishermen, do not get me wrong – when the river was up. They would misjudge their fuel and run out. We would get phone calls to say someone had not come back and we would have to look for them. I do not know whether people want to go up and down a river peaking at levels of 12 m in the middle of the night when it is pitch black and you are the only ones there. It is good to know that when you go there you can take a second or even third boat so that if something goes wrong, you have someone to help you. It is something that can be picked up.
I raised one thing with the Wadeye Thamarrurr Rangers. They have a lot of trouble getting sea rescue people to work with NTES there. Again, people are a bit sceptical about working with the police in a community like Wadeye. I am not picking on the police. I am saying there are a lot of Indigenous people who will not work with the police in that situation. To get the rangers to do some of this rescue work, as opposed to NTES, as part of the police is a great opportunity. Not only are you getting them looking for nets and illegal fisherman, spotting and reporting them, but you also have this opportunity when fishermen disappear and do not come back. There are many more people getting to places like Wadeye who will travel from Darwin to the coast so they are not driving through Indigenous land. More of those bigger boats are getting there, so this demand is going to be greater.
The Thamarrurr Rangers found the big whale bones. If people go to Wadeye and have a look, they will see that they are spectacular.
I wanted to add these few comments to the statement. It is a terrific statement and the ranger programs are fantastic in every way. They protect the environment, they help the safety of fishermen, they protect our ecosystems, and they create jobs, as well as create small business opportunities for local Indigenous people.
I commend the statement to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement, which is very important. I have been reading it in conjunction with the Indigenous Fisheries Development Strategy 2012-14 and I note that it has a section called Aquatic Resource Management. From what I hear and read of the minister’s statement, it is going down the path of what is being set out as the strategy. There might be a couple of issues that may need working on, for instance, regular consultation with communities on fisheries management issues. I am interested to see how that is going. There is a part here called ‘A review and update of the definition of customary fishing in the Fisheries Act’, so it would be good to see how that fits with the government’s fisheries development strategy.
There may be an opportunity later to talk about the economic development side of this. This is more a strategy for the protection of the fishing environment and a discussion about the benefits of having a ranger program. I made a couple of notes. I raise the same issue when governments say that it is employing X number of Aboriginal people in jobs. That is great, but how many of those people are staying in those jobs? I always asked with the old SIHIP program, we have had 300 people working on it, how many of them worked for more than six months? How many of them worked for 12 months? How many have been in since it started? Is it the sort of work Aboriginal people are not only wanting to join up to but actually stay in? I am interested to know if it has long-term benefits – the benefits we all hope to see when it comes to jobs.
I am also interested in how compliance works. We have water police and Fisheries officers and now we have marine rangers. It mentions that you are trying to give Aboriginal rangers more opportunities by empowering them. You say the Fisheries Act is currently being amended to accommodate increased fisheries compliance and enforcement powers for marine rangers. These changes will allow appropriately qualified and experienced marine rangers to be provided with fisheries compliance and enforcement powers. I wonder if some of these people could join the water police. I imagine Fisheries rangers are looking at whether you have the right catch, nets or safety equipment. Is a pathway for Indigenous people to become water police similar to the path the police have in their ATPO system? Is there an avenue where these people could become water police if their education is sufficient, because water police have a different role to marine rangers and fishing officers?
I see possibilities and wonder whether there is any sort of connection between them. It is great that people are getting more responsibility handed over to them. It is good the government is now expanding the program. In the mouth of the Daly area there are still issues regarding the Blue Mud Bay agreement. It will be a while before that is sorted. It needs a firm decision on a certain matter from the Northern Land Council, which seems reluctant to make a decision about traditional ownership, but we will not get into that today.
That is where it falls down to some extent because there are rangers but they are regarded as marine rangers. That also begs the question, if we have wildlife rangers working on the coast and marine rangers working offshore, how do they work together? At the mouth of the Daly there are issues. As you know, there are weeds, mimosa and litter along the beaches. There can be nets. There are fishing tours that go to the Peron Islands, so you have land-based and marine-based issues.
I wonder if there is talk about how the two groups of rangers are interconnected and whether they should come under your department or conservation as a whole. The department has rangers and I wonder if we can work more in cooperation with the department of conservation.
I see many things happening. How can we focus to make sure they all run efficiently so there are no wasted resources and there is an overarching controller to make sure all these programs do what the government wants them to do? I am not putting that as a negative; I am simply asking the question because you are dealing with programs that are out bush and there is a lot of money involved with running boats along the coast. It is not a cheap operation.
Besides all that, I appreciate this statement. It is a good statement and this is the way to go. It empowers Aboriginal people to look after their own country.
Mrs PRICE (Parks and Wildlife): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am so proud to hear about the great work the Northern Territory Fisheries’ Indigenous Community Marine Rangers are doing. As many of you are aware, I have much respect and admiration for Territory rangers.
Today is an opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and difficult circumstances rangers experience on a daily basis so the Territory community and its visitors can experience and enjoy our protected areas now and in the future. I admire the passion of the Territory’s Indigenous rangers, their drive and dedication to our natural places, and their willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty to ensure our natural environment is protected and preserved for the future. Many of our Indigenous ranger groups carry out land and sea management for important natural and cultural values, which sustain the local people in the area and play an important role in coastline biosecurity.
I was fortunate to host the 2015 Northern Territory Ranger Awards, where I was able to present awards to many Indigenous rangers. I was excited to learn about the ranger’s experiences, such as the expertise Mrs Christine Michaels-Ellis has developed over many years of tracking feral cats in the Tanami Desert. What makes her story exceptional is that she juggles full-time employment and four children, and has become an outstanding role model for other young women in her community. Mrs Michaels-Ellis was the winner of the Ranger of the Year for Barkly, Katherine and the Victoria Daly Region.
Also, Mr Shaun Evans consistently and expertly performs to the highest standards, balancing the demands of his role within the Parks and Wildlife Commission with his cultural responsibilities. Mr Evans is particularly priceless in joint management forums, where his standing in the wider community enables him to convey the messages in a clear and concise manner to the traditional owners from a position of trust and respect. Mr Evans won the Minister’s Award for Outstanding Personal Achievement 2015.
From these two examples it is easy to see why government is so committed to enhancing all Indigenous ranger programs across the Territory. I am so proud my government was able to host the 2015 Northern Territory Ranger Awards to recognise the hard work of these Indigenous rangers, and all our rangers across the Territory.
I would also like to outline some of the various activities and programs this government provides to support Indigenous ranger employment and development through the Parks and Wildlife Commission. This government developed an Indigenous employment strategy for its Parks and Wildlife staff. Given the intimate knowledge of local Indigenous Territorians of our remote areas, it certainly makes sense.
A key initiative of this strategy is to continue the progression of Indigenous staff with a view to achieving proportional representation of Indigenous employees across all levels and streams within the organisation. It is also a commitment to provide opportunities for training, capacity building and professional development. Through this strategy, the Country Liberals government is committed to creating jobs in our regions and breaking the cycle of welfare dependency that has been crippling our communities.
The Parks and Wildlife Commission is also committed to delivering Indigenous, flexible employment programs, which is an initiative that provides Indigenous joint management partners, their families or other regionally connected Indigenous people with the opportunity to be involved in park management programs on a casual basis. The program offers short-term work and projects within parks and reserves, and is an important way in which people from remote and urban communities can learn about and contribute to park management, develop skills and receive wages. Since the program commenced in December 2014, 30 Indigenous people have worked alongside rangers in 16 parks and reserves across Central and northern Australia.
The benefits of the 2014-15 program are wide reaching. Participants get to go on country, develop working relationships and team skills, improve parks and reserves for the enjoyment of visitors, and deliver conservation outcomes. Work at Watarrka National Park involves weed control, general ranger patrols, visitor infrastructure maintenance and rabbit warren control inside the Mala enclosure. At the Alice Springs Telegraph Station, Simpsons Gap and Rainbow Valley participants did intensive buffel grass control, following heavy rainfall floodgate repairs and track maintenance, and assisted rangers with patrols.
Northern Australian parks’ flexible employment programs conducted walking track maintenance at Barranyi National Park and the Caranbirini Conservation Reserve, and did four-wheel drive track openings and weed management at Judbarra Gregory National Park and Flora River National Park.
One flexible employment program participant was successful in applying for a full-time traineeship at Judbarra Gregory National Park and is now enrolled in a Certificate III in Conservation and Land Management with Charles Darwin University. Another flexible employment program participant was assessed as meeting the selection criteria for the position.
Successfully completing a traineeship is a pathway to a T1 Ranger position. At Keep River, Nitmiluk, Mary River and Adelaide River National Parks, flexible employment programs participants do fencing, weed control and walking track maintenance, as well as general maintenance and patrols. Our government acknowledged local Larrakia Nation rangers’ aspiration to work in parks. The Parks and Wildlife Commission provided six weeks of employment for two Larrakia rangers. The skills and knowledge gained through this employment goes towards improving their ability to gain permanent employment as Territory rangers.
This financial year our Country Liberals government has allocated $200 000 for the flexible employment program. In Central Australia all 19 flexible employment program participants had their contracts renewed for a further 12 months from 20 June this year, as this will give them the opportunity to build on their skills and knowledge from previous projects.
Several casual positions will be advertised shortly for a range of new projects in the northern Australian parks, with previous participants also having the opportunity to apply.
Central Australia flexible employment program work planning for this year has identified projects at Finke Gorge, Simpsons Gap, Owen Springs, Ormiston Gorge and West Macdonnell. Projects will include weed control, assisting with prescribed burning, visitor infrastructure maintenance, walking track maintenance, fauna surveys and fencing maintenance.
Northern Australian parks’ flexible employment program work planning for this year has identified projects at Adelaide River, Mary River, Judbarra, Elsey, Borroloola and Nitmiluk. Projects will include weed control, visitor infrastructure maintenance, general maintenance, cave mapping surveys, four-wheel drive track openings, fire management, fence maintenance, assisting with cultural heritage programs through maintenance of sites and tree planting regeneration works.
This direct employment program prepares participants for transition to full-time ranger employment. This is all part of our government’s commitment to provide jobs and opportunities for Indigenous people and communities.
Another initiative is the Territory Parks Alive program where the Parks and Wildlife Commission is currently seeking interest from Indigenous people to perform group tours and presentations relating to cultural and art interpretation. It is envisaged that this program may develop into a paid program for Indigenous rangers.
The Giles government, through the Parks and Wildlife Commission, will continue to create opportunities for employment and community development for Indigenous rangers. The Country Liberals government is committed to empowering Indigenous rangers to manage and protect their own environment, creating jobs and economic growth within communities. I could not be more proud to be part of a government that is driving important life-changing Indigenous ranger programs.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House and the opportunity to talk on what is an innovative and exciting program in the Northern Territory. It is a program that represents Indigenous people and is acknowledged and celebrated by both sides of government, both federally and at a Territory level. It is good to hear updates.
The minister has once again given us an update on what Indigenous rangers throughout the Northern Territory are doing. I enjoy the opportunity to speak, not only on behalf of the Indigenous ranger programs in the Gulf country operating out of Borroloola, but also in the sense of challenging the debate. We have heard a lot from speakers about what is. I want to take the debate to what it could be.
The minister is very privileged to have the levers of government to drive this. We have heard various government members speak about what is happening. Let us look at some of the realities in difficult fiscal times and reflect on a very definitive period in the federal arena. That is when the Liberal National Coalition got in. The first budget was framed around massive cuts. They were defined, essentially, as a first rounder. Some $500m was cut out of Indigenous spending. The Indigenous ranger programs featured in those cuts. It was a scary time. I was watching it closely. I was liaising with people who I have known for a long time in Borroloola and trying to gauge how this would impact on the sea rangers there.
Minister Scullion alarmed me even further when he defined ranger programs as green welfare. It was great to see how the length and breadth of the country jumped on that immediately and seriously influenced the minister’s outlook. This is a good, innovative and exciting program that needs to be developed. Minister Scullion had no choice. Also he had to deliver cuts the Prime Minister at that time, Mr Abbott, demanded.
I was privileged to talk to some Commonwealth public servants who work in this area. They influenced me so I became thoroughly convinced this was and is a great and innovative area. It should have survived any of the budget cuts that were under way.
In terms of the future, I encourage the minister to consider the partnerships model. Let us think about Customs, Defence and Immigration. These are significant budgets in the federal arena. They are significant organisations, and partnering with the Indigenous people of Australia, the first Australians, to harness their knowledge and capacity to live and work in regional and remote areas is a strong idea. It will also deliver those mainstream outcomes talked about in this House: jobs and prosperity.
I really encourage the minister to check this. In terms of robust debates in this House and their competitive nature, do not worry; I have a plan, and my plan is to be on that side of the House. If I ever get access to those resources again, l am heading down this road because I want our federal counterparts to look at the areas of Customs, Defence and Immigration, using Australia’s first people to be a new and dynamic element in the delivery of services in a new and dynamic way.
The previous Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, framed a policy that he would spend time in an Indigenous community each year. The first one was Yirrkala in northeast Arnhem and, most recently, in the Torres Strait and on the Cape York Peninsula. No doubt this senior politician saw the first Australians, the Indigenous Australians and the Torres Strait Islander people, operating on country and the opportunities for fusing those operations with the delivery of Customs, Defence and Immigration services to our great nation. No doubt he witnessed and could understand that. It is important that our Northern Territory Senators, Nigel Scullion, and our Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries reinforce that.
As the Chief Minister said, he will be contacting new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Please make sure that Indigenous rangers are part of the literature. This guy is a smart business man. He is slick with fiscal operations and he may see the opportunities there.
Sell him the great Territory story of the Nacaroos in the defence of northern Australia. Tell him the story and let him research how the Indigenous people of Australia were included in a critical front line of defence that represented people reporting on country, movements, and operating in partnership with Australian Defence. The sad part of that story is that hardly any were recognised, even fewer were paid and, to this day, there are surviving members in the Barkly electorate who can tell the story of working on the front line in the defence of northern Australia and never being recognised with medals or money.
This is an important historical story that I believe can fuse into the development of Northern Australia. If we are looking for innovation in Indigenous sea and land rangers, let us do that through the development of Northern Australia. We need important fiscal input that can only come if we want to shift a gear and move this into a new regime by the federal government.
In regard to the operations of marine rangers, the minister did not talk about the expenses, but most people who are familiar with operating on country and in marine environments around the Northern Territory would know this a very expensive business. Those who have had the privilege to visit marine ranger groups and look at their operations would understand, from their advice and briefing, this is a very expensive business. We can cut it short and talk about the operations of a 150 hp mariner outboard motor and you will get a picture of how expensive that is. We need a new revenue stream, if we are going to realise the full potential of this opportunity.
We can talk about the outcomes of protecting our country, or about the outcomes of Defence and Immigration partnerships, but there is a running abstract in this, which is the empowerment and engagement of Indigenous Australians in promoting and using their research and science. These elements have come through, in a mainstream sense, in the minister’s statement talking about what we already know. I am trying to influence the minister’s thinking about where we could go.
We have a Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory with extremely tight fiscal lines. We could use our scientists and curators in this partnership model. There are things we can do to demonstrate our intelligence and creativity, and show the federal government where we could take this.
I have always talked of the home front and the Borroloola Sea Rangers, about the possibilities of linking youth to them. For those who have had the privilege of working with youth at risk, you know it is a very difficult job. It is difficult to motivate youth and sustain engagement. A ranger program holds the X factor you need. Sea ranger programs, in particular, have the opportunity of engaging youth at risk from regional and remote communities, working with significant adults in delivering real employment outcomes not only in Borroloola, but across northern Australia. With the opportunities of a new revenue stream, we can also fuse these opportunities, getting kids out of dysfunctional homes, out of high pressure cooker regional and remote communities, getting them on country with significant adults as role models, participating in this work and delivering these services.
There are many training organisations that are throwing money at this. If you have the X factor, though, then you have a real outcome. If you have the big, wide, dangerous world as your classroom, you have to jump ahead in this game. If you have kids on country as opposed to banged up in classrooms being trained in the traditional to employment sense, then you have a serious jump in this business.
Borroloola was a good example. Recently, I was able to attend the handover of Batton Point to the traditional groups representing the Indigenous Protected Areas policy. The handback drew people from the Mala and the Yanyua, from the Garawa and from the Gudanji. It brought people together in a celebration, not only celebrating country and handback, but also celebrating future opportunities.
The marine rangers have set up a base there. It is working with Fisheries and water police, and managing tourism. It has the potential to do a lot of cultural management and innovative things with language and culture. It represents a very powerful statement for the future.
The fiscal stream we need is a significant investment from the federal government. Let us try to wind this into the developing northern Australia debate. Let us take a bit of a step outside the traditional pitch and talk about this X factor. Let us try to sell these politicians from mainstream Australia who, let us face it, are totally focused on 85% of the country’s population living on the eastern and the southeastern coast, on what could be a significant change in outcomes for first Australians, the Indigenous Australians.
There are many opportunities, minister. I encourage you to think, innovate and use your resources. It was good to hear the member for Stuart reading a prepared speech; it reminded me of great times. Oh, the love of prepared speeches by a ministerial office. They are great people and prepare great work. They represent significant resources that can fire off media releases and get them into Canberra offices. This could be followed up by ministers visiting Canberra to try to change the thinking of the politicians. I am sure with this you would have bipartisan support from this parliament.
In context, it is going from, let us say, a reactive policy of managing existing services and partnerships to pushing that boundary to a proactive sense of cementing these opportunities into the narrative of developing northern Australia.
It will be exciting work. I hope we can see some movements on this front. The Indigenous Advisory Council has been set up to advise our Prime Minister. Cabinet will be interesting to watch, as the new Prime Minister defines his policies and where he sits with Indigenous affairs.
The Indigenous Advisory Council is another resource. I have tried to influence that resource personally and politically. I was very privileged to be able to talk to Mr Mundine briefly at a regional conference in Alice Springs about Australian regional development. We have opportunities here, and need to maximise them. There is also very important ongoing work that needs to be maintained and sustained. With the recent visit of the Labor Caucus to Groote Eylandt, it was great to visit a marine ranger base and hear about their work and outcomes, particularly about the conservation and management of pristine ecosystems.
We really need to address concerns about financial sustainability, the replacement of expensive assets and the funding to get participants onto country and complete their tasks. There is the opportunity with good bipartisanship, creative thinking and the federal government to develop these ideas into programs.
Thanks again for bringing this statement to the House. It is good to be able to talk about opportunities, but I would also like to really challenge the members of this House to never forget what could be.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all members of the House who contributed to the debate on this statement. I can reassure people in the House that the marine ranger program is something I am passionate about and interested in. It is something our government is supporting demonstrably not only through the funding initiatives, but also, as the member for Barkly put it, proactively.
It is not about just being reactive. That is why, over the course of the last 12 months or so, we have developed the Certificate II in Fisheries Compliance for marine rangers. The work currently being done is to develop a Certificate III course to further enhance the skills and knowledge of marine rangers, so they can be far more useful and capable. They will be able to do many of the things along the coastline, and in our rivers and waterways, that we would like to see them do.
That includes not only compliance work with fisheries, but, as I mentioned earlier in the statement, scientific research. It is great to say to the parliament and people of the Northern Territory that we have moved to a fee-for-service model which helps to support the marine rangers in their work
It is not a case of government constantly sticking its hand in its pocket to bring out money to support a program such as this. We are developing this program so it can be more self-sustaining than it has been in the past. This is something quite new and has happened in the term of our government.
We are being very proactive with this. It is important we get some real, demonstrable runs on the board in sustainability for funding for these programs, but also for the jobs they will bring.
I want to address quickly a couple of things the member for Nelson raised, which is about rangers moving towards police.
The certificate courses will articulate into other things, not necessarily into becoming a police officer. As the member for Nelson pointed out, water police are sworn-in police officers. There is a huge amount of training they need to go through, but it may well provide some RPL, recognised prior learning, for rangers to make a leap from being a ranger into the police force, if they so choose.
I am very pleased to get support from the Independent and opposition members about marine rangers. I am delighted they made their contributions in the way they have. I look forward to reporting on the success of the marine ranger program into the future.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mrs PRICE (Parks and Wildlife): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is my pleasure to lay before the House today joint management plans for three parks and reserves in Central Australia: Iytwelepenty/Davenport Ranges National Park; Yeperenye/Emily and Jessie Gaps Nature Park; and Napwerte/Ewaninga Rock Carvings Conversation Reserves. These plans are milestones in the management of these parks, and the Country Liberal government is proud to announce they are the first joint management plans for each. These joint management plans have been developed in collaboration with the traditional owners and the Parks and Wildlife Commission, with input from the Central Land Council, government agencies and community and stakeholder groups.
Following public comment on the draft plans, no significant issues were raised and only minor amendments were required. The management of these parks will be guided by the process and outcomes set out in these joint management plans. Visitors will be able to enjoy each of the parks’ unique characters and experience them as they could before, with the parks continuing to be managed for their natural, cultural and visitor values, although with an added Aboriginal cultural benefit.
I will now summarise each park and its plan in turn. Iytwelepenty/Davenport Ranges National Park is about 150 km southeast of Tennant Creek. The park covers about 1200 km2. It is a landscape of rocky hills with rugged gorges, broad valleys and rivers that usually run in summer, filling the park’s large waterholes. This is a great park for four-wheel drive adventurers to go bush. The plan promotes the park as a four-wheel drive destination. Camping beside permanent waterholes is this park’s hallmark experience – the policemen’s waterhole. A new track through the centre of the park has been approved and will enable better management of the park’s natural and cultural values, as well as provide a new four-wheel drive experience for visitors.
The park has significant conservation value. For a semi-arid area, it conserves remarkable biodiversity, including seven fish species. The park also protects eight species, including one frog species, one lizard species and six plant species, that are not protected in any other park or reserve in the Northern Territory.
Managing the environmental threats of wildfire, weeds and feral animals, such as donkeys, is management-prioritised as defined by this plan. The park incudes the rich, living, cultural landscapes of Alyawarr, Wakaya, Kaytetye and Warumungu traditional owners. It is an important and popular area which supports many sites that are still tended by traditional owners. Traditional ceremonial activities continue to sustain the country, and traditional ecological knowledge can contribute to park management, particularly fire management.
The park also contains heritage sites including relics and evidence of the early mining and pastoral history of the area. The plan supports conservation of the area’s historic heritage and Aboriginal owners maintaining their cultural traditions.
Yeperenye/Emily and Jessie Gaps Nature Park lies right on Alice Springs’ doorstep. From Heavitree Gap stretching 15 km east, the park presents a typical Central Australian landscape where visitors can walk along a sandy river bed surrounded by glowing red ancient rock formations contrasted against blue skies. The entire park is a registered sacred site representing the Yeperenye caterpillar creation story, one of the most significant Aboriginal creation stories for the Alice Springs region.
Rock art in Emily and Jessie Gaps is amongst the most spectacular examples of accessible Aboriginal rock art in Central Australia. The rock art is spiritually significant for the Arrernte and the stories associated with it are sacred. The rock art gives visitors an excellent opportunity to connect with Aboriginal culture in close proximity to Alice Springs.
The 1200 ha nature park also protects the habitat of two species of land snail found nowhere else, and a suite of plants that are valued by the traditional owners for their food and medicinal properties.
Through the joint management plan, the precious rock art and vegetation of cultural and ecological significance will be protected. Visitors will continue to enjoy a short walk, beautiful natural gorges and appreciation of the ancient and living culture of the Arrernte people.
Napwerte/Ewaninga Rock Carvings Conservation Reserve is also a registered sacred site of great significance to Arrernte people, and the Arrernte men especially. The reserve has over 1000 rock carvings and is one of 10 rock engraving sites in Central Australia. Of these, this is the most accessible from Alice Springs, being located only 20 minutes south. The joint management plan gives focus to protecting the rock carvings from harm and interpreting the cultural heritage of the site to visitors. As for each of these parks, the joint management plan places importance on the partnership to be forged and maintained between the traditional owners and the Parks and Wildlife Commission. Each of these parks will be enhanced by the connection of traditional owners with their country, adding richness to the landscape and to visitors’ experiences. Traditional owners have strong links to all three of the parks and their sacred sites.
The tabling of the three joint management plans in the Legislative Assembly is supported by the relevant traditional owners and the Central Land Council. The plans spell out a bright future for the parks and reserves, and everyone who has an interest in them. I am confident the public and this Assembly will welcome the future for these parks as outlined in these joint management plans.
I table these joint management plans for consideration by the Legislative Assembly.
Mr HIGGINS (Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to table the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Waste Management Strategy for the Northern Territory 2015-22, called The Strategy. The Strategy has been provided to me by the Chair of the NTEPA, Dr Bill Freeland, under section 3 of the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Act.
The Strategy provides a basis for understanding and improving the management of waste across the Northern Territory. It provides an overarching summary of the waste management issues currently being faced in the Territory and presents opportunities to improve waste practices. The Strategy incorporates advice from the Waste Management Advisory Committee formed for this purpose, the Waste Recycling Industry Association NT and other key stakeholders.
In its draft form, The Strategy was subject to a community consultation phase from 10 November 2014 until 5 December 2014. The final strategy incorporates comments from public consultation, NTEPA members and the Waste Management Advisory Committee.
The Strategy proposes 41 management actions to be driven by the NTEPA with the support and involvement of various industries, government agencies, local government and community interests. The actions proposed by the NTEPA will improve the outcomes of waste management in the Territory with particular regard to education, waste handling, data management, regulation and accountability.
The key actions to be taken by the NTEPA include but are not limited to: reduce waste generation and increase resource recovery; bring Territory landfills towards best practice waste management; ensure future waste management requirements are considered at the development planning stage; plan and prepare for the waste that may result from natural or environmental disasters; and improve waste data collection and monitoring and analysis.
If there are future measures that could be taken to reduce waste generation and minimise the impacts of waste disposal in the future, I am more than happy to consider them. Consistent with my obligations under the NTEPA Act, I will formally respond to the NTEPA over the coming months. I welcome this strategy from the NTEPA and the valuable contribution it makes to the discourse of a challenging and widespread problem. The NTEPA will make this strategy available from its website www.NTEPA.nt.gov.au.
I thank the members of the Waste Management Advisory Committee, whose time and expertise has been of great assistance in developing this strategy. Thank you.
Travel Report for Member for Nhulunbhuy
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I table a travel report from the member for Nhulunbuy in accordance with clause 4.1 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
It gives me great pleasure to inform the House that the current Northern Territory government Chief Executive of Health, Dr Len Notaras AM, has been awarded the Sidney Sax medal by the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association at a presentation dinner on Tuesday evening. This award is an acknowledgement of Professor Notaras’ significant commitment to health, and disaster and emergency preparedness and response. The Sidney Sax medal is awarded to an individual who has made an outstanding contribution to the development and improvement of the Australian government healthcare system in the field of health services, policy, organisation, delivery and research. Professor Notaras is a very worthy recipient of the medal through his work to address the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health issues of the Northern Territory, his management of the disaster response to the Bali bombings and his role in establishing the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre in Darwin.
In his position at the Royal Darwin Hospital, Professor Notaras coordinated the treatment of dozens of injured victims in the 2002 and 2005 bombings, many of whom arrived at the hospital in critical condition. His vision and drive was central to the establishment of the NCCTRC in Darwin which, under his leadership, deployed response teams to the Ashmore Reef SIEV 36 boat explosion, and the devastating 2010 floods in Pakistan where the NCCTRC treated more than 11 000 people.
Professor Notaras also arranged the transport for treatment of former East Timor president Jos Ramos Horta after he was shot in an attempted assassination in February 2008. Professor Notaras was made a member of the Order of Australia in 2003 and in 2005. Professor Notaras was presented with the prestigious Best Individual Contribution to Healthcare in Australia Award during the AMA national conference.
In 2008, Dr Notaras received an honorary doctorate in science from the Charles Darwin University in recognition of his contribution to the medical field in the Northern Territory. Last month, South Australia’s Flinders University awarded Professor Notaras the title of professorial fellow with the faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Science to acknowledge Professor Notaras’ outstanding contribution to leadership, healthcare delivery and medical education.
Professor Notaras played an instrumental role in the establishment of the Northern Territory Clinical School in 1998 and has continued to advocate for medical education in the Northern Territory. His vision for a full NT medical school to serve the needs of Territorians resulted in the establishment of the Northern Territory medical program, which was recently commended as an outstanding example of socially accountable medical education by the Australian medical council.
He was also instrumental in the establishment of the Northern Territory Pharmacy School. Professor Notaras was a long-time member of the Northern Territory Medical Board and a former Chair of the Northern Territory Radiographers Board, the Optometry Board and the Pharmacy Board, and daily leads a workforce of 6000-plus individuals delivering health services across the Northern Territory.
The awarding of the Sidney Sax Medal is a wonderful achievement for Professor Notaras and for the Territory. On behalf of the Northern Territory government and all members in this House, we congratulate him for his outstanding achievement and thank him for his continued passion and commitment.
On ya, Prof.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to put some names on the record of some incredible Territorians who are doing amazing work in the mental health and suicide prevention arenas in the Northern Territory.
Last week, on Thursday, it was World Suicide Prevention Day, which coincided with R U OK Day. Many members of parliament were engaged in different activities that day in their electorates.
I thought it was pertinent to talk about some of our Territorians who were at the National Suicide Prevention Conference in August. There was a huge delegation of Territorians at the National Suicide Prevention Conference, which is an incredible thing. We had representatives from the Mental Health Association of Central Australia, Lifeline Central Australia, Anglicare here in Darwin, Galupa Marngarr and the Darwin Region Indigenous Suicide Prevention Network.
The representatives from those organisations, and there may well have been more as it was a very big delegation, were involved in that conference as keynote presenters, presenters of sessions, delegates and a range of things. I want to acknowledge some of those people.
Ngaree Ah Kit, who many people will be familiar with, has been the chair of a range of activities here in the Northern Territory, including the NAIDOC Committee in Darwin and Palmerston, and the Darwin Region Indigenous Suicide Prevention Network, for a very long time. She was a keynote speaker on lived experience.
What an incredibly brave thing to do. She shared her and her family’s stories, wanting to give hope to other people and share the message of what can be done on a community level to make a difference in suicide prevention.
Anthony Ah Kit was there on behalf of Gayili Yunupingu, who is in the member for Nhulunbuy’s electorate, and he talked about some of the wonderful work being done in Galupa. It was amazing to see that conversation about connection to country happening here in the northernmost part of the Northern Territory. It is also being presented in Tasmania to a range of delegates from across the country and the world. It is incredible.
Karen Revel from Lifeline Central Australia delivered a presentation on some of the great work Centralian Middle School is doing with Lifeline and Orygen Mental Health Services, the youth mental health service in Melbourne. It has been doing some incredible work around trialling safeTALK programs with the students. The research that will come out of that work will inform the way suicide prevention is approached in this country and what we know about talking about it with young people. It is a brave and important project they are undertaking. I acknowledge this project is supported by the Northern Territory government, which is fantastic. I commend you for your involvement in that project.
There was a Territorian at that conference who was awarded with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Life Award: Julie Turner, who is a constituent of the member for Sanderson. She is an important part of the establishment of the Darwin Region Indigenous Suicide Prevention Network. She is a teacher who often goes to the member for Nhulunbuy’s electorate. She has been involved with Royal Life Saving and SIDS for Kids for a long time, but since losing her own children she has been an absolutely fierce and passionate advocate for suicide prevention in the Northern Territory. She uses her own experiences to give hope to others and drive community response. She is an amazing woman.
Julie has a great passion for making sure we get the language right in the way we talk about suicide, which is important. I congratulate her again for winning that award.
On Suicide Prevention Day last Thursday, the Darwin Region Indigenous Suicide Prevention Network held a Suicide Prevention Day walk through the city. It was fantastic to see people decked out in red and the community supporting those who have lost loved ones to suicide. It was a real community of hope, so well done to Delsey, Anthony, Danila Dilba and headspace for being involved from the beginning. They are in their fourth year this year. It was fantastic to see everyone turn out to mark the importance of Suicide Prevention Day.
There was also a walk that occurred in Palmerston for the first time. It was called Come Walk With Me. I extend my thanks to Vanessa. Vanessa is a mother in Palmerston who lost her son to suicide. She started Come Walk With Me in Palmerston this year to connect other people to that community, and to provide hope, but also to talk about how we can always do more. That is something I believe, too. When we listen to people’s stories, when we involve them in a meaningful way in policy development and our strategies, we have no choice but to change our systems. I was hearing that message loud and clear from Vanessa.
It was an incredibly emotional experience. For anybody who has lost someone they love or anybody close to them in that way, Suicide Prevention Day can be a very emotional day. To see the faces of family members who had lost someone to suicide was emotional, but it was also wonderful to see people connect in a real way.
The member for Blain was there and the member for Goyder supported that event as well. I hope to see that back again next year. They want to grow that event, which is great.
In closing, I want to comment for the record about the Mental Health Services Strategic Plan released by government. I am very pleased to see that, and I have been talking to stakeholders about what that means for them and the feedback they have. I asked about an important thing in the Mental Health Services Strategy, which is an action plan. The strategy refers directly to an action plan that will be released every financial year to provide the detail. Other stakeholders are asking for this. I requested a copy of the current action plan if there was one. I was informed that the action plan is currently under development. It will be an internal document and will not be reported on until the annual report in 2015-16. I want to get some clarification as to why that might be.
I understand a significant amount of consultation was done on that strategy, so I want clarification from the minister, because if you have consulted widely – and I understand you have – this is an opportunity to share the plan’s outcomes and details with the people you consulted and Territorians. These plans need to be community owned. We need community-driven actions.
I look forward to asking more questions about the Mental Health Services Strategy, but all in all I am glad it is there, and I look forward to discussing it more.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, during the month of September I had the pleasure of travelling to two cultural festivals in my electorate of Arafura. The Mahbilil Festival, or Wind Festival, was held in Jabiru, celebrating culture and community in Kakadu.
I began the day visiting the Jabiru Fire Service and had a tour of their new fire truck. Fire Chief Michael Hutton and his team proudly took me through their new truck, combining both water and rescue capacities. It means the service can now provide a better response to the community in both bushfire areas and road rescue situations.
The festivals combined sports and cultural activities. I watched a hard-fought basketball final between the Jabiru township and community team, including Maningrida and Warruwi. I was pleased to present the Best on the Ground medal.
Many of you know I am a passionate supporter of AFL. The festival had a strong AFL competition, attracting players and umpires both young and old from across the region.
Four generations of women from local families in the region competed against each other and eight others in a magpie goose competition. Along with the local chef, I had the pleasure of judging the 12 dishes. To the surprise of many, the lucky winner had only recently arrived in Jabiru as a park manager and had never cooked a magpie goose. I particularly enjoyed the local village kids perform alongside their parents and elders under the moonlight. I watched the young local bands entertain the crowds, with lanterns and a giant magpie goose sculpture in the background. I then travelled to Warruwi, Goulburn Island, to attend another local festival, the Jamalak Festival, featuring fun runs, basketball games and a live broadcast by TEABA Radio. It was again a lovely event.
Since returning I have had my constituents contacting me to say how good it was to have me attending these cultural celebrations. I must admit it is one of the more enjoyable parts of my job and highlights the role of culture in keeping our communities strong. I want to congratulate the many supporters, volunteers, community groups, schools and West Arnhem Regional Council in both Jabiru and Warruwi, and the non-government organisations who made these events what they were. Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Mr Deputy Speaker, at the end of next week I intend to jump on a plane and go overseas as part of my job. On 26 September I will depart to the UK, primarily to visit the Australian-British Infrastructure Investment Catalyst. That conference is going from 30 September to 2 October. It is an important conference because it looks at infrastructure investment. The development of infrastructure is one of the key priorities of this government. Attracting investment dollars into infrastructure is very worthwhile. Part of this investment catalyst in London is in response to the G20, which is seeking to coordinate global action in relation to delivering infrastructure. One of the things that came from the G20 meeting in Australia was the call for uniform engineering standards right across the globe because big infrastructure developments are generally delivered by big global companies and they are one-offs. Those companies will work in various different countries to deliver infrastructure.
I am very keen to find out what the world’s best practice is, what the future best practice will look like and how we can get there. I am thrilled to say I will be speaking at the Australian-British Infrastructure Investment Catalyst. I will talk up north Australian development and Darwin’s location in the world, its strategic location, the benefits of its port, its railway line and other points.
Whilst I am in the UK, I intend to visit a company called Velocys. Velocys is a world-leading technology company that develops micro GTL plants – gas to liquids plants. Small and remote area gas supplies can be converted into synthetic diesel and a range of other valuable products. A place with the remoteness of the Northern Territory is heavily reliant on diesel and we have large amounts of gas. Some of that gas is currently stranded because of a lack of pipelines. Micro gas to liquid plants offer opportunities for us to convert gas into synthetic diesel.
I have held back a couple of days in the UK. I am expecting to visit Glencore in its head office in Switzerland. Given what is occurring in McArthur River Mine, I am very keen to talk to head office to see whether there is more we can do to make sure all environmental protection is in place there.
From the UK I travel to Alberta in Canada. The primary reason for travelling to Alberta is that, I am reliably informed, they have the best ethane reservation regulations in the world. Ethane, for those who do not know, is a vital piece of fuel stock for petrochemical manufacture for things like plastic and other products developed from ethane. There has been a big interest in the Northern Territory in developing petrochemical plants, fertiliser plants, all of those things manufactured from gas. I have often said in this place the holy grail for our gas industry is getting onshore manufacturing in the Territory. It is very high-end, advanced manufacturing with very highly-paid jobs, and highly technical. It is something the Territory should aspire to.
In Alberta I will be talking to the Alberta Energy Regulator and am fortunate to have a meeting there with the minister for Energy. I will also be speaking with the Alberta Royalty Review Panel. We are looking at a petroleum royalty regime here in the Northern Territory. It is a perfect time to look at that. It is a fledgling onshore gas industry and now is the right time to be looking at a royalty regime that will benefit Territorians in the future.
I will travel from Alberta in Canada to visit the Velocys Pilot Plant in Plain City, Ohio. I am also meeting, in Ohio, with American Energy Partners, an organisation that is farmed into Imperial Energy and Armour Energy, who will become the operators of those fuels in the Northern Territory. They are an enormous player in the US gas market. I am very keen to meet with them and understand what their hopes are in the Northern Territory in relation to gas extraction and development. I am meeting with a range of operators in Ohio, including an organisation called Tamboran. It is an oil company operating in the McArthur Basin here in the Territory. I will travel from there to Houston in Texas, catching up with ConocoPhillips, a valued business in the Northern Territory.
Dow Chemicals is also based in Houston in Texas and I am meeting with the managing director to talk about the potential of advanced gas manufacturing here in the Territory. From there I go to Austin, Texas, to speak to the Texas Railroad Commission. It is, interestingly enough, the oil and gas regulator in Texas. I understand it has set the bar very high in relation to oil and gas regulations.
There are some interesting synergies with Texas. It is a state of the United States which is heavily dependent on the oil and cattle industries. I am thrilled to learn they are also very big on hunting. As an avid hunter, I think there are some synergies with the Texans and I am very keen to understand more about that.
I return to Sydney on 15 October just in time to head to the Council on Federal Financial Relations, the big tax summit happening in Sydney. I intend to be there for that. It is an all-encompassing trip. These days, with so much interest in ministers’ travel, I thought it timely to come here in this adjournment and update the House on my intentions for this trip overseas. I am not a big traveller, I have to say, but I see that there is enormous value in undertaking this trip. I am sure the Territory will benefit from it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let us hope that those who have demanded this approach appreciate the effort you have taken tonight to inform us of your upcoming trip. It sounds fascinating. I wish you all the best and I am sure the Territory will benefit from it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is good to hear the Treasurer’s plans for travelling overseas to these important destinations. I have been to Texas. If you get the opportunity, Treasurer, while you are in Texas get down to Freeport. Dow Chemicals has its head office in Houston, but if you can get to Freeport and see the enormous petrochemical plant they have there, it is well worth the visit.
Tonight I provide an update on the battle to eradicate the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus, or CGMMV, which has affected produce farms in Katherine, Lambells Lagoon and the Marrakai region. In early October 2014 CGMMV was positively identified on four watermelon farms in the Northern Territory, three in the Katherine region and later a farm in the Darwin rural area. This was the first time this virus had been found in Australia. It was devastating news for horticulturalists in the Northern Territory and nationally.
Initially, the virus affected watermelon crops but it was of great concern for our vegetable growing industry, as the CGMMV host range includes all cucurbita species – that is melons, cucumber, pumpkin, squash and gourds.
The Northern Territory’s vegetable growing industry has taken off in recent years, with annual production reaching over $60m. The Northern Territory is also Australia’s second-largest producer of watermelons, with a well-established industry valued at between $50m and $60m per year. With around 18 watermelon farms located from Central Australia up to the Top End, melons – that is, rockmelons and watermelons – are considered to be the next major crop for the Northern Territory with excellent export potential.
That is why the Country Liberals government has pledged to do all it can to support our farmers during the eradication and quarantine phase, and be there to help these businesses rebuild when it becomes safe to do so. The Northern Territory government recognises the far-reaching economic and social consequences of this pest incursion for our commercial and hobby farmers, and for Territorians in general. That is why we are providing assistance through an Interest Rate Subsidy Scheme.
In order to prevent further spread, drastic action was necessary. The virus is easy to transfer. It can be transmitted by infected seeds, machinery, pollen and even water. You can spread this disease simply by walking through an infected crop and then coming into contact with crops on another farm. Indeed, there are now a total of 25 properties in the Northern Territory confirmed as infected with CGMMV.
The fruit of CGMMV-infected plants can suffer internal yellowing and patches of flesh that become soft and watery. The disease can also cause fruit to abort or become malformed, and the leaves of infected plants have a mottled appearance. Suffice to say, this makes fruit that comes from infected plants largely unmarketable.
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 by my Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. My department’s biosecurity and animal welfare group staff surveyed all melon farms in the Northern Territory from Alice Springs to the Top End to determine how widespread the virus was.
The department’s molecular scientist then used the new state-of-the-art quarantine containment Level 3 facility for testing at Berrimah Farm in Darwin, and worked in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in Queensland.
This response management team, operating from a control centre headquarters at Berrimah Farm, coordinated surveillance to enable locating and containment of the virus. My department then began quarantine and eradication measures for all confirmed affected areas in order to prevent any further spread. The infected crops were sprayed with herbicide and all plant material placed in large disposal trenches for burning and then burial.
There was a two-year ban on growing watermelons on farms that tested positive for CGMMV. This plant pest is easily transmitted and can maintain a long life in plant material and soil. The damage it causes to the host plant and fruit is extensive and results in substantial crop losses. My department is now undertaking soil testing in order to determine if the CGMMV virus is still present in the soil on farms where eradiation took place. This has been made possible through the investment of $426 000 by the Country Liberals government. The soil testing samples are collected and divided into two parts, one for DNA diagnostics and then the other for a host plant to be grown in. The DNA will tell us if the CGMMV virus is present in the soil and the host plant will tell us if it is alive because the infection will become apparent.
My department is also planting in the paddock to test for live CGMMV, as well as on a larger scale on a controlled site.
High-level, urgent and drastic biosecurity measures were essential in order to contain and eradicate this disease. The eradication plan for CGMMV will in the long term provide positive results for our future watermelon and vegetable industries. It is a real and significant threat to fresh market export and cucurbita seed industries not just here in the Territory, but in Australia. The containment and eradication of this plant pest is vital to ensure the future viability of the Northern Territory and Australian watermelon industry.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will speak about local businesses in need of help. On Monday 14 September the members for Blain and Drysdale and I met with businesses located at Setepak House and Highway House in Palmerston. These businesses are in dire straits. These businesses include Ben and Sam’s Caf and Bakehouse, Blitz Hair and Beauty, Bits for Bub, Flowers by Elise, Essence of Beauty, Ella Bach Palmerston, Elders Palmerston and Covai Caf.
The reason these businesses are in dire straits is because of the construction works on Goyder Square being undertaken by the Palmerston council. While the community can appreciate the redevelopment of Goyder Square since it is expected to benefit all in the long term, the current works are putting severe pressure on local businesses. For those who have visited the shops there recently they would have noticed the tarps obstructing line of sight, and it is a maze to navigate around the area. These construction works have caused an 80% drop in foot traffic for local businesses. The peak tourism season has passed and these businesses are going through financial hardship trying desperately to keep their heads above water.
The works are expected to complete by the end of the year, depending on the weather, of course. How are these businesses going to survive until then let alone recoup the lost revenue to date?
Palmerston council needs to step up and help these local businesses get through. I and my colleagues, the members for Blain and Drysdale, agreed to help in every way we can to keep these businesses going. I encourage the greater Darwin community to get on board whether or not these businesses are your local or normal suppliers. I urge people to get behind them as a community and grab a sandwich at Ben and Sam’s Caf and Bakehouse, or get your hair done at Blitz Hair and Beauty, pop in to Bits for Bubs and pick up a couple of items, treat your loved ones to Flowers by Elise, relax with a massage at Essence of Beauty, stop into Elders to check out a new property and grab a quick bite to eat at Covai Caf. Anything we can do to help these businesses get through tough times is something worth doing. I appreciate the business they do.
I call on the city of Palmerston to help in any way it can. There needs to be a better strategy to help them get through this. We all appreciate what it will look like when it is finished, but these businesses need to survive.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure, minister, you will join me in congratulating the Legislative Assembly, Madam Speaker and her staff in particular, and everyone involved for coordinating the inaugural Build-Up Ball, which gets under way this Saturday. Long may it live to be one of the great events in northern Australia. Congratulations, Madam Speaker, and to all staff of this Assembly.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 6 students from Moulden Park Primary School accompanied by D’Elise Keitaanpaa. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Behaviour in the Chamber
Behaviour in the Chamber
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, yesterday was an interesting day, if not an extraordinary day. Some of the behaviour and performance in this parliament was less than professional, and less than satisfactory. I ask honourable members to reflect on why they are here and who they represent.
Guests are not allowed in this Chamber during the lunch breaks unless they have cleared it with me or with the Clerk’s office.
All the items on the table are still protected by parliamentary privilege and the cameras still work while people are here. If you want to bring guests in, come through your respective lobbies and make sure either my office knows about it or the Clerk’s office through the Serjeant-at-Arms.
One final thing for those who are not aware, but I am sure you all are, guests in the galleries are tolerated. To the people who come in here; it is not a right, it is a privilege. There was an incident yesterday in one of the galleries where someone’s peaceful enjoyment of being in this parliament was disrupted. I put everyone on a warning that these galleries will close, with the exception of school groups, if I ever see something like that happen again. It is not a right, it is a privilege to witness parliament.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Port Darwin
Member for Port Darwin
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation, with leave of the House.
Yesterday I made some comments in this House which, upon reflection, were unwise. This is in relation to the comments I made yesterday with regard to a figurative response to the member for Nightcliff.
What I said was a figurative turn of phrase; however, upon reflection, it was unwise and for that I unreservedly apologise.
As the member for Nhulunbuy said the other day:
- The minister is very passionate; there is no doubt about that. He is very passionate about his portfolios. He is a hard worker and, being the first law officer of the Northern Territory, there is no doubt he takes his role very seriously.
I do. I genuinely wish I was often better than I am. From time to time, one will use a phrase in error, which I did when I said yesterday that I was:
- … really tempted to give her a slap right now – figuratively speaking of course …
All members of this parliament would realise, that was a figurative turn of phrase. I have heard of members in this House being beaten up; I have heard varying references from both sides of this House about attacking the opposition and those sorts of things. They are not literal phrases or references. They are figurative terms. Nevertheless, it is the hallmark of a gentleman – which I try to be – that when I make a mistake, I stand up and acknowledge that mistake fulsomely and openly.
I did not realise this would cause the stir it did, but in hindsight of course it did. I apologise without reservation to the member for Nightcliff in relation to the comment I made. It would be nice to think that all of us were of a better standard. I often plead to this House for better standards and I expect as much of myself. When, unfortunately, even a turn of phrase which is used as a metaphor can lead to embarrassment, then it is the duty of each member of parliament when they do that to apologise for it, which is what I do today.
I am not proud of the comment I made yesterday. It was never intended in any fashion or way to be seen as any form of physical threat. In fact, I say proudly and openly in this House that I have never lifted a hand in anger to any woman at any time. But even language needs to be revisited. It is the language I used yesterday which I now, upon reflection, can only say sorry for.
The media uses language like this all the time, ‘Mr X lashed out’, ‘Government launched an assault’, ‘The opposition attacked government’. These are metaphorical phrases and they are all phrases that suggest violence. If the media or anybody else, in common parlance, uses the expression ‘lashes out’ they are not talking about somebody physically walking out with a whip. Nevertheless, we as parliamentarians need to be better than that but often we are not. When we are wrong, it is incumbent upon us to acknowledge we are wrong and then get on with the business of trying to improve ourselves.
Yes, I am a passionate member of parliament. Yes, I believe in what I do and I do so stridently and with all the best intents in my heart. However, I can also say I am not perfect, and have never claimed to be perfect. However, I live by the philosophy that when I am wrong I have to promptly admit it.
On this occasion I am wrong and I accept the error of my ways. I will seek in every way to improve the quality of performance that I offer the people of the Northern Territory.
BAIL AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)
(Serial 135)
(Serial 135)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Bail Amendment Bill (No 2) 2015 proposes to amend the Bail Act to allow the Youth Justice Court to consider the use of an electronic monitoring device as a condition of a bail conduct agreement. The bill will thus provide an additional level of supervision for youths subject to a bail undertaking issued by the Youth Justice Court.
Section 27(2)(a) of the bill empowers a court to impose a conduct agreement as part of a bail undertaking. The conduct agreement requires an accused person to observe specified requirements as to their conduct while on bail. The conduct agreement clauses of the Bail Act apply to both adults and youths. Section 27A of the Bail Act contains the conditions that a conduct agreement may include. Section 27A(1)(ia) relates to the use of an electronic monitoring device and section 27A(1)(ib) relates to the use of an improved voice recognition system.
These provisions were inserted into the Bail Act by the Justice (Corrections) and Other Legislation Amendment Act in 2011.
A Youth Justice Court is currently precluded from considering an electronic monitoring device or voice recognition as part of a conduct agreement, due to the use of the words ‘other than a Youth Justice Court’ in section 27A(1)(ia) and 27(1)(ib) of the Bail Act. This means that in circumstances where a youth court is of the view that the devices would assist in ensuring compliance with the bail undertaking, they cannot consider ordering the fitting and use of devices as a condition of bail.
Stakeholders have noted that precluding a Youth Justice Court from even considering electronic monitoring hampers the court’s ability, the ability of police and the ability of the Department of Correctional Services to properly monitor compliance with the bail and unnecessarily limits options available to a Youth Justice Court when considering conditions for bail.
Clauses 5(2) and 5(4) of the bill omit the words ‘other than a Youth Justice Court’ from sections 27A(1)(ia) and 27A(1)(ib) respectively, thereby allowing a Youth Justice Court to have the ability to consider whether an electronic monitoring device or voice recognition system should form part of a bail undertaking for a youth appearing before it.
Courts cannot simply order the fitting of these devices on their own motion. The Department of Correctional Services must provide a report to the court under section 28 of the act. The report relates to the suitability of a person to be fitted with a device, and the court must consider the report when deciding to exercise its discretion to order the fitting of the device.
The criteria the Commissioner of Correctional Services uses to assess the suitability for the fitting of the electronic monitoring device include the youth’s ability to comply; the suitability of their residence; the level of support and supervision from carers or guardians; the impact the device may have on other residents, for example, siblings; and the proximity of Correctional Services staff to manage the requirements of the device.
This bill contains a number of other amendments that relate mostly to electronic monitoring. The amendments are as follows.
Firstly, section 27A(1)(ia) of the Bail Act does not contain a condition that an electronic monitoring device not be tampered with, removed, destroyed or otherwise interfered with by the accused person. Such a requirement is an integral part of the bail undertaking where the device is issued and has been inserted through clause 5(3) of the bill. The clause ensures there is a clear obligation on accused persons fitted with the device not to tamper with it or destroy it.
Secondly, the purpose of issuing the electronic monitoring device is to assist in the monitoring of an offender who is subject to a conduct agreement. This includes ensuring that curfews, residential conditions and exclusion areas are complied with. The tracking abilities of the device also provide an incentive for the accused person not to reoffend or breach a condition as their location can be plotted at all times. Therefore, when a breach of condition of bail relates to tampering with, the destroying of, damage or removal of an electronic device, the Bail Act must treat the type of breach more seriously than other breaches, as arguably the only reason a device would be tampered with or destroyed would be to assist in an undetected breach of the bail undertaking. Section 38(2A) of the Bail Act already contains a mechanism whereby a court must revoke bail if a breach of condition relates to a prescribed matter. Clause 8 of the bill inserts a new prescribed matter where a breach of bail relates to contravention of section 27A(1)(ia).
Thirdly, the Bail Act does not contain provisions relating to costs recoverable by the Northern Territory where an electronic monitoring device is damaged or destroyed. Such a provision has been included in both the Correctional Services Act, section 198 refers, and the Sentencing Act, section 39Q refers, relating to damage to devices issued under those acts. Clause 9 of the bill rectifies this oversight by including a provision substantially similar to the sections discussed above in the Bail Act regarding costs recoverable to the Northern Territory where a device is tampered with, damaged or destroyed.
Fourthly, clauses 4 and 5(1), 6 and 7 of the bill contain miscellaneous amendments to the Bail Act that ensure the terminology is consistent within the act and between acts. The amendment at clause 4 cures an incorrect cross reference to the Correctional Services Act. The amendment at clause 5(1) relates to inserting the word ‘using’ before the words ‘a drug’. The Misuse of Drugs Act and the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act use the term ‘use’ rather than ‘consume’ when referring to drugs, and this amendment simply ensures consistency within this terminology.
The amendments at clauses 6 and 7 relate to omitting the word ‘condition’ and inserting the word ‘provision’. Again, the amendments simply ensure consistent terminology is used through the act. Finally, clause 10 inserts a transitional provision. The transitional provision is required to ensure the bill contains a clear explanation as to what matters the amendments apply to. Clause 10 notes that the amendments to section 27A apply to any grant or variation of bail that occurs after commencement and the clause notes that the amendment of section 38 applies to any breach of bail that occurs after the commencement.
The amendments provide a Youth Justice Court with an additional option to consider when considering conditions of bail and will assist Northern Territory Police and the Department of Correctional Services in enforcing compliance with the bail undertaking. The use of an electronic monitoring device may also provide a deterrent to the subject persons from committing offences while breaching bail whilst fitted with the device, given their location can be monitored without the need for physical surveillance by law enforcement authorities.
The Youth Justice Framework 2015-2020 contains an action item relating to intervention and prevention. The aim of Item 2 is to ensure that ‘young people at risk of offending are identified early and targeted to prevent or divert them from engaging in antisocial or offending behaviour’. Item 2.3 relates to programs to increase eligibility and compliance with bail conditions, and it is hoped that in providing greater scope to the Youth Justice Court when considering bail conditions will assist in achieving the aim of this item.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
TRAFFIC ACT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 138)
(Serial 138)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CHANDLER (Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill I introduce today will provide police with expanded powers to conduct random drug testing of drivers on Northern Territory roads. It will also make our current procedures for roadside drug testing more efficient for police and the driving public.
The use of prohibited drugs is a growing issue for this government and the Northern Territory. As well as harming the broader community, it is well known that certain drugs can impair driving performance and increase the risk of crashes and serious injury on our roads.
Drugs affect a driver’s judgement, concentration and ability to react quickly and appropriately. Stimulants, such as ice and ecstasy, can lead to aggressive driving and cause drivers to take risks which they would not normally take. The trauma from road crashes related to drug driving causes grief and distress not only to victims, but family and friends of those involved. Recent evidence indicates that drug driving is now becoming more prevalent than drunk driving, with up to 13% of fatal road crashes caused by drivers under the influence of prohibited drugs. This risk becomes even higher where the drug ice is involved.
This particular drug is known for contributing to aggressive driving behaviour and drug-fuelled road rage incidents. For example, in a 2014 incident in Melbourne, a driver under the influence of ice collided with a stationary vehicle and, subsequently, assaulted a heavily pregnant woman and other passengers before being apprehended by police.
This government is already taking strong actions to crack down on this behaviour. We have conducted a parliamentary inquiry into ice use in the Northern Territory, and our police continue to work closely with the Commonwealth government National Ice Taskforce to combat the spread of this dangerous drug.
The bill before you today will continue these efforts to stop prohibited drug use, reduce its harmful impact on the community and improve the safety of our roads. Under the current legislation, Territory police can test all drivers for alcohol levels. However, police are only allowed to test for prohibited drugs in limited circumstances: where a person is driving a heavy vehicle over 4.5 tonnes; a driver is suspected of being under the influence of prohibited drugs; or the driver was involved in a crash. There is no power to conduct random drug testing of other road users, such as light vehicle drivers and motorcyclists, in the absence of a suspicion of a motor vehicle crash. Yet in all other Australian jurisdictions, save for Tasmania, police are empowered to conduct random drug testing of drivers.
This bill before the Assembly today removes these limitations and gives police the power to direct any driver to pull over and submit to random drug testing, similar to random breath testing to detect drunk drivers. With these amendments, police will be able to randomly test any driver, motorcycle rider or driving instructor for the presence of prohibited drugs in their saliva. Roadside testing will continue to focus on detecting cannabis, ecstasy and methamphetamines such as ice and speed. These drugs are illegal. They are the most commonly used drugs in the community and can have a serious impact on the skills and sound judgment required for safe driving.
This amendment will bring the Northern Territory up to date with other jurisdictions. All other jurisdictions, as I said, save for Tasmania, have successfully implemented random roadside drug testing regimes similar to that which is proposed in this bill. Research shows that these regimes are having a positive impact on road safety, with one Victorian study finding that the current rates of random testing are saving 20 lives per year and reducing total driving fatalities by up to 15%.
The amount of tests conducted will depend on the extent of drug testing proposed. For example, police operations may include targeted roadside drug driving testing campaigns similar to random roadside breath testing campaigns. In order to support this expanded regime, the bill introduces secondary roadside saliva testing to streamline the procedures used for roadside drug testing.
Under the current testing arrangements police begin with a random roadside drug test through the window of a driver’s car. The driver is required to lick the test pad of a preliminary testing device and an indicative result is known within a few minutes. At this point, most drivers should test negative, and will be free to go. If the driver tests positive, or the police officer otherwise suspects the driver is under the influence of drugs, the person is taken to the nearest hospital or health centre for a blood test.
Under the new legislation, a driver who tests positive to the preliminary test or is otherwise under suspicion of being under the influence of drugs may be detained by police and escorted to a drug testing unit or the nearest police station to undergo a second saliva test. If this test is positive, the driver’s licence will be immediately suspended for 24 hours, and the saliva sample from the drug test will be sent to a laboratory to confirm the presence of drugs. Drivers will be able to request a portion of this saliva sample from the laboratory for the purposes of independent testing at their own expense.
In most cases this procedure will negate the need for a blood test, which is costly and time consuming for both police and the person being tested and unnecessarily expends our health sector resources. Drivers who are escorted to a hospital or local health centre by an officer may wait for an hour or more to have a sample of their blood taken. By replacing this with a 10-minute roadside saliva test, we will significantly reduce the costs and the imposition on the public. This will enable more drivers to be tested under the new regime more efficiently, and make the road environment safer for Territorians by removing more dangerous drivers from behind the wheel with immediate effect.
The current power to require a blood sample will remain as an optional alternative to a second-stage saliva sample at the discretion of police. This will allow for circumstances in which a person is unable to provide a second saliva sample due to an injury or medical condition, a second saliva test sample is refused, the saliva sample is insufficient or secondary saliva-testing kits are unavailable, particularly in remote areas.
I note that this regime does not change any of the existing penalties for drug driving offences but it will introduce a new offence where a person fails or refuses to submit to a saliva test. The offence is modelled on and carries the same penalty as the offence for failure to submit to a breath test. The bill also makes minor amendments to sections of the Motor Vehicles Act relating to drivers who have had their licences disqualified by the registrar of motor vehicles after being convicted of certain offences. Similar to drink drivers, convicted drug drivers will now need to complete a drug driver education course before being able to re-apply for their licence to drive. This course will aim to deter drivers from future offences by educating them about the risks associated with driving under the influence of drugs.
The Northern Territory community are entitled to be kept safe from the impact of drug drivers on our roads and this government is taking a tough stance against those who infringe on this right. This bill will support a number of proposed reforms, sought to be introduced by government to reduce prohibited drug use and its associated harm to the community, such as the proposed expansion of police powers to search for drugs in vehicles and declare specific roads as drug transit routes under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Expanding police powers under the Traffic Act to catch and deter those who choose to drive under the influence of drugs is a sound initiative that will make our roads safer in the future.
I am hopeful and sure honourable members will support this important road safety reform. I commend this bill to the House and table the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Statement – Asian Engagement, Trade
and Investment Strategy
Note Statement – Asian Engagement, Trade
and Investment Strategy
Continued from 16 September 2015.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, I will talk about the initiative the Department of Business and the Office of Asian Engagement, Trade and Investment is working on to improve our engagement with Asia at this important juncture in history. Opportunities exist for us with the comparative advantages in our economy to start to move the Northern Territory forward. We have all hoped for this for a long time. We have been waiting for the right time, the right dovetailing of different variables to get this process into line.
I will start by discussing the economics of free trade without looking at some other issues that have been raised in this House. Free trade is all about comparative advantage. A comparative advantage exists where one nation has an ability to produce something – a good or a service – at a cheaper price than another company or economy based on its natural attributes. For example, the Northern Territory has lots of space with very few people living in it. Its rainfall patterns and grass cover make it a great place to produce cattle. It is not a great place necessarily to raise cattle into slaughter stock but a great place to raise cattle.
Our Asian neighbours are countries which are very small with very high populations. They are very densely packed. Whilst these nations actually have better fodder for cattle, they are not very good at raising cattle. The number of people that exist means the opportunity costs of that economy producing their own beef is incredibly high compared to ours. So with a nation that might have lots of people in a very dense area we say, ‘We have a comparative advantage in raising cattle. You guys have a comparative advantage in making iPhones.’ One nation makes iPhones, the other nation breeds cattle so they exchange and trade.
Generally, that happened in history at a local level between nations until the mercantile era when gold became important because it could bankroll wars. This is where protection started coming in for a number of reasons. First of all, they tried to protect gold. You were allowed to import gold, but no one was allowed to ever export it so the national stock of gold within the country would always improve.
Nations also started looking at certain types of industries and seeing them as strategically advantageous. For example, Australia is not suited well for the manufacturing industry, especially light manufacturing.
It would be a strategic loss for a nation to lose the ability to manufacture things it might need in a crisis. In the United States this is very obvious where, even though they are not fantastic at it, the United States maintains a heavy manufacturing industry with vehicles. The reason for that is not because they make fantastic vehicles at economically viable prices, it is because they want to maintain the capacity, if the need arises, to make trucks, tanks, aeroplanes and ships.
This is a strategic advantage to them, so they do not want to give it up. They do not want to outsource all the manufacturing of heavy machinery to other places and keep only financial, legal and education services, things they also have advantages in.
What we are looking at with comparative advantage is that the actual default between economic entities should be free trade. Protection of certain industries should only be provided on a strategic basis, not to protect an industry which is effectively inefficient.
Economics points out the importance of markets, which are proven over a long period of time to be the most effective, efficient mechanism to allocate resources. This is about the allocation of resources because the fundamental problem in economics is the limited amount of resources and the unlimited amount of wants. We need to globally look at what resources exist, who is best placed and positioned to manufacture these resources into useful things and then trade with each other. That is in a perfect world scenario.
Firms will outsource something on a cost basis. They only keep things in if they have a technological advantage, even if it is more expensive for them to do it, or because it is of such strategic importance to the firm that they do not want to be at the mercy of the supply chain.
If we look at this from two perspectives – the strategic purpose argument in protection – protection can be very dangerous for a country, particularly where we are protecting industries we do not have a comparative advantage over.
We saw this in the 1970s and 1980s, with the demise of the textile industries in Australia. Unions representing their workers were vocal and strong in trying to protect textile workers, and I understand that.
Effectively you could buy something of the same quality, for a very small fraction of the price, from overseas. We do not have a comparative advantage in manufacturing textiles and it was an industry Australia needed to, as a company, move away from. We needed to move into and evolve areas of industry in this nation that had a comparative advantage.
For example, our medical research sector is up there with the best in the world. What we would like to see in a perfect world is a shift of resources from one thing to another. Unfortunately, that kind of structural shift in economies is tricky because it is not that easy to get a textile worker and train them into a research scientist.
Over a period of time we allow that industry to go through the process of becoming much smaller, and we allow the other industry to become much bigger. We encourage one industry over another at an educational level so, slowly, over a number of years the nation will have a comparative advantage.
That is basically the economics of free trade, that protection should only be used for strategic purpose, not for the protection of an industry where we do not have a comparative advantage. If we look at that, protection can stall the evolution of an industry and cause us to become inefficient in resource allocation of our nation, which hurts our nation long term because, as we all know, we are living in a globally competitive environment.
The next thing to understand in this Asian engagement strategy is the importance of the exchange rate. Australia is an interesting country because commodity prices and the Australian dollar track beautifully, generally. When commodities come off, people do not like having their money in Australia because essentially a lot of the money that is generated in Australia, particularly of late, has been commodities-related, whether that be agricultural commodities or commodities like iron ore and coal.
It is interesting to look at the history of the exchange rate. Australia had a weak dollar compared to the US dollar while all our industries, particularly many of our mining industries, were firing hard. This caused us to have a comparative advantage in these fields because our dollar was so low. We were able to sell things that other countries could not because our dollar was generally weak compared to theirs. Other nations would look at our commodities and say, ‘If we buy it from Australia, it is cheaper’. We do not see the effect of that here so much because we have a mature and developed economy. All that meant was a boon for the industry in that area because it was helped along by the Australia dollar.
Then came along the global financial crisis and because commodity prices had been going up, irrespective of the Australian dollar, long-term contracts were set up in Australian dollars for our hard commodities like coal and iron ore, and also our agricultural commodities like wheat and the like, even though wheat generally goes on shorter-term contract pricing. Iron ore in particular did not have a spot price. Iron ore was done on long-term contracts and we saw in the global financial crisis our banking sector was not negatively affected to the extent of other sectors in the world. This was probably due to, honestly, good luck rather than good management. The Australian banks, because they had been lending so heavily to those sectors that were comparatively advantageous to this country, were not sitting there with a whole lot of capital that needed to find a global home. They were not investing in these AAA-rated securities that were later found out to be toxic.
Therefore, we did not lose the amount of money off the assets side of our balance sheet that other nations did, so our banks were incredibly healthy.
When Basel III came out, which was an indicator of where they looked at how much money a bank had available to it at any given time in reserves to protect itself, the Australian banks came out very well. At one point the Commonwealth Bank was in the top five banks in the country because of the financial position it was in. That was fantastic for Australia because it made the Australian dollar go up. Australia was seen as a safe place to park money. We all remember when the Australian dollar was trading higher than the US dollar. Most people in the country would have noticed this because many people travelled to the US and Internet shopped in the US, and bought things cheap and had them shipped here.
_________________________
Distinguished Visitor
Marion Scrymgour
Marion Scrymgour
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a past member of parliament, Marion Scrymgour, and I think a Deputy Chief Minister too. Welcome to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
_________________________
Mr BARRETT: When we looked at this situation the Australian dollar was in, suddenly we had long-term contracts with fantastic prices for commodities and the Australian dollar went up. While the rest of the world was having some serious issues, Australia was getting an awful lot of money in from overseas because overseas countries, China in particular, were locked into a commodity price in Australian dollars and the Australian dollar was high. This cushioned the blow the global financial crisis had in many other nations. We did not feel the GFC to the same effect here that other places did.
Since then we have seen commodity prices come right off and the long-term commodity contracts wash through. We have also seen the Australian dollar come down against the US dollar. That has made our commodities, even though their prices are cheaper, more attractive in Australian dollars. The Australian dollar has fallen which has played to our favour.
This fall has made our service industry more attractive. I was recently at the Westpac breakfast. We saw a direct correlation between the strength of the Australian dollar and overseas enrolments in our tertiary education sector. When the Australian dollar was low, people from overseas were accessing our tertiary education system. When the Australian dollar rose to around the United States equity mark with the US dollar, people stopped enrolling in Australian universities. It was too expensive to live here in terms of other currencies.
So, in terms of this exchange rate history, we have a new standard and stability has returned. We have seen where the Australian dollar should have been sans the mess that was the GFC. This now changes the kind of environment we are moving towards. The commodity price has come off oil, iron ore and energy prices so we had to structurally shift our economy. Industries of strength change over time and flexibility is a key feature. I cannot overstate the importance of having a flexible economy. Those jobs that existed in the mining sector where people were getting $180 000 to drive a truck are no longer there. The economy needs to shift structurally. The Australian dollar has helped that.
At the Westpac breakfast we looked at what is happening globally and where the Northern Territory is situated. The growth of the Chinese middle class is an important point. People have been talking about China not growing at the same rate it had been. China has grown between 7% and 10% annually for many years. The base of that figure increase has increased. Now people say, ‘Oh no, the Chinese economy is only going to grow at 5%’. If we think about that mathematically, let us say that economy was on an index.
Mr Elferink: That is 5% of a huge economy.
Mr BARRETT: Yes, 5% of a huge economy is a higher number than 10% of a much smaller economy. China growing at 5%, when we look at the materials and products they need in tonnage, is still up there. They still need lots of stuff. I believe there was a year when China imported more than half of the global concrete. That is a massive statistic. That shows the amount of infrastructure developed.
This growth in China has created a middle class that will dwarf the size of the Australian population. With the low Australian dollar, these people are looking to educate their children offshore. They are looking to expose themselves to other countries, which means they want to come here for tourism. They want to invest here. When China talks about its population, its rounding error is greater than the Australian population. When we talk about the holistic numbers, there are parts of China that have more millionaires than we have people. These people are looking to educate their kids offshore. We are in a sweet spot.
An economist from Westpac said, ‘This is what I recommend the Northern Territory government should be doing in this current global Australian dollar commodity price and location context. We need to be building infrastructure, rail, pipelines and roads. The low Australian dollar has improved our competitiveness, so we need to be working on our cattle industry and working on our agricultural industry. Because of the low Australian dollar we need to be building hotels. Because of the low Australian dollar we need to be encouraging building up our education services.’
If we look at this as a whole, this government has already announced plans for a six-star hotel that will be aimed at the Asian market. This government is already engaging in agricultural expansion through the fantastic work of the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. We have seen a fantastic expansion of the aquaculture industry in the Legune Station prawn farm. We have seen CDU improve its services and access to Asia. It has recently built student accommodation because they are in a sweet spot for accessing this.
Looking down the list, it was fantastic for me to see that everything the chief economists are saying, about where the Northern Territory is situated and what we need to be doing, is exactly what we are doing. Not only that, but we are engaging in what needs to happen in the future by commencing this initiative with our Asian engagement strategy.
We need to continue to improve services here. The port leasing initiative of this government will move us in the right direction. The initiatives in rail expansion into Queensland and the gas pipeline into Queensland is where this is going. What are our challenges? When the economist looked at it, he said, ‘Our challenge is that nobody knows the Northern Territory exists’.
This is hilarious, but my wife recently went on a trip overseas with members of her family to Phuket. She was talking to a local who asked where she was from. She said Australia, and the person said, ‘Yes, Australia, that is fantastic; where in Australia are you from?’ She said the Northern Territory and he said he had never heard of it. She said, ‘Surely you have heard of Darwin. It is just over there; it is the closest capital city to you.’ The person then made a joke of it and said she must have made it up.
We need to get on the radar. We also need to access the global capital market. The Northern Territory economy is too small to come up with the capital for the infrastructure, service and agricultural development to build this economy. We need to access markets for capital, and we need to get on the radar of individuals there to develop trade.
Our government has been working on this in various ways. The Minister for Asian Engagement and Trade is planning trips away. The minister for Agriculture recently came back from a trip, and I applaud him for coming back from Indonesia with a great result, where the Indonesians increased the quota of cattle they take from this country. That was a fantastic result and I take my hat off to him.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
Mr STYLES (Asian Engagement and Trade): Madam Speaker, I want to deal with a couple of issues raised yesterday by the member for Johnston.
He said a former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Terry Mills, was sacked. The former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, in his role in Indonesia, was not sacked. The company’s contract was terminated. You need to be very clear, when you stand up in this House, with what you say to members and what is put on the Parliamentary Record.
I do not have exactly what was said, but it is something along these lines of, ‘He was sacked when other people thought he was doing a good job’.
He quoted the Indonesian Consul, who was very new in the position at the time. He probably did not know a great deal of history, nor did he know the company was being performance managed, and there had been a number of warnings over a period of time regarding how that company was conducting its affairs.
The member for Johnston appears not to have his facts right. That is probably the best way I can articulate it. The member for Johnston also said the ALP had a fantastic trade plan; I think it was from 2009 to 2013 and they supported live cattle to Indonesia and Vietnam. Well, it is very clear what occurred in this House if you go through the Hansard and the debates in 2011. We were in opposition at that stage when the good Mr Ludwig, a member of the federal system and a Minister for Agriculture, I think it was, stopped the live cattle trade. By the stroke of a pen, without doing a great deal of homework, he said, ‘Oh this is terrible. We are going to stop that.’
I am not going to put on the public record some of the issues that occurred from that because they were very sad and disgraceful. Some people took their own lives as a result of that. That is not something that is published but that was the end result for a number of people in the Territory. They decimated the trade. I say to the member for Johnston, how dare you stand up in this House and try to rewrite history and say, ‘We supported the live cattle exports to Indonesia and Vietnam’. I do not know what your policy said because I have not had a chance to read it, but what your policy says and what you do in this House appear to be two entirely different things.
We are seeing that a lot at the moment. For instance, yesterday the member for Fannie Bay said, ‘We have a very welcoming culture’. Sadly, it would appear that is something said but not followed through, because on the other hand we have the NT Labor Party supporting the campaign to stop the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. How absurd is that? You stand in front of a bunch of people and say, ‘We welcome everyone. We have a culture of welcoming people’, and then a few days before and after, you are out marching in the streets saying, ‘We do not want Asian people here’. They are saying that Chinese people are going to come in and take all our jobs. When you listen to the rhetoric in the media and on the news it says – I hear the scoffing coming from those members opposite. But here is one of the things they have put out, ‘The China free trade deal will kill jobs in the Territory’.
I wonder if they have read this stuff because what will kill jobs is pushing people away from tourism and away from coming here to invest in joint ventures or direct foreign investment, or whatever other deals can be stitched together with the business community through the Foreign Investment Review Board. They are the things that will drive jobs away.
On this side of the House, we are about creating jobs and generating wealth. You just heard another excellent presentation by the member for Blain on how to generate wealth. In his book, William Bernstein pointed out very clearly that there are a number of things you need to have sustainable wealth creation. The book is titled The Birth of Plenty: How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created …
Mr Barrett: A good book.
Mr STYLES: It is a good book. I encourage those opposite to read it because it has a lot to do with many of the issues they are very strongly opposed to, such as personal ownership of land for Aboriginal people. We want people from overseas to come over and invest with Aboriginal people. Listening to those opposite, I do not think they want too many people to be successful because what they say does not encourage Aboriginal enterprises or businesses.
We have been trying, along with the federal government, the Coalition, to get these things in Aboriginal communities so they can get investment. But the problem is that Aboriginal enterprises have to be in positions where they can accept investment and comply with what those investment requirements are. For Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory to receive foreign investment and foreign ventures, they will have to change some of the ways they deal with their land and what they do because people will not invest where they do not have guaranteed land tenure over a period of time. They need to be able to lease it or do head leases. The progressive Tiwi Land Council has done a great job. They are doing deals and getting direct foreign investment.
What is the result of that? Jobs. The last I heard over 100 jobs have been created on the Tiwi Islands. These are not ‘walking around and make cups of tea’ jobs; these are real jobs with real economic benefits for Territorians. It means foreign investment coming in. So what do we say to those people? ‘We do not want your money or free trade agreements with you.’ We have free trade agreements with other countries. Why do people suddenly say, ‘China is going to come in and overrun us and take all of our jobs’?
I quote from another flyer, ‘Stop the China free trade agreement. Tony Abbott’s only plan for jobs is to send them offshore.’ They are talking in one sense about how they are going to take jobs from Territorians. Now they have a different message. This one says, ‘The China free trade agreement will kill jobs in the Territory’. The other one says, ‘Tony Abbott’s only plan for jobs is to send them offshore’. So now we are sending stuff offshore. If the unions want to go and bash this, why are they not outside INPEX? There is probably about $25bn worth of money being spent there which is being spent overseas. Why are they not there protesting against that?
Arthur Calwell, a great Labor leader from 1949, or maybe 1947, is famous for his ‘reds under the bed’ outlook. Is this a re-emergence of Labor Party policy from those days? I do not know. I would like those opposition members to tell us exactly what they mean when they start supporting this sort of stuff. The member for Karama can be seen in front of a huge crowd saying, ‘Go away’. I quote from the member’s website; it says, ‘Delia Lawrie added four new photos at 3:14pm’. Her quote is, ‘We are union and we are proud’. There was a big crowd on the Esplanade with slogans like, ‘Stop Abbott, giving away jobs in the China free trade agreement’, and, ‘Fighting for our kids’ future is a worthy cause’.
The previous Labor government secured INPEX and got it for Darwin. Congratulations. That was a long haul over many years. Back in the late 1990s people were talking about the gas reserves there and developing them. Thanks goes to the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, for being the lead person in securing that foreign investment.
What is the difference? Are we now picking winners and losers as to who we will engage with in Asia? Because you have some direct foreign investment here by INPEX, Total, China resources from Taiwan, and a number of smaller partners in that conglomerate.
At my launch yesterday of the Asian Engagement, Trade and Investment Strategy a Labor sheet was given out. It said:
- Australia can’t afford this. Unemployment is too high, especially for young people. And now his (Tony Abbott’s) secret trade deal with China will tip us over the edge.
I do not know what is secret about the trade deal. You can read it. Perhaps they think it is secret because they cannot find it. We will get a copy of it and we will deliver it to you so you do not have to go looking for it. You can read what it is about. It is about partnering with people around the world. It just so happens that this is with China. There have been free trade agreements supported by Labor governments. In fact, listen to the rhetoric coming from your own party and former leaders. Bob Hawke, a very popular Labor Prime Minister, is saying you just need to get over it and get on with it.
Another former Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, had the same deal – get over it and get on with it. Bob Carr, former Foreign minister and former Premier of New South Wales, is simply saying, ‘What is wrong with you people? Get on with it.’
You have Labor Premiers around this country saying they all accept this is a good deal for Australia; it brings in investment and allows our products to go from Australia into China. The National Farmer’s Federation cannot believe these people are trying to kill jobs in rural areas. This is about export and getting the debt down, which the Coalition inherited from the former Labor government. Even Labor leaders are saying you have to do this. They know the mess the Coalition inherited and they would be very grateful, as usual and as history dictates, for the Coalition to fix the economics of this country.
We heard yesterday in this House how badly the Labor opposition understands economics, but I am not surprised because none of them have any experience in economics or business. I struggle to understand what happens in their little group meetings when they talk about that.
On this side, we have people who have been in small business and multimillion-dollar businesses. We have had stockbrokers and people who understand finances and can read a balance sheet.
We have a range of people over here, lawyers, business people and people with community experience. I understand why they do not get it, because there is no experience over there. They say, ‘If we have the privilege of being the next government’ – I hope we have the privilege, for our kids’ and grandkids’ sake in the Northern Territory. This opposition to this China-Australia Free Trade Agreement is amazing.
You can read the document – I am happy to get briefings for you if you are struggling to understand it – about what you can and cannot do. They want people to think governments of this country do not care about people and will say, ‘The gate is open. Everybody come in.’ That is what they want you to believe. That is their view.
The real situation is people have to go through hoops. Chinese companies know they cannot grab a pile of people, ship them out to Australia and tell them to do a particular job.
People are asking what will happen in the future when the cycle turns and Labor has a go. I find it scary trying to explain to them that, sadly, they do not understand. They do not seem to get it and they do not want you here. I am echoing what they are saying to me.
We have Chinese delegations turning up here. We have re-engaged in Asia. Sadly, the previous government dropped the ball in Asia. They will tell you they went on all these trips, but we did not see much coming out of them.
Since my last trip to China, we had eight delegations turn up. We had people from Taiwan and all over Asia turning up here to talk to us. I am going back soon to take information to the people I spoke to in June. We have all the shovel-ready projects in a prospectus. We will talk to those people and encourage them to come to Darwin and look at what we take back.
There are people in China asking what is happening in relation to the anti-Chinese sentiments. They monitor Facebook, and they see this stuff, such as the member for Karama out the front saying, ‘Chinese people, go away; we do not want this.’ That is the message it sends. They will say, ‘No, we are friendly. We love all these people and we want to do this.’ The problem is the actions outside the Chamber do not match the rhetoric coming from members opposite. All that material being spread around goes directly against what the member for Johnston said yesterday. ‘We are very engaging. We like Asia. We want to do business and we supported the live cattle industry.’ You did not.
In that instance I recall very well, as would the member for Katherine, as the then shadow minister for Primary Industry, Labor’s lack of support for primary industry, national farmers and the cattle people. There were people growing hay who were not selling any and looking at a massive amount of stock because the change happened with a click of the fingers, the stroke of a pen and some brain explosion Senator Ludwig had about not supporting cattle.
This destroys our reputation as a reliable partner. We have to build that back up. Do not get me wrong, I am sure if you asked members and ministers who travel to Asia – and I am sure the member for Katherine would support me in saying these are questions they ask. These are legitimate questions our future trading partners ask. ‘If we do this deal, what is this?’ They are required as directors, as we are as directors in this company, to do what they call due diligence and risk management. When they sit in the boardroom and in a minister’s conference room and talk about what the opportunities are. I am trying to sell the Northern Territory so we get the investment which brings jobs and economic activity which creates wealth. Those opposite, they are fantastic …
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move the minister be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Vowles interjecting.
Mr STYLES: Mr Deputy Speaker, I pick up on the interjection by the member for Johnston. He is crying, ‘Do we have to listen to this?’ Well, yes you do. What you do, member for Johnston, is give us the ammunition. You stand over there and say all these things. ‘We are supportive of this, we are supportive of that.’ Your leader went out yesterday to a rally outside Parliament House and said, ‘We have a culture of welcoming people’. But the qualification appears to be, if you are Chinese, you are not welcome. You do not like hearing that. Then over a period of time you keep giving us ammunition. Then when we send the ammunition over there, you say, ‘This is terrible. I do not want to listen to this.’ What a joke! Look at the ammunition you have given us ...
Mr Vowles: We are waiting to hear what you are going to do. It has been three years. You should be talking it up.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Johnston!
Mr STYLES: I pick up on that interjection, ‘What have you been doing over three years?’ I will tell you what we have been doing over three years, member for Johnston. We have been repairing the damage you and your side of politics did. You should talk to some of your former ministers and colleagues, because in 2001 when you got into government you cancelled all these offices. You just sacked everyone over there, got rid of all the people who had spent years building relationships.
What are the three most important things in real estate? Location, location, location. It is not rocket science. What are the three most important things in dealing with Asia? Relationships, relationships, relationships. When Labor got into government in 2001 they killed those relationships.
Mr Vowles: That is not true.
Mr STYLES: You say, ‘That is not true’. Check the facts. Find out …
Mr Vowles: That is simply not true.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STYLES: Go for a freedom of information order and see when you sacked all those people, because I have spoken to ministers and people who were around at that time and I asked, ‘What happened?’ I found out. There were a few trips taken and that was very good, but it is about building relationships.
How do you go there and get eight delegations to come here? How do you win the Joint Conference of the Australia-Taiwan Business Council? How do you win that in Darwin? You have to do a lot of work building relationships. For the edification for the member for Johnston, there is the little thing about three cups of tea. The Chinese explain it by using the saying ‘three cups of tea’. The first cup of tea they will sit down and chat with you because Asians do not do business with you on the first meeting. You have to go there and foster a relationship. If the member for Johnston took the time to learn about this and study that area, he would find they will not do business with you on the first meeting. They want to go out with you and have dinner. That is the first cup of tea.
Then you might go back a month later and have the second cup of tea. They will have dinner with you again. They will want to go to lunch with you and talk. Then you will have the third cup of tea and if they are happy with your performance and determine whether you are genuine or trying to pull the wool over their eyes, they will then take it further and do business with you.
We all do that sort of thing. The Chinese, Malaysians, Singaporeans, Taiwanese and the Japanese do it in a way that is quite courteous and proper. That is about doing business in Asia. Go and do a few courses with Mr Guppy and he will give you some basics. I was fortunate I learnt this when I was a kid because I had Chinese people living in my home.
Detectives and police officers do exactly the same thing. We will sit down and say, ‘Tell us the story’. The next day we will go back and say to some not very nice person, ‘Tell us that story again’. On the third day you go back and say, ‘Tell us the story again’.
If they are genuine, they will give you the same sort of story. If you are not, then they will see straight through you. That is when you go looking for evidence and you determine who is telling lies and who the truth. That is exactly what Asians do. You have to build relationships. Some of these relationships have been broken. They were broken during the 11 years of the previous Labor government. Some good people went there and tried to do things but generally the whole policy was, ‘We are not going to do too much up there because we are going to do things over here’.
That is fine, you were in government and governments can choose what they want to do. I am not saying that was right or wrong. What I am saying is your side of politics chose to do something differently. We are about running the economy and getting the economy back on a decent footing so we can pay back the debt you ran up.
This is a very important issue in relation to the debt. I do not have my graph with me. I took it upstairs to get it updated. There were pyramids of debt run by Labor both in the Territory and nationally. I can see them over there holding their heads. They do not want to hear this, but the people in the Northern Territory listening and watching this need to look at the historical stuff available in this area. The Asian Engagement, Trade and Investment Strategy is a result of a lot of consultation.
The member for Johnston asked in an interjection, ‘What have you been doing over the last three years?’ We have been doing a lot. If you look at things starting to happen in the Territory, these things do not happen overnight. Perhaps the member for Johnston believes you can just do these things overnight. You can go for a trip there and come back and say, ‘Look what I have got’. It does not. It takes years to build these relationships.
On my last trip I took some people from the Northern Territory who have had relationships with people in Asia for over 25 years. We were very fortunate to have these people who were prepared to take us. They only took us and agreed to participate because they trusted we were there for very genuine reasons. They took us to meet some very influential people who can help generate wealth in the Northern Territory. That was the bottom line. They know people who want to invest which could create economic activity and jobs. They know people who will take our exports as a result of the infrastructure put in place to produce agriculture, horticulture, sugar, and all those things in the Ord River area. They want to participate in getting minerals. There is a hunger in Asia for minerals. It may be a bit slack at the moment, but we all know it is cyclical. It will come back. We need those relationships in the Northern Territory.
I spoke to someone on Monday who is right across this. I went to him for advice and asked how we are travelling, what we need to do, and if we were on the right track. We got a tick and that person will take us into Asia and introduce us to all the people they have met over the last 25 or 30 years. These are the decision-makers who will say they can invest in the Territory. They said, ‘You have lost a lot of ground over the previous government’s time because other governments have gone there’. They looked at what the Northern Territory did. We used to be the leaders in this.
The federal government came to us when the CLP was previously in government and said they wanted to go into Asia, and asked if we could introduce them to the right people. That is how good we were. We were the leaders. Sadly, we lost that and we are now clawing our way back into Asia to get where we used to be. It is still a long and hard road, but I am prepared to march along it for as long as I can to make sure kids in the Northern Territory have the brightest future they can.
We cannot do it as easily as we normally could when members opposite are trying to push these people away. Investors will want to have their investments guaranteed. The example I used the other day is if one of those members opposite wanted to build a house in China, had three months to build it and could not find someone, they would want to take someone from here to finish the project, rather than someone take that project off them and lose everything.
The things built into the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement relate to workers. When Australian workers cannot be found, and the project will either stall, stop or fail, then companies have the ability to bring people in to complete that project.
There is a lot to say on this statement and I wish we had a bit more time. I commend the statement to the House.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MONITORING OF PLACES OF DETENTION (OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE) (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 36)
(Serial 36)
Continued from 22 August 2013.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Deputy Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move the following amendment: that the word ‘now’ be omitted and ‘this day in six months’ be inserted in its place.
This amendment has the effect of changing the question before the Assembly, which is that the bill be now read a second time, so that the bill will be read a second time on this day in six months.
I understand the Attorney-General wishes to speak to the amendment and I will, therefore, leave the details of this to him.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak to the amendment to the motion that the bill now be read a second time. This amendment is consistent with Standing Order 180, which will result in the defeat and disposal of the bill now before the Assembly.
Standing Order 180 comes from a long-standing tradition in our standing orders, originating in the House of Commons, adopted by many Westminster parliaments, which creates a fiction that by deferring a debate to an uncertain future of six months hence defeats the bill and disposes it from the Notice Paper.
This mechanism, to the knowledge of all in the Assembly today and the Clerks at the Table, has not been used in the Territory, certainly not in my years. My understanding is this motion has never been used and will soon be expunged from the books if the House condescends to taking on the new standing orders. It is the purists’ nod, if you like, to allow a motion to be used once, and once only, before it disappears.
The reason for this disposal is quite straightforward: the bill before the House, which was introduced over two years ago, is the Monitoring of Places of Detention (Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture) (National Uniform Legislation) Bill (Serial 36), and was introduced on 22 August. It was introduced as a result of the former federal Labor government seeking to attend to and sign up to an optional protocol to the Convention against Torture as part of its international relations structures. All indications were that the treaty was going to be signed, and states were invited to join the Commonwealth in ratifying the treaty in their own jurisdictions.
We thought and argued about it long and hard in Cabinet, but finally said, ‘Okay, that is cool’, because we run an open correction system anyhow. We generally tend to let people know what is going on within our corrections system – the good, that bad and the ugly. We decided we had nothing to hide and, in fact, this would have been targeted much more at detention centres than necessarily the prisons in the states. Nevertheless, the ratification in the Northern Territory would have been the effect of this legislation.
The problem for this legislative instrument is that it cannot come into existence by virtue of the fact that with the change of government in Canberra, the new federal government then determined not to pursue the matter. I checked with the federal government recently as to the likelihood of this instrument being signed into existence, and the indication was there was no future for this optional protocol to be applied in Australia.
As a consequence, this bill is simply pointless, and therefore needs to be expunged off the Notice Paper, which is the purpose of this motion. Oddly enough, when the question is put, to achieve this outcome honourable members will have to vote ‘no’, rather than ‘yes’. It is one of the quirks of the legislative instrument. Other than that, I have nothing further to add.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, yes, we are supportive of this step. We are aware that this legislation sat on the Notice Paper for almost three years. We understand entirely the reasons why it has sat there that long and why we can dispose of it today.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I am thrilled to be in the Chair as we now embark on some history here in the Northern Territory. Indeed, Attorney-General, you are quite right. The last time this was used was in the House of Representatives in 1961. You are right; it has never been used in the Northern Territory or in any other Australian jurisdiction since 1961. This is, indeed, the first and last time it will be used in the Northern Territory. We may even get a mention in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association magazine, so keep a close eye out for that next edition.
Motion negatived.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Fisheries’ Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program
Fisheries’ Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, it gives me an immense amount of pleasure to talk today in this House about the great work of Northern Territory Fisheries’ Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program.
This program is changing lives, providing jobs and opportunities for Indigenous people and communities across the Territory. The Northern Territory has a vast, isolated coastline with some of the world’s most remote and spectacular beaches. Our Territory’s marine areas provide habitats that hold large populations of many species such as birdlife, dugongs, turtles and, of course, fish. Our waters contain healthy populations of fish. Our tropical underwater life is particularly magnificent. We have healthy populations of species such as sawfish and sharks that are threatened and endangered in many parts of the world. The combination of great distance and a sparse population means that while the Territory coastal areas are pristine, it is a difficult task to police these areas and effectively manage all fisheries. With over 5100 km of mainland coastline and 2100 km of island coastline to monitor and patrol, practical limitations on government resources mean threats or incidents can pass unnoticed.
Coastal Aboriginal communities have strong customary links with our aquatic environments and rely on fish for food, culture and potential economic development opportunities. Given the intimate knowledge of local Indigenous Territorians of our remote coastal areas, it makes sense that we encourage locals to help police and manage these areas. In the late 1990s the Northern Territory government recognised the value of supporting Indigenous marine ranger groups, which have recently been established through funding provided by the Australian government. Over time the Northern Territory government’s support grew from simply supplying grant funding to a fee-for-service model where rangers are now paid for surveillance trips, contributions to research and assistance with the management of the Territory’s marine resources.
The Northern Territory government has built an enviable national reputation in the field of Indigenous marine ranger support, coordination and training. Indeed, Indigenous marine rangers now carry out a range of coastal and marine liaison and management activities, including coastal patrols, reporting unusual or illegal activity, recording marine debris, and threatened species research. The Northern Territory government, through the fisheries division, has driven the development of certificate level training in fisheries compliance tailored specifically for our Indigenous rangers. In partnership with the water police section, Charles Darwin University and interstate training providers, more than 100 Indigenous marine rangers have now received this training.
The benefits of this training are quite clear. Rangers are now able to provide surveillance information, which has been accepted as evidence of fisheries breaches by the courts, leading to successful prosecutions. That is a real watershed moment for the success of these training programs. More recently, and following a similar model of course development, a training package in scientific measurement and analysis was developed and delivered to 17 rangers to allow them to actively participate in fisheries research programs.
This training and the chance to be involved in aquatic resource management has been enthusiastically received by both the marine ranger and aquatic science communities. Logistically, it also makes economic sense because rangers already living and based in remote areas from where fish samples are required can provide these samples more efficiently and cost-effectively than deploying a team of researchers and technicians from Darwin. In addition to the training courses already developed and delivered, rangers are currently undertaking higher certificate level courses in fisheries compliance. Additional courses will cover requirements for the development of things like seafood handling, marine safety, small business operation and fishing practices in support of economic development initiatives to encourage Indigenous-owned fishing businesses.
This is also part of a commitment the Country Liberals government made under the Blue Mud Bay negotiations. This government is working hard to achieve win/win outcomes for traditional owners and fishers throughout those Blue Mud Bay negotiation processes. My Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has developed a package of initiatives in support of Indigenous development opportunities in order that we can provide permit-free fishing access to intertidal waters overlying Aboriginal land. A key part of this package is the government’s commitment to enhancing marine ranger programs across the Territory. This includes providing stronger powers for marine rangers so they can undertake compliance and enforcement on our many waterways. It will ensure rangers can work in partnership with government agencies to monitor our vast coastline, rivers and waterways.
Elements of the package include training of marine rangers in scientific and technical skills in fisheries research, a fish mentoring program to provide training and skill development in commercial fishing to allow more Indigenous Territorians to participate in the seafood industry, and better consultation with Aboriginal communities over fishing and marine management.
Overall the package will deliver a number of key outcomes, including improved fisheries compliance in remote areas, more skilled and trained Indigenous Territorians undertaking fisheries research and compliance activities, more skilled and trained Indigenous Territorians participating in the seafood industry, and increased involvement of Indigenous Territorians in fisheries management, research and aquatic resource conservation.
This government, through the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, provides funding, training and additional support to 10 Indigenous ranger groups. These ranger groups are located on the Tiwi Islands, in Borroloola, Wadeye, Upper Daly River, Warruwi, Maningrida, Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt, Ngukurr and Galiwinku.
The department’s Fisheries group has a strong relationship with remote communities that has been developed through extensive and regular consultation over the past 15 years. This relationship has been forged through a partnership approach to problem solving.
Fisheries has also initiated formal consultative committee meetings where communities and other stakeholders can discuss and resolve local marine issues.
As time has progressed, so too have the Indigenous marine rangers with their operational assets on par with local police capability. This is fantastic. Ranger duties include regular coastal patrols to undertake surveillance and monitoring of aquatic pests, fish kills, unusual fish patterns or movements, marine debris and the deterrence of illegal fishing activities.
Many marine ranger groups are becoming more involved in Fisheries’ research-related activities, while some rangers have also been engaged in coastal search and rescue. The Fisheries division has led the development of specific compliance training for Indigenous marine rangers, in collaboration with Charles Darwin University and the Northern Territory Water Police.
Fisheries carries out extension activities relating to fisheries compliance and monitoring to support the rangers in the field. This has led to ongoing marine ranger fee-for-service in research contracts and research project engagement across the Territory coastline.
These projects include research for juvenile snapper, adult snapper and barramundi stock monitoring, including otolith, or ear bone, extraction; sawfish surveys; and aquaculture projects.
Two ranger groups are engaged in research contracts to monitor environmental conditions, bringing in a new income stream. An Indigenous ranger who completed a Certificate II in Measuring and Analysis has recently been employed with the Fisheries division as a research technician.
Water police activities are coordinated with Northern Territory Fisheries staff to heighten the capacity of Indigenous marine rangers where joint patrols are conducted in remote areas of the Northern Territory coastline.
The Fisheries division has developed and is currently delivering a Certificate III in Fisheries Compliance to develop the IMRCP capacity to deliver on Blue Mud Bay commitments and provide career progression paths for our rangers.
The first training block was delivered in May 2015 and the final block is scheduled for August 2015, so it should be well under way or completed. This new training is improving their capabilities and skills in investigating illegal activity on land and water.
Indigenous marine rangers from across the Northern Territory are making our waterways safer than ever. The Country Liberals government is committed to empowering Indigenous people to manage and protect their own environment, creating jobs and economic growth within communities.
The Northern Territory is without doubt a global leader in Indigenous engagement in the management of fisheries. We are also the only place in Australia where Indigenous rangers are being trained as fishery officers. The work these rangers do in the community is invaluable to the conservation and sustainability of Northern Territory fisheries.
The primary objective of the government funding is to recognise and support traditional owners’ aspirations and to exercise their traditional right to be engaged in the management of fisheries.
Indigenous marine rangers identify and report remote threats to the Territory’s fisheries. Those threats can be environmental, such as ghost nets, fish kills and aquatic pests or non-compliance commercial and recreational fishermen. Operational support is delivered by three permanent Fisheries staff and two dedicated water police officers.
Scientific-based training of Indigenous rangers is an emerging area of growth and underpins their knowledge for collaborative fisheries projects in aquaculture, stock monitoring and data collection. The Fisheries Act is currently being amended to accommodate increased fisheries compliance and enforcement powers for marine rangers. These changes will allow appropriately qualified and experienced marine rangers to be provided with Fisheries compliance and enforcement powers. The extent of the powers will be commensurate with the skills, qualifications and experience of the rangers.
At least two tiers of Fisheries inspector – a Class 1 and a Class 2 – will be created in addition to the already existing functions of a Fisheries officer. To support this increased training requirement the government, in the 2015-16 budget, included provision to support an expansion of the Indigenous marine training Ppogram. The expanded program, to be based in Nhulunbuy, will deliver a range of training courses designed specifically to increase the skills and capacity of Aboriginal people to support their participation in marine resource management and the seafood industry. The program will initially target delivery of certificate training in seafood handling as well as fisheries compliance and scientific measurement and analysis. It is envisaged it could quickly be expanded to deliver courses in things like marine safety, small business management and commercial fishing and aquaculture.
The Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program is providing meaningful employment in remote communities and the rangers themselves work with a significant source of pride. They are also seen as excellent role models in their communities. The Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program is enhancing our capability for fisheries compliance and monitoring. This program is a global leader and a standout success.
I could not be more proud to be part of a government that is driving this important life-changing program.
I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, today I support the minister’s statement and start by congratulating him and Cabinet members for this program. It is a program that is empowering coastal communities and my people to engage in caring for their own country and making sure coastlines and fisheries around them are protected and managed in a good way for all people to enjoy.
As the minister said, the Northern Territory Fisheries’ Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program is also providing real jobs and economic opportunities for Indigenous Territorians. That is what this government is about. Economic growth for a region in real and meaningful ways by this program is another example of how we on this side are delivering results to Indigenous Territorians. It is a great program because it is very simple. It understands that all of us local people who live in coastal areas have the local knowledge and experience to help monitor and manage the coastline and adjacent offshore areas.
Our people, as Indigenous marine rangers, are working in Primary Industry and Fisheries and in coordination with the water police.
Last year on 26 November I stood with the Chief Minister and we announced the historic deal for fishing access on the Tiwi Islands, something Labor could not do in 11 years of government. The agreement with the Tiwi people allows permit-free access to key fishery areas of Bathurst and Melville Island, as well as Vernon Island. This is an agreement that satisfies the fisheries business aspiration of Tiwi traditional owners, but also benefits recreational and commercial fishers. This is yet another example of the Giles government creating a real opportunity for all Territorians.
The company, Tiwi Island Adventures, has, under this new arrangement, created a new opportunity for the Tiwi to grow its fishing business and is providing jobs for local people and real income for the island. It allows visitors to visit the townships of Wurrumiyanga and Pirlangimpi where they can buy fuel and supplies or visit the art gallery and pump money into the local economy. But it also has led to enforceable boundaries agreed around rivers and creeks in exclusive access areas, and this is where the Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program becomes really important. Under the agreement, there is a total of $135 000 a year to support the marine rangers program, a commitment to enhance the power of marine rangers with a one-off $30 000 payment to build a new recreational fishing camp, an enhanced Aboriginal cultural licence for community members, and a code of conduct to ensure visitors respect the rights of traditional owners.
Unlike Labor, we want to support the Tiwi Islands to grow their own local economic opportunities, develop tourism and fishing businesses, and create jobs so they can break out of the cycle of welfare dependency, which is what the Chief Minister said last year. That is happening today.
Let me now turn to the details of what is going on in some of the Northern Territory areas I travel to. I start with the Tiwi Islands. The senior rangers of the Tiwi board members are currently receiving Certificate III training in fisheries compliance. Three locals who received Certificate II compliance training with Tiwi rangers will be conducting compliance activities in water policing soon.
The work of Tiwi Marine Rangers also complements the land-based work of Tiwi land rangers, particularly managing quarantine issues. On Warruwi the rangers have been involved in aquacultural development of trepang and clams to see what sustainable and economic opportunities might come for local people. One ranger is currently receiving Certificate II training in compliance, Lesley Lamuyayani, and eight rangers have had Certificate II training in compliance in the past as well.
One of the main activities the rangers are involved with at Warruwi is to clean up all ghost nets. Marine debris is a major problem not only for the 5000 km of the Northern Territory’s coastline, but also for most major coastlines and oceans around the world. The Warruwi rangers program will receive ongoing funding of $60 000 per year from the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, thanks to the Country Liberal government.
In Maningrida three rangers are currently receiving Certificate III training in compliance, including Victor Rescue and Dion Cooper. Twelve rangers have earned certificates in training compliance in the past. This program has been involved in compliance activity this year with water police and that has led to increased sustainability in fisheries. The Maningrida rangers have also been awarded a contract to assist the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries in barramundi research this year. They also received ongoing funding of $60 000 per year. Four rangers in Galiwinku have received Certificate II training in fishery compliance. They have been involved in projects to develop Aboriginal coastal and licensed fisheries in the East Arnhem area. Again, they have received ongoing funding of $60 000 per year from this government and have been able to use some of this to purchase vehicles and vessels for their important work looking after fisheries and coastline in their area.
I congratulate all the rangers on this important program while working hard to undertake training, working with the community, protecting internationally significant turtle sites, picking up marine debris, undertaking coastal surveillance while working with law enforcement and other agencies, looking after marine bird life and the rookeries, counting population numbers of various species and even assisting the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service with ship inspections to guard against introduced species.
I congratulate all involved in this program for the work they do at agency and ranger level towards developing better and appropriate visitor site management plans, increasing community awareness of the important work they do, the input they have into coastal and marine management strategies, and how they can all help to protect the high natural and cultural values of regions in their work.
As the minister said in his statement to the House, the Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program is changing lives. It is providing jobs, as I have just highlighted, and it is providing much wanted economic development opportunity in our community. Most importantly, this program is helping manage and protect the marine fisheries of the Northern Territory and the important coastal assets of Australia.
The minister has outline the communities that are involved in this important program, including those I have mentioned, but also Wadeye, Borroloola, Upper Daly River, Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt and Ngukurr. Our government is creating real opportunity for all these communities, and all Territorians, to enjoy the great natural resource we have in our coastal fisheries, and real opportunities for local people with local training, skills development, jobs and economic development. I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement on. As the shadow for Primary Industry and Fisheries it is not a bad experience that we get along and do some good for the Territory.
I will start with my support for this ministerial statement. I congratulate the minister and his department for the work he has done in this area. It has the total support of the Labor Party and we will continue to support it, if we are given the responsibility of government.
I believe there is a very clear future for many coastal communities in the Primary Industry and Fisheries sphere. It is my dream to see communities from Wadeye to Borroloola engaged in the fishing industry and all of its spinoffs. I understand some of the preliminary steps have been made with the establishment of the smaller commercial licences for local catch, which allow communities to develop a fishing industry to provide for their local areas.
Over the long term, I think it is critical for this to be developed to a larger commercial operation. These industries are tied up by commercial agreements and contracts and I understand the complexity of this, but I believe every effort has to be made to develop an Indigenous fishing and seafood industry.
We should take this opportunity. There are some large coastal communities to develop an Indigenous coastal areas program. This has implications across a range of industries. The coast of the Territory provides tourism opportunities. It provides opportunities in the seafood and cultural industries. The coast provides opportunities in science and research. It provides Defence opportunities through Coastwatch. The list can go on. The development of jobs in communities must be a major priority of government. It will be in a Labor government. By creating employment and jobs, we can have a major impact on education and training. I am convinced that the coastal industries provide the opportunity to drive a strong training and skills program in our schools.
If you think about the many industries that come out of this coastal location, think of the training opportunities for our young people. I believe we should be placing a clear seafood industry training program in schools like Milingimbi, Yirrkala, Borroloola and Wadeye. These programs could move to develop smaller local seafood industries but they could also be used to promote conservation and land management programs like those of the Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program. By focusing on these sorts of programs, schools will become more relevant, and therefore more appealing to students. The spin-offs would be increased attendance in school, increased literacy and numeracy, and increased employment skills.
It does not take too much imagination to see that if we develop this series of Vocational Education and Training programs in the schools, they could lead to more advanced programs to be based in regional centres. For example, students may be able to take on skill sets in Certificate I and Certificate II level programs in their own communities that would give them access to a range of jobs in these coastal industries. If they need to or want to progress these skills, they may be able to go to Nhulunbuy for further training. This would give Nhulunbuy an industry in advanced training of coastal industries. This is where the Certificate III, Certificate IV or even diploma level courses could be run. If young people then wanted to go further and study at a higher level, the options of the Australian Maritime Colleges in Adelaide and Tasmania, or even a branch of these schools at some future time in Darwin, would be the way to go.
That is one way to go and this statement today highlights another way to upskill and learn through conservation and land management. This leads to Indigenous ranger programs, as outlined by the minister. Ranger programs allow people to undertake important work in a way that is appropriate for them and in time frames that work for them. There are many ways this can work. I strongly support the work of the rangers and the department. More needs to be done, though. I thank the minister for his statement and look forward to hearing more about the work as it progresses.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 4/5 students from Maningrida School, accompanied by James Stephens. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. You have come a long way. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Motion of Censure
Move Motion of Censure
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving that this House censures the government for its appalling and aggressive behaviour towards parliamentarians in this Assembly, and the Chief Minister for losing control of the behaviour of his members of parliament, and further, that this House from now on adopts the principles of the White Ribbon Workplace and we commence the accreditation process immediately.
What happened in this House yesterday can only be described as appalling, aggressive and aimed at intimidating other members of parliament. It is behaviour that deserves censure, and warrants the acceptance by this House of the suspension of standing orders to do so. It is behaviour that is not acceptable on the street or in any workplace, and it is certainly not acceptable in this place, where we are supposed to represent the highest ideals of the Territory. The behaviour starts at the top and the member for Araluen has told this House exactly what happens in the party room of the CLP.
This is why we must suspend standing orders today.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government will accept the censure motion.
MOTION
Censure of the Government and Chief Minister
Censure of the Government and Chief Minister
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly censures the government for its appalling and aggressive behaviour towards parliamentarians in this Assembly, and the Chief Minister for losing control of the behaviour of his members of parliament, and further, that this House from now on adopts the principles of the White Ribbon Workplace and we commence the accreditation process immediately.
The Attorney-General last night failed community standards for his behaviour in the workplace. His words were violent, and his actions intimidating and aggressive. His frustration at not passing legislation on urgency could not be contained and he acted in the most unparliamentary of ways in this Chamber.
I told this Chamber last night that as an experienced and confident member of this parliament I felt bullied. He banged his hands on the table. He shouted at me. He threw his spectacles down. His display was appalling and I was shocked to see his face and the way he was yelling at me.
I was not the only subject of his aggressive and appalling behaviour. He told the member for Nightcliff yesterday evening that:
- I am really tempted to give her a slap right now – figuratively speaking of course …
The reason? Because the member for Nightcliff advised him that we already knew about the breaking news he was trying to tell the House as a tactic to fill in time.
The minister later gave an adjournment speech designed to bully and intimidate the member for Wanguri for asking a question in the House about why the opposition has been denied freedom of information requests related to this government’s travel – again, a disproportionate response to a valid question in this House.
The Attorney-General persistently referred to the member for Araluen as ‘she’ in the Chamber instead of her deserving title of member for Araluen. He had to be reminded by the member to refer to her title.
On radio this morning the Attorney-General alleged the reason for his aggressive behaviour was because of the ‘thunderously stupid and naive’ arguments I made for not supporting rushed legislation on urgency.
Our position was supported by five crossbenchers. The majority of the House did not believe such serious laws should be considered on a whim. We stand by our position and the community will applaud us for considering more carefully the implications of giving our police new search and seizure powers in new legislation, and more, legislation that had not been run past the peak legal bodies of the Northern Territory.
The Attorney-General leads the Territory’s domestic violence agenda. His argument sends the message that if you think someone has made a stupid point, you are justified in acting aggressively and intimidatingly towards them, and point blank bullying them. The Attorney-General may have apologised, but it does not excuse that foremost in his mind, when under pressure, he resorted to blustering, bullying and violence instead of debate.
The Attorney-General is the first law officer of this land. The Attorney-General is the Minister for Children and Families. The Attorney-General is a White Ribbon Ambassador and this week congratulated Justice Kelly on her powerful stand against domestic violence, in this House. The Attorney-General has, by his actions, let down our community and diminished our standards with his violent words, and his threatening, and what I consider violent, actions.
Unfortunately the Attorney-General’s behaviour was not the only unparliamentary behaviour in this Chamber.
The member for Blain was also offensive to members of this House. His response to a tabled document in this House alleging further charges may be pending from the police investigation into travel was entirely disproportionate and unacceptable. He was mouthing off and making aggressive gestures towards the members for Nightcliff and Wanguri. The member for Nightcliff had the good sense to raise his aggressive gestures with the Deputy Speaker in the House immediately.
Late in the evening the member for Blain then most sarcastically withdrew comments when he called members opposite ‘a joke’ for successfully changing the makeup of the Public Accounts Committee. These changes reflect the new representation of the parliament, supporting two Independent members of the committee, including one as the chair. These changes are sensible. The member for Blain could not contain his behaviour and added ‘sweetheart’ after his contrived apology. The member was forced to withdraw his comments.
Most damning of all is the silence from this government – silence from the Chief Minister, silence from the Minister for Women’s …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We need a copy of the motion being circulated.
Ms WALKER: What does this silence mean? That this is an accepted behaviour in the culture of the Country Liberal Party government? This is why I seek that this parliament participates in the White Ribbon Workplace Accreditation Program. It needs to start here.
Independent assessors would review our workplace and provide suggestions to improve the conduct of the parliament for the health and safety, wellbeing and productivity of women in this building, not just in this Chamber. Participating in the assessment would ensure we meet three key standards: leadership and commitment; communications and training; and practices and procedures. Taking this step would restore confidence that parliamentarians are expected to reflect the standards of the community.
I now turn to why this government is a minority one. Last year we saw the members for Namatjira and Arnhem leave in the most dramatic of circumstances due to ongoing and persistent bullying in the workplace. The words used by the member for Greatorex towards the member for Namatjira are unrepeatable in this Chamber. That was not the sole reason for the member for Namatjira resigning from the party. It was the fact that the Chief Minister refused to discipline his minister for his most disrespectful comments. Indeed, his response to media inquiries was that:
- What happens within the confines of a parliamentary wing meeting, the same rules apply.
Yesterday’s behaviour escalated from the time of questions until the parliament rose at around midnight. The Chief Minister took no action to discipline his Attorney-General. Even this morning, in this Chamber, the Attorney-General did not apologise to me. He sought for us to understand his frustration instead of doing the honourable thing.
The member for Araluen was most scathing of the CLP when she departed from the party. Her comments in this Chamber are unforgettable:
- Never would I have thought I would be subjected to the persecution, retribution and intimidation dished out by the Chief Minister. To any woman contemplating a future in politics with the Country Liberal Party, think carefully about your ability to endure what I can only describe as abuse.
There is a theme here, and we are calling it out. It is not okay to act aggressively towards members of this parliament and make them feel so threatened. It is not okay to bully and bulldoze the opposition to get your way, simply because a member may not agree with you. As I said yesterday, this is a House of debate. We welcome it, we thrive on it and we want to debate matters to get better outcomes for all Territorians.
We censure the government today because the behaviour has failed community standards and expectations. We censure the government today because the way they conduct themselves internally in their party room behind closed doors has spilled over into parliament and public life, and it is unacceptable. We censure the government today because the public needs to know the Chief Minister is the head of a government that has no control and is chaotic and dysfunctional. This is the crux of the issue.
The government found itself in this embarrassing and frustrating position because it had no legislation to debate in the House this week. It had no government business this week for debate except for four ministerial statements. This is a first-term government that has been reduced to a minority because of the most disrespectful way the members conduct themselves inside and outside of this House.
Let me be very clear. In a regular workplace there would have been an inquiry or investigation into the matters raised about the members for Port Darwin and Blain by their supervisor. I can almost guarantee this will not occur.
The Chief Minister is paralysed because he does not have the majority support of his party. It is unlikely the Attorney-General will be disciplined. It is very unlikely that he will be sacked. Ultimately, this is what it comes down to with this current government: they will tolerate intolerable behaviour to cling to power. They always have, and always will, put their self-interests ahead of the people of the Northern Territory. They are not honourable and have no integrity.
We stand here today to stand up for women and girls, our sisters, mothers, aunties and the women right across this country. We say, ‘No more to this kind of behaviour’. I commend this motion to members of the House.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I am not surprised to see a censure motion brought before the House today. It is the tactic of those opposite to use every opportunity they can to score cheap political points. What I am surprised about is that it has fallen at the beginning of Question Time.
Question Time, which is one hour per day for the number of days parliament sits every year, is an opportunity for the opposition to examine government, and ask questions about what the government is doing for the true benefit and welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Ordinarily, what we hear from the opposition, I have to admit, are never questions that relate to the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. It is always about them trying to score cheap political points. In some ways this censure motion is a surprise, but it is not.
I listened carefully to the member for Nhulunbuy and her protestations about things said yesterday in this House. She referred to things said by the members for Blain and Port Darwin. I have to ask the question, when did we become so thin-skinned in this House?
Yesterday was a difficult day for government in some respects. We brought before the House a suspension of standing orders to debate some important legislation on ice and police powers. We genuinely believed those powers should be given to police as soon as humanly possible. The reason for that is every day that goes by, the potential for more of this horrendous drug to be brought into the Northern Territory increases and continues. Every day our police do not have these powers to intercept ice as it crosses our borders, under the terms of the new legislation as it was proposed, means that someone in the Northern Territory, old or young, may become affected by ice.
I do not know if there is a worse drug. I do not know if there is a greater reason to give the police the powers they need in order to make good what they can, to prevent the scourge of ice coming into the Northern Territory.
I stood in the House yesterday and gave an impassioned plea to those opposite about supporting urgency. I stood here, with hand on heart so to speak, talking about my experiences as a police officer and the reasons I truly believe the urgency motion needed to be supported. But as I stood here delivering my speech, I looked across the other side of the House – and I am not going to say who it was – at one of those members opposite mocking me as they sat in their chair. I am not going to make a big deal out of that because I expect that; that is normal argy-bargy across the House. I am not even going to say, if asked, who that member was because it is not important. But it shows that even when government members are passionate about what they believe in, even when they deliver the words designed to convince those members opposite to support the government on a certain course of action, those members opposite can cheapen and belittle the efforts of members to do their job. Disappointing as it was, we let it pass.
It is a house of debate, as the member for Nhulunbuy quite rightly pointed out, but it is a house of passion. The majority of us here truly believe in the cause of our government and in the things we do. I am sure those opposite also believe in the things they do in their philosophical positions. We often get passionate about it. We get frustrated in this House a little at times too when things do not go our way. I accept that. It is a normal human reaction to vent a little when one is annoyed and frustrated. We sometimes even say things that one does not carefully think through or consider might cause some damage or harm. But it happens a lot.
I do not think members on this side of the House are on their own. If I hark back to a little history, I can come up with plenty of examples where remarks have been made in this House that members have found offensive. Let us start with the member for Nhulunbuy. Here are a few derogatory and offensive remarks she has made to the Minister for Housing, Bess Price. On 19 March 2014 she said:
- I had the briefing, you goose.
On 29 April this year:
- And I tell my constituents how useless you are ...
Or what about on 4 June this year:
- For someone who normally does not like talking or answering questions, you are rather vocal over there at the moment. Mr Chair, you might ask the white noise over there if she could cease interrupting for a moment.
The member for Nhulunbuy referred to the Minister for Housing, clearly an Aboriginal woman, as ‘white noise’. How incredibly offensive and, let us say, racist, is that? The member for Nhulunbuy can apparently quite comfortably stand in this House, berate members of the government for some of the things that have been said over here, yet the hypocrisy runs deep. Those comments by the member for Nhulunbuy over the course of this year have been quite disgraceful, in my view.
Let us not stop there. On 4 December 2013, the member for Johnston called a member of this House ‘a grub’. On 27 March this year, Mr Vowles struck again, calling minister Chandler ‘an idiot’. What about earlier this year calling the Chief Minister ‘a knob’.
Mr Vowles: I stand by that.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Back to the member for Nhulunbuy. Do you recall calling the Minister for Correctional Services a garden slug?
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member for Johnston to withdraw that statement.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, please withdraw that comment.
Mr VOWLES: Which one?
Madam SPEAKER: You know the one. Just withdraw.
Mr VOWLES: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Or calling the member for Namatjira, King Brown. You could argue that some people would find some of those comments offensive, other people might not. At the end of the day, it is a place that encourages robust debate. It means that some people lose control of their language and here are just a few examples of the members opposite losing control in the course of a normal debate. I suspect on those days they were not quite as pent up and passionate about an issue as we were yesterday in relation to giving police powers to tackle ice.
I was not in the House when minister Elferink made the comments that are being referred to today. I will quote Hansard. This started as a result of the Minister for Justice giving the House an update on the capture of Peter Kamm, the prisoner who was on the run.
Mr Elferink said:
- I was on my feet in any instance, Madam Speaker. I want to speak and I will not be on my feet for too long. I understand the Chief Minister wants to say a few words but he is currently engaged upstairs. There are a couple of things I would like to say.
The first has nothing to do with the motion. I would like to inform the House that Peter Kamm, the person who was reported on the news bulletins as having breached his parole and scarpered, has been recaptured by the efforts of the….’
Then there was an interjection from Ms Fyles:
- Ms Fyles: Yes, we all know that, we are all on Facebook.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry, I beg your pardon?
Ms Fyles: Yes, we are aware of that.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. I was not – well, I was but I thought I would inform the House.
Mr Styles: I was not, so thank you very much.
Mr ELFERINK: I am glad to see that …
Ms Fyles: We have Channel 9 over here informing us of the news.
- Mr ELFERINK: Sorry?
Mr Styles: I was concentrating on what is happening in the Chamber.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. Anyway, in any instance, I just thought I would inform the House. I am sorry for trying; I will not inform the House of important breaking news in the future. Sorry?
Ms Fyles: I said leave the news networks to their job.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, no …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: I am really tempted to give her a slap right now – figuratively speaking of course – because …
Then Madam Speaker interrupted the minister and said:
- You should focus on what you are doing, minister.
Minister Elferink then went on to talk about the topic he had intended to speak about with no further interjection or reference in relation to what had been said.
I have operated in this House for long enough – a bit over seven years now. What I have seen is that every time somebody hears something in this House they find offensive, they will call a point of order and ask that those comments be withdrawn. Often you, Madam Speaker, will direct that comments be withdrawn by people who make offensive or untoward comments. I did not see a word in the Hansard from the member for Nightcliff, the member to whom the minister’s comments were referring – no point of order, no interjection, no request for those so-called offensive words to be withdrawn.
I was not here, I have to admit, but I would offer to the House that the member for Nightcliff probably just accepted what was said in the spirit and context of the debate. It was not until later that members opposite decided they could gather some political traction out of this and deal with it by going to the media. The actions of those opposite and the way they have handled this thing reeks of political opportunism.
Yes, the minister apologised. He accepted what he said was the wrong thing to say, and I commend the minister for doing that. At the same time the members opposite, in my view, are simply seeking to take political pot shots at the government and the minister. They aim to pile on a bunch of feigned indignation around comments which have been taken completely out of context.
This government takes domestic violence very seriously. We have been tackling law and order issues for a little over three years and made enormous headway into reducing domestic violence across the Northern Territory. There can be no suggestion this government is not doing its bit to deal with the scourge of domestic violence. We have seen, even in my own electorate with the introduction of the temporary beat locations, an enormous drop in not only violent crime generally, but alcohol-related crime and domestic violence as well.
The opposition cannot, with any honesty, assert this government is not focused on reducing domestic violence as much as we can within our community. To then try to tie these comments to the issue of domestic violence is just political opportunism by the members opposite. I see the member for Nhulunbuy over there, shaking her head. I guess that is all part of the feigned indignation I see coming from those members opposite time and time again. It is extremely disappointing.
Here we are, again, in this House talking about ourselves. I do not know how many times I have stood here – many of my colleagues have said it is high time we stopped talking about ourselves and started talking about the things that really matter to Territorians, about what this government is doing to make the lives of Territorians better. More jobs, lower cost of living, petrol prices that are the lowest in the country, and house prices falling, those are the things Territorians want to hear about. They do not want to hear about us.
We do it too often. We are 35 minutes into Question Time and not a single question has been asked or answered about things that matter to Territorians. I am sure people listening and those who will read the reports will wonder, ‘Why on earth do they not just tell us about what they can do and are doing to make our lives better?’ I can imagine the frustration that must be contained within the general population of the Northern Territory, those who are not politically stoked up like we are, but ordinary people who want to know the government is getting on and doing the job.
The member for Port Darwin has apologised for what he said last night and accepted the error of his judgment. It is high time we move on from this and start talking about what matters to the people of the Northern Territory rather than get stuck on navel gazing, which the opposition loves to do.
I do not support the censure motion. I suppose we will hear from at least one or two other speakers before the end of this debate and I will be interested to hear what they have to say.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, as you know, I do not normally vote on censure motions and I will not do so on this one. I will give my reasons.
I have been in this parliament for a long time and know there is robust debate in this parliament. I do not accept the behaviour of certain members of parliament yesterday; it was inappropriate. But that behaviour is not based on gender.
I, for one, have copped stacks of abuse in this parliament. As much as I do not like it – for some people it is par for the course – it probably keeps me in good stead. If I go out in a couple of Saturday’s time and umpire a game of footy, I will probably get the same thing, but I can at least give people a yellow card.
We need to stop and look at ourselves – I raised this issue last night – because we have a code of conduct. That code of conduct is what we are supposed to operate under. It is called the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards. There is a paragraph in section 10 which says:
- A member’s conduct in office should be exemplary in regard to the member’s work ethic and standards of ethical behaviour.
Why should our behaviour be any different than the way we are at home, or when we meet people in the street? Why does this place seem to be exempt from ethical behaviour? Why is it a belief that you can throw mud around this place just because you have parliamentary privilege? Things were said to me the other day that were straight-out untruths and I had to put up with that. We really need to look at ourselves individually and as a unit and ask what is wrong with this place. Are we so tied to our political parties that we have to hate one another? Where is the bond that should be between us that says we will do things for the benefit of the people of the Territory, or are we going to do things for the benefit of our political parties or political future? We have our priorities up the pole. That is part of the reason we get the behaviour we get – one side against the other side. We need to make changes and the only way these changes are going to come is from both the leader of the government and the Leader of the Opposition.
Once upon a time this Parliament House was next door. My understanding was the bar was at the back and everybody met there after the argy-bargy of parliament. Where do people meet today? They do not. We are as separate as two countries. We do not mix. We do not have dinner together anymore. We do not have a bar – not that I am a drinker, but at least it was a way of people getting together. We have lost that and have become two sides instead of an unified parliament. By all means have different opinions.
I put a suggestion and you can take it for what it is. The Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition meet an hour before we sit in parliament and have a chat about issues and see if we could work together better. That is not to say we will not debate issues. Somehow we have to get back to things we agree on.
- A member’s conduct in office should be exemplary in regard to the member’s work ethic and standards of ethical behaviour.
That is not gender based, that is based on us as individuals operating in this House.
We can discuss this. We can accuse people of saying things backwards and forwards. That will get it off our chest and make the headlines, but will it achieve anything? If you want a change, then our leaders have to show leadership. If they really believe our behaviour in this place is down in the gutter, then let us lift it out of there. We need our leaders to do it. So, whilst I understand the reasons behind this, and am appalled by some of the behaviour, we need, as a parliament, to look at ourselves, rather than pick on one side or the other and say, ‘Come on. Let us show the people of the Northern Territory we are working for them, not for us.’
Then we could at last lift the job of being a politician from the bottom of the list of what people think is a worthwhile vocation to something people will aspire to. I feel so ashamed sometimes that people rubbish politicians. That is why I say I am a member of parliament, because people have lost faith in us. Yet, we should be working hard to say, ‘This is a worthwhile job. Young people going to school, how about you think about having a future in politics, where you can work for people, do things for people, help people?’
The way it is at the moment, we will continue to go downhill. If something comes out of this debate today, I hope it is something that will come from the leaders of both sides of this parliament. Thank you.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, when someone stands in your workplace and says they feel like slapping you, it is not okay. It is never acceptable. I found the behaviour yesterday threatening and bullying, as most people would. We deserve to come to work and feel safe. Yesterday we saw behaviour that was unacceptable within this parliament and our community. Yes, parliamentary debate can be feisty and robust, but that is never an excuse to threaten violence. It is unacceptable, and we will not tolerate it.
The Deputy Chief Minister, in this Chamber, is meant to be a leader in our community, somebody who is meant to be part of the solution. Instead he is part of the problem. As a community, we should not be defending or minimising. If we do not take these issues seriously, how can we ever solve them? Instead, we have stood together today, the women of the opposition and the crossbenchers, with the support of the Speaker, to call this behaviour unacceptable. The Deputy Chief Minister’s speech was a classic ‘blame the victim’ response. It is not acceptable.
Yesterday the aggression and behaviour in this parliament was not acceptable for our community. We will not tolerate it. This is an extraordinary decision today to censure before any questions, but we must show our community how strong we are. To have the Deputy Chief Minister claim that because I did not call a point of order yesterday it was okay, that is not correct, as the Hansard record will reflect.
Madam Speaker said:
- You should focus on what you are doing, minister.
Madam Speaker called out the Attorney-General at the time. We know this behaviour is not acceptable. Therefore, I support this censure motion. We have seen four women leave the parliamentary wing from this CLP government. I will let them share their stories, as they have already. We need to stand up and say this behaviour is not acceptable on behalf of all Territory women.
I am privileged to be able to speak in this parliament. I have a voice, and we need to use that to send a message, a public message, that we must call out this behaviour whenever it happens. We must not defend by saying people are thin-skinned, or they did not interject, or did not speak up. That is not how we will solve this issue. We will solve this issue by calling it out and standing up to it.
Yesterday we experienced, in this Chamber, very aggressive and threatening behaviour. It was not just from the Attorney-General. We saw the member for Blain make aggressive gestures towards me and the member for Wanguri. In fact, and I am quoting Hansard, I was referred to as, ‘sweetheart’. That is not acceptable behaviour for our community or parliament. It is unacceptable bullying behaviour and we will stand against it. In no other workplace would this be condoned. Just because the perpetrator apologises, that does not mean it is acceptable. It does not erase it. I am sure most perpetrators in the hard light of day would say sorry, but that does not mean we condone the behaviour.
Chief Minister, if the minister will not resign, you need to sack him because he is perpetuating a culture that says it is okay to be aggressive towards a woman who frustrates you or questions you. That is exactly what we saw yesterday. The Deputy Chief Minister, in trying to defend the indefensible, has just reiterated that. The government was frustrated. Just because you are frustrated does not mean you behave like that. It was not lost upon the McKell Institute this morning that the chief law officer of the Northern Territory had told a female MP that he felt like slapping her.
The McKell Institute noted that over 60% of assault offences in the Territory are associated with domestic violence, with 82% of those victims being women. The statistics here in the Territory are undeniable, as the Attorney-General reflected in this House on Tuesday.
We are not shrinking violets. We will stand up for this, as we did at lunchtime today outside, united with your support to call this behaviour out. We are up for robust, feisty debate; do not get me wrong, but we saw this behaviour yesterday and it was unacceptable. Maybe because we hear ourselves regularly behaving as we do, we think it is okay. It is not. To take it one step further, there is no place for workplace abuse. There is simply no excuse for it. Anyone with a shred of decency would acknowledge they have a problem and in the Attorney-General, the Minister for Children and Families’ case, he would resign.
The Attorney-General heads up the framework for tackling domestic violence in the Territory. This week in the House the Attorney-General spoke out about tackling domestic violence, saying this government has been strident in its prosecution of those who perpetrate violence against their own families. We maintain and will continue to maintain that domestic violence is not only something needing restraint; it is a crime that should be treated as criminal activity.
I remind the Attorney-General that violence is not only physical, it is verbal and psychological. The Attorney-General’s actions towards my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, were violent. His comment to me was intimidating and threatening. That is how I felt. The member for Nhulunbuy should not have to experience aggression like she, and we, experienced yesterday in this Chamber. It was threatening and bullying, simply because you did not like a point of view. You did not get your own way.
You plead for a better standard. We need to adopt the principles of White Ribbon in the workplace and commence that action immediately. We need to tell our community we value the input of all members in this House. We need to show our community we are committed to acting. We will not sweep this under the carpet simply because the Attorney-General issued a hollow apology.
Yesterday you helped guide me through aggressive and threatening workplace behaviour. It is my job as the opposition Whip to make sure people are ready to speak and encourage debate, but the behaviour we witnessed yesterday from those opposite, particularly the Attorney-General, is simply unacceptable.
Our parliaments, as I have said, are feisty places full of robust debate, but it is never an excuse to threaten violence. To not have the Chief Minister even acknowledge this issue, what message does that send to Territorians? How does he regard these comments? What are his thoughts? Surely he thinks they are unacceptable and, if his Attorney-General does not resign, he needs to sack him. It is unacceptable for Territorians. They have made that clear this morning through social media, comments and messages. We need to stand up to bullying, workplace threats and violence in our community.
We need to show Territory women and families we will not accept even the threat of violence and bullying, or any intimidating behaviour in our workplace. We have heard stories of the bullying within the CLP party room, but yesterday when they lost control of the floor of this parliament, we witnessed bullying and intimidation roll out onto the floor of this House. That is unacceptable.
Today we are calling on the Attorney-General to resign. If he does not resign, we call on the Chief Minister to sack him. It does not come down to someone being thin-skinned. It does not blame the victim. Passion and frustration are no excuse for offensive and violent behaviour. This will not be swept under the carpet. Any one of those opposite who has convinced themselves that this was not violent behaviour, watch the footage. The throwing, the banging and punching of the table is not acceptable. We have to call out anyone who thinks it is, let alone articulates such comments, and we will.
You are excusing the indefensible, Chief Minister, purely through your lack of words. Remorse, empathy, understanding and compassion were all lacking in the member for Katherine’s response. They are lacking in our Chief Minister. He is sitting across the Chamber laughing about it. It is not acceptable. How do you excuse threatening to slap a woman? When do you excuse thumping and punching a table within the parliament? It is simply not acceptable. We will not stand for the Deputy Chief Minister today trying to brush it under the carpet and come up with excuses.
How can the Attorney-General and the Chief Minister be believed when they swear ‘no more’ when this behaviour has occurred within these walls, within this parliamentary Chamber? Would you accept, Attorney-General, if someone behaved like that to your daughter or your wife? I am sure not. The answer is a simple no. You are wrong in your behaviour and you need to accept the responsibility and the consequences.
I support this motion. We have an Attorney-General, the Leader of Government Business and Minister for Children and Families, who cannot go on with his portfolios. You cannot be the first law officer of the Northern Territory. Simply by not saying anything, the Chief Minister is condoning this behaviour. This is one of the most serious motions this House can debate, and the sooner the government accepts that the better. Yesterday we saw unprecedented threats and aggression in this Chamber because the government did not get its way. We will stand up to that on behalf of all Territory women.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, this place is often the theatre of hypocrisy and is used by the opposition and Independent members as a place of performance. But yesterday we saw that performance in full light when 13 members of this House, none of whom were on our side, decided to vote to stop police being given powers to stop drugs at our borders.
But today I have seen the lowest of lows, the height of hypocrisy, come out of this untrustworthy and unprofessional opposition. In fact, I find the members for Nhulunbuy and Nightcliff the greatest offenders of decorum in this House, the greatest offenders against standing orders and the most offensive members in this House. The members for Nhulunbuy and Nightcliff are on the record, probably more than any members, for interjecting across the Chamber, not just interjecting but screaming in the most unparliamentary and derogatory manner at this side of the House. The barrage of snide, inappropriate remarks flows freely from their lips every sitting day.
And here they are in this House using this issue of domestic violence for political gain. It is shameful. It is the most disgusting politicisation of an issue I have ever seen in this House.
The member for Nhulunbuy’s manner in this House would not be tolerated in workplaces outside of this Chamber. Coming into this House as a woman and claiming you cannot take what you so readily give is hypocritical and cries wolf. The links drawn by the opposition are pathetic and unparliamentary. You have no credibility on this issue and you are diminishing the equal footing that women have fought so hard to achieve. Playing the gender card is a dangerous hand to deal and you have undermined women today.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I support this censure motion.
I have listened very carefully to all the speakers today. Let us talk about this place a bit. Yesterday was a tough day at the office for all of us. I felt and experienced things I had not felt before. Granted, often in this place we put ourselves out there. We put ourselves in uncomfortable positions and ask some tough questions. Yesterday I asked a really tough question of the government. It was not one I asked lightly. It was one I felt had to be asked of the government.
We ask each other tough questions. We drive each other because we want to see good things happening in the Northern Territory. We have all signed up for this job because each and every one of us in our heart, in this place, in this Chamber, wants to see good things for the Northern Territory. I truly believe that. It can be really hard because, ideologically, many of us come from different perspectives. We come from different backgrounds, upbringings and experiences.
I do not think anybody felt good walking out of this place yesterday. From my perspective, I watched this place break down and I felt ashamed.
Yesterday I saw behaviour from some of the members that was aggressive. There were some physical aspects to it. It was a type of behaviour that shocked me. I walked out of the Chamber a few times, tried to digest it and saw the responses of other people around me and how taken aback they were. I felt horrified because I thought, ‘My goodness, have I become so complacent that I no longer react when I see that type of behaviour, more or less see it on the floor of parliament?’
It is a tough place. We ask each other some very tough questions and it can be incredibly uncomfortable. There is still a certain level of behaviour people expect. Yesterday that got pushed to a level that was not acceptable by the standards of most Territorians.
When I looked around and saw the response of my colleagues to what they had seen and heard I thought, ‘My goodness. How have I gotten to the point where I have become so used to this type of behaviour?’ I thought I would have to take a good hard look at myself here because how on Earth could we fight against violence, how are we meant to stand up for women and their families, if we do not make a stand for it ourselves in here?
I understand there is heat and passion in this place but there is a certain way in which we need to conduct ourselves. The way we were conducting ourselves here yesterday was not it. I was quite taken aback by it, but I am incredibly heartened by and proud of the strength I have seen from my colleagues who have said, ‘No, you have to stand up for this. Why on Earth are we in this job if we do not stand up when we see these types of wrongs?’
I am proud of their strength and courage, and the other women who have gone out today and stood side by side and said, ‘Enough. This is not to be tolerated, particularly in this place.’
I support this censure motion.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I guess I have the title of mother of the House, and the member for Nelson is father of the House. We came into parliament at the same time in 2001. We have seen a lot of passion and frustration, and robust and feisty debate. We have seen words thrown across the Chamber from members to each other, descriptive words. But I have to say, we cannot, as members of parliament, ever accept another member of parliament saying to someone across the Chamber, ‘I feel like slapping you right now, figuratively speaking’. That is not okay. That is a new low which has gone too far down, and enough is enough.
Member for Port Darwin, think about it. None of us, surely, would accept someone speaking to a woman like that. None of us would be okay if our daughter, wife, sister, mother or friend came home from their workplace and described that conversation. ‘I feel like slapping you right now, figuratively speaking’ is not okay. It is not the result of robust, fiery and passionate debate. It is violent, aggressive, intimidating and threatening language, which, by its nature, is abuse. It is not okay.
This morning in front of the media pack, you said you would not apologise. On radio you were not apologising and then you came in, after all that, and gave, at best, a disingenuous apology. When the perpetrator says sorry and thinks that excuses their actions, are we meant to accept that? As a society, in the laws we make, in the guidelines we issue and the oaths we swear to stop violence in our community, we do not accept it; yet you expect us to accept it here because you will throw accusations at us, accusations that blame the victim and promote hypocrisy.
If one of your colleagues had been spoken to in such a way you would, I hope, stand up and call the perpetrator to account. We are calling on you to do the right thing in this motion, Chief Minister. If your Attorney-General, the first law officer of the Territory, the Minister for Children and Families, and, importantly, the Leader of Government Business in this House – the person whose position, with the exception of Madam Speaker, is the most crucial to the orderly running of this House – can be excused by you, what have we descended to?
As to the other incidents, the shouting, the banging on the desk, the throwing down of the glasses, that was not okay. It was threatening, intimidating, bullying and aggressive behaviour. Enough is enough. I sincerely hope the member for Port Darwin understands he has gone too far. I sincerely hope he takes it upon himself to resign, go to the backbench and understand that there are genuine consequences of your actions. I truly hope that.
I am saddened to hear the contribution of members opposite – the blaming of the victim and the accusations. No, it is not that. I have spent my time as mother of the House on the backbench with my colleagues. I can sincerely say the women were not okay with the way they were treated yesterday. This is not a stunt or hypocrisy. This is genuine and we are saying it must stop. There must be consequences for this behaviour. It must stop.
I have seen colleagues genuinely and deeply upset. It is real. No opposition party lightly gives up a Question Time period. That is how serious this is and how deeply affected we have been by it. A shred of empathy or remorse would not have been a bridge too far, because we get how the ‘blame the victim’ scenario now feels.
Please think about this. Please choose to do the right thing. Please take up the commendable suggestion to make this an accredited White Ribbon Workplace. But please also take responsibility for your actions, member for Port Darwin. Resign and spend some time on the backbench as a consequence of you going far too far in workplace bullying and abuse.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I stand with the members for Nhulunbuy and Nightcliff and other female parliamentarians in this Chamber. This is a tough workplace. We know when we come in to parliament it is going to be a tough day at the office.
I remember a conversation with the member for Barkly where he had spent the morning before parliament at a radio station with some young people having a laugh. Then he thought, ‘I have to go to work now and when I go to work I will be abused’. That is what happens at work. It is not a good workplace sometimes. But there are lines. While we accept it is a tough place, there are lines, and that line was crossed yesterday in quite a significant way. It was crossed several times yesterday. Yesterday was not a good day for the NT parliament.
People expect us to be community leaders on an issue that is affecting the community broadly. They expect us to call these things out and set standards. One of the problems we have in this debate across the community is when people feel they can tell other people how they feel; they believe they can define for other people their emotions or how they should respond to things.
We need to understand the importance our behaviour can have to others. We need to understand there are lines in this community and when these debates occur, you cannot minimise what has happened to somebody else. You cannot take actions like slapping or punching a desk, and reduce them to the equivalent of mocking, as the Deputy Chief Minister did. You cannot say that someone else is ‘just thin-skinned’. That is clearly a reduction or a minimisation of what has occurred.
People expect more from their community leaders. They expect a response, for wrongs to be called out and for leaders to hold others to account, and for us to set the standard and lead the way. Instead today, in this Chamber, rather than setting a standard to deal with what is now a community problem, we have seen defence, excuse, minimisation, reduction, all the classic things we tell other people they should not accept when they have these debates or they stand up for themselves in the family home or workplace.
We are now seeing here in public debate the exact playing out of what is wrong with this community debate across the country – a debate about violence like this and violence against women. We have to make a stand. There was a line crossed in this Chamber yesterday. The female parliamentarians in this Chamber have taken that stand and I applaud them for it. I am very proud of what they have done and the courage it took to do it.
This morning before parliament started, I thanked my colleagues for how they responded to what I felt was an incredibly difficult day for them yesterday. I am even prouder today of how they responded to it. This is an incredibly serious issue. We take this issue seriously. We have foregone Question Time so this issue can be debated. We believe this is the biggest issue we are talking about now, and not just because of what happened in the Chamber yesterday. This is part of a pattern of behaviour from the government. It is about a debate that continues in this country, state to territory and nationally, about how men, in particular, behave towards women.
We have to set a standard. That is why we brought this censure motion, due to the appalling and aggressive behaviour towards parliamentarians in this Assembly, and the Chief Minister for losing control of the behaviour of his members of parliament. It is an important censure. Those are incredibly important points. The Chief Minister needs to show control of his side, to stand up and not be silent.
Importantly, the motion also says we will adopt the principles of the White Ribbon Workplace, and commence the accreditation process immediately. We want to take positive action. We will call out the poor behaviour and take positive action. This workplace needs to become a better place to go to work for all parliamentarians. If we adopt these principles, all parliamentarians will benefit.
We are calling out the actions of the Attorney-General and the silence of the Chief Minister and people in leadership positions. We are appalled by the defence from the Deputy Chief Minister, the man who wanted to be Chief Minister. We are calling them out and saying this workplace can be better, and we believe this White Ribbon Workplace process will lead to a better workplace. That is what we are talking about and standing up for today. I thank my colleagues. I thank the Independents for the stand they have taken on this issue that is plaguing this country.
Unfortunately, we saw this in our workplace yesterday. We know it is a tough place to go to work, but we have to always remember there is a line and that line was crossed yesterday. That is why we are taking this stand and moving the censure motion. That is why we are calling out the aggressive behaviour of the government, the actions of the Attorney-General and the silence of the Chief Minister. We are also saying there is a way forward, and we should adopt the principles of the White Ribbon Workplace.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is interesting the member for Nhulunbuy raises these allegations. How interesting she feels it is sexist, or unacceptable. Just last week, I stood up and delivered an adjournment speech, speaking about bullying and intimidation, and how fed up I am with it. A little self-reflection is needed. They say people should not throw stones in glass houses.
I am new at this game. I saw a lot of bullying and intimidation going on when we were all Country Liberals. It is ironic that these three women said how disgusted they were with the Minister for Children and Families saying the ‘slap’ word. It takes me back to March, Mr Deputy Speaker, when the International Women’s Day Forum was on, when the member for Namatjira accused you of calling her the ‘c’ word. I was so surprised the member for Araluen jumped in and supported her.
Mrs Lambley: You were not even there, Bess. How would you know?
Mrs PRICE: I was sitting across …
Ms Anderson: No, you were not
Mrs PRICE: … and knew you did not call her that name.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs PRICE: You will have your turn. I brought it up with her and said, ‘He did not say that word’, and the member for Araluen’s reply was, ‘I know he did not, but I do not like him because he does not like my husband’. I was threatened and bullied as well, not by a man, but by a woman.
The member for Namatjira, in one of the wing meetings, when she was angry with the member for Goyder, threatened her and said she would throw her out onto the balcony. She laughs because she did that.
Ms Anderson: I did not threaten people out on the community.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs PRICE: Here she goes again, the windscreen wiper of Central Australia. She did not support the ice legislation; she wants our kids to take ice and kill themselves.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 62: offensive. I do not think anyone wants people to take ice and die, so could the member withdraw that offensive remark?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, can you perhaps rephrase that and withdraw the remark which the members opposite feel was offensive?
Mrs PRICE: I felt bullied and intimidated as well when I stood here and spoke in a foreign language. It is not my first language. That is bullying to me.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, minister, but I ask that you withdraw that remark. It has been raised as a point of order.
Mrs PRICE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I did withdraw. The fact of the matter is English is my third language. I am different.
Ms Anderson: Stop using that as an excuse.
Mrs PRICE: She is the worst bully and here she goes again; that is bullying.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Namatjira!
Mrs PRICE: That is bullying. You always do that.
Ms Anderson: You speak English as well as anyone in this House. You are a failure to black people.
Mrs PRICE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 62; I would like her kicked out of this room.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Namatjira, the minister has requested that you withdraw those comments under Standing Order 62. I ask that you do so, please.
Ms ANDERSON: I withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind honourable members of Standing Order 66, which prohibits quarrels in the Chamber.
Mrs PRICE: Mr Deputy Speaker, the kind of reply she gave was intimidating as well. I want to remind people this is the kind of intimidation that goes on in this House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, let us just take a breath. This is a very sensitive subject; it is obviously very emotive and is striking a chord. All sorts of emotions are flying around; I understand that, and it will generate some sort of interjection, but can we please keep things in an orderly manner. I again remind members about Standing Order 66, no quarrels across the Chamber, let alone Standing Order 51, regarding interruption, which I know we are all aware of.
Mrs PRICE: I do not care for such banter. This is a serious place and we are are here for serious things.
The member for Nhulunbuy has continued to cast me as incompetent. She even told me I was weak. When her childish games are called out, she takes any advantage she can find. She is not standing up for women and girls; she is cynically exploiting the plight of women for political purposes.
Political point scoring is not appropriate and it is wrong to use violence against women as a tool to play political games. Yesterday the member for Nhulunbuy and the opposition decided to play political games with the Northern Territory’s epidemic, but we all see the impact. I do in my electorate, and even in Alice Springs. How interesting the member for Nhulunbuy had no questions about women’s policy at estimates. She showed no interest then.
I have the utmost respect for my colleagues and what they are doing for women in the Territory. We are leading the nation in the prevention of domestic and family violence. Minister Elferink and I have developed the nation’s most comprehensive integrated response to domestic violence. We were the first jurisdiction to sign up to the national plan to reduce domestic violence.
The Northern Territory Domestic and Family Violence Reduction Strategy 2014-17: Safety is Everyone’s Right is a comprehensive approach to tackling domestic violence. We have developed a policy framework for Northern Territory women with four key focus areas: women’s safety; health and wellbeing; economic security; and leadership and participation. Through the Office of Women’s Policy this government is supporting the plight of Territory women through many grants and sponsorships, supporting women in research, study and events that support women to participate to advance economic, social and civil rights. This annual grant funding is $40 000.
This government believes the rich diversity among Territory women and girls is worth celebrating. This government is committed to a strong society where everyone feels safe in the home, the workplace and communities. Additionally, we recently hosted a visit by Rosie Batty, the Australian of the Year. She was surprised to see how far the Territory was ahead compared to the rest of the nation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Chief Minister and the Treasurer have let minister Elferink and I get on with the job for Territory women, Territorians and the women of this place. I do not support this motion.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the opposition for bringing this motion forward. I support this motion. Unlike other people we do not have to read off notes, we can talk from the bottom of our hearts. I give credence to this House as to how we can rise above the ugliness that has been spread.
I will talk about my relationship with the member for Port Darwin before he became the member for Port Darwin. I do not think the member for Port Darwin is a bad person; he is a good human being. Through all the anxiety and matters that happen inside this House, all of us go beyond that threshold. We all know, on this side of the House, the amount of work one bloke on that side does. He is the Leader of Government Business, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Children and Families, and he has to keep this House in order.
I knew John a long time before I became a politician. He was the member for Macdonnell. I talk very highly of John as a local member, because he also represented me in Macdonnell. He was a good bloke. He came across accidents Aboriginal people had been involved in and he helped them. Apart from his kangaroo tails and cards and stuff like that, he is a genuinely good person.
We all make mistakes in this Chamber. We have all abused each other across this Chamber. I will go to the bloke who sits behind me, the member for Nelson, and what he said. I urge the Chief Minister and the Opposition Leader to sit down for an hour, or maybe half-an-hour at the beginning of every sittings. It does not have to be every day, just at the beginning of every sitting, to sort something out. Or when something happens, both of you get together straightaway.
Chief Minister, you would have noticed the animosity or the aggression yesterday. We all did on this side of the House. It is up to both of you to put out the flames and keep this House in order.
I am supporting this motion based on the fact that we, as members of this House, should not tolerate any form of violence. I know it gets heated inside this House – very heated. We call each other names and we put each other down. We have to rise above that. Territorians vote for us to give them a good quality of life, ease the cost of living, make sure the roads they travel on are fine, and the buses they catch are reliable. They want the economic opportunities we have in the Northern Territory. It is not in anyone’s interest for any of us to be putting each other down, but we should call out something wrong when we see it. That is the way we deal with problems, and find solutions for problems we identify. The Attorney-General is not a bad man; he is a good human being. Many Aboriginal people respect him. They respected him as the member for Macdonnell. When people pass away in my electorate, the first thing people say to me is, ‘Can you let John Elferink know that so and so passed away’. I do via text message. I text John and I say, ‘John, Auntie Elba passed away. Ruthie has asked me to inform you.’
It goes to show you that Aboriginal people still have respect for that man. But from our frustration, ugly things can happen. We have to call it out. I am supporting the motion. John, this is not a personal attack on you. It is about the higher end of stuff. We have got to get rid of this violence ourselves. How can we be talking and debating issues inside this Chamber about violence when we inflict it on each other. There are kids out there watching us all the time. We are supposed to be setting an example for these kids. Let us set the right example, let us get the ugliness out of this Chamber. Then the ugliness out there will stop. We are on opposite sides and we can have a robust debate but let us have it with common courtesy for each other as human beings and not be so ugly. We will transfer that ugliness to other people and other people watching. I support this motion but this is not a personal thing about you, John. You are a good human being and a good worker. I know for a fact Aboriginal people support you.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the censure motion put forward by the member for Nhulunbuy. I have listened with great intent to the debate on this very important issue this afternoon. This is not a political issue for me, not at all, not anymore. It was, but it is not anymore. I have extracted myself from the Country Liberal Party where I became very unhappy with a range of things. One of those things was how I felt I was being disrespected and mistreated by certain people within the parliamentary wing. I look across that side of the Chamber and am pleased to say that most of them are fabulous people. I have the greatest respect and the highest regard for almost each and every one of you. But there are people over there who made my life hell. I am on the public record as saying that and I do not need to say anything more.
I believe each of us has to operate from a value base. We have to operate from a value base which, usually for me – I cannot preach to other people but I suspect that many people share the same values as me, that is integrity and honesty, which basically are words synonymous with integrity and respect. As the member for Namatjira very clearly articulated, we all fail ourselves at times. I have called people different names at times. I called the Treasurer a sick puppy yesterday and I withdrew that immediately. That was not something I was proud of, but in the scheme of things it is probably quite a lame name to give him. Most of us at times walk out of here and feel quite disappointed about how we behaved and the things we said and did in the debates we participated in.
Today is about drawing a line in the sand; it certainly is for me. I have not enjoyed this week. I felt I was fairly treated aggressively by the Chief Minister on Tuesday, and by the Treasurer yesterday. I felt pretty miserable walking away from Parliament House yesterday after hearing what had happened between the Attorney-General and the member for Nightcliff. I was happy to stand earlier with a group of women, the Labor women and a contingent of Independent women, out the front of Parliament House to say, ‘Let us draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough’.
The most awful characteristic of this parliament is where unseemly behaviour is acceptable. People are quite damaged by that. You can become damaged by what happens in this place. There are people in this Chamber today who feel damaged as a result of what happened yesterday. I guess I have a thick skin these days and it takes quite a bit to knock me down to the floor. I have been there and done that; I am up again and I do not intend to go back down there soon.
What I would like to say is of a similar vein to what the member for Namatjira has just said. I think the Attorney-General, the member for Port Darwin, is a good human being, and he is a man I respect. Like me, he has some quirky, strange ways about him, but he is essentially a good man. However, what he said yesterday in this House was unacceptable, and I do not know how he will get out of this. You cannot have the chief law officer of the Northern Territory making a threat of that nature to a female politician. Unfortunately, John, you have crossed a line and I feel very sorry to be part of that sad event.
In closing, this is not a political issue for me. I do not care what quarter in this Chamber this behaviour comes from. It makes no difference to me. It did, but it does not anymore. I do not need to throw stones in any direction. I will never be part of a Cabinet again, unless there is a dreadful hung parliament or something radical happens at the next election and they have to invite Independents into Cabinet. There is nothing in it for me whatsoever, but to ask that we maintain a level of decency and all go away today and be reminded of our values and where we stand. We need to stick by our values and remind ourselves what those boundaries are because at the moment they are very blurred in this parliament.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not intend to speak for long. I want to put on the record my enormous respect for the member for Port Darwin. He and I have had a few tussles in the past. I say that figuratively speaking, but he is an honourable and decent human being. I cannot for the life of me imagine the member for Port Darwin ever being physically aggressive towards a woman or a man.
I am glad I am supported in those views by the members for Namatjira and Araluen. I think anybody who knows the member for Port Darwin knows his character, his commitment to the job and his extraordinary discipline in maintaining rectitude in what is quite a difficult environment to keep a cool head in.
Furthermore, my high regard extends to the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister, the members for Sanderson, Blain, Arafura, Daly and Brennan – all decent, 100% gentlemen. I have had a tussle with most of them, figuratively speaking. But this place is about debate and people need to understand why we come here, why we have some of the ornaments in this place we have, why that table is there, why the table is so wide. The width of the table is slightly more than two sword lengths wide. The idea is that someone sitting on one side of the table cannot stab the person on the other side of the table. It is there figuratively. It is there to remind us that this is a bloodless battle. In fact, they say politics is a bloodless war. We are at war, and that is the great strength of our parliamentary democracy in this country, that we come into this place and argue in the most robust way.
People often call this place coward’s castle because we have a thing called parliamentary privilege. You have to ask why we have parliamentary privilege. Fundamentally, it is about freedom of speech and the ability to express yourself without fear or favour, with the understanding that people will come here with open hearts and minds and say exactly what is on their minds. This is not a place where people walk around on eggshells worrying if they will offend people on the other side. This is a place where you have robust debate. It is the great strength of the Westminster system and Australia. It is the great strength of our parliamentary democracy that this behaviour is encouraged.
Politics is not the business of the meek. If you are a wilting violet, a political career is probably not for you. If you are a thin-skinned person who cannot take a little criticism, you really should not be in this place.
We have all said – and I am probably the worst offender – things that humiliate others. When you make those comments, your blood rises, your temper goes up, you become full of beans and you are ready to go.
Only last night I was talking about boxing on with the member for Nelson. Do people literally think that the member for Nelson and I will box? I have talked about the member for Johnston, about giving him a little clip on the way through. Does anybody think I have given him a little clip? We talk in reference to violence because this place is set up on the idea that we will have violent debate. That is the strength of the democracy and is something that, as parliamentarians, we should be proud of, not shirk from.
I am proud that we can come in here and call each other names. Ultimately, the more we do that and the tougher the debate gets, the better the outcomes. I love to sit at times and listen to the member for Nelson talk about consensus government, where there are no parties involved. You would not have a table in the middle like this and we would all sit around, hold hands, talk it over in a very nice way and come up with something. We have that system in Australia; it is called local government.
I do not know how many people would like this place to operate like Litchfield, Tiwi or Palmerston Council. That is the member for Nelson’s idea of consensus government; you do not have parties and everybody seemingly gets on. It is a fantastic aspiration, but is very difficult to achieve. It somewhat undermines the history and the strength of the parliamentary democracy we have in this country.
I am genuinely sorry if the members for Nightcliff and Nhulunbuy had their feelings hurt. I do not want them to feel hurt, but seriously! This is a storm in a teacup. This man here is an absolute gentleman. Anybody who does not think that does not know him. If you are looking for somebody to point out to say, ‘Oh, that guy is politically incorrect all the time and says the most offensive things’, that is me! I am the one in the parliament who does that. I cannot contain myself at times. I am from the old school where we were brought up to believe sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Calling me names is like water off a duck’s back. I do not get offended easily.
I do pride myself on the fact that I can take it. I can put it behind me. I have dignity within myself. I have strength and confidence in my abilities. I am not the sharpest tool in the box. I am not anything special. I am human, but at least I come here with confidence knowing there is nothing anyone can say that will hurt me. We have to get back to the business of governing.
This whole culture of victimhood is just getting beyond the pale. Everybody is striving to be a victim now. I watched, on YouTube, our Attorney-General and the comments he made. I cannot imagine a bigger storm in a teacup than that. Anybody who listened to the debate last night would know those comments were some of the most benign. Such is the nature of the man that he got up today and apologised for making those comments.
Clearly, he was so hurt that he had offended the members for Nhulunbuy and Nightcliff so much that he had to apologise. I would not have. I would have said, ‘Toughen up, princess! This is politics. This is a tough debate.’ This focus on the minutiae, these little slips of the tongue, devalues real issues in the community that we should be focusing on.
It devalues all of that. People need to understand why we are here. They need to look around the parliament. They need to understand what the mace is doing there, why the table is so wide, why we have parliamentary privilege. All those things have a reason. As I say, politics is not a game for the meek.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand why the members opposite have brought this forward. For the sake of the Parliamentary Record, there are certain things I would like to get on the record. I will go into the background of things.
I have often preached about the decorum and conduct of members because I am often concerned with how we diminish this place with our conduct. We have seen that in a number of ways. Some members will remember when Labor government members started making all sorts of suggestions in relation to my personal background. I am not going to visit them in detail, but that is the sort of thing when we had reached a nadir.
I am probably the only male member – I would even go out to say possibly the only member – who, when I did my Arts degree, studied feminist philosophy. I can tell you the difference between a radical, liberal or Marxist feminist, and do so in some detail. As a police officer over a number of years, I put the bodies of women killed by their husbands into body bags. Over those years, I formed some very deep impressions as to what occurs in our community. Part of the reason I got into the political domain is because I wanted to change that. I entered this House in 1997; I was the member for Macdonnell for eight years and continued to see many of the things that bothered me during those years. I campaigned for an interpreter service in the face of the then CLP government and, finally, they caved and gave us an Aboriginal Interpreter Service in the Northern Territory, because I believed it to be necessary, especially in relation to the protection of women.
Quite honestly, this burns. What is happening here today is cutting deep because I am affected by this. Upon becoming the Attorney-General, I set about convincing my Cabinet colleagues to spend millions of dollars on the Safety is Everyone’s Right domestic violence campaign. I have never in my life offered violence to any woman at all. I often think to myself, and my wife occasionally reminds me, what will your daughters think when they look at the Parliamentary Record? Do you want them to be proud of you? The answer is yes, I do want my daughters, my wife and my mum to be proud of me, and if my dad was alive today I would want him to be proud of me as well.
I was given the opportunity to protect women and children in our community, and I have done so passionately and earnestly since the day I entered this House. I thank the member for Namatjira, and some of the other members for acknowledging the work I have put into this Territory. I remind honourable members of Ms Walker’s comments on Tuesday in this House; she said:
- The minister knows best because he is an ex-policeman and he holds a law degree, and he has been served some of life’s challenges, which, to his credit, he has overcome. The minister is very passionate; there is no doubt about that. He is very passionate about his portfolios. He is a hard worker and, being the first law officer of the Northern Territory, there is no doubt he takes his role very seriously.
I do take my role very, very seriously.
Yes, there are times I get frustrated in this House; I wear my heart on my sleeve. There are times when I feel absolutely buoyant and there are other times when I feel less so. Now is one of those occasions. Last night I heard, as many other people did, a number of insults being thrown around this room. I spend many hours on my feet in the Chamber. What I did was use a term which has been often used in this House, but I used it in relation to the member for Nightcliff. The member for Nightcliff has been insulted. For that, I sincerely apologise.
I continue to work for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory, and will continue to. I will let the public decide. I hope, if they are served the facts, the comments from people like the member for Namatjira are incorporated into the public discussion because I want some balance in relation to this. This is a difficult topic for me and it is a difficult debate. Nevertheless, I have promised to serve the people, the children and the women of the Northern Territory, and I will continue to do so.
Am I perfect? Hell, no. Are there 100 things I have done that I want to undo? Absolutely. Are there a million things I have said that I would like to unsay? Yes, there are, not only in this House but in life. Unfortunately, I have a lot of moving parts, I suspect, and I live my life passionately. I am engaged with my life.
I love the work I do. I love serving the people of the Northern Territory. I have done it since the very first day I pulled on a police uniform at the age of 17. I am committed and passionate about the people of the Northern Territory. Yes, on this occasion I erred because I used a phrase which has been used many times in this House. If honourable members google the phrase ‘federal politics slap down’, page after page of the word is used in relation to political reporting around this country.
Nevertheless, in the modern, current context, that expression is no longer valid. That is clear from this debate today. For that reason, I apologise. I apologised this morning, and believe me, it is not a vacuous or hollow apology; it is very sincere. I do not like causing pain. But having made that observation, in pursuit of those things that are important, it is, nevertheless, important for me not to lose my courage or commitment.
The US Marine Corps works by the philosophy of honour, courage and commitment. That is what I try to do because they are noble values. They also have the motto Semper fidelis, which loosely translates from the Latin to be always faithful. I like the philosophy behind that as well.
Will I make mistakes? Yes, I make lots of mistakes. To every one of my public servants in the public service when they go to work I say, ‘Take a risk. Go out there and serve the people of the Northern Territory. Be the best you can possibly be, and when you screw up, I will back you. As long as you are on the right side of gross negligence or criminality, I will support you as the minister.’ I have done so time and time again, proudly, because a person acting in good faith is a person who should be encouraged. I believe most people in this Chamber act in good faith – not always – and we all make mistakes. I acknowledge I make those mistakes like everybody else. But I am still on my quest. I am still committed to the people of the Northern Territory and I will do so with all the passion, drive and energy I can bring to the job.
I will stand judged by the people of the Northern Territory at the next Territory election, and like all politicians I will accept their judgment. I am not happy about today. I will take this opportunity to reflect upon the things said and done in this place. But having made that observation, as this debate passes into the annals of history in this House, old habits will be resurrected; old behaviours will become new again. I, for one, will commit to trying to restrain myself and not go down that path.
Having made that observation, if this is what the members of this House are calling for, I will also do what I have to do as Leader of Government Business to hold those members to account. I will not be afraid. I will not be cowed in my pursuit of things that are important. I will push through this mistake and I will push on. I will do it showing respect to the people who are around me, as I have always done. I have said on a number of occasions that I always try to show respect. It is time for us to set a course forward to serve the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 12 Noes 12
Ms Anderson Mr Barrett
Ms Fyles Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mrs Lambley Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms Lee Mr Giles
Mr McCarthy Mr Higgins
Ms Manison Mr Kurrupuwu
Ms Moss Mrs Price
Ms Purick Mr Styles
Mr Vowles Mr Tollner
Ms Walker Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Note Statement – Fisheries’ Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HIGGINS (Sport and Recreation): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a terrific statement. I encouraged it a lot over the last 17 years or so. I have had a lot to do with the Wangamaty Landcare Group in the Malak Malak ranges on the Daly River.
We have heard a lot about rangers on the coast, and I want to add to some of the inland ones, specifically in the upper Daly and the Malak Malak ranges. One of the things you see in the ranger program – which the minister has addressed in his statement – is how the Daly River is unique, since it is the only river in the Northern Territory with a land claim on the river bank. This section of river is very similar to the coast where you have Aboriginal title.
For a group of people like the Malak Malaks to own such an extent of a river like the Daly makes it very hard to look at jobs around that facility. I see the ranger program as opening up a hell of a lot of opportunities for them. I am not just talking about jobs as rangers; you need to look at other economic opportunities.
When you look at some of the training given to these rangers like getting licensing for boats or coxswain licences – many of the Daly rangers have had this training. Quite often this training gives people piloting the boats on the rivers more skills and qualifications than just about every amateur fisherman in the Northern Territory.
It gives these rangers an opportunity. If they then want to set up their own small business, they can. One of the great opportunities they have – once they get confidence in boat handling and get their coxswain licences – is to do things like guided fishing. Many people in the Territory make a lot of money out of guided fishing. These are people who usually come from somewhere other than the Daly. Often at the Daly you will see people from interstate. This is one of the reasons I have pushed to ensure we have a good ranger program on the Daly River.
With this program we are getting fantastic support from Fisheries and the water police. One of the questions I have often asked Fisheries and the water police is why these rangers are unable to do some sort of compliance checking. I am not necessarily talking about enforcement, but I note the minister mentioned compliance and enforcement in his speech. Initially, I was simply talking about compliance. One of the things that was obvious to me was how water police would inspect things like the cherabin pots.
There are simple little rules. We are paying police officers full salaries and they are highly paid. They were going up and down the river and pulling cherabin pots to make sure they were the right size and had names on them. To me, that would be a simple task to pass over to the rangers and would achieve protection of our fish stocks. I am talking about the cherabin stocks as well
The other thing we get out of these rangers is their monitoring of things. They are up and down the river every day or a couple of days a week, whereas most of the other people there are tourists who might go up and down the river once or twice a year, or have their favourite spot and off they go. The rangers are very good at spotting changes and can pick up many things, like mimosa.
One of the other things they pointed out to me at the Daly is wild cotton. I do not know if people can remember, but there was some cotton grown around Dorisvale, I think – the minister for Primary Industry might remember – many years ago. There are some outcrops of cotton downstream. There is a benefit from having people going up and down the river continually.
I used to be the unit officer with Emergency Services on the Daly. One of the problems we always had was fishermen would go down – I am not picking on fishermen, do not get me wrong – when the river was up. They would misjudge their fuel and run out. We would get phone calls to say someone had not come back and we would have to look for them. I do not know whether people want to go up and down a river peaking at levels of 12 m in the middle of the night when it is pitch black and you are the only ones there. It is good to know that when you go there you can take a second or even third boat so that if something goes wrong, you have someone to help you. It is something that can be picked up.
I raised one thing with the Wadeye Thamarrurr Rangers. They have a lot of trouble getting sea rescue people to work with NTES there. Again, people are a bit sceptical about working with the police in a community like Wadeye. I am not picking on the police. I am saying there are a lot of Indigenous people who will not work with the police in that situation. To get the rangers to do some of this rescue work, as opposed to NTES, as part of the police is a great opportunity. Not only are you getting them looking for nets and illegal fisherman, spotting and reporting them, but you also have this opportunity when fishermen disappear and do not come back. There are many more people getting to places like Wadeye who will travel from Darwin to the coast so they are not driving through Indigenous land. More of those bigger boats are getting there, so this demand is going to be greater.
The Thamarrurr Rangers found the big whale bones. If people go to Wadeye and have a look, they will see that they are spectacular.
I wanted to add these few comments to the statement. It is a terrific statement and the ranger programs are fantastic in every way. They protect the environment, they help the safety of fishermen, they protect our ecosystems, and they create jobs, as well as create small business opportunities for local Indigenous people.
I commend the statement to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement, which is very important. I have been reading it in conjunction with the Indigenous Fisheries Development Strategy 2012-14 and I note that it has a section called Aquatic Resource Management. From what I hear and read of the minister’s statement, it is going down the path of what is being set out as the strategy. There might be a couple of issues that may need working on, for instance, regular consultation with communities on fisheries management issues. I am interested to see how that is going. There is a part here called ‘A review and update of the definition of customary fishing in the Fisheries Act’, so it would be good to see how that fits with the government’s fisheries development strategy.
There may be an opportunity later to talk about the economic development side of this. This is more a strategy for the protection of the fishing environment and a discussion about the benefits of having a ranger program. I made a couple of notes. I raise the same issue when governments say that it is employing X number of Aboriginal people in jobs. That is great, but how many of those people are staying in those jobs? I always asked with the old SIHIP program, we have had 300 people working on it, how many of them worked for more than six months? How many of them worked for 12 months? How many have been in since it started? Is it the sort of work Aboriginal people are not only wanting to join up to but actually stay in? I am interested to know if it has long-term benefits – the benefits we all hope to see when it comes to jobs.
I am also interested in how compliance works. We have water police and Fisheries officers and now we have marine rangers. It mentions that you are trying to give Aboriginal rangers more opportunities by empowering them. You say the Fisheries Act is currently being amended to accommodate increased fisheries compliance and enforcement powers for marine rangers. These changes will allow appropriately qualified and experienced marine rangers to be provided with fisheries compliance and enforcement powers. I wonder if some of these people could join the water police. I imagine Fisheries rangers are looking at whether you have the right catch, nets or safety equipment. Is a pathway for Indigenous people to become water police similar to the path the police have in their ATPO system? Is there an avenue where these people could become water police if their education is sufficient, because water police have a different role to marine rangers and fishing officers?
I see possibilities and wonder whether there is any sort of connection between them. It is great that people are getting more responsibility handed over to them. It is good the government is now expanding the program. In the mouth of the Daly area there are still issues regarding the Blue Mud Bay agreement. It will be a while before that is sorted. It needs a firm decision on a certain matter from the Northern Land Council, which seems reluctant to make a decision about traditional ownership, but we will not get into that today.
That is where it falls down to some extent because there are rangers but they are regarded as marine rangers. That also begs the question, if we have wildlife rangers working on the coast and marine rangers working offshore, how do they work together? At the mouth of the Daly there are issues. As you know, there are weeds, mimosa and litter along the beaches. There can be nets. There are fishing tours that go to the Peron Islands, so you have land-based and marine-based issues.
I wonder if there is talk about how the two groups of rangers are interconnected and whether they should come under your department or conservation as a whole. The department has rangers and I wonder if we can work more in cooperation with the department of conservation.
I see many things happening. How can we focus to make sure they all run efficiently so there are no wasted resources and there is an overarching controller to make sure all these programs do what the government wants them to do? I am not putting that as a negative; I am simply asking the question because you are dealing with programs that are out bush and there is a lot of money involved with running boats along the coast. It is not a cheap operation.
Besides all that, I appreciate this statement. It is a good statement and this is the way to go. It empowers Aboriginal people to look after their own country.
Mrs PRICE (Parks and Wildlife): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am so proud to hear about the great work the Northern Territory Fisheries’ Indigenous Community Marine Rangers are doing. As many of you are aware, I have much respect and admiration for Territory rangers.
Today is an opportunity to acknowledge the hard work and difficult circumstances rangers experience on a daily basis so the Territory community and its visitors can experience and enjoy our protected areas now and in the future. I admire the passion of the Territory’s Indigenous rangers, their drive and dedication to our natural places, and their willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty to ensure our natural environment is protected and preserved for the future. Many of our Indigenous ranger groups carry out land and sea management for important natural and cultural values, which sustain the local people in the area and play an important role in coastline biosecurity.
I was fortunate to host the 2015 Northern Territory Ranger Awards, where I was able to present awards to many Indigenous rangers. I was excited to learn about the ranger’s experiences, such as the expertise Mrs Christine Michaels-Ellis has developed over many years of tracking feral cats in the Tanami Desert. What makes her story exceptional is that she juggles full-time employment and four children, and has become an outstanding role model for other young women in her community. Mrs Michaels-Ellis was the winner of the Ranger of the Year for Barkly, Katherine and the Victoria Daly Region.
Also, Mr Shaun Evans consistently and expertly performs to the highest standards, balancing the demands of his role within the Parks and Wildlife Commission with his cultural responsibilities. Mr Evans is particularly priceless in joint management forums, where his standing in the wider community enables him to convey the messages in a clear and concise manner to the traditional owners from a position of trust and respect. Mr Evans won the Minister’s Award for Outstanding Personal Achievement 2015.
From these two examples it is easy to see why government is so committed to enhancing all Indigenous ranger programs across the Territory. I am so proud my government was able to host the 2015 Northern Territory Ranger Awards to recognise the hard work of these Indigenous rangers, and all our rangers across the Territory.
I would also like to outline some of the various activities and programs this government provides to support Indigenous ranger employment and development through the Parks and Wildlife Commission. This government developed an Indigenous employment strategy for its Parks and Wildlife staff. Given the intimate knowledge of local Indigenous Territorians of our remote areas, it certainly makes sense.
A key initiative of this strategy is to continue the progression of Indigenous staff with a view to achieving proportional representation of Indigenous employees across all levels and streams within the organisation. It is also a commitment to provide opportunities for training, capacity building and professional development. Through this strategy, the Country Liberals government is committed to creating jobs in our regions and breaking the cycle of welfare dependency that has been crippling our communities.
The Parks and Wildlife Commission is also committed to delivering Indigenous, flexible employment programs, which is an initiative that provides Indigenous joint management partners, their families or other regionally connected Indigenous people with the opportunity to be involved in park management programs on a casual basis. The program offers short-term work and projects within parks and reserves, and is an important way in which people from remote and urban communities can learn about and contribute to park management, develop skills and receive wages. Since the program commenced in December 2014, 30 Indigenous people have worked alongside rangers in 16 parks and reserves across Central and northern Australia.
The benefits of the 2014-15 program are wide reaching. Participants get to go on country, develop working relationships and team skills, improve parks and reserves for the enjoyment of visitors, and deliver conservation outcomes. Work at Watarrka National Park involves weed control, general ranger patrols, visitor infrastructure maintenance and rabbit warren control inside the Mala enclosure. At the Alice Springs Telegraph Station, Simpsons Gap and Rainbow Valley participants did intensive buffel grass control, following heavy rainfall floodgate repairs and track maintenance, and assisted rangers with patrols.
Northern Australian parks’ flexible employment programs conducted walking track maintenance at Barranyi National Park and the Caranbirini Conservation Reserve, and did four-wheel drive track openings and weed management at Judbarra Gregory National Park and Flora River National Park.
One flexible employment program participant was successful in applying for a full-time traineeship at Judbarra Gregory National Park and is now enrolled in a Certificate III in Conservation and Land Management with Charles Darwin University. Another flexible employment program participant was assessed as meeting the selection criteria for the position.
Successfully completing a traineeship is a pathway to a T1 Ranger position. At Keep River, Nitmiluk, Mary River and Adelaide River National Parks, flexible employment programs participants do fencing, weed control and walking track maintenance, as well as general maintenance and patrols. Our government acknowledged local Larrakia Nation rangers’ aspiration to work in parks. The Parks and Wildlife Commission provided six weeks of employment for two Larrakia rangers. The skills and knowledge gained through this employment goes towards improving their ability to gain permanent employment as Territory rangers.
This financial year our Country Liberals government has allocated $200 000 for the flexible employment program. In Central Australia all 19 flexible employment program participants had their contracts renewed for a further 12 months from 20 June this year, as this will give them the opportunity to build on their skills and knowledge from previous projects.
Several casual positions will be advertised shortly for a range of new projects in the northern Australian parks, with previous participants also having the opportunity to apply.
Central Australia flexible employment program work planning for this year has identified projects at Finke Gorge, Simpsons Gap, Owen Springs, Ormiston Gorge and West Macdonnell. Projects will include weed control, assisting with prescribed burning, visitor infrastructure maintenance, walking track maintenance, fauna surveys and fencing maintenance.
Northern Australian parks’ flexible employment program work planning for this year has identified projects at Adelaide River, Mary River, Judbarra, Elsey, Borroloola and Nitmiluk. Projects will include weed control, visitor infrastructure maintenance, general maintenance, cave mapping surveys, four-wheel drive track openings, fire management, fence maintenance, assisting with cultural heritage programs through maintenance of sites and tree planting regeneration works.
This direct employment program prepares participants for transition to full-time ranger employment. This is all part of our government’s commitment to provide jobs and opportunities for Indigenous people and communities.
Another initiative is the Territory Parks Alive program where the Parks and Wildlife Commission is currently seeking interest from Indigenous people to perform group tours and presentations relating to cultural and art interpretation. It is envisaged that this program may develop into a paid program for Indigenous rangers.
The Giles government, through the Parks and Wildlife Commission, will continue to create opportunities for employment and community development for Indigenous rangers. The Country Liberals government is committed to empowering Indigenous rangers to manage and protect their own environment, creating jobs and economic growth within communities. I could not be more proud to be part of a government that is driving important life-changing Indigenous ranger programs.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House and the opportunity to talk on what is an innovative and exciting program in the Northern Territory. It is a program that represents Indigenous people and is acknowledged and celebrated by both sides of government, both federally and at a Territory level. It is good to hear updates.
The minister has once again given us an update on what Indigenous rangers throughout the Northern Territory are doing. I enjoy the opportunity to speak, not only on behalf of the Indigenous ranger programs in the Gulf country operating out of Borroloola, but also in the sense of challenging the debate. We have heard a lot from speakers about what is. I want to take the debate to what it could be.
The minister is very privileged to have the levers of government to drive this. We have heard various government members speak about what is happening. Let us look at some of the realities in difficult fiscal times and reflect on a very definitive period in the federal arena. That is when the Liberal National Coalition got in. The first budget was framed around massive cuts. They were defined, essentially, as a first rounder. Some $500m was cut out of Indigenous spending. The Indigenous ranger programs featured in those cuts. It was a scary time. I was watching it closely. I was liaising with people who I have known for a long time in Borroloola and trying to gauge how this would impact on the sea rangers there.
Minister Scullion alarmed me even further when he defined ranger programs as green welfare. It was great to see how the length and breadth of the country jumped on that immediately and seriously influenced the minister’s outlook. This is a good, innovative and exciting program that needs to be developed. Minister Scullion had no choice. Also he had to deliver cuts the Prime Minister at that time, Mr Abbott, demanded.
I was privileged to talk to some Commonwealth public servants who work in this area. They influenced me so I became thoroughly convinced this was and is a great and innovative area. It should have survived any of the budget cuts that were under way.
In terms of the future, I encourage the minister to consider the partnerships model. Let us think about Customs, Defence and Immigration. These are significant budgets in the federal arena. They are significant organisations, and partnering with the Indigenous people of Australia, the first Australians, to harness their knowledge and capacity to live and work in regional and remote areas is a strong idea. It will also deliver those mainstream outcomes talked about in this House: jobs and prosperity.
I really encourage the minister to check this. In terms of robust debates in this House and their competitive nature, do not worry; I have a plan, and my plan is to be on that side of the House. If I ever get access to those resources again, l am heading down this road because I want our federal counterparts to look at the areas of Customs, Defence and Immigration, using Australia’s first people to be a new and dynamic element in the delivery of services in a new and dynamic way.
The previous Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, framed a policy that he would spend time in an Indigenous community each year. The first one was Yirrkala in northeast Arnhem and, most recently, in the Torres Strait and on the Cape York Peninsula. No doubt this senior politician saw the first Australians, the Indigenous Australians and the Torres Strait Islander people, operating on country and the opportunities for fusing those operations with the delivery of Customs, Defence and Immigration services to our great nation. No doubt he witnessed and could understand that. It is important that our Northern Territory Senators, Nigel Scullion, and our Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries reinforce that.
As the Chief Minister said, he will be contacting new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Please make sure that Indigenous rangers are part of the literature. This guy is a smart business man. He is slick with fiscal operations and he may see the opportunities there.
Sell him the great Territory story of the Nacaroos in the defence of northern Australia. Tell him the story and let him research how the Indigenous people of Australia were included in a critical front line of defence that represented people reporting on country, movements, and operating in partnership with Australian Defence. The sad part of that story is that hardly any were recognised, even fewer were paid and, to this day, there are surviving members in the Barkly electorate who can tell the story of working on the front line in the defence of northern Australia and never being recognised with medals or money.
This is an important historical story that I believe can fuse into the development of Northern Australia. If we are looking for innovation in Indigenous sea and land rangers, let us do that through the development of Northern Australia. We need important fiscal input that can only come if we want to shift a gear and move this into a new regime by the federal government.
In regard to the operations of marine rangers, the minister did not talk about the expenses, but most people who are familiar with operating on country and in marine environments around the Northern Territory would know this a very expensive business. Those who have had the privilege to visit marine ranger groups and look at their operations would understand, from their advice and briefing, this is a very expensive business. We can cut it short and talk about the operations of a 150 hp mariner outboard motor and you will get a picture of how expensive that is. We need a new revenue stream, if we are going to realise the full potential of this opportunity.
We can talk about the outcomes of protecting our country, or about the outcomes of Defence and Immigration partnerships, but there is a running abstract in this, which is the empowerment and engagement of Indigenous Australians in promoting and using their research and science. These elements have come through, in a mainstream sense, in the minister’s statement talking about what we already know. I am trying to influence the minister’s thinking about where we could go.
We have a Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory with extremely tight fiscal lines. We could use our scientists and curators in this partnership model. There are things we can do to demonstrate our intelligence and creativity, and show the federal government where we could take this.
I have always talked of the home front and the Borroloola Sea Rangers, about the possibilities of linking youth to them. For those who have had the privilege of working with youth at risk, you know it is a very difficult job. It is difficult to motivate youth and sustain engagement. A ranger program holds the X factor you need. Sea ranger programs, in particular, have the opportunity of engaging youth at risk from regional and remote communities, working with significant adults in delivering real employment outcomes not only in Borroloola, but across northern Australia. With the opportunities of a new revenue stream, we can also fuse these opportunities, getting kids out of dysfunctional homes, out of high pressure cooker regional and remote communities, getting them on country with significant adults as role models, participating in this work and delivering these services.
There are many training organisations that are throwing money at this. If you have the X factor, though, then you have a real outcome. If you have the big, wide, dangerous world as your classroom, you have to jump ahead in this game. If you have kids on country as opposed to banged up in classrooms being trained in the traditional to employment sense, then you have a serious jump in this business.
Borroloola was a good example. Recently, I was able to attend the handover of Batton Point to the traditional groups representing the Indigenous Protected Areas policy. The handback drew people from the Mala and the Yanyua, from the Garawa and from the Gudanji. It brought people together in a celebration, not only celebrating country and handback, but also celebrating future opportunities.
The marine rangers have set up a base there. It is working with Fisheries and water police, and managing tourism. It has the potential to do a lot of cultural management and innovative things with language and culture. It represents a very powerful statement for the future.
The fiscal stream we need is a significant investment from the federal government. Let us try to wind this into the developing northern Australia debate. Let us take a bit of a step outside the traditional pitch and talk about this X factor. Let us try to sell these politicians from mainstream Australia who, let us face it, are totally focused on 85% of the country’s population living on the eastern and the southeastern coast, on what could be a significant change in outcomes for first Australians, the Indigenous Australians.
There are many opportunities, minister. I encourage you to think, innovate and use your resources. It was good to hear the member for Stuart reading a prepared speech; it reminded me of great times. Oh, the love of prepared speeches by a ministerial office. They are great people and prepare great work. They represent significant resources that can fire off media releases and get them into Canberra offices. This could be followed up by ministers visiting Canberra to try to change the thinking of the politicians. I am sure with this you would have bipartisan support from this parliament.
In context, it is going from, let us say, a reactive policy of managing existing services and partnerships to pushing that boundary to a proactive sense of cementing these opportunities into the narrative of developing northern Australia.
It will be exciting work. I hope we can see some movements on this front. The Indigenous Advisory Council has been set up to advise our Prime Minister. Cabinet will be interesting to watch, as the new Prime Minister defines his policies and where he sits with Indigenous affairs.
The Indigenous Advisory Council is another resource. I have tried to influence that resource personally and politically. I was very privileged to be able to talk to Mr Mundine briefly at a regional conference in Alice Springs about Australian regional development. We have opportunities here, and need to maximise them. There is also very important ongoing work that needs to be maintained and sustained. With the recent visit of the Labor Caucus to Groote Eylandt, it was great to visit a marine ranger base and hear about their work and outcomes, particularly about the conservation and management of pristine ecosystems.
We really need to address concerns about financial sustainability, the replacement of expensive assets and the funding to get participants onto country and complete their tasks. There is the opportunity with good bipartisanship, creative thinking and the federal government to develop these ideas into programs.
Thanks again for bringing this statement to the House. It is good to be able to talk about opportunities, but I would also like to really challenge the members of this House to never forget what could be.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all members of the House who contributed to the debate on this statement. I can reassure people in the House that the marine ranger program is something I am passionate about and interested in. It is something our government is supporting demonstrably not only through the funding initiatives, but also, as the member for Barkly put it, proactively.
It is not about just being reactive. That is why, over the course of the last 12 months or so, we have developed the Certificate II in Fisheries Compliance for marine rangers. The work currently being done is to develop a Certificate III course to further enhance the skills and knowledge of marine rangers, so they can be far more useful and capable. They will be able to do many of the things along the coastline, and in our rivers and waterways, that we would like to see them do.
That includes not only compliance work with fisheries, but, as I mentioned earlier in the statement, scientific research. It is great to say to the parliament and people of the Northern Territory that we have moved to a fee-for-service model which helps to support the marine rangers in their work
It is not a case of government constantly sticking its hand in its pocket to bring out money to support a program such as this. We are developing this program so it can be more self-sustaining than it has been in the past. This is something quite new and has happened in the term of our government.
We are being very proactive with this. It is important we get some real, demonstrable runs on the board in sustainability for funding for these programs, but also for the jobs they will bring.
I want to address quickly a couple of things the member for Nelson raised, which is about rangers moving towards police.
The certificate courses will articulate into other things, not necessarily into becoming a police officer. As the member for Nelson pointed out, water police are sworn-in police officers. There is a huge amount of training they need to go through, but it may well provide some RPL, recognised prior learning, for rangers to make a leap from being a ranger into the police force, if they so choose.
I am very pleased to get support from the Independent and opposition members about marine rangers. I am delighted they made their contributions in the way they have. I look forward to reporting on the success of the marine ranger program into the future.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
TABLED PAPERS
Joint Management Plans for Parks and Reserves
Joint Management Plans for Parks and Reserves
Mrs PRICE (Parks and Wildlife): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is my pleasure to lay before the House today joint management plans for three parks and reserves in Central Australia: Iytwelepenty/Davenport Ranges National Park; Yeperenye/Emily and Jessie Gaps Nature Park; and Napwerte/Ewaninga Rock Carvings Conversation Reserves. These plans are milestones in the management of these parks, and the Country Liberal government is proud to announce they are the first joint management plans for each. These joint management plans have been developed in collaboration with the traditional owners and the Parks and Wildlife Commission, with input from the Central Land Council, government agencies and community and stakeholder groups.
Following public comment on the draft plans, no significant issues were raised and only minor amendments were required. The management of these parks will be guided by the process and outcomes set out in these joint management plans. Visitors will be able to enjoy each of the parks’ unique characters and experience them as they could before, with the parks continuing to be managed for their natural, cultural and visitor values, although with an added Aboriginal cultural benefit.
I will now summarise each park and its plan in turn. Iytwelepenty/Davenport Ranges National Park is about 150 km southeast of Tennant Creek. The park covers about 1200 km2. It is a landscape of rocky hills with rugged gorges, broad valleys and rivers that usually run in summer, filling the park’s large waterholes. This is a great park for four-wheel drive adventurers to go bush. The plan promotes the park as a four-wheel drive destination. Camping beside permanent waterholes is this park’s hallmark experience – the policemen’s waterhole. A new track through the centre of the park has been approved and will enable better management of the park’s natural and cultural values, as well as provide a new four-wheel drive experience for visitors.
The park has significant conservation value. For a semi-arid area, it conserves remarkable biodiversity, including seven fish species. The park also protects eight species, including one frog species, one lizard species and six plant species, that are not protected in any other park or reserve in the Northern Territory.
Managing the environmental threats of wildfire, weeds and feral animals, such as donkeys, is management-prioritised as defined by this plan. The park incudes the rich, living, cultural landscapes of Alyawarr, Wakaya, Kaytetye and Warumungu traditional owners. It is an important and popular area which supports many sites that are still tended by traditional owners. Traditional ceremonial activities continue to sustain the country, and traditional ecological knowledge can contribute to park management, particularly fire management.
The park also contains heritage sites including relics and evidence of the early mining and pastoral history of the area. The plan supports conservation of the area’s historic heritage and Aboriginal owners maintaining their cultural traditions.
Yeperenye/Emily and Jessie Gaps Nature Park lies right on Alice Springs’ doorstep. From Heavitree Gap stretching 15 km east, the park presents a typical Central Australian landscape where visitors can walk along a sandy river bed surrounded by glowing red ancient rock formations contrasted against blue skies. The entire park is a registered sacred site representing the Yeperenye caterpillar creation story, one of the most significant Aboriginal creation stories for the Alice Springs region.
Rock art in Emily and Jessie Gaps is amongst the most spectacular examples of accessible Aboriginal rock art in Central Australia. The rock art is spiritually significant for the Arrernte and the stories associated with it are sacred. The rock art gives visitors an excellent opportunity to connect with Aboriginal culture in close proximity to Alice Springs.
The 1200 ha nature park also protects the habitat of two species of land snail found nowhere else, and a suite of plants that are valued by the traditional owners for their food and medicinal properties.
Through the joint management plan, the precious rock art and vegetation of cultural and ecological significance will be protected. Visitors will continue to enjoy a short walk, beautiful natural gorges and appreciation of the ancient and living culture of the Arrernte people.
Napwerte/Ewaninga Rock Carvings Conservation Reserve is also a registered sacred site of great significance to Arrernte people, and the Arrernte men especially. The reserve has over 1000 rock carvings and is one of 10 rock engraving sites in Central Australia. Of these, this is the most accessible from Alice Springs, being located only 20 minutes south. The joint management plan gives focus to protecting the rock carvings from harm and interpreting the cultural heritage of the site to visitors. As for each of these parks, the joint management plan places importance on the partnership to be forged and maintained between the traditional owners and the Parks and Wildlife Commission. Each of these parks will be enhanced by the connection of traditional owners with their country, adding richness to the landscape and to visitors’ experiences. Traditional owners have strong links to all three of the parks and their sacred sites.
The tabling of the three joint management plans in the Legislative Assembly is supported by the relevant traditional owners and the Central Land Council. The plans spell out a bright future for the parks and reserves, and everyone who has an interest in them. I am confident the public and this Assembly will welcome the future for these parks as outlined in these joint management plans.
I table these joint management plans for consideration by the Legislative Assembly.
Environment Protection Authority Waste Management Strategy for the Northern Territory 2015-22
Mr HIGGINS (Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to table the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Waste Management Strategy for the Northern Territory 2015-22, called The Strategy. The Strategy has been provided to me by the Chair of the NTEPA, Dr Bill Freeland, under section 3 of the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Act.
The Strategy provides a basis for understanding and improving the management of waste across the Northern Territory. It provides an overarching summary of the waste management issues currently being faced in the Territory and presents opportunities to improve waste practices. The Strategy incorporates advice from the Waste Management Advisory Committee formed for this purpose, the Waste Recycling Industry Association NT and other key stakeholders.
In its draft form, The Strategy was subject to a community consultation phase from 10 November 2014 until 5 December 2014. The final strategy incorporates comments from public consultation, NTEPA members and the Waste Management Advisory Committee.
The Strategy proposes 41 management actions to be driven by the NTEPA with the support and involvement of various industries, government agencies, local government and community interests. The actions proposed by the NTEPA will improve the outcomes of waste management in the Territory with particular regard to education, waste handling, data management, regulation and accountability.
The key actions to be taken by the NTEPA include but are not limited to: reduce waste generation and increase resource recovery; bring Territory landfills towards best practice waste management; ensure future waste management requirements are considered at the development planning stage; plan and prepare for the waste that may result from natural or environmental disasters; and improve waste data collection and monitoring and analysis.
If there are future measures that could be taken to reduce waste generation and minimise the impacts of waste disposal in the future, I am more than happy to consider them. Consistent with my obligations under the NTEPA Act, I will formally respond to the NTEPA over the coming months. I welcome this strategy from the NTEPA and the valuable contribution it makes to the discourse of a challenging and widespread problem. The NTEPA will make this strategy available from its website www.NTEPA.nt.gov.au.
I thank the members of the Waste Management Advisory Committee, whose time and expertise has been of great assistance in developing this strategy. Thank you.
Travel Report for Member for Nhulunbhuy
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I table a travel report from the member for Nhulunbuy in accordance with clause 4.1 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
It gives me great pleasure to inform the House that the current Northern Territory government Chief Executive of Health, Dr Len Notaras AM, has been awarded the Sidney Sax medal by the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association at a presentation dinner on Tuesday evening. This award is an acknowledgement of Professor Notaras’ significant commitment to health, and disaster and emergency preparedness and response. The Sidney Sax medal is awarded to an individual who has made an outstanding contribution to the development and improvement of the Australian government healthcare system in the field of health services, policy, organisation, delivery and research. Professor Notaras is a very worthy recipient of the medal through his work to address the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health issues of the Northern Territory, his management of the disaster response to the Bali bombings and his role in establishing the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre in Darwin.
In his position at the Royal Darwin Hospital, Professor Notaras coordinated the treatment of dozens of injured victims in the 2002 and 2005 bombings, many of whom arrived at the hospital in critical condition. His vision and drive was central to the establishment of the NCCTRC in Darwin which, under his leadership, deployed response teams to the Ashmore Reef SIEV 36 boat explosion, and the devastating 2010 floods in Pakistan where the NCCTRC treated more than 11 000 people.
Professor Notaras also arranged the transport for treatment of former East Timor president Jos Ramos Horta after he was shot in an attempted assassination in February 2008. Professor Notaras was made a member of the Order of Australia in 2003 and in 2005. Professor Notaras was presented with the prestigious Best Individual Contribution to Healthcare in Australia Award during the AMA national conference.
In 2008, Dr Notaras received an honorary doctorate in science from the Charles Darwin University in recognition of his contribution to the medical field in the Northern Territory. Last month, South Australia’s Flinders University awarded Professor Notaras the title of professorial fellow with the faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Science to acknowledge Professor Notaras’ outstanding contribution to leadership, healthcare delivery and medical education.
Professor Notaras played an instrumental role in the establishment of the Northern Territory Clinical School in 1998 and has continued to advocate for medical education in the Northern Territory. His vision for a full NT medical school to serve the needs of Territorians resulted in the establishment of the Northern Territory medical program, which was recently commended as an outstanding example of socially accountable medical education by the Australian medical council.
He was also instrumental in the establishment of the Northern Territory Pharmacy School. Professor Notaras was a long-time member of the Northern Territory Medical Board and a former Chair of the Northern Territory Radiographers Board, the Optometry Board and the Pharmacy Board, and daily leads a workforce of 6000-plus individuals delivering health services across the Northern Territory.
The awarding of the Sidney Sax Medal is a wonderful achievement for Professor Notaras and for the Territory. On behalf of the Northern Territory government and all members in this House, we congratulate him for his outstanding achievement and thank him for his continued passion and commitment.
On ya, Prof.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to put some names on the record of some incredible Territorians who are doing amazing work in the mental health and suicide prevention arenas in the Northern Territory.
Last week, on Thursday, it was World Suicide Prevention Day, which coincided with R U OK Day. Many members of parliament were engaged in different activities that day in their electorates.
I thought it was pertinent to talk about some of our Territorians who were at the National Suicide Prevention Conference in August. There was a huge delegation of Territorians at the National Suicide Prevention Conference, which is an incredible thing. We had representatives from the Mental Health Association of Central Australia, Lifeline Central Australia, Anglicare here in Darwin, Galupa Marngarr and the Darwin Region Indigenous Suicide Prevention Network.
The representatives from those organisations, and there may well have been more as it was a very big delegation, were involved in that conference as keynote presenters, presenters of sessions, delegates and a range of things. I want to acknowledge some of those people.
Ngaree Ah Kit, who many people will be familiar with, has been the chair of a range of activities here in the Northern Territory, including the NAIDOC Committee in Darwin and Palmerston, and the Darwin Region Indigenous Suicide Prevention Network, for a very long time. She was a keynote speaker on lived experience.
What an incredibly brave thing to do. She shared her and her family’s stories, wanting to give hope to other people and share the message of what can be done on a community level to make a difference in suicide prevention.
Anthony Ah Kit was there on behalf of Gayili Yunupingu, who is in the member for Nhulunbuy’s electorate, and he talked about some of the wonderful work being done in Galupa. It was amazing to see that conversation about connection to country happening here in the northernmost part of the Northern Territory. It is also being presented in Tasmania to a range of delegates from across the country and the world. It is incredible.
Karen Revel from Lifeline Central Australia delivered a presentation on some of the great work Centralian Middle School is doing with Lifeline and Orygen Mental Health Services, the youth mental health service in Melbourne. It has been doing some incredible work around trialling safeTALK programs with the students. The research that will come out of that work will inform the way suicide prevention is approached in this country and what we know about talking about it with young people. It is a brave and important project they are undertaking. I acknowledge this project is supported by the Northern Territory government, which is fantastic. I commend you for your involvement in that project.
There was a Territorian at that conference who was awarded with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Life Award: Julie Turner, who is a constituent of the member for Sanderson. She is an important part of the establishment of the Darwin Region Indigenous Suicide Prevention Network. She is a teacher who often goes to the member for Nhulunbuy’s electorate. She has been involved with Royal Life Saving and SIDS for Kids for a long time, but since losing her own children she has been an absolutely fierce and passionate advocate for suicide prevention in the Northern Territory. She uses her own experiences to give hope to others and drive community response. She is an amazing woman.
Julie has a great passion for making sure we get the language right in the way we talk about suicide, which is important. I congratulate her again for winning that award.
On Suicide Prevention Day last Thursday, the Darwin Region Indigenous Suicide Prevention Network held a Suicide Prevention Day walk through the city. It was fantastic to see people decked out in red and the community supporting those who have lost loved ones to suicide. It was a real community of hope, so well done to Delsey, Anthony, Danila Dilba and headspace for being involved from the beginning. They are in their fourth year this year. It was fantastic to see everyone turn out to mark the importance of Suicide Prevention Day.
There was also a walk that occurred in Palmerston for the first time. It was called Come Walk With Me. I extend my thanks to Vanessa. Vanessa is a mother in Palmerston who lost her son to suicide. She started Come Walk With Me in Palmerston this year to connect other people to that community, and to provide hope, but also to talk about how we can always do more. That is something I believe, too. When we listen to people’s stories, when we involve them in a meaningful way in policy development and our strategies, we have no choice but to change our systems. I was hearing that message loud and clear from Vanessa.
It was an incredibly emotional experience. For anybody who has lost someone they love or anybody close to them in that way, Suicide Prevention Day can be a very emotional day. To see the faces of family members who had lost someone to suicide was emotional, but it was also wonderful to see people connect in a real way.
The member for Blain was there and the member for Goyder supported that event as well. I hope to see that back again next year. They want to grow that event, which is great.
In closing, I want to comment for the record about the Mental Health Services Strategic Plan released by government. I am very pleased to see that, and I have been talking to stakeholders about what that means for them and the feedback they have. I asked about an important thing in the Mental Health Services Strategy, which is an action plan. The strategy refers directly to an action plan that will be released every financial year to provide the detail. Other stakeholders are asking for this. I requested a copy of the current action plan if there was one. I was informed that the action plan is currently under development. It will be an internal document and will not be reported on until the annual report in 2015-16. I want to get some clarification as to why that might be.
I understand a significant amount of consultation was done on that strategy, so I want clarification from the minister, because if you have consulted widely – and I understand you have – this is an opportunity to share the plan’s outcomes and details with the people you consulted and Territorians. These plans need to be community owned. We need community-driven actions.
I look forward to asking more questions about the Mental Health Services Strategy, but all in all I am glad it is there, and I look forward to discussing it more.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, during the month of September I had the pleasure of travelling to two cultural festivals in my electorate of Arafura. The Mahbilil Festival, or Wind Festival, was held in Jabiru, celebrating culture and community in Kakadu.
I began the day visiting the Jabiru Fire Service and had a tour of their new fire truck. Fire Chief Michael Hutton and his team proudly took me through their new truck, combining both water and rescue capacities. It means the service can now provide a better response to the community in both bushfire areas and road rescue situations.
The festivals combined sports and cultural activities. I watched a hard-fought basketball final between the Jabiru township and community team, including Maningrida and Warruwi. I was pleased to present the Best on the Ground medal.
Many of you know I am a passionate supporter of AFL. The festival had a strong AFL competition, attracting players and umpires both young and old from across the region.
Four generations of women from local families in the region competed against each other and eight others in a magpie goose competition. Along with the local chef, I had the pleasure of judging the 12 dishes. To the surprise of many, the lucky winner had only recently arrived in Jabiru as a park manager and had never cooked a magpie goose. I particularly enjoyed the local village kids perform alongside their parents and elders under the moonlight. I watched the young local bands entertain the crowds, with lanterns and a giant magpie goose sculpture in the background. I then travelled to Warruwi, Goulburn Island, to attend another local festival, the Jamalak Festival, featuring fun runs, basketball games and a live broadcast by TEABA Radio. It was again a lovely event.
Since returning I have had my constituents contacting me to say how good it was to have me attending these cultural celebrations. I must admit it is one of the more enjoyable parts of my job and highlights the role of culture in keeping our communities strong. I want to congratulate the many supporters, volunteers, community groups, schools and West Arnhem Regional Council in both Jabiru and Warruwi, and the non-government organisations who made these events what they were. Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Mr Deputy Speaker, at the end of next week I intend to jump on a plane and go overseas as part of my job. On 26 September I will depart to the UK, primarily to visit the Australian-British Infrastructure Investment Catalyst. That conference is going from 30 September to 2 October. It is an important conference because it looks at infrastructure investment. The development of infrastructure is one of the key priorities of this government. Attracting investment dollars into infrastructure is very worthwhile. Part of this investment catalyst in London is in response to the G20, which is seeking to coordinate global action in relation to delivering infrastructure. One of the things that came from the G20 meeting in Australia was the call for uniform engineering standards right across the globe because big infrastructure developments are generally delivered by big global companies and they are one-offs. Those companies will work in various different countries to deliver infrastructure.
I am very keen to find out what the world’s best practice is, what the future best practice will look like and how we can get there. I am thrilled to say I will be speaking at the Australian-British Infrastructure Investment Catalyst. I will talk up north Australian development and Darwin’s location in the world, its strategic location, the benefits of its port, its railway line and other points.
Whilst I am in the UK, I intend to visit a company called Velocys. Velocys is a world-leading technology company that develops micro GTL plants – gas to liquids plants. Small and remote area gas supplies can be converted into synthetic diesel and a range of other valuable products. A place with the remoteness of the Northern Territory is heavily reliant on diesel and we have large amounts of gas. Some of that gas is currently stranded because of a lack of pipelines. Micro gas to liquid plants offer opportunities for us to convert gas into synthetic diesel.
I have held back a couple of days in the UK. I am expecting to visit Glencore in its head office in Switzerland. Given what is occurring in McArthur River Mine, I am very keen to talk to head office to see whether there is more we can do to make sure all environmental protection is in place there.
From the UK I travel to Alberta in Canada. The primary reason for travelling to Alberta is that, I am reliably informed, they have the best ethane reservation regulations in the world. Ethane, for those who do not know, is a vital piece of fuel stock for petrochemical manufacture for things like plastic and other products developed from ethane. There has been a big interest in the Northern Territory in developing petrochemical plants, fertiliser plants, all of those things manufactured from gas. I have often said in this place the holy grail for our gas industry is getting onshore manufacturing in the Territory. It is very high-end, advanced manufacturing with very highly-paid jobs, and highly technical. It is something the Territory should aspire to.
In Alberta I will be talking to the Alberta Energy Regulator and am fortunate to have a meeting there with the minister for Energy. I will also be speaking with the Alberta Royalty Review Panel. We are looking at a petroleum royalty regime here in the Northern Territory. It is a perfect time to look at that. It is a fledgling onshore gas industry and now is the right time to be looking at a royalty regime that will benefit Territorians in the future.
I will travel from Alberta in Canada to visit the Velocys Pilot Plant in Plain City, Ohio. I am also meeting, in Ohio, with American Energy Partners, an organisation that is farmed into Imperial Energy and Armour Energy, who will become the operators of those fuels in the Northern Territory. They are an enormous player in the US gas market. I am very keen to meet with them and understand what their hopes are in the Northern Territory in relation to gas extraction and development. I am meeting with a range of operators in Ohio, including an organisation called Tamboran. It is an oil company operating in the McArthur Basin here in the Territory. I will travel from there to Houston in Texas, catching up with ConocoPhillips, a valued business in the Northern Territory.
Dow Chemicals is also based in Houston in Texas and I am meeting with the managing director to talk about the potential of advanced gas manufacturing here in the Territory. From there I go to Austin, Texas, to speak to the Texas Railroad Commission. It is, interestingly enough, the oil and gas regulator in Texas. I understand it has set the bar very high in relation to oil and gas regulations.
There are some interesting synergies with Texas. It is a state of the United States which is heavily dependent on the oil and cattle industries. I am thrilled to learn they are also very big on hunting. As an avid hunter, I think there are some synergies with the Texans and I am very keen to understand more about that.
I return to Sydney on 15 October just in time to head to the Council on Federal Financial Relations, the big tax summit happening in Sydney. I intend to be there for that. It is an all-encompassing trip. These days, with so much interest in ministers’ travel, I thought it timely to come here in this adjournment and update the House on my intentions for this trip overseas. I am not a big traveller, I have to say, but I see that there is enormous value in undertaking this trip. I am sure the Territory will benefit from it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let us hope that those who have demanded this approach appreciate the effort you have taken tonight to inform us of your upcoming trip. It sounds fascinating. I wish you all the best and I am sure the Territory will benefit from it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is good to hear the Treasurer’s plans for travelling overseas to these important destinations. I have been to Texas. If you get the opportunity, Treasurer, while you are in Texas get down to Freeport. Dow Chemicals has its head office in Houston, but if you can get to Freeport and see the enormous petrochemical plant they have there, it is well worth the visit.
Tonight I provide an update on the battle to eradicate the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus, or CGMMV, which has affected produce farms in Katherine, Lambells Lagoon and the Marrakai region. In early October 2014 CGMMV was positively identified on four watermelon farms in the Northern Territory, three in the Katherine region and later a farm in the Darwin rural area. This was the first time this virus had been found in Australia. It was devastating news for horticulturalists in the Northern Territory and nationally.
Initially, the virus affected watermelon crops but it was of great concern for our vegetable growing industry, as the CGMMV host range includes all cucurbita species – that is melons, cucumber, pumpkin, squash and gourds.
The Northern Territory’s vegetable growing industry has taken off in recent years, with annual production reaching over $60m. The Northern Territory is also Australia’s second-largest producer of watermelons, with a well-established industry valued at between $50m and $60m per year. With around 18 watermelon farms located from Central Australia up to the Top End, melons – that is, rockmelons and watermelons – are considered to be the next major crop for the Northern Territory with excellent export potential.
That is why the Country Liberals government has pledged to do all it can to support our farmers during the eradication and quarantine phase, and be there to help these businesses rebuild when it becomes safe to do so. The Northern Territory government recognises the far-reaching economic and social consequences of this pest incursion for our commercial and hobby farmers, and for Territorians in general. That is why we are providing assistance through an Interest Rate Subsidy Scheme.
In order to prevent further spread, drastic action was necessary. The virus is easy to transfer. It can be transmitted by infected seeds, machinery, pollen and even water. You can spread this disease simply by walking through an infected crop and then coming into contact with crops on another farm. Indeed, there are now a total of 25 properties in the Northern Territory confirmed as infected with CGMMV.
The fruit of CGMMV-infected plants can suffer internal yellowing and patches of flesh that become soft and watery. The disease can also cause fruit to abort or become malformed, and the leaves of infected plants have a mottled appearance. Suffice to say, this makes fruit that comes from infected plants largely unmarketable.
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 by my Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. My department’s biosecurity and animal welfare group staff surveyed all melon farms in the Northern Territory from Alice Springs to the Top End to determine how widespread the virus was.
The department’s molecular scientist then used the new state-of-the-art quarantine containment Level 3 facility for testing at Berrimah Farm in Darwin, and worked in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in Queensland.
This response management team, operating from a control centre headquarters at Berrimah Farm, coordinated surveillance to enable locating and containment of the virus. My department then began quarantine and eradication measures for all confirmed affected areas in order to prevent any further spread. The infected crops were sprayed with herbicide and all plant material placed in large disposal trenches for burning and then burial.
There was a two-year ban on growing watermelons on farms that tested positive for CGMMV. This plant pest is easily transmitted and can maintain a long life in plant material and soil. The damage it causes to the host plant and fruit is extensive and results in substantial crop losses. My department is now undertaking soil testing in order to determine if the CGMMV virus is still present in the soil on farms where eradiation took place. This has been made possible through the investment of $426 000 by the Country Liberals government. The soil testing samples are collected and divided into two parts, one for DNA diagnostics and then the other for a host plant to be grown in. The DNA will tell us if the CGMMV virus is present in the soil and the host plant will tell us if it is alive because the infection will become apparent.
My department is also planting in the paddock to test for live CGMMV, as well as on a larger scale on a controlled site.
High-level, urgent and drastic biosecurity measures were essential in order to contain and eradicate this disease. The eradication plan for CGMMV will in the long term provide positive results for our future watermelon and vegetable industries. It is a real and significant threat to fresh market export and cucurbita seed industries not just here in the Territory, but in Australia. The containment and eradication of this plant pest is vital to ensure the future viability of the Northern Territory and Australian watermelon industry.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will speak about local businesses in need of help. On Monday 14 September the members for Blain and Drysdale and I met with businesses located at Setepak House and Highway House in Palmerston. These businesses are in dire straits. These businesses include Ben and Sam’s Caf and Bakehouse, Blitz Hair and Beauty, Bits for Bub, Flowers by Elise, Essence of Beauty, Ella Bach Palmerston, Elders Palmerston and Covai Caf.
The reason these businesses are in dire straits is because of the construction works on Goyder Square being undertaken by the Palmerston council. While the community can appreciate the redevelopment of Goyder Square since it is expected to benefit all in the long term, the current works are putting severe pressure on local businesses. For those who have visited the shops there recently they would have noticed the tarps obstructing line of sight, and it is a maze to navigate around the area. These construction works have caused an 80% drop in foot traffic for local businesses. The peak tourism season has passed and these businesses are going through financial hardship trying desperately to keep their heads above water.
The works are expected to complete by the end of the year, depending on the weather, of course. How are these businesses going to survive until then let alone recoup the lost revenue to date?
Palmerston council needs to step up and help these local businesses get through. I and my colleagues, the members for Blain and Drysdale, agreed to help in every way we can to keep these businesses going. I encourage the greater Darwin community to get on board whether or not these businesses are your local or normal suppliers. I urge people to get behind them as a community and grab a sandwich at Ben and Sam’s Caf and Bakehouse, or get your hair done at Blitz Hair and Beauty, pop in to Bits for Bubs and pick up a couple of items, treat your loved ones to Flowers by Elise, relax with a massage at Essence of Beauty, stop into Elders to check out a new property and grab a quick bite to eat at Covai Caf. Anything we can do to help these businesses get through tough times is something worth doing. I appreciate the business they do.
I call on the city of Palmerston to help in any way it can. There needs to be a better strategy to help them get through this. We all appreciate what it will look like when it is finished, but these businesses need to survive.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure, minister, you will join me in congratulating the Legislative Assembly, Madam Speaker and her staff in particular, and everyone involved for coordinating the inaugural Build-Up Ball, which gets under way this Saturday. Long may it live to be one of the great events in northern Australia. Congratulations, Madam Speaker, and to all staff of this Assembly.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016