2015-02-18
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, you will note that teal ribbons in support of Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month have been placed on your desks.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 6 classes from Nakara Primary School accompanied by Mrs Vicki Manley and Mr Gaetano Gugliotta. On behalf of members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here and the tour.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I make a brief statement on the cyclone situation in the Gulf of Carpentaria.
Our thoughts this morning are with the people of northeast Arnhem Land as they prepare for the arrival of tropical Cyclone Lam. I assure people that authorities are well trained for this event. They are doing everything they can to ensure people are safe as the weather worsens. The Bureau of Meteorology has advised that Cyclone Lam is expected to produce gales this morning across the Gove Peninsula as it approaches the northeast Top End.
Residents in areas currently under cyclone watch or warning are asked to closely listen to advice from the bureau and emergency services. For areas under warning, this means enacting your emergency plan. For communities under watch this means ensuring you have the appropriate plans in place and have your emergency kit ready.
I inform the Assembly that the Gove Airport is closed. I also inform the Assembly that public cyclone shelters from Elcho Island to Cape Shield, including Nhulunbuy, are now open for those who do not feel they are safe in their own homes. This currently includes the Gove District Hospital and Yirrkala Laynhapuy homelands centre emergency shelters. Gove District Hospital has well-established emergency plans in place for adverse events such as cyclones, and 85 people have already sought shelter there. Thirteen people have now taken up shelter at the Yirrkala Laynhapuy homelands centre. The emergency department of Gove hospital has been relocated to Ward 1 and the usual entrance is now also at Ward 1. The emergency department will continue to function on a 24/7 basis.
Gove House will also open should the other shelters become full. Gove House is able to accommodate 300 people, and preparations are being made for a further 340 people.
On Elcho Island two shelters are now open with a capacity for 500 people. These are at Shepherdson College and Marthakal workshop. Residents should make their own decision about moving to a shelter quickly as winds are shortly expected to reach a dangerous level. If they do not have accommodation constructed to the building code or are unsure of their present accommodation, they should proceed immediately to shelter with family, friends or one of the local emergency shelters and take their emergency kit with them to these shelters. Residents should not forget to make plans for their pets as animals are not allowed in public shelters.
Private sector businesses and organisations still open at this time are strongly advised to consider securing and closing their premises. Employers are reminded of their duty of care to ensure the safety of any employees still at work. As I announced yesterday, schools across the affected region are closed today and all non-essential government offices are closed. Government staff who are not listed as key government employees in their agency cyclone plan and who do not have emergency management roles will be permitted to be absent from work today. All NT government staff should ensure their managers have their current contact details.
The closed schools are Yirrkala School, Yirrkala Homelands School, Nhulunbuy High School, Nhulunbuy Primary School, Nhulunbuy Christian school and Baniyala school. I also announced today that I have approved the immediate closure of two additional schools, being Shepherdson College in Galiwinku and Gapuwiyak School. A decision will be made later today about any further school closures along the coast.
In conclusion, Territorians are not strangers to these kinds of extreme weather events. I assure all residents that we are ready and prepared for all possibilities. Please be careful over the next 48 hours. Look after each other and follow the advice of emergency services. Stay informed by monitoring local media and secureNT for updates throughout the day. I will keep the Assembly updated on the latest advice as news comes to hand throughout the day.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I understand the member for Nhulunbuy wishes to make some comments. In no way do I wish to diminish the anxiety the member for Nhulunbuy feels. Nevertheless, this report to the House is outside the terms of the normal operation of standing orders.
Members appreciate the importance of this issue and that the executive arm of government reports to the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory as to what is occurring. Consequently, it does not invite debate, but I place myself in your hands.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. I do not view it as a debate, it is a statement and an update. It is an important update and statement so I am quite comfortable with the member for Nhulunbuy – given it is her electorate and her family is there –saying a few words.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I could probably have said my few words in the same time it took the Leader of Government Business to try to curtail debate.
I thank the Chief Minister for his statement this morning. I also thank him for the personal updates he provided me yesterday afternoon and again early this morning. I am extremely worried about my electorate, my constituents and my family.
However, I take heart knowing the communities are well prepared, the local emergency committee has activated its plans, those plans are well prepared and well advanced, and the right decisions have been made. I thank the government for its decisions yesterday to give notice that schools would close, to advise public servants not to come to work today and advise local businesses to consider closing.
I have spoken with a number of my constituents and people in Nhulunbuy, and I am assured that people do not appear to be anxious. They feel the preparations are in place; people are in their homes, and if their homes are not safe they have sought shelter. Social media tells me that people are quite buoyant in their spirits. We take heart where we see some residents offering their homes to others, including those who may need to find shelter for their animals.
I was one of a handful of people at Darwin airport this morning, somewhat hopeful we may have caught the Airnorth flight home. Madam Speaker, I thank your staff for making arrangements for me to have travelled home this morning.
Of course, it was not safe to travel. Gove Airport had been closed. Having travelled quite a lot around my electorate, often in small aircraft, ringing in my ears is always the wise words from one of our MAF pilots that it is better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground.
Madam Speaker, we will sit tight. People in Gove, Elcho Island and all those communities and homeland communities are also sitting tight and we will wait to see what happens next. Again, I thank the government for bringing forward this statement. I feel assured we are in the safe hands of emergency services.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move to disallow Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2014. I will not spend a great deal of time on my feet discussing this issue. The matter was reflected on yesterday, at some length, by members of both sides of the House and a clear pathway forward was described by various members of this House.
This is as much procedural as anything else. As a consequence, I bring this motion to the House to assist it to step through this issue in a logical and sensible fashion.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, the Leader of Government Business correctly spoke to this yesterday. I will summarise briefly what we said yesterday. On our side we applied cautious support. We agree to a model of independent statutory authority where independent people, separate to politicians, are making these decisions so it is nothing to do with us. We are very comfortable with this process. I refer anyone listening to this broadcast to our comments yesterday when we discussed this. Today, this is essentially procedural.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not know whether I am any wiser about why the government decided at the death knell to pull this determination from the books. My understanding is this has been before us for a considerable amount of time, and if it is not dealt with today then it will be accepted.
I have been trying to work through what issues there are, besides a change to the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act which would enable an independent tribunal to look at setting payments for members of this parliament, and whether there is anything else that is of concern to the government in relation to matters included in Determination No 1 of 2014.
I have heard some people were not happy with the idea that members of parliament would have to submit quarterly reports explaining how they spent their electorate allowance. I do not have a problem with that. As long as that continues in the changes the government is bringing forward, then perhaps the new tribunal will maintain that status quo. Even though it creates a bit more paperwork, it does at least tell the public where we spend our money and make sure we spend it for the right reasons. Obviously there is a fair bit of latitude with an electorate allowance, but as long as you have a good explanation for what it was used for – I do not think anyone would say that was not a reasonable request from the tribunal.
My understanding of having a tribunal – or I might say a tri-tribunal because ‘tri’ can be three but can also simply mean one person – is the tribunal will now be of three people. That is a good idea ...
Mr Giles: It already is.
Mr WOOD: Yes. My understanding is the three people are very knowledgeable people who have worked in the public service and the community and will have a good understanding of the issues they have to deal with.
I am interested to know if there are other issues that concerned the government. The government initiated this disallowance motion yesterday. My feeling is this is more due to the principle under the existing act where the government, more or less, has a say in what the remuneration for members of parliament would be. The government is saying that should not be the case; that we should have an independent body, a tribunal, which determines that so government is at arm’s length from making those decisions.
We have seen what happened in Queensland when the Newman government first came in. I do not think it had a tribunal; it just decided it would set salaries on the basis of a percentage smaller than the federal government members were receiving. Of course, there was a huge uproar from the public because of the huge increases in salaries.
We also have to be aware that by having a tribunal – my understanding is Queensland did not have it at that stage – it gives you that arm’s length. I also understand the Queensland government then set up a tribunal which made the determination for what the salaries should be, and they were a lot less than what was originally determined.
What salaries members of parliament receive is always a very sensitive issue. In having this tribunal with three local people who have been involved in the public service, the private sector and the community in many other ways, you are likely to get a determination which reflects not only whether members of parliament are entitled to an increase, but also what the public thinks of us as well.
People would say we deserve it if we do our job properly, but the way we look at the moment I doubt anybody would want to give us a pay rise.
Madam Speaker, I support the concept that the tribunal will look independently at these things. However, I am interested if there are any other concerns the government had about the proposed Determination No 1 of 2014 which it felt needed to be looked at again by the new tribunal.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, it has all been said.
I thank honourable members for their contributions. The issue articulated by the member for Nelson about the importance of arm’s length being the driving force behind this was also articulated by government and opposition members in this House yesterday. Further work will be done on this in the not-so-distant future.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES (Economic Development and Major Projects): Madam Speaker, I move that:
2. the committee shall inquire into and report on the Port of Darwin lease model proposed in the Port of Darwin Bill 2014 (Serial 111) and recommend options to enhance the model to ensure that the chosen partner:
3. in consideration of these matters, the committee should:
5. the committee may elect a Deputy Chair of the committee, who may act as the Chair when the Chair is absent from a meeting or there is no Chair of the committee
6. a quorum of the committee shall be two members of the committee
7. the committee is to report by 20 March 2015
8. the provisions of this resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
In regard to the establishment of the parliamentary committee inquiry for the future of the Port of Darwin and how we ensure the port meets the needs and requirements of a growing Northern Territory into the future, we have a small economy with limited capacity to raise capital.
The infrastructure tasked to grow our economy and facilitate new industry and generate jobs is large, and quite often beyond the Territory government’s capacity to fund. However, we are committed to delivering new public infrastructure to serve the needs of Territorians. Given this, there is a need to investigate alternative forms of infrastructure funding if we want to be in a position to meet the needs of the future and be well positioned to seize economic opportunities as they arise.
Not many people would be aware, but the Northern Territory government made a request for funding of $336m for port expansion under the previous Labor government. It was knocked back at that time by the former Labor government – when there was the infighting of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard – which said no to providing any Infrastructure Australia money to the Northern Territory, backed by then Infrastructure minister at the federal level, Anthony Albanese. It turned its back on the Northern Territory. It was quite happy to waste money all over the place but not in the Northern Territory to provide an investment for the Territory’s future.
We are now in a position where the federal Coalition is trying to fix its finances, so it is in a position where it is somewhat loathe to assist with significant sums to fix the port. It is a shame that Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard did not back us.
The port is currently operating at around 43% capacity. As I said yesterday, full capacity is around 65%. When capacity reaches 65% it is very hard to get any more trade over the wharf face at the port. We are at 43% now, but we expect to see continued increase in traffic through the port, with anticipated growth in naval vessel visits, the oil and gas industry choosing to base out of Darwin, and the changing dynamics of the economy in the Northern Territory which will see a greater level of exports in the coming years, as presented to us by many experts, including Deloitte.
Quite frankly, a good example is if Olympic Dam was to come online tomorrow, the Port of Darwin would not be able to service the requirements of exporting goods and services coming out of Olympic Dam. It will be the same if Tellus, the proposed salt mine at Chandler to the south of Alice Springs at Maryvale Station, gets up and running. The trade required for that going over the port has increased issues with capacity. We will not get it to 65%, but all of these things start to add up.
The livestock trade is booming and we expect it to continue to increase as a result of AACo’s new boxed beef model coming out of the Livingstone abattoir.
We believe we have a very firm well-established business case to seek private investment in the port. It is well established because the NT government cannot afford to expand, and the federal government cannot afford to expand because of the debt worries of the former Labor governments of Gillard and Rudd and the position they left it in. Besides that, Gillard, Rudd and Albanese refused to give the former Labor government any money.
However, we have to look at the way other models of port operations have occurred. Labor signed the deal for the Marine Supply Base construction at the port. They outsourced part of the port already with the MSB, where they brought in ShoreASCO to build, own and operate it – well, not so much build. The Northern Territory government put $100m-odd into building the Marine Supply Base, but now a private operator owns and runs it and collects the profits for the MSB in an outsource model that Labor put at the port. That is an important point to remember. Labor has already outsourced a large component of the port – three berths at the MSB.
When Labor outsourced the Marine Supply Base at the port to the private sector, it did not form a committee to inquire into how that would be done, did not seek public comment, did not assume any responsibility in that role or bring in legislative change. It put in the Marine Supply base without an inquiry and without telling anybody. One day I would love to be able to set up an inquiry about the financial arrangements for the establishment of the Marine Supply Base and how much money went into that. Labor put $100m in and gave the asset away, which is quite interesting, although they did not give it away forever because it is on a lease too, something that Labor opposes. So not only did the Labor government put all the money in, they have leased it out as well, privatising part of the Darwin port.
The model we have proposed to seek investment into the Darwin port is of a similar arrangement. We have proposed a private sector partnership arrangement for the operation, management and development of the port. We believe there is a flexible approach we can take in that regard.
We have legislation on the table and there will be more introduced today, particularly around consequential amendments and small areas. We believe there is a way forward to retain government ownership of the port – we are not selling the port – by bringing in a financial investor who will increase the size and capability of the port and put in operational arrangements which will protect the rights of employees, but also ensure we have a bigger and better port to support expanding industry in the Northern Territory in the future.
There is a range of ways which the government can continue to be a partner and receive ongoing returns from the asset. Different models for working with the private sector have been tried and tested in the Northern Territory in the past. As well as the MSB, the Northern Territory has previously partnered with the private sector in the development and operation of the railway between Darwin and Alice Springs, or Darwin to Adelaide if you like. Something still continuing now with Toga, in that partnership arrangement, is the outsourcing of the waterfront to Toga.
If you look at the railway – and Labor opposed building the railway, by the way – the Northern Territory government contributed $190m to its construction. The concession holder, Genesee and Wyoming Australia Corporation, is party to a concession deed covering rights and obligations, including project risk.
It is the same model we are working towards with the port and Labor’s Marine Supply Base, and a similar concept to the outsourcing of the waterfront to Toga, something that is lost on Labor.
Let us look at the railway. In the first year of operation, the railway line carried 600 000 tonnes of domestic freight and 20 000 tonnes of international cargo. That was the first year of operation when government had a stake in it. Government removed its stake 10 years later. Let us look at the data. A combined total of over 3.65 million tonnes of freight was transported in 2014. That is up from 600 000 tonnes of domestic freight when it first started 10 years ago.
Benefits of the Ghan passenger service include jobs, tourism dollars to the Territory and spending in the local economy. We do not own the trains that travel along the train track, the cargo containers, the containers which carry the dry goods or the locomotives. We got out of that business because the private sector invests and delivers those jobs. It is leading to a range of benefits in the Territory.
Other infrastructure investment followed, including a common user terminal and business park near Darwin’s East Arm port and a rapid expansion of logistics businesses on the back of the railway, which Labor opposed and then opposed private sector investment in.
A 2008 independent assessment undertaken when Labor was in government in the Northern Territory on the economic benefits generated by the railway conservatively estimated that since the commencement of operations in 2004 to 2008, approximately five million tonnes of freight and 400 000 passengers have been moved at an economic return to the Territory of $211m.
These are all things that would not come without private investment in our infrastructure, which Labor members opposed. I am not surprised they opposed it. Who would forget Labor’s opposition to a range of government-backed infrastructure projects? They opposed the railway, and then were happy to open it. They opposed the construction of the Ayers Rock Resort, and then when we tried to sell it they opposed the sale. They opposed the construction of the Sheraton resort in Alice Springs then opposed us selling it.
Infrastructure Australia has highlighted that the railway is …
Mr McCarthy interjecting.
Mr GILES: I give you respect and listen when you talk. You should pass the same respect on, member for Barkly.
Infrastructure Australia has highlighted the railway as a project which demonstrates poor value for money due to inadequate project selection, assessment, development and design. It is saying if we put a proposal to the Productivity Commission or Infrastructure Australia today to build the railway line between Alice Springs and Darwin, they would knock us back on funding. They would knock us back on funding to build the Port of Darwin because it is not financially viable. This is the Productivity Commission, separate of politics. It would knock both those projects back.
So we must provide private sector investment in this infrastructure to grow the Territory’s economy and ensure there are jobs to support other jobs down the track. We must continue to partner with the private sector to stay ahead of the game and achieve economic development outcomes. However, we know this should not be at the expense of Territorians or the environment. We have made clear to all parties which have expressed an interest in the port that the government’s objective is to seek a partner with a shared vision to grow the port, which will have direct benefits for the Northern Territory and the community.
I had a chat with the member for Nelson this morning and said our interest is not about the economic return on a lease, what Labor or that goose, Sam Dastyari, from Canberra is pushing about – 15% for asset recycling. It is not about the 15%, we have not mentioned that. This is about how we build the port to meet tomorrow’s needs.
It went out for expressions of interest and 30 came back. One has now been removed to go to the next stage and will be part of the process of this inquiry. What the shape of the port will look like in the future is important, because that is what we need to grow. The Northern Territory needs to stay ahead of the game and have infrastructure in place to seize the opportunities we know are coming as they arise.
I have asked a select committee of parliament to look at the model proposed for private investment and confirm in their minds if this is the best structure available. The committee will consider alternative models for private sector engagement which balances the commercial drivers for private operators against the Northern Territory objectives from a long-term lease. I am quite excited that the member for Blain, Nathan Barrett, has accepted the offer to undertake a role on that parliamentary inquiry, also the member for Drysdale who, geographically, is located close to the port, with many constituents within the Drysdale electorate working at or influenced by the port and related activities, particularly around logistics.
Selling to the public the transition to what we are trying to do with the port is a challenge for a number of reasons. One is because I do not think there would be very many people in the general public who have ever been to a port and know what a port looks and sounds like. They would not know about or understand what a quay line, reefer point or hardstand area is, what the retention ponds are for or how a conveyor belt works. It is very difficult to explain the port. Detailing the cost required to expand the port to meet greater requirements is also a challenge.
Last year the port made profit for the first time, I think, but is still carrying enormous amounts of debt. To enable it to expand is simply not feasible, so we are looking at private partners for this. It will support the Territory.
I have no doubt, member for Fannie Bay, you will oppose it, along with your leader, if she is still the leader, or you are. If she is still the leader she will definitely oppose it and play political games. But if you get in there, your Labor apparatchiks will tell you you have to oppose it.
However, this is good for business. This will drive more jobs on and around the port and in the logistics industry. It will increase the trade through the port. It will lower the cost of doing business through the port through greater economies of scale. It will increase the level of expertise at the port. It also has strong potential to drive down the cost of living. It is a winner in all parts.
However, as I said, it is difficult to explain what a port is, what it looks like, what it feels like and how it operates. We will have to get to some type of marketing approach so we can start to educate people on the port. If anyone in this Chamber has not had the opportunity of going down there, I very much welcome opening the port and showing you around so you can understand what the port is and how it looks. The member for Drysdale has already spoken to me about that.
Member for Blain, I thank you for signing up to be chairperson of this parliamentary committee. I commend this motion and I look forward to hearing the outcomes in five weeks. Five weeks is a very lengthy time for a parliamentary committee to be able to travel around the 10 or so ports around the country and understand the administrative processes, and use the resources within the Parliamentary Library and the committee structure to get information and form opinions. It is quite sufficient. I know on this side of the Chamber we work hard. I am not sure how they work on the other side.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, this government has a trust deficit and trust issue. The Chief Minister’s speech has gone no way to addressing it.
This committee has been brought forward to look at the port. The Chief Minister’s comments reinforce the community’s belief that this government has already made up its mind about selling the port, leasing the port or whatever words the Chief Minister wants to use today around the privatisation of the port. There are genuine community concerns that this government has already made up its mind and this committee is just a PR exercise. I will not be so churlish as to not participate in this committee, but there are things this committee should be doing that are not in the terms of reference to make it genuine and allow it to do genuine work.
One of those concerns goes to the length of time the committee has to look at these issues. I note the member for Nelson has an amendment about the breadth of what this committee can look at, including the current model of what the port is, which is not there at the moment.
This government has a trust issue. This committee, which is meant to be part of trying to repair that trust issue, if done properly can be one small step in the path you need to take to address community concerns on trust.
If you want this committee to be successful then you need to look at a couple of changes to the terms of reference, including the length of time the committee operates and the ability for the committee to look at the current model at the port. Otherwise, this is just a PR exercise, a fig leaf for a government that has already made up its mind to sell, lease or privatise the port – whatever language you want to use today about the port.
Territorians are not silly. It does not matter how you swap those words around, they know what your agenda is for the port. They have seen your agenda on public assets over a long period of time – an agenda that was not taken to the last Territory election, not discussed with Territorians, and does not have a mandate.
We on this side have a very simple position. If Territorians are to be at the forefront of decision-making, that means the sale of assets owned by Territorians should get the approval of Territorians. That is why Labor believes the Port of Darwin should only be privatised with an election mandate. We do not think that is a controversial or extraordinary statement. We simply believe that if you are selling something then you should get the permission of the owners, and the taxpayers are the owners. That is a position that Australians are taking at the moment. It is the message we received very strongly from the community during the sale of TIO.
We have seen this government go down the path of the GPO, the Darwin buses, the split of Power and Water, TIO gone, and now the port on the table – the greatest fire sale of the Territory’s assets ever, all done without proper conversation with Territorians, or permission of the owners, Territorian taxpayers. We do not believe this government is putting Territorians first.
We now have a committee, but this committee does not go far enough. It should go further if you want to address those genuine, deep community concerns about your attitude towards Territory taxpayer assets. It would be very simple to make a couple of changes to this committee if you want to appear you are carrying out a genuine exercise and not just a PR exercise.
Before this motion and this committee was talked about, we saw a Chief Minister who was in lock-step with Tony Abbott and former Premier Campbell Newman about their agenda to sell or privatise public assets without a mandate. The community verdict is very clear; if you do that then you are arrogant and out of touch with the community. That has been expressed very strongly in the Territory and around Australia.
There is no better example of being arrogant and out of touch than the decision that was made around TIO without proper consultation with the community, and ignoring legitimate concerns about the sale. There was no mandate to sell TIO, and this decision is impacting on Territorians. This decision did not put Territorians first. We have seen, and will see, impacts on premiums and flood protection. Coverage costs will become prohibitive. Territorians were short-changed in that deal. There is no doubt they want to see proper consultation on anything else done with Territory assets, giving them a chance to have a say.
The clear message from Territorians, and from other actions around the country, is that involves an election. Elected CLP members know in their hearts that the sale of TIO was a betrayal of Territorians. That will be remembered at the next Territory election.
It has informed actions of the majority of members on the other side. In the previous sittings of this parliament, the Chief Minister introduced bills to lease and sell the port, which was very consistent with the legislation to split Power and Water as a potential precursor to privatisation of those assets. The port bills gave the Chief Minister unfettered power to sell Darwin Port Corporation assets.
However, some significant things have changed since that bill was introduced. There were two in particular: the loss in Queensland by Premier Newman, with a very similar agenda and behaviour to the current government, and the recognition of that loss and that behaviour by that Premier; and the actions of the majority of the CLP opposite who say, ‘We reject this Chief Minister and his attitude towards selling private assets’. For some reason that was very poorly delivered and we have seen the Chief Minister remain where he is. There was a strong message sent to the current Chief Minister by the majority of members of the CLP that their behaviour has been wrong and there are parallels to Queensland.
How they put that message was poorly handled. We saw a debacle over the last couple of weeks, and we still have the current Chief Minister. The new Deputy Chief Minister compared the current Chief Minister to Campbell Newman:
That is a clear vote of no confidence in the approach this government has been taking.
This committee that has been proposed as a result of that does not go all the way this government needs to take it to address legitimate community concerns. Even if it is done properly, it is only one small step this government needs to make in a journey to address its trust deficit with Territorians.
We can understand the panic amongst the CLP as a result of the Queensland election. It led to a failed leadership coup, and it has now led to an almost-good-enough committee in this Chamber.
There is great scepticism amongst the community about the Chief Minister’s commitment to consultation on a great number of issues. That is why, if the Chief Minister wants this committee to be seen as legitimate and not simply PR, he needs to make those couple of changes we and the member for Nelson have recommended to the terms of reference so the committee can conduct its business in good faith with the community, so it does not look like a decision has already been made and this is purely done as a fig leaf, PR exercise. That is a threshold question this community needs to face up front: is the government genuine about consulting or has it made its decision and is only pretending? The 30 days makes you think it is the latter, and that is a real problem with the formation of this committee.
We have six months for the fuel disclosure committee and we have 30 days for this inquiry. I will talk about that in some detail, but there are a couple of points I want to make up front on that.
I do not believe selling the port is of greater urgency than addressing and tackling petrol prices in the Territory. These are two very significant issues. To take this approach shows the government is out of touch.
On the five week time frame – I know the member for Nelson will talk about this in much greater detail – we want all witnesses and stakeholders who want to appear to have the time to prepare and submit submissions, and for the committee to have time to consider and respond to those submissions. You need time to do that.
I do not know how members on the other side conduct their business and manage their diaries, but I have existing legitimate work obligations over the next five weeks. I would find it extraordinary if members on that side do not have the same work obligations. I am a member of parliament; I have business to conduct. I am the member for Fannie Bay, so I am a local member, but I am also a shadow minister. I have work commitments over the next five weeks that are important. I would find it extraordinary if members on that side do not have similar work obligations. It would be almost laughable.
It is not a question of working hard, it is a question of working smart, acknowledging the realities of what witnesses and stakeholders will have to do in submitting to this committee and the committee considering and responding to those submissions. It is also about what workload we, as members of parliament, have. That is a very genuine consideration for the length of this committee we have been asked to serve on over 30 days. We do not have a program yet.
The Chief Minister has touched upon visiting 10 ports. I am happy to take up that challenge, but in taking up that challenge – the member for Nelson might have other ports he wants to visit, I do not know. We have not seen the program yet. I have said to the Chief Minister that I am happy to sit down and talk about a program, but it is impossible to sign up to a program when we have been given a curtailed, constrained, limited time frame. We should properly organise a program and work out what is realistic. That is what helps set the basis for the time frame this committee needs to meet. The committee should have flexibility about being able to work out the time.
Let us take this challenge seriously. Walk down the mall and ask people what they want done first: privatising the port or reducing petrol prices. This committee, as it stands, fails that mall challenge; it fails that test with Territorians.
We need to take this committee seriously. More importantly for the government than for us, the government needs to take this committee seriously because it has a significant trust deficit within the community around its agenda on privatising assets.
This is an agenda we have seen very strongly from the new Chief Minister – the current Chief Minister, the one who took over from the elected Chief Minister. There have been a number of Chief Ministers, and brief ministers. This agenda has been placed very firmly on the table by Adam Giles since Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, was elected and said to state governments, ‘We want you to sell your assets’. Look at what has happened since. We have seen the GPO shut, Darwin Bus sold, Power and Water split, TIO gone, and now the port is on the table. In putting that agenda forward we have put Territorians second, and the CLP has broken its pledge about cutting the cost of living in pursuing that agenda.
This has been a significant mistake by the government. It is taking a half step in the right direction by establishing this committee, but it should be taking a full step forward in addressing those legitimate concerns about the terms of reference that I and the member for Nelson share.
I wrote to the Chief Minister yesterday, I called him this morning, I spoke with member for Nelson this morning, and I know the member for Nelson spoke to the Chief Minister. There was an incomplete triangle happening this morning. I have tried to extend an arm to the Chief Minister in good faith about my concerns with this committee, to make it work as best it can. I am happy to table that letter at the end of my contribution. In that letter we made several requests which, I believe, were reasonable. We asked that the time frame of five weeks be extended. Privatisation is a complex issue and there is not enough time for important stakeholders to address the terms of reference, put together comprehensive submissions and have the inquiry analyse them and report back.
I formally put this to the Chief Minister yesterday and I have not received a formal response. The Chief Minister put on the record during Question Time, and in his contribution, his position on the time frame. He still has time to consider this matter and change his position on the time frame.
The Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee was started on 21 October and is still having hearings. The Commonwealth asset recycling scheme – which has been used in the past to justify the sale of public assets – does not exist yet. There is no need to rush this. We can get it right. I do not think there is any need for this arbitrary five-week time frame, at least not one the Chief Minister has articulated that stacks up. It is reasonable that we have an extension to the five-week time frame. Any reading of the terms of reference would see that the five weeks should be extended. This is a genuine request from this side.
I am trying to operate in good faith for the Chief Minister. I will not be so churlish as to not participate in the committee, but if this committee is to function properly, it should run for longer than five weeks.
Another request I made to the Chief Minister was regarding analysis of port privatisation in other states. He has talked to this regarding looking at their models and success in the stakes, and the inquiry being resourced to do that. That goes back to having a program and the length of time this committee sits for. Those two are interlinked. To have a proper program you must revisit the five weeks.
The third request I made is that the government release all the documents it has in relation to the potential sale of the port and make them available to the committee. This includes the Renewal Management Board report, which the government said would assess options for government owned corporations, including the port. The government promised it would release that report, but has yet to do so, even though it was completed almost two years ago.
If we are serious about involving Territorians in decision-making, that report should be released. It should be made available to the committee. We should be able to look at it and other documentation the government has regarding the port, including business cases regarding privatisation. Those documents are important for this committee’s deliberations. In some respects it is impossible to stick to a five-week time frame without knowing what is in those reports and who we may need to speak to the committee about what is in the reports.
We simply do not know, yet we are being asked to sign up to this ridiculous five-week time frame. It is not fair dinkum to have a five-week time frame. It does not pass the mall test, the commonsense test or the logical test of how you create a committee, establish a program, work out what you have to do, who to meet with or how to consider what they put forward. It does not acknowledge the current workload of members of parliament over the next five weeks. It is an unreasonable and ridiculous time frame and I have said to the Chief Minister, in very good faith, that we should look at extending it.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table that letter I sent to the Chief Minister.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER: I am very happy to receive a formal response and for the Chief Minister to respond to some of the issues in his remarks. We are making genuine, considered requests of the government that go toward improving this committee and ensuring it is seen to be a genuine exercise, not a PR exercise.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I advise the House, regarding the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future, the member for Blain will be removed and the member for Greatorex will be placed on the committee.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, in relation to the issue of the port, there are a few things I want to outline regarding what has already been said.
In regard to the trust deficit mentioned by the member for Fannie Bay, who spoke about the way we have in the past talked about things with the community, he is missing the wood for the trees, because the process we are going through is exactly for the reason he is implying. We need to work this process through and bring people along this journey.
That is precisely what this committee is about. This committee is not a PR exercise. This is a genuine look at different models and what would be best for the people of the Northern Territory, looking at the long-term future of what we need to do. The model we could work with to expand the port fits in with the development of northern Australia anyway.
I will outline a few things regarding economics and the macroeconomic picture. The Northern Territory cannot control interest rates within its own borders. Because of that, we cannot influence monetary policy. I hazard to say that right now in Darwin, given the economic activity, it is quite possible the interest rate is too low and, therefore, the level of investment and heat in the economy is creating a problem we need to address.
That issue we need to address can only really be addressed by supply-side economics. What we need to do in regard to a demand supply model is always work in Territory politics on the supply side of this function. We see our government doing those things with land release, with an increase in the supply which brings down the price and increases the quantity to match demand. We are not trying to control people’s demand, we are working on increasing the supply in areas where demand cannot be controlled through normal levers that a federal government might be able to control it with.
In my opinion, what makes Territory politics so interesting is we cannot use the big blunt levers. We need to be very considered, careful and specific about the supply-side measures we take in order to make sure we are growing the Northern Territory.
The member for Fannie Bay spoke about the Queensland issues. In the Northern Territory we have a lot of blue sky above our private sector. We can grow our private sector to become a lot more effective in regard to the Northern Territory economy so the Territory can move ahead in leaps and bounds.
The member for Fannie Bay spoke about us treating Territorians as if they are silly. I do not see that. Some of the things the opposition spreads around and the language it uses might lead people to believe certain things, but it is not considered and does not assess all the evidence. Having this committee report to parliament after looking at what is important in this whole issue – it is the opposition trying to treat the people of the Northern Territory as if they are silly, not us.
When the opposition members say the Chief Minister has given himself the ability to do whatever he wants, they fail to notice that the Chief Minister has set up a framework of legislation that allows this committee to not necessarily eliminate any kind of modelling that might exist within that framework. I turn this around and say to the opposition that we have a fantastic opportunity to do something good for the Northern Territory. I encourage the member for Fannie Bay, through the Chair, to take part in this process and have some quality input, alongside the rest of the people on this committee, to see a fantastic outcome for the people of the Northern Territory.
Getting more specific on the supply-side function the port can provide the Northern Territory economy, we have a few problems. These problems can be alleviated by increasing the size, volume and efficiency of what happens within the Port of Darwin.
Having spent a few years and many hours at that wharf area at East Arm, and having some pretty intimate knowledge of how things operate in the shipping and logistics world, I can say that because of the lack of throughput there are definite problems that exist with the port being a supply-side hindrance. That centres on the fact it is expensive to get containers through Darwin port.
That is not because our stevedores do a bad job and are inefficient, or because the people who work on the ground on the wharf within DPC do a bad job; they do a fantastic job. The issue is about throughput. In Darwin it costs about twice what it costs in Fremantle to land a container. There are fees and charges associated with landing freight in Darwin that other ports, particularly in capital cities, do not have, which makes doing business in the Northern Territory very expensive. Obviously this has flow-on effects to the cost of living in the Northern Territory. I see the opportunity to look at what kind of model we can use to create a much bigger, more effective and more efficient port as a way to eliminate these issues.
Much of the pricing that happens at this port is based around Dampier. Dampier is not a capital city. Dampier is a little place in Western Australia that has many high-end mining companies and oil and gas companies operating through it. Most of what they do is time sensitive, not cost sensitive. They can charge high rates and get away with it because it is more important that things are done on time than at a price.
In Darwin we are effectively being put into that mould when general freight comes over our port and we have exports leaving our port that are subject to these same charges.
Looking at the overall picture of what this government is trying to achieve, I wonder what would we like to see. I would like to see a fantastic port in Darwin that has the capacity to unload efficiently and effectively a vessel carrying 1200 boxes. At the moment we have vessels that carry more along the lines of 300, and it is not a particularly quick process. The hardstand areas are not big enough so there are big backlogs in handling containers on that wharf. We need a lot more space if we are to have a lot more containers come through the port.
There are time restrictions on when you can pick up containers, which again makes it hard to do business through the port. It is not necessarily because of any particular issue or anyone doing a bad thing, it is just that for safety reasons there needs to be the proper lighting, access, roadways and those sorts of things. There are big issues around landing freight in Darwin and getting it off the port and into circulation.
Another issue we have become aware of recently is a bunkering adjustment factor. This is basically a hedge against movements in fuel prices when things are on the water. When shipping companies buy fuel they put this bunkering adjustment factor in place so they can have a hedge against movements in the fuel prices.
If you are landing something in the Port of Fremantle it will cost you about $71, here it is about $500 per container. There are costs associated that we can look at very quickly and easily. Because of the lack of throughput here we have issues that larger economies of scale and better efficiencies would solve. We are trying to set up a scenario with the possibility of bringing a private investor into the Northern Territory to work hand-in-hand with the government and people of the Northern Territory so we can have a world-class asset.
I would love to see a port with the efficiency of how Singapore operates. It has a throughput of phenomenal amounts on not much space. Darwin truly can become a hub of trade in the Southeast Asian region, especially with the bulk freight coming in and out of Australia.
Having a few more sidings and working with Genesee Wyoming on how our existing railways are put together opens up a lot of potential. We have approximately a four-day freight advantage over southern cities. I recall from my time at the waterfront that if things were time sensitive and not cost sensitive we would have more work in getting things through the port. That is because we have the ability to get things off the wharf and onto a truck moving south quickly and have a four-day advantage over other places which may take it around the Western Australian coast or the Great Barrier Reef.
I see fantastic potential and opportunity in regard to this. I also see a fantastic opportunity for this committee to work on the best way forward. I encourage a collegiate working environment within it.
I have heard the opposition talk about the time factor, saying this is very rushed and the recent fuel committee had more time. I point out that on the day of the hearing one member of the committee did not turn up, and the other did not have a great deal of input when questioning the people involved. If you are part of a process, be part of the process. We are here for the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory and to put something good in place.
With regard to economies of scale, at the moment we are unloading 300 containers. If we get to a point where we can efficiently and effectively do 1200 at a time, I see huge potential, especially for the stevedoring industry here. I worked for a stevedoring company and it would be great to see it employing more people. It is a fantastic employer, with good jobs, and they are good guys working there. I would love to see all of the employment associated with shipping companies, stevedoring companies, heavy lift shift companies, trucking companies and the rail all achieve better utilisation of their productive capacity if we work towards having a port which has efficient and effective throughput.
Shipping agents have to jump through hoops to get things over the line in Darwin. Having spent some time with shipping agents and listened to the conversations they had about the difficulties in moving things on and off the port, I have nothing but praise for a plan to give us a much more effective port.
We are in a position in the Northern Territory government where we have a debt level we cannot move beyond, thanks to what I can only describe as the slash-and-burn mentality of the opposition. They left us no room to move to do anything productive. They could have carried out projects like this, but instead chose to go ahead with a prison.
I see having an economic capacity to improve the Northern Territory as more important. A port bringing private investment – because we cannot carry this ourselves – is part of that solution.
Within the shipping and logistics industry, it is important for global players to have access to the ports within which they operate their business models. In the Northern Territory we have an opportunity where, if we get the right partner involved, those partners can bring in a fantastic amount of throughput. Having some kind of lease agreement – which is bandied around – is part of the puzzle. We also must look at the type of partner we want. We want a partner to bring throughput over the wharf. They are the types of partners which already operate many other ports. They have built, operated and managed ports, and have multiple sites throughout Southeast Asia in which Darwin can become a lynchpin.
From an investment point of view – the opposition has been very forthcoming in saying we need to ensure Territorians get the best result – if we can, through this committee, come up with a plan and some terms we can work with in leases, Northern Territory people can benefit, not just from the investment we have made now, but from the investment that private companies will make. An agreement means we are getting income from not just our investment but future investments by private investors, the people of the Northern Territory will be in a much better place to have a greater income derived from this private investment.
All these are very sound economic arguments. The time frame is valid. Given that we are looking at what kind of models give us the ability to maximise the benefit for the people of the Northern Territory, while making sure the partner we get is the right partner we need, we have the ability to put something together for the Northern Territory which is very beneficial, and fantastic as part of developing northern Australia.
I see this as being nothing but fantastic for the rail network we have, which arguably, is underutilised. Genesee Wyoming would love to have a greater throughput, and the people of the Northern Territory would love to see that asset they put a lot of dollars into grow and work towards much greater and more efficient utilisation.
The economic arguments that stack up around trying to get the right partner and the right model are very important and should not be overlooked in order to play cheap politics. I came into politics to do good things for the Northern Territory, and I am looking forward to working with this committee to come up with the best possible option for the people of the Northern Territory. It is not a foregone conclusion that anything will happen. We have an opportunity to create the conclusion.
Madam Speaker, I admonish those on all sides of the House to work together within this committee so we can have a fantastic outcome.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his contribution. I enjoyed listening to it. I did not agree with his comments about playing politics. Sometimes constructive criticism is not about politics, it is about working together for Territorians in a constructive way. That is what I hope this debate today is about.
When there were some problems in the government this statement was made:
It was made in the beginning of February, from memory. I support that.
This is a crucial decision. The port is one of our last publicly-owned government assets. After reading the guidelines for the select committee that were issued – and I only received it this morning; I had trouble trying to find it last night on the website – I have to say that consultation with Territorians did not exist. It is three or four steps ahead of where the consultation should start. The basic consultation is about whether the people of the Northern Territory want their port to be privatised. Forget whether it will be leased, it will be privatised.
If you think people of the Northern Territory should be consulted, we need a reasonable debate about the existing port. Those people who want it privatised have to show that by privatising it there will be advantages to the people of the Northern Territory through cheaper costs of exporting and importing. That is the bottom line, because that is all a port is: a place where goods are brought in or sent out. Whether those goods will be competitive to a large extent will depend on how much you pay to get them through that port. That is the bottom line. So if the government says it will privatise the port, then it is up to the government to show that privatising the port will be advantageous to the people of the Northern Territory.
This set of guidelines did not cover that. Thankfully, after some discussions this morning, the Chief Minister has agreed – it still has to be brought before us and debated – to look at a clause which will consider the case for bringing private sector funding to develop the port. At least that opens it up so we can go to the port – you have much more knowledge than me and I appreciate that – and look at the status quo. At the same time, I have worries about cutting it short.
During my lunch break I read the 2014 annual report for the Darwin Port Corporation. These are the people we need to talk to as part of our strategy to consult. The report said:
That on its own is a major indicator of who we should be discussing this issue with. We need to talk to the grassroots people who use our port. We also need to get an understanding from those people of the issues they face at present. We need to talk to the Darwin Port Corporation, which has an advisory board, about what it sees as the future. This document talked about the possibility of private investment in the port, so they are not shying away from it.
However, before we look at balance to commercial drivers for a private operator and consider the structure, duration and timing of proposed lease agreements – important, do not get me wrong – we need to start at the beginning, because if we want to bring people along, the basic question the community will ask is, ‘Why are you selling our asset?’
The big disappointment with TIO was the government did not consult with the people. It does not mean the TIO decision was necessarily bad, but the government did not consult. That is the danger we have if we go off with, to some extent, predetermined concepts.
The member for Blain – this is constructive criticism, do not get me wrong – said things have not been predetermined. I know – you can read through this report – the government has been dealing with various companies throughout the world and Australia asking for expressions of interest. Fair enough. That has been happening for quite a while. I question why we did not set up this committee at that stage.
My understanding of why we are rushing this is because there are some financial considerations that have to be taken into account regarding people who have already submitted expressions of interest. I did not necessarily get that from here. I have already travelled to a port in Victoria and one in South Australia, and the impression I get is you cannot leave these things for too long. Is that the fault of this committee? Is that the fault of Territorians? We have to balance the need to expedite this discussion reasonably quickly against the requirements of consulting. As the Deputy Chief Minister said, we need to:
That is a good statement. I will keep that paper because it is something the government needs to be reminded of.
Five weeks is too short. When you say you are busy, people say, ‘Oh, yes?’ I have some important meetings at the beginning of March I cannot and do not want to get out of. They are to do with the Darwin regional plan, which is important for my area. I do not want to be locked into a situation where I cannot do other work. I sit on four other committees. One will probably finish at these sittings anyway.
You have to remember staff have to run these committees. They will not only have to rush around trying to organise where we go and who we talk to, they also operate and look after other committees as well. It seems to me the committee is rushed, which is not our fault; it is because the government has decided to bring on this consultation at the last minute.
It is important that we have this consultation. I give the government its due, at least it is starting to consult. The only problem is it is rushing the process more than it should. There would be nothing worse than if we rush the process and come out with a poor-quality result. We need to get a good-quality set of recommendations for the government. We need to work as a group, as you say, for the benefit of Territorians so the decision the government makes is understood by, and will be for, the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory, especially those people I just mentioned.
I spent a day at the Port of Portland. I also spent about three-quarters of a day at the Port of Adelaide. The big concern raised by exporters, shipping agents and stevedoring in Portland was they felt there was no control over the prices. They told me the price of taking materials off the wharf in Portland had gone up 10% to 12% above CPI each year, and they had no way they could stop that because Portland was a monopoly. That is what we are setting up here.
Victoria has an Essential Services Commission, which is like our Utilities Commission, which is supposed to make sure monopolies do not abuse their position in the market. My understanding is they do not worry about Portland because they claim that Geelong is competition. The problem for the woodchip industry is they cannot send their product to Geelong as it is too far by road. They have a high-volume, low-cost material, so they are stuck with Portland. There is a danger if you do not have the right regulation.
There is a bill before us that talks about the regulation. That is something we need to look at if we are going down the path of privatisation. Whatever form it is, you need to make sure regulations are adequate to ensure companies do not rip off consumers.
I am not against ports being privatised. All the ports in South Australia are private and my understanding is the South Australian Labor government did it. All the wheat ports and the main ports are privatised.
I have a problem with a company which says, for arguments sake, ‘We put in a bid for the Darwin port and we will give the government $200m. We will promise to invest another $200m in upgrading the infrastructure.’ That company has a $400m bill it needs to recover. One way to recover some of that money is by improving the number of goods that go over that wharf and doing it efficiently so you improve the efficiency of the wharf and get as much as you can through it. How do you increase the amount going through the wharf? Unless you are producing more goods, you take them from somewhere else and get them to come through our port.
The issue that worries me is if you charge too much and require too much from the company, the people who get hit are the exporters and importers. They bump the price up to pay for the $400m they had to invest in the port through the purchase price and the money they will invest. That is what I would like to see in detail to ensure the government does not ask for too much money. If you ask for too much money, it is very hard for that company to get that money back through efficiencies and it will more than likely increase the prices.
They are my concerns. I raise them as concerns I heard during my visit to those two ports. The visit to Portland gave me a good idea of what a middle-sized to small mixed port looks like. It is, in some ways, similar to us, except we probably have more bulk material in the form of minerals than Portland, which has mineral sands, and lots of woodchip and timber – bulk material.
There are issues about who owns what on a port. Adelaide Port owns the channels, pilotage, the whole lot. Portland might not have quite as much. I do not think they own everything. In the case of Darwin, the government has said that not everything would be privatised. Again, they are issues we need to look at.
We also have Defence. We are not just a standard port like Portland, which I do not think has anything to do with Defence; we have a Defence capability in the area. That is an important group we need to talk to in relation to how this would work.
I have one amendment the government is agreeing to. I presume the other amendment is from the government. I could get clarification from the government, but I was given an amendment by the government to the terms of reference, and I presume the government will go ahead with it. I can read it to you, but I cannot move it as an amendment because it is not mine.
They have added, ‘consider the case for bringing private sector funding to develop the port’, which at least allows us to look at the port as it is and whether it would be a good idea to put private investment in.
I move that the following words be inserted after the words ‘20 March 2015’:
I mentioned in the previous part of my debate that five weeks is too short. We will have another week of parliament, and that cuts it down to four weeks. This is a complex issue and we need to do it properly. Four weeks does not give us enough time to come back to parliament with the quality report expected.
I would have loved to have had much longer – maybe a few extra weeks. As much as some of our committees drag on a bit, at least you get the chance to sit down in a quiet moment, read the report and to try to gather your thoughts about it. If we are rushed to a timetable, I am scared that not only will we not speak and deal with all the people we need to, but we will not produce a report that is of high quality.
The other area we have to make sure we do not forget in this debate is coming back to the people. There needs to be an opportunity for the public to be part of this process. I can talk about all the people who use the port, all the finances and all the models, but people in the Northern Territory need to have an opportunity to have a say. The Labor Party said it should go to an election. I do not have anything against that, but the reality is that will not happen. This will go through before that election.
I would like a guarantee that there will be – and I suppose this might be up to the committee – adequate time for the community to voice its opinion about whether our port should be privatised. The government will do itself a great service if it does not go down the path of TIO, but goes down a new way of consultation with Territorians and engaging with them before – the key word there, ‘before’ – we make crucial decisions about the future of the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I remind the government members of that, because since all the kerfuffle occurred in the government, I am hoping out of that comes some real change and the government will consult.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will speak to the whole debate but start with the amendment. I acknowledge the comments made by the member for Nelson and understand where he is coming from in relation to this. I will wait for him to finish signing the document so he becomes alive to the issues I will raise.
I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, saying no; an extension of time is up to the Chief Minister. From a Leader of Government Business’ perspective there is one complicating feature to what you are suggesting; that is, part of the bills you have referred to deal with some pretty normal processes in fees and charges and the way they are being rolled out, starting on 1 July.
I suggest to you – and you will have to do some negotiating behind the scenes with the Chief Minister while I am on my feet – that if we are to go down this path the House would have to at least acknowledge that we will need to uncouple that other legislative instrument from the process, particularly if the time frame the member for Nelson is talking about takes you beyond that 1 July period ...
Mr Wood: I did not expect that, no.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, that is fine. I am just letting you know that one of the bills has that component attached to it. I am asking that you appreciate that. If we come into the House in the meantime and have to pass motions to uncouple those bills so one set of bills stays in the committee and the other bill remains in the public domain and is disposed of as a normal legislative instrument, then that mechanism must be made available, otherwise you will run into that 1 July time frame. In fact, we would have to pass it substantially before 1 July to allow it to go through its processes ...
Mr Wood: I wrote to the Chief Minister mentioning April, but I just left it open here.
Mr ELFERINK: Sure. It is just that we made a conscious decision to leave that material where it is at the moment because of the anticipation that this matter would be dealt with prior to that 1 July deadline.
For that reason, I make those comments in relation to the proposed amendment. I expect the Chief Minister and you will be having a discussion whilst I am on my feet talking more generally about the motion before the House ...
Mr Giles: I am not talking to him.
Mr ELFERINK: Right.
More generally, I make one observation in relation what I have heard today. It is a question of how the ducks are being lined up, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition. I welcome the comments from the member for Fannie Bay in relation the need for this to go to a committee. I understand his argument; if I was to paraphrase it, it is a step in the right direction but not far enough. I appreciate what he is trying to say.
What concerns me is that the language of privatisation has found its way into the vernacular of the members opposite, particularly yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition used her response to the ministerial debate to lay the platform for a future Labor government, should one occur in the Northern Territory.
If the members opposite will be legitimate in this process and their attitude towards this committee, then they are already pressing up against a structural problem they have created by making the announcements they made yesterday, in as much as if you want to go into a committee with an open mind then you cannot presume or pre-empt the outcome. This is the argument the member for Nelson consistently puts: that the purpose of a committee is not window dressing; it is a legitimate examination of the matters under consideration.
The Leader of the Opposition, however, has said that is already decided, from a Labor Party perspective. ‘It is already decided because we will take this to the people, no matter what.’ That places the Labor Party in a position where, come hell or high water, it cannot support whatever this committee finds, unless it finds its solution. That is problematic because this approach warrants examination, because it is potentially good for the people of the Northern Territory.
The position of the Labor Party – and this is true to their stripes – is that this must be all taxpayers’ dollars. The position of the Country Liberals government is quite different. We are saying this is, essentially, a business, and being a business it may attract business people to come into that environment and put private investment into some type of partnership arrangement. Philosophically, the members opposite are not necessarily against PPPs. The goal, when they went down that path, was a PPP arrangement.
If we are able to attract money into development of the port through a partnership and not taxpayers’ money, it will provide more jobs. That partnership does not cost us the asset if we do not sell it but merely lease it. We will be in an environment where we would have to seriously look at this. It is potentially good because it means more taxpaying Territorians providing more income for the people of the Northern Territory. That is why I am attracted to this approach.
The Chief Minister has been abundantly clear in saying he would sign in blood that this is not about selling the port. He is looking at a leasing arrangement and a partnership with a private business so that private business can continue to generate income and wealth and we, as a jurisdiction, can be the beneficiary of that approach.
As time passes, it is increasingly clear that the lines between the public domain and the private sector, because of the nature of how government operates throughout the western world, are no longer as clear as they have been in the past. If you look at the gaol as an example, those lines are becoming increasingly blurred.
We are not – and I have not heard the Chief Minister suggest we are – selling anything. We are looking for partners because those partnerships will generate any number of potential outcomes. If we were to say, ‘No, private over there, public over here and never the twain shall meet’ going forward, then we are asking the taxpayer to collect the burden. At the moment, the port’s infrastructure circumstances present a number of challenges to the taxpayer.
The question I would ask in such a committee is how will we meet those challenges? You either increase taxes, borrow or stop spending in areas like child protection, health, education or policing. As a consequence of that approach, by drawing a line in the sand and saying the two will never meet, we may be missing an opportunity.
The Chief Minister and the government are bringing before this House the idea that we should pursue an opportunity. Before the battle lines of politics get too entrenched in this place and in the public domain, I counsel, in the strongest possible terms, that the language surrounding this issue is tempered, at least until the committee has an opportunity to report back to this House on its findings.
I argue that members on the other side of the House should temper the language and say, ‘We will look at this committee as a serious investigation of the potential before us’. If the solution becomes apparent that this is a valuable thing which will generate jobs, union members and union funds into the future, then the Labor Party should not commit to a position simply because of an ideology – something it has been stridently arguing in the last few days. It said, ‘Allow yourself to be guided by the evidence not ideology’. Okay, stump up! Here is the opportunity to allow yourselves to be guided by the evidence. Allow yourselves to be taken on the journey. Do not pre-empt the results of that committee by saying this has to go to an election when a delay by taking it to an election may cost jobs in the short to medium term. We may see a situation pass us by where a potential investor says it is all too hard because it is too controversial. It may see investment capital go to New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia or Indonesia when it should be here.
Madam Speaker, for all those reasons I support what the Chief Minister is trying to do in this process. I understand that the member for Nelson is trying to make sure the time frames are right. I observed today that a conversation, albeit brief, was held between the member for Nelson and the Chief Minister. I place on the record my appreciation for what the member for Nelson is trying to do. I encourage the Labor members of this Chamber not to entrench themselves in a solution of their own making before they listen to the committee process, because it would be contrary to everything they have said in this House over the last couple of days.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, in speaking to the amendment, the member for Nelson and I are in sensible agreement about the approach to extending the time the committee can meet. I support the amendment.
Briefly on what the member for Port Darwin said, I always go into committees with an open mind. I will be taking an open mind into this committee. I enunciated in my contribution that we have a current party position. As always, when you are on a committee, you have to attend with as open a mind as possible. I will do that, and would appreciate as much time as possible to be able to do that. The member for Nelson has moved an amendment to the terms of reference to allow that. We are in sensible agreement that time should be allowed.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, are we speaking to the amendment or to the motion itself?
Madam SPEAKER: You can speak to the amendment if you want to, and/or the motion.
Mr GILES: I will speak to both in part, if that is okay.
Madam Speaker, it has been a great little debate so far. I thank the member for Blain, the future chairperson of the committee, for his contribution, the member for Port Darwin for his most recent contribution and other members of the Chamber.
They were valuable contributions. I acknowledge there are a few populists on the other side of the room who will try to run this as an asset leasing issue and a political agenda rather than looking at forecasting how we can support the advancement of the Northern Territory by building future port infrastructure to ensure we can meet a growing export demand in the future.
I take exception to one of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fannie Bay, when he was saying how important the fuel inquiry was as it is, and its time frame. One has to question his comments. The fuel legislation brought in by this government, the changes in the pricing regime, the pressures put on the fuel companies and the direction that has been provided between government and United – particularly through David Szymszak from United – in having a price leader in the market with that change, not just in Darwin but across the Territory, has been quite positive.
We set up a fuel inquiry to look at the bill. We thought we would do the right thing through democratic parliamentary process. Labor huff and puff about it, as it has today. Look at the participation in the committee proceedings at the fuel inquiry. The member for Johnston, Ken Vowles, could not even be bothered turning up at the fuel inquiry – for all the huff and puff, he could not turn up ...
Ms Fyles interjecting.
Mr GILES: The member for Nightcliff sat at the fuel inquiry playing on her phone, sending text messages and twitters to everybody, not actually worrying about Territorians and talking at the fuel inquiry.
The member for Fannie Bay turned up today with all his might and huff and puff saying, ‘Five weeks is not enough because you cannot work in an iron lung’. I understand one of the problems with Labor is it cannot work in an iron lung, cannot manage to get around to 10 different ports. I have already had a chat to the member for Blain about ducking off to Singapore, Hong Kong and maybe Shanghai, looking at some ports – Melbourne, Brisbane and Fremantle, for example – to start to identify some of the port management practices.
You can do all that in five weeks. You can use the library, the research officers and the committee structure. They do not like it because they know that Ken Vowles was too lazy to turn up at the fuel committee …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw that Chief Minister. Refer to members by their electorate names please.
Mr GILES: Oh sorry, the member for Johnston was too lazy to turn up at the fuel committee hearing …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw that too, Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: Withdraw what?
Madam SPEAKER: References to a person’s character.
Mr VOWLES: Standing Order 62!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Johnston, please be seated.
Mr GILES: Sorry, I withdraw. The member for Johnston could not be bothered turning up at …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62: offensive. It was quite clear the member for Johnston was sick and the committee was told that.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, please discontinue comments with reference to members.
Mr GILES: The constituents of Johnston, and those represented by the Labor Party, must feel disenfranchised and disheartened that the member for Johnston could not be bothered turning up to a committee hearing …
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, it is clear that the member was not at the committee meeting because of an illness. Please refrain from commenting on that.
Mr GILES: Okay, sorry. If, as politicians, we all take a day off when we get crook, we will just not turn up ...
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He keeps referring to something that happened, but I note that a minister from his side also did not attend.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, member for Johnston. Chief Minister, if you can keep to the topic, please.
Mr GILES: One of the points of reference from the member for Fannie Bay was the length of tenure of the fuel committee. When Labor members do not turn up, or play on their phones and not participate, it shows not only their inability to do the job, but their desire for a resolution within that fuel committee within a succinct time frame. You have based that same justification on a five-week committee hearing for the port. I find that ironic and, clearly, you are playing politics.
However, I spoke to the member for Nelson earlier this morning and agreed with him to bring in an amendment to the terms of reference. I put that as a new 3(a). The current 3(a) becomes 3(b), and 3(a) would now include a dot point and become:
That would be one slight amendment in the terms of reference, as agreed with the member for Nelson, if I read that correctly, from what we discussed.
I am happy to look at some of the merits. No doubt, Labor will try to play politics with this rather than do anything. They will send it to their little apparatchiks hidden away in their office upstairs and try to do something in regard to asset sales. Rather than looking after Territorians, they will play games again.
That is something we have agreed to with the member for Nelson. I have also had the opportunity to chat with the members for Blain and Drysdale who will both be on the committee, the member for Blain being the chairperson, regarding the timing of parliamentary sittings. The next parliamentary sittings after March is 27 April. We will amend that the parliamentary inquiry reports back to parliament on the morning of 27 April, at which point the legislation will be debated.
We will look at the legislation now to see whether or not any amendments are required in its timing. I have not looked at that today, but on this side of the Chamber we decided to move it from five weeks to 10 weeks. Let us see if the member for Fannie Bay can turn up at the hearings, unlike the member for Johnston who is too lazy to stand up for Territorians ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, please withdraw.
Mr GILES: We will see whether the member for Fannie Bay can turn up and be part …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62 …
Madam SPEAKER: No, he has withdrawn it, member for Johnston.
Mr Gunner: A question, Adam. Are you …
Mr GILES: It is Chief Minister to you in the Chamber, Michael, and if you have a point of order I am happy for you to jump up and ask it.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister and member for Fannie Bay, refer to members by their electorate names!
Mr Gunner: Are you accepting the member for Nelson’s amendment in the committee setting a new date, or are you moving an amendment to set the new date?
Mr GILES: No. The date the committee will be reporting back to parliament is 27 April.
Mr Gunner: Will you set that or will you accept Mr Woods’ amendment?
Mr GILES: I have just moved that as an amendment.
Mr Gunner: You are moving the amendment.
Mr GILES: Yes, I am still talking in the debate, thank you, member for Fannie Bay.
I have previously agreed on an amendment with the member for Nelson, which is the new 3(a):
The second amendment at the end will be to change ‘The committee is to report by 20 March 2015’ to:
We can then debate the legislation during that week of parliament. That is the two cognate bills, as well as the consequential amendment bill which I will introduce to parliament after this debate today. Those are the two amendments the government will be putting forward. Member for Nelson, we will not be supporting the amendment previously put forward.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I presume I can speak to the amendments?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Okay. Forgetting all the other stuff about whether the member for Johnston turned up at a fuel meeting, as the Chair of that meeting I can put it on the Parliamentary Record that I was told he could not turn up because he was sick. He had severe laryngitis, from memory, which is probably not a bad thing in the case of the member for Johnston because we did not have to listen to him. Yes, it was a genuine case of being ill.
Be that as it may, I appreciate and it is good to see we are working constructively. We might not always agree, but we have come to a good compromise. We have opportunities to talk about the existing port now, as it is. It is important that we look at that. We have opportunities now to make sure we have a bit more time to come back to this parliament with a report based on the terms of reference which is also important.
I reiterate that we have to make sure Territorians come along with this discussion at, hopefully, as many meetings as possible we have open to the public, and that they are advertised as open to the public. It would be good to have an educated public when they want to have their say. If we have discussions with the commercial fishermen, the mining industry or the oil industry at our meetings, the public will be invited to listen to their concerns as well. When Territorians want to have their say, they can at least have it from an educated basis. That is a problem with much of the debate we have. Sometimes people read it off the back of a Kellogg’s cornflake packet and think that is correct. Here is an opportunity for people, and for me as a member of parliament, to learn.
I already found that in my trips to Portland and Adelaide. I learnt so much in those days. I knew nothing much about ports except you put goods over and bring goods back, and in the case of the Territory, lots of moo cows. They are much more complicated than that. The member for Blain obviously has a good understanding of how complex ports are. They are not simple.
I should mention that two departments I forgot to mention that we must include in the discussions are AQIS – which is now called the Department of Agriculture – and Customs, because they play an intricate part in the port. We need to ensure they are part of this discussion.
Madam Speaker, I support the amendments the Chief Minister has brought before us, and I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
Leave granted; amendment withdrawn.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, speaking to the Chief Minister’s amendments, I thank the Chief Minister for considering these things. I agree with the member for Nelson that considering the case for bringing in private sector funding to develop the port is very important. I very much look forward to having those discussions.
I love economics. As I said in my initial speech, which addressed many of those issues, we need to spend time considering private sector investment because of the expertise it brings and the sheer inability for us to fund development of the port within our own means because of the fiscal position we are in, and consider the right partner, right place, right time and right type of partnership because of the complex networks that exist within global shipping. They are all things I am very keen to work out. I am also very committed to finding a good solid answer for many of the issues you raised.
I take the member for Nelson’s point regarding bringing people on this journey with us. I had many dealings with AQIS over time but not so much Customs. We might need to consider their work and functions on the port, as well as their thoughts in relation to that.
I thank the Chief Minister and support the amendments he has brought to the House because it will be in everybody’s best interests that we do this right.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the amendments.
The member for Nelson feels the amendment, ‘Consider the case for bringing private sector funding to develop the port,’ is strong enough to allow us to investigate the current model at the port, which is one reason he negotiated that with the Chief Minister this morning. We support that amendment. It could be stronger or clearer, but if the member for Nelson is comfortable with that phrasing and it gives us an opportunity to explore the current model at the port, we are comfortable with that and will support it.
I also support the amendment to change the date to 27 April for the committee to report. This committee is meant to take a step forward in rebuilding the government’s trust deficit. The Chief Minister’s contribution to debate has not been helpful in changing the government’s approach on these issues. The committee can be a step forward in having a conversation with Territorians about what happens with their asset, and allowing us time to talk with stakeholders and engage with people at the port. That is why we support the change of time frame. I do not think the Chief Minister was helpful in his contribution in trying to establish that new narrative with Territorians. If this committee is a half a step forward, then he took a full step back. If we are coming to this in good faith, as we are trying to, the Chief Minister needs to come in good faith as well. His contribution was not helpful.
We support the two amendments. Looking at the existing model at the port is important. We believe the committee needs more time to properly examine the issues raised and meet and talk with the people who want to submit to this committee. They will need time to develop those submissions. We also need time to consider those submissions, have conversations with them and report back to this House. There is a range of stakeholders and the member for Nelson read the comprehensive list from the annual report. However, the general community is not in that list. We do not know how much and to what extent the general community wants to submit to this committee.
Madam Speaker, we now have a longer time frame. It could have been longer, but we have a compromise and are happy to work with 27 April. If this is an attempt by the government to take a step forward in its relationship with the Territory people, that last contribution was not helpful.
Amendments agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, whilst there is no question before the Chair, I move that the member for Daly be appointed to the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Routine of Business
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that during the present session the Assembly shall proceed each day with its ordinary business in the following routine:(1) Tuesday and Thursday:
(2) Wednesdays:
The essence of this motion is to move Question Time from 10 am to 2 pm every day. It will place us in accord with every other parliament in the country, as I understand ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, before I hear it from the members opposite, it was a road to Damascus conversion. I was Saul now I am Paul.
When coming into government we returned to a system that had been in place under a prior CLP government which had served that government well.
Unfortunately in more recent times, particularly since the Labor Party became the opposition in the Northern Territory since the 2012 election, the quality of invective of the members opposite has had the effect of creating problems in the subsequent debates. There is a wash-over effect from an angry opposition in debates that matter to the people in the Northern Territory, and to effective debate of issues such as laws that matter to the people of the Northern Territory. We understand it is important to have at least two hours of rational debate before the irrational washes over the members opposite ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I am amazed I am hearing as much noise as I am because this is what they said they wanted. They originally wanted a 2 pm Question Time. They have what they want and now you cannot keep them quiet.
I will not be one of those people who champions the – I am trying to find the right word at the moment and unfortunately I have only one but it would be unparliamentary – abuse of the parliamentary system the former Labor government used to have in place. Nevertheless, we are prepared to change our minds on this side of the House. That is what this motion represents.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I was looking forward to hearing the Leader of Government Business’ explanation for the Damascene conversion, but I was not expecting him to say we get people angry during Question Time, therefore, we were having irrational debate. I was not expecting that reason for the shift of Question Time.
I was not aware we had that great an effect on the CLP’s behaviour from 11 am to 12 pm based on Question Time experiences. I feel I go into debate at 11 am perfectly reasonable and rational. I did not realise there was this state of frothing uncertainty on the other side as a result of the terriers of Question Time that we are.
We were not consulted about that shift from 10 am to 2 pm. Obviously, the Leader of Government Business knows we are on the record at the start of this term with a 2 pm preference, which is what we had during government.
This did not go to the Standing Orders Committee. As I understand it, the media, which has a great interest in when Question Time is held, was not consulted either and has made some protestations about this shift. With this new narrative of the CLP government about consultation, in this instance there was no consultation. As opposition, we are prepared to take that because we have placed our position on the record. However, I know there are others who would have liked to have been consulted.
I was not expecting the reason for the shift from 10 am to 2 pm to be the wobbles the CLP had from 11 am to 12 pm as a result of Question Time.
Our position is known. I am fascinated by the Leader of Government Business’ shift of things but we welcome his conversion. There are a number of other things I might bring to his attention over time to see if he can convert on those as well …
Ms Lawrie: More epiphanies.
Mr GUNNER: We look forward to more epiphanies from the member for Port Darwin. This one obviously happened in more amusing circumstances than I realised ...
Ms Lawrie: More 1 am media conferences.
Mr GUNNER: Yes, I am just glad Question Time has not shifted to 1 am. We acknowledge this. We have placed our position on the record before. I would have been happy to have a discussion about this in the Standing Orders Committee, which might be the normal procedure. I know the media and others would like to have been consulted. We are on the record about our preference for Question Time and we thank the Leader of Government Business for his conversion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not know anything about it either. In fact, I could not care when Question Time is on as long as we have Question Time ...
Mr Vowles: 1 am?
Mr WOOD: At 1 am as long as …
Mr Gunner: As long as it goes longer than three minutes.
Mr WOOD: Yes. I must admit, I missed the reason. It is a bit hard to guess the reason. I was talking to the member for Blain about the debate we just had. Again, it says here:
Obviously, because they have not engaged with me, this is not an important or crucial decision.
I will not waffle on any more, but what was the big reason for changing it considering you went to such effort to change it when you first came to government? I am confused.
Madam Speaker, I could not care less as long as we have at least one hour of Question Time and at least four questions from the Independents.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act to provide the NT Remuneration Tribunal with the power to determine the salaries of members of the Legislative Assembly, including office holders. Under the act as it currently stands, movements in MLA salaries are directly linked to movements in NT Public Sector wages.
The Remuneration Tribunal, in its 2012 report on MLA entitlements, noted the current legislative framework removes the capacity for independent assessment of parliamentary remuneration levels based on the actual duties and responsibilities of Assembly members. The tribunal commented that this has had the effect of devaluing the base remuneration of Assembly members and office holders by not taking into account relevant considerations, which will continue to be exacerbated in the future due to the compounding effect of increases, year after year, which do not reflect actual work considerations. The tribunal recommended that these provisions in the act be repealed and replaced with a power for the tribunal to determine basic salary and additional salary of office for MLAs.
It also recommended the legislation provide that the tribunal cannot determine basic salary to be more than that to which a federal MHR is entitled, less a fixed amount to be nominated in the act. This would establish a salary ceiling which the tribunal could not exceed in determining a basic salary. This is a variation on the nexus which existed in earlier legislation whereby MLAs were entitled to a basic salary equivalent to that of a federal member of the House of Representatives, less $3000.
The tribunal reiterated its recommendation in its 2013 report, adding that rather than a fixed dollar differential in the legislation, it now favoured the use of a fixed percentage differential between an MHR and an MLA basic salary. The government has given careful consideration to the independent tribunal’s recommendation and has decided to accept it.
Expert advice from Mercer, a division of Marsh Mercer Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd, was sought as to an appropriate formula for establishing a proportionate relationship between a basic salary of a member of the House of Representatives and that of a Northern Territory MLA. The report recommended a range of different areas which will be investigated.
I will be pleased to make this report available to the Leader of the Opposition and the Independent member for Nelson if they wish. It is not government’s position but an independent report.
Accordingly, this bill places the provisions which link MLA salary movements to NTPS salary movements, with the power for the independent Remuneration Tribunal to determine basic salary for NT parliamentarians up to a maximum level of 80% of a federal MHR basic salary. This cap is an important governance measure to ensure that NT MLA salaries remain at a reasonable level, compared to salaries in other jurisdictions.
The tribunal will also have the power to determine additional salary of office for MLA office holders, and to determine the list of office holders who are entitled to additional salary.
Another important governance measure in this bill is a requirement for the tribunal to take into account the following matters when determining basic salary or additional salary of office for Assembly members: the nature of the duties and obligations of an Assembly member or office holder; Consumer Price Index movements; public sector wage policies; and parliamentary salaries in other Australian jurisdictions. This list is not exclusive and the tribunal may take into account other matters it considers relevant to setting parliamentary remuneration.
Transitional provisions have been put in place to ensure that existing parliamentary salaries remain in place after the new legislation has commenced, until such time as the tribunal’s first determination on basic and additional salary of office comes into effect.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Economic Development and Major Projects): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Ports Management (Repeals and Related and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2015 (Serial 113).
As I explained in the November 2014 sittings when introducing the Ports Management Bill, my government is committed to implementing an improved regulatory regime for designated ports in the Northern Territory and to facilitate a commercially efficient Port of Darwin which will expand and grow in line with the Northern Territory economy.
The Ports Management (Repeals and Related and Consequential Amendment) Bill 2015 – hereafter referred to as the consequential bill – has been drafted to deal with a number of minor, related or consequential issues which were not incorporated into the Ports Management Bill due to time constraints. These relate in the main to conversion of offences within the Marine Act to ensure compliance with Part 2AA of the Criminal Code Act, consequential amendments as a result of the impending repeal of the Darwin Port Corporation Act and other minor amendments which have been identified since the introduction of the Ports Management Bill in the November 2014 sittings.
The consequential bill amends a number of acts and regulations to support the operation of the new regulatory regime created by the Ports Management Bill. Under the Litter Act, the Darwin Port Corporation currently has a legislative ability to issue infringement notices for offences. Advice from the corporation is that it has never used this power. Given the expected move to a private operator of the port, the consequential bill removes all references to the corporation from the Litter Act and also removes the power of the corporation to issue infringement notices. However, the minister retains the power under section 5 of the Litter Act to appoint a person to be an officer for the purposes of the act. This will allow the private port operator to seek appointments should litter enforcement become a significant issue at the port.
Section 8 of the Litter Act also has been amended to replace the Darwin Port Authority as a body which can certify ownership of vessels for prosecution purposes with the boat registration authority as defined.
The majority of the amendments to the Marine Act contained in the consequential bill are to ensure that offences are compliant with Part 2AA of the Criminal Code Act. In addition, the consequential bill:
amends the definition of ‘marine incident’ to make it clear that it covers incidents involving all types of vessels, not just domestic commercial vessels
removes a number of offences relating to obstructing officers or crew members in the course of their duties, and inserts them into a new dedicated obstruction offence section
amends the forfeiture of dangerous goods provisions and offences in relation to navigation aids so they mirror equivalent provisions within the Ports Management Bill
reinstates an obligation on the master of a recreational vessel to report marine incidents in which they are involved
transfers the function of administrative review of decisions made by the director from the Local Court to the recently-created NT Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal
includes moorings as structures which must be approved by the director under section 188A
provides a power to the minister to close waters for more than 48 hours
includes a transitional provision to allow the Local Court to finalise any administrative appeal lodged but not determined at the time of commencement of the consequential bill.
The Port of Darwin is currently exempt from the legislative requirements to register and be licensed as a major hazards facility under the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Regulations. Given the expected move to a private operator of the port, this blanket exemption has been removed by the consequential bill. However, the consequential bill provides that section 15, ‘Chemicals in transit in a designated port’, are not to be considered when determining whether a port is a major hazards facility. ‘In transit’ is defined to include goods which are supplied or stored or used at a workplace and which are kept at the workplace for no more than five consecutive days.
The effect of these amendments is that the Port of Darwin will continue to not be categorised as a major hazards facility unless it materially changes its methods of storage and handling of dangerous goods. Should this occur it will be required to comply with the major hazards facility requirements under the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Regulations.
The consequential bill makes a minor amendment to the AustralAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Act to remove reference to the Darwin Port Corporation and replace it with reference to the Northern Territory.
The consequential bill makes a minor amendment to the Fisheries Regulations by replacing the current definition of the Darwin Port with the definition included in the Ports Management Bill.
To ensure consistency, the consequential bill amends regulation 161(b) of the Marine (General) Regulations by referring to pilotage area as defined in the Ports Management Bill. It also removes regulation 23 which prescribes the Darwin Port Corporation as the operator of the Coast Radio Darwin. This role is now redundant as it is being undertaken by a private third party.
The consequential bill amends regulation 37 of the Marine Pollution Regulations to update who should be notified of reportable incidents. Specifically, reference to the Marine Branch, the Harbourmaster and the Darwin Port Corporation have been removed and replaced with the Regional Harbourmaster and the Port Management Officer for a designated port. This is in line with the new regulatory regime under the Ports Management Bill.
The Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority has requested that it also be included in the list of agencies to be notified, given it has taken over administration of the Marine Pollution Act and Regulations. This has been incorporated into the consequential bill. Reference to the Harbourmaster Nabalco Pty Ltd, Gove Harbour, has also been replaced with Harbourmaster, Alcan Gove Pty Ltd, Gove Harbour.
The consequential bill repeals a number of marine (pilotage) regulations given the removal of pilotage provisions from the Marine Act into the Ports Management Act.
The consequential bill makes a very minor amendment to the Mining Management Act by replacing the current reference to Darwin Port Corporation with a reference to the port operator as defined in clause 3 of the Ports Management Bill. The consequential bill also makes a number of minor amendments to the Ports Management Bill including:
amending the definitions of ‘buoy’ and ‘Port of Darwin’
amending reference to the Darwin Port Corporation Act to include ‘(Repealed)’, given the expected move to a private operator of the port
ensuring that the powers to approve the erection of structures in waters within designated ports are in line with the powers in section 188A of the Marine Act for approval of structures in other waters
clarifying that section 87(1), ‘Record keeping and reporting obligations of a pilotage services provider’ only extends to incidents involving a licensed pilot employed or engaged by the provider or a vessel that he or she has charge of
inserting a specific regulation-making power in section 127 to ensure that the regulator has the discretion to determine any matters about which guidelines should be issued among the prescribed matters relating to access policies and related reports
In closing, I restate that the consequential bill makes relatively minor and non-controversial amendments to a number of acts and regulations to support the operation of the new regulatory regime created by the Ports Management Bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 27 November 2014.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Children and Families for bringing the Care and Protection of Children Amendment Bill to the House for debate. It goes without saying that the safety and wellbeing of children is paramount and, quite rightly, a focus and priority of all of us in this Chamber and an area where we all want to make a big difference.
In the second reading of this bill, the member for Port Darwin discussed the need for us to look for more ways to increase the stability of home life of children and young people who come into contact with the Department of Children and Families. That goal, I believe, is shared by all of us in the Chamber, those in the Territory and national sector that I had the pleasure of meeting over the last month or two and by the community. We all want the best possible outcomes for children and young people in care through to adulthood. I know that is what the minister would like as well.
Also acknowledged in that reading was that conversations pertaining to providing longer-term stability to these children have been occurring for quite some time. Whether referred to as enduring parental responsibility orders or Permanent Care Orders, the intention has been one that successive governments have sought to achieve. Given the vast and far-reaching implications of policy decisions in this area, the design and implementation must be done thoughtfully and in collaboration with the sector that supports children and families in the Northern Territory.
There are positive aspects to this amendment. Stability for children in care – in particular those who are already on long-term protection orders and, therefore, family reunification has already been ruled out – is incredibly important. For carers to have increased freedoms around the day-to-day running of their family, for the department to take a step back and for those children to have greater opportunity at normalcy and stability is important. That the government is working towards removing stigma for those families by reducing the role of the department is a positive thing for children and their families.
It is important for me to acknowledge the non-government sector and its vital and important role in delivering services and support to children and families across the Northern Territory, including those that are in contact with the child protection system. Its commitment and work in this area is vital to the ongoing functioning of service provision in this area.
It was encouraging over the last week to hear the announcement from the Chief Minister relating to a new set of standards for how the government and non-government sector will work together going forward. At around the same time the government decided it would be a more consultative government. The media release from 12 February stated:
And later:
This is music to my ears as I value consultation and collaboration. It makes us more responsive to community needs, increases our ability to share knowledge and resources, and means we have more effective policy and legislation responses for Territorians. I firmly believe this is where the government could be doing much better in relation to this amendment.
It was interesting to hear the minister discuss this morning misrepresentation coming from certain organisations or people across the sector. It was interesting because it has become clear to me from correspondence and my own conversations with the sector that the feeling in relation to this amendment has been minimal at best. The sector would like to be, and should be, involved in ensuring the amendment is as strong as it can be for Territory children. We all want to do the best we can in this regard, to make a difference and to create appropriate and strong legislation in the best interests of Territorians.
It would be good to get everybody on the same page with this and to hear what people’s concerns and thoughts are. To not involve the sector in a meaningful way in this process is certainly not the best way to achieve that goal or demonstrate that the NGO work is valued.
On 5 February a letter was sent to the Minister for Children and Families from NTCOSS on behalf of a number of other organisations which also expressed support for the principle of Permanent Care Orders. However, it requested that the NT government consider deferring debate in consideration of the Care and Protection of Children Amendment Bill to allow for appropriate consultation to occur. This is not an unreasonable request, particularly not of a government with a renewed focus on being consultative.
On Monday this week I also wrote to the Minister for Children and Families with the same request: to allow those who work in and have vast experience and knowledge in child protection and support of Territory families to discuss this amendment with the government, and any further potential amendments to strengthen outcomes for the Territory’s children. This was on top of two requests to the minister’s office for the projected numbers from a desktop study which we were told would go ahead so there might be an idea of how many children the Permanent Care Orders may be an option for.
Those requests asked for clarification about the consultation process which occurred, and to date no response has been received. This is disappointing, especially since in the second reading the minister referred to the potential for this to alleviate caseloads for child protection workers. It is possible that Permanent Care Orders are an option for a small number of children in the system. I do not want us to lose sight of the fact there are still workers in the Department of Children and Families with huge caseloads.
On Thursday last week, a submission was received from NAAJA and Northern Territory Legal Aid, supported by seven other community-based non-government organisations, making recommendations on this amendment. Sixteen recommendations were made on a range of issues, including cultural care plans, family support resourcing and who can be party to decision-making in court. I ask the government members whether they believe their consultation process has been thorough enough for these important points to be considered at any great length. The recommendations throw some light on issues which need more focus and work, including, but not limited to, investment on resourcing, early intervention and intensive family support services. More must be done to prevent, where we can, families from coming into contact with the system in the first place.
I thank the organisations I have had the pleasure of meeting with over the last few months, because I have heard of some amazing and inspirational initiatives occurring in the Territory and all over the country.
While we all know and believe it is the role of parents to act in the best interests of their children, this does not always happen and it is not the fault of the children involved. It also does not account for the families who do their best but, for a range of reasons, are unable to support their families. There are families for whom the transition from just coping to not coping can be avoided, because there are services wanting to provide them with the help they need. We should support them in doing so.
We have also seen the results of government cuts. I reflect on the announcement of $4.2m for the youth sector over the last couple of weeks, which is a fraction of what has been cut from youth services and Children and Families since the CLP government came to power in 2012. Yesterday, the Chief Minister talked about this funding saying:
I also believe strongly in early intervention and prevention, as do most of the stakeholders I have spoken to over the last few months. If the CLP government truly believes in the importance of early intervention and prevention, it should be taking those recommendations from NAAJA, NT Legal Aid and others for early intervention and family support investment more seriously.
We must continue to ask critical questions about how children and families who come to the attention of government and non-government services time after time continue to fall through the cracks. This is a job for all of us. It will not get any easier without the acknowledgment of important, consistent, culturally-appropriate and intensive family support, and its role in the ongoing work of family reunification, which is a priority where it is an option.
Stability is the overall message, and I am supportive of the intention of more stability for children in the child protection system. However, we must not forget that our child protection system and department is currently without a CEO. We do not know who the new Children’s Commissioner is, despite the fact that Dr Howard Bath left in December.
Mr Elferink: That is not correct; he is still employed.
Ms MOSS: He is not in the position currently.
Mr Elferink: I cannot replace a guy who is still employed.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: Get it right.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can we please not have interjections across the floor? Can we allow the member to speak?
Madam SPEAKER: We should have the courtesy to listen to the member in silence.
Ms MOSS: There are arguments for and against the ceasing of departmental support, including financial support for those who enter into Permanent Care Orders. I note the position paper in relation to the South Australian system – referenced by the Minister for Children and Families in the second reading of the bill – referred to keeping cases open within the department so families which might require ongoing support had more options. Given that we want placements to have the greatest chance of success, this provides families with that support should it be required.
I believe there is plenty of room in this amendment to strengthen what is currently happening in relation to care and cultural plans for children and young people under the care and protection of the department. It is incredibly important that the government commits to this and works to strengthen it in practice.
It is clear that while successive governments have, without a doubt, been committed to wanting to make a difference in the lives of children and families, we still have a long way to go. Prevention and early intervention is vital. Investment in education, training and employment is vital. Celebrating the achievements of our communities and making a concerted effort to listen to those who know the needs of their communities best is vital.
It is for those reasons I ask the CLP government to make the commitment that in the implementation of Permanent Care Orders they will do what they say they will in abiding by their own standards of engagement, and work alongside the non-government sector to ensure our children have the best opportunity for stability and connection to culture and family.
Additionally, we ask the government to commit to a review of Permanent Care Orders in 12 months which involves the sector. A review will demonstrate commitment to continuous improvement of Permanent Care Orders and of the system more generally, and provide that opportunity, with communities and the sector, to strengthen the legislation which has a huge impact for children in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I encourage and urge the government to chat to some of those people in the sector who have taken enormous amounts of time over the last few weeks to try to put something together. I hope it is considered by the government, particularly cultural care plans. I thank the minister for bringing the amendment to the House.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, as my colleague, the shadow Minister for Child Protection has said, we are very supportive of work to provide the best possible outcomes and support for all children who come to the attention of our child support system.
We acknowledge that Permanent Care Orders can be another tool in providing more stability for kids in long-term care who have been reluctantly determined to have little prospect of return to a stable life with their own parents or family.
We should also remain focused on promoting wellbeing through all the life stages of a child who has been in care. That should still be the big lesson of failed policies of the past, understanding that we need to focus on future adult wellbeing as well as child wellbeing, and that entails opportunities for children to stay connected to their cultural backgrounds and their biological families, to know who they are and where they come from. This is especially so for the adult wellbeing of Indigenous children in care.
However, these are not matters that are important for all people of all backgrounds. I have heard what the minister has said about these matters being part of a consideration of Permanent Care Orders. I hope he stays true to his word and respects the importance of those arrangements, especially for kids in long-term care who may be benefiting from those arrangements which can strongly influence decision-making.
I am still troubled by the provisions of this bill that relate to notification to biological parents of any decision on Permanent Care Orders – potentially a letter in a letter box. I note that kids likely to benefit from these Permanent Care Orders are those already in long-term care for whom, as expected, there would already have been exhaustive attempts to reconcile families.
Again I urge that magistrates review operational practice in making their determinations in relation to Permanent Care Orders to ensure, to the best of their ability, there has been appropriate contact and support for parents of children in long-term care who may be recommended for Permanent Care Orders and long-term care orders. Likewise, I urge that other relatives – grandparents, aunts and uncles, for example – also be involved in exploring the best options for the children in our care.
Of course, our loving and reliable foster carers are critical to this work. I congratulate those foster carers who have selflessly dedicated themselves to the wellbeing of children. I also want to ensure these foster carers are able to access continued support from child support workers as they embark on providing permanent care – that they are not cut adrift.
I note our past Children’s Commissioner reported an increase in the need for resolution of disputes between carers and the department in recent years. I urge that any such issues are addressed in a timely fashion to support our carers and provide stable, caring arrangements.
I am also troubled by the increasing number of kids coming to care and our declining standards in reconciliation of notifications. The then Children’s Commissioner reported in his last annual report that investigations had not begun or were overdue in nearly 1200 cases.
Of course, we would all be alarmed by the high proportion of Indigenous children coming to the attention of the child protection system and being placed in care. I know this is difficult policy and a difficult program area. We continue to have problems in attracting and retaining quality staff to provide frontline services.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the dedication our child protection workers have to their work and the difficult circumstances they continue to work in every day. In particular, I support the work of frontline workers, teachers, family, support workers, nurses and police who take the initiative of advising our Department of Children and Families of children who may be at risk. This important work is not assisted by the instability at the highest levels of government, nor the loss of another CEO of the Department of Children and Families.
It is not good enough to respond to criticism of increasing backlogs and attention to notifications by blaming the police for the increased reporting as the minister did last year, describing police as overzealous. It was simply appalling. We know child protection is an expensive business, both in emotional and financial terms. That is why we committed to our board of inquiry’s report, Growing them strong, together, and a new $30m investment to improve our child protection system when we saw kids were falling through the cracks.
I fear the momentum we created in improving our child protection system is waning. We look forward to early replacement of our recently retired Children’s Commissioner – I have been informed he is still employed as the Children’s Commissioner – so the Northern Territory and wider Australian community can have independent advice and confidence in the progressive improvement of our child protection framework.
It is also not good enough to say this government cannot do more in the area of preventing child abuse and that the heart of that problem is the Commonwealth passive welfare arrangements, as the current minister alluded to in estimates last year. Your government should be doing more to implement the broad-ranging recommendations relating to early intervention and family support contained in Chapter 5 of the Growing them strong, together report, and doing the best it can to invest in the progressive improvement of early intervention and family support programs, particularly young families in overcrowded and often unsafe housing, who are also struggling with low fixed incomes and constant financial stress.
I note AMSANT has suggested consideration of remote support for programs such as the Nurse Family Partnership Program, the work of which has been shown to assist in reducing child abuse. The current minister with responsibility for this portfolio is well placed to advance this type of work.
In the same week as the most recent Closing the Gap in Indigenous Disadvantage report which our Prime Minister described as profoundly disappointing, The Guardian newspaper reported the concerns of grandmothers against removals across Australia – some 15 000 children have been taken into care since Kevin Rudd’s 2008 apology to the Stolen Generations.
I also note that the recent sad reports in the national press – reporting on the 2013-14 Productivity Commission’s report into government services – said across Australia over 300 children were reported to have been abused by somebody while living in a foster home. I understand the intention of the Permanent Care Orders is to help reduce that risk by supporting long-term and loving placements. However, the risk exists. I believe, as do others, that there is still a need for the Department of Children and Families to have a role in providing ongoing support to parents participating in a permanent care arrangement both in practical support and the monitoring of the commitments made in making applications for Permanent Care Orders.
Another new report on the same day reported that Aboriginal children across Australia are 10 times more likely than non-Aboriginal children to be removed from parents and taken into care. That gap is increasing across Australia and is simply not good enough.
I note our recent Children’s Commissioner’s words that a key recommendation of one of the most recent boards of inquiry that led to the Growing them strong, together report was that within five years as much would be spent on child abuse and neglect prevention services and preventing kids coming into care as is spent on child protection investigations. Our eminent Children’s Commissioner also told the ABC PM program:
In December last year the NT News reported that since the CLP came into power in 2012 DCF staff levels are down by about 90, while close to $8m was slashed from its budget last year. While I acknowledge the merit of Permanent Care Orders for some – though we do not know how many kids are in long-term care – this legislation would have been enhanced by proper consultation with key stakeholders. We have called on you to defer debate on this legislation pending further consultation. You have chosen not to do that.
We support the intention of stable placements for kids in long-term care. We support families that want to commit to Permanent Care Orders. We urge more attention to respectful engagement with biological parents before their rights are permanently put to one side in the interests of the child. We call for more attention to cultural care plans, and that magistrates considering applications for Permanent Care Orders give weighty considerations to these issues and, where possible, the views of affected children and their biological family, as well as support for new parents accepting responsibility for the wellbeing of the children in permanent care.
Madam Speaker, I urge the minister to walk the talk and commit to deeper and more effective consultation in all matters to do with child protection, policy and practice. We must remember and learn from the lessons and the hurt of the past.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Johnston and Casuarina for their contributions. I will not go into as much detail, but I felt I needed to say something about what must be one of the hardest areas a government has to deal with. It is so sad that our society needs a Care and Protection of Children Act, but it does because we know that children should be protected.
We have had the Little Children are Sacred report, the Growing them strong, together report and we still have many kids who need care and protection. It is an indictment on our society that we seem to have a continual problem in this area.
I am concerned that much of the discussion is after the event. If we are ever to get on top of this – there were all the recommendations in those reports that would, hopefully, change things. There are many good people working in a very difficult area. I cannot say that if you fix this, this will change. I am not qualified to say that. I just say to those who work on the front line and the people who make the policy decisions, to not ever give up. There must be times when people in this area must throw their hands up and think, ‘Not again. Here we go again.’ At times it must be despairing, but in other times there must be great joy.
We have a bill before us which now enables families to receive long-term care for people who presently have intermittent care they are unsure how long will last. I feel this bill is worthy of support; it is a way forward. There is some criticism from some people who have written to me and to other members. I am interested to hear the government’s response to that. In general, allowing a child to have a more permanent home is good for the child and the parents.
When I first read this legislation, I thought this might be a bit tricky in regard to the bit about not getting any financial support as you did before, if you take responsibility of a child. I thought, ‘Oh gee, people might not be too keen on doing that’, but then I thought the people who want to do this do so for the love of the child, not the dollar. There is a genuine request from the carers that they have that child as their own as part of their family, not as someone they get a dollar for from the government. That is good and shows genuineness of the people caring for the child – that they do it for the right reasons.
There have always been concerns about cultural placements of children. Even though that is a fine goal, the reality is, when you look at the number of Indigenous children requiring care, it is probably impossible simply because there are not enough carers with the cultural background you would prefer.
The last page of the second reading said:
That is important to people. If they are critical, they realise there are requirements in the act for that connection to occur where practical. It may not always be practical, so it is good to see that in there. I have heard debates in this area before; people are concerned we are getting another Stolen Generation. I have also heard debates from Aboriginal members of parliament in days gone by saying the welfare of the child is most important. Whilst cultural connection is important, it is not the most important issue. The welfare of the child is most important. Whilst we must do our best to ensure there is a cultural connection, in the end that needs to be the bottom line.
While we are talking about this issue, one thing I hoped the government would do after bringing out the Growing them strong, together report was something Lesley Taylor from NAPCAN always said to me. ‘The area we have to focus on is the area of parenting.’ The government has to try to invest more money into this as it is a difficult area.
From one of the committees I am on, we know many Indigenous girls of a young age are having children. Are they mature enough to parent those children? They may be, but we hope there is help for those young mothers to ensure they care properly for that child. I am not saying they do not, but there is an idea that people are having children before being mature enough to care properly for the child and know all the requirements to bring that child up in a loving, disciplined and healthy way. There are cases where that does not occur, sadly.
My wife, not that many years ago, worked at one of the schools in Palmerston. She used to look after many of the Indigenous kids who went to that school. Many of those kids had learning difficulties. I have no doubt many of those learning difficulties were because parents had no concerns about the children. They would be up late at night drinking, watching videos, and kids would come to school in the morning starving. Because I had a chicken farm at that stage, my wife used to use all the cracked eggs to make sandwiches for the kids. Those kids were not being cared for or well parented.
We need to keep stressing that the government makes initiatives to ensure we try, as best we can, to instil those basic skills of parenting – no matter how young the mother is – to show that we are concerned about mum as well as the child, but we are there to help.
As I said, I do not come from a background where I know all the issues, and there are people here today who will know much more about that than me. I thought I would reiterate something about Lesley Taylor whom I have known for many years and believe is one of those wonderful people who has spent her life caring for children. When she tells me that is where we should be going, I will agree with her because she knows best. I raise that issue as well.
It is also an opportunity to thank Howard Bath. I did not know he was still employed by the government. He is one of the finest people the Territory has had working for it. He has always had children at heart, been knowledgeable about the issues and will give wise counsel. In my position I have always been able to discuss matters with him, as he knew so much and he would give me advice that, in many cases, I would not be able to get from anyone else. He is a wonderful man. If he is still with us, hopefully working in the Territory, that is great. He is a great bloke.
As I said before, I also thank all the workers. There have been rumours about the CEO, which were mentioned yesterday. I put on record – even though she and I had a few battles in this House – that she was one of the main drivers behind the Growing them strong, together report. I was partly involved in that, along with Lesley Taylor and minister McCarthy. Jodeen Carney was much of the reason that report was written. When she was in this parliament she fought very hard on these issues, and from inside information, she was much loved by the staff. Although there may be something that may have occurred, one needs to balance the good with the bad sometimes, and be careful you do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Regardless of our imperfections in this life, let us not make them so big that we forget the good people have done. In the case of Jodeen, she has done a lot of good and we should acknowledge that and keep things in perspective.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I said I would raise a couple of issues. John Paterson e-mailed me the other day and raised a couple of issues. I will raise them so you can answer them, minister. He said in this letter to you, but he has also e-mailed to me …
Mr Elferink: I am aware of it.
Mr WOOD: Yes. He said:
It says further:
It went on to say:
NAAJA’s media release said:
I have read some of what I thought covered that, as these papers came before me at the beginning of the week. I note – and the member for Casuarina mentioned it – they are claiming there was lack of consultation. I rang your office, minister – I hope I do not verbal anyone – and my impression was this has been around for quite a while. It is not new in the sense of a new concept, and it had been discussed by the previous government. I might be wrong there. Of course, sometimes things sit for a while and become stale, then when legislation turns up people have forgotten what happened in the past. I do not know, but consultation in this area of child protection is important.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope to hear from the minister in relation to some of the issues AMSANT and NAAJA have raised.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak on this bill as an Indigenous member of this parliament, but also on behalf of some of the families that have raised concerns with me and my colleague around the Katherine region, in my electorate, in Alice Springs and everywhere I have been to, even Darwin.
As much as I do not agree, I am not against kids being in care when they need to be. However, I have many concerns about consideration of them being permanently taken away from their family until they are 18, especially the issue of the family if it comes back together, trying to to get their kids back and not being able to. It is hurting the parents; it is breaking family connections.
Once you take one child out of a circle, that child will never go back to that circle. That child will be replaced for the rest of its life. This is how serious child protection is in Aboriginal families. I am sure we are well aware of that because we have spoken about this so many times in this House. Bringing that kid back into an Aboriginal family will take more than that child’s surname. That kid will have nothing.
That is what the government, from Stolen Generations times, has done. I am fortunate my parents were never taken, but I know a lot of families which still express that deep cut today, the emotions they have to experience about their kids or their parents being taken away. If you listen to some of the Aboriginal activists around Australia today, that is the biggest talk around.
The percentage of kids in the Northern Territory being taken into care has gone up and that is a concern to me as an Indigenous politician. Talking to NAAJA, AMSANT and working with grassroots people trying to put the best policies in place for these kids would probably be the best idea. But, we as politicians, and you as a government, cannot try to force this on Indigenous families.
I know there are problems. I grew up in an alcohol-fuelled family with drugs around us. Did I turn out that way? No. Not all of us do. We have aspirations. We have a lot of life ahead of us and we want to see that for our kids.
We need serious consultation about this. Rushing this through parliament will not do any good to the families that have already lost their kids – some that are grieving badly and whose kids have died in care. They can never be brought back.
I had to support a family in Katherine that lost two kids in care. That hurt me. I did not know the family that well. I knew their family as I have been around Katherine all my life. These are kids we are talking about. I have my own kids. This is something I am very concerned about. I would not want my kids to be taken off me until they are 18.
There is good and bad in everybody. We do not have to punish everybody. But we have to be very careful about how we put the policies in place. Indigenous people and organisations see this as another Stolen Generation. I am just being honest.
It is emotional, there is a lot of anger around it, and until we get it right we will not go anywhere. Where is the talk of closing the gap and bringing everybody together? This is a very big issue, especially in the Northern Territory, where there is a high percentage of Indigenous kids in care. There are a few of my family members in care. Yes, there are other good family members trying to get those kids back. This bill will take them away from us until they are 18 ...
Mr Elferink: That is not correct.
Ms LEE: That is what it says in there.
I am against adoption of children and I am sure the member for Namatjira is the same ...
Mr Elferink: Even by other family members?
Ms LEE: By family members, but at the moment there are – my own sister is trying to get her daughter back. It has taken her about six months to even try that. That is personal experience.
Do not get me wrong; I appreciate the hard work DCF does, but there are Aboriginal organisations which are happy to take these kids and put them in care so they can feel like they are connected and still part of something. When parents are on drugs, if they are on ice – the issue with ice at the moment in the communities and towns is just going up – I understand that kids have to be taken from that situation.
As an Indigenous person I thought I would hear from the members for Arafura and Stuart. There should be some concern about this but there is nothing. I cannot hear anybody speaking up about the Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. If they are members of the parliament, like they are, they would be out there listening to these people.
People approach me at the car wash; that is how bad this is. It is agitating because I always have to hear the stories. I am always trying to get a briefing on this, briefing on that, but it is hard. Where do we find the middle line? Where do we stop the hurt with these kids? The three little boys that ran away from care in Western Australia – what is going on? Why are these kids not happy?
What are we doing right, what are we doing wrong? When will we bring everybody together? When will the system be there to provide and protect these kids? There needs to be very big consultation around this, especially with Indigenous people because a percentage of the kids in care are our Indigenous kids.
The sad thing about this is that it will take away two generations and we will go back to the same place – the generation after me will be looking for ‘sorry’ again. Sorry generation of another Stolen Generation. What are we trying to do here?
I understand the hard work, but these are the kids I have to see and bury, and they will bury me. These are the kids I still live with today. I do not live in a town, I do not live in a city, I come from the bush. I am a bush member, I live in my bush in my home town. I only speak on their behalf. It is a privilege to be in this House to say what I have to say.
Of course, the minister for child protection does not want to hear this because that is the last thing on his mind. If you were out there in the community they would probably tell you the same thing: it is an outrage, it is a cry.
We do not have nuclear families as the western world does. I have 10 mothers and 10 fathers. We were not raised that way. Why are we not looking at this? Last year we had Indigenous organisations coming forward asking, ‘Why are we not given opportunities to take care of these kids?’ Why have they not been considered in the past to help raise these kids in care? They said the government will not even talk to them. Why are you not talking to any Aboriginal organisations about this?
You cannot enforce laws that continue to hurt people; you must talk to Indigenous people. These are the people who put you into power and the same people you are throwing it back to. That is a shame.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this opportunity will not be given again, mark my words on that.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to respond to the member for Arnhem. If she cares to listen I will explain to her some of the issues. But that opportunity will pass by me, by virtue of the fact she has just walked out of the Chamber. So much for caring.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you know that is …
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I am aware of the convention, but I agonise over being lectured to in such a fashion from such a naive position.
I really must start where she finished. I heard several people mention the Stolen Generations during this debate. Let me describe how the legislation which surrounded the Stolen Generations issues, and child protection legislation, worked.
Let us look at the Stolen Generations and the approach that legislation took. Public servants – often police officers and occasionally Department of Aboriginal Affairs officers or other officers of the Crown – were authorised to remove children of part colour from what were then called full-blood women in remote communities. The decision was arbitrary. Those kids were taken for no other reason than their mixed race background, and were placed into an environment which was considered to be care at the time. Any woman or family affected by that officer’s decision was not subject to any form of review.
Now let us look at the legislation we are talking about today for child protection. I will walk honourable members through the process so they get a sense of the safeguards that exist, and why the comparison between the two is such a monumental absurdity that anybody who relies on it as an argument against this proposal is being either irresponsible or deliberately reckless in their characterisation of the legislation.
When a person is concerned about a child’s welfare – be it a police officer or whoever – they contact Central Intake. In that office there are experienced childcare workers of at least eight years’ experience – if you include their academic training – at the other end of the telephone.
At that point an assessment is made at an administrative level as to whether or not that notification should be passed on to investigation. A substantial majority of notifications made do not pass onto investigations because the thresholds of neglect or abuse are not met, which is apparent in the initial communication.
Some of those matters are not entirely clear over the telephone, so those matters are then investigated. Once an investigation is commenced, a child protection worker looks at the circumstances surrounding the wellbeing of that child. That may lead to a suspected circumstance where a provisional protection order might be sought – if you like, an initial substantiation sufficient to require the seeking of a provisional protection order, which is issued by a court. After the provisional protection order is issued, a subsequent investigation is conducted and the matter is either substantiated in its entirety or not.
The number of substantiations, thank goodness, has not significantly changed over the last five or six years. There have been fluctuations, but they are well within the bell curve and the standard deviation. According to the Commissioner for Child Protection’s annual report, that basically means that whilst notifications and, consequently, investigations are going up, substantiations – that is the discovery of child neglect, abuse or sexual abuse – have remained reasonably static.
The next step is a temporary protection order issued by a court if the matter has been substantiated. Then a whole bunch of forces come into play in an effort to make sure we look at reunification as a vehicle to protect that child and keep them inside their family. We do that because we find ourselves, as a government, admitting this great truth: governments are not good parents, we are awful parents. Historically that has proven to be true, and it continues to be true to this day. I suspect no bureaucracy, no matter how well intended, will ever become good parents.
It astonishes me how many kids go through those government-run systems and end up being well-adjusted, normal human beings. Many kids come out of those places who are not well adjusted and have ongoing problems in their lives.
We then, of course, apply for a protection order. A number of questions are raised regarding the capacity for reunification to occur. If reunification is likely – even conceivable is probably a long bow to draw – and within the reasonable contemplation of the court, short-term orders will continue to apply, which means these kids will be placed into short-term foster or other systems of out-of-home care. If reunification is not possible then ultimately a long-term order is issued.
These days there are a number of appearances in a courtroom, which means the processes described earlier in relation to policies from the 1950s and 1960s are in no way reflected within the child protection system. It is only when all of those other options are exhausted and it becomes clear that reunification is unlikely that a long-term order is given.
I understand that 543 children in the Northern Territory at the moment are subject to long-term orders until they are 18 years of age. Some of those kids will be with foster parents, some will be in out-of-home care. For those kids it is impossible to imagine how they could live in that environment without building bonds with the people looking after them. Alternatively, I could not imagine looking after a child for a number of years, or even months, without forming bonds with that child. It would take an extraordinary person to remain that removed from the task asked of them or that they have volunteered to do.
There is a bunch of review processes placed along that pathway, including courts as well as professional people. To suggest that somehow this is a new Stolen Generation is such a departure from reality you would successfully be able to argue that white is black and black is white in the space you have to be in to come to that conclusion.
Permanent Care Orders are a vehicle by which a person who forms a bond with a child in their care feels that bond is of such a magnitude that it should no longer be merely an arrangement for the sake of the protection of that child, but a permanent arrangement which recognises that bond and, ultimately, will offer the child a level of stability the child would otherwise, in every likelihood, never know in their life.
I promised myself when I became minister for child protection that I would not buy into this emotionally, and would be solid and firm. However, I am not capable of being that brittle and have found this is emotionally one of the most taxing portfolios you could have because of the wreckage that neglectful, abusive parents leave in their wake in the pursuit of their own selfish interests or their incapacity to be parents to their children.
One of the first decisions I had to make upon becoming minister related to a file I received in my office. For the purposes of this conversation we will call the subject of the file Mary. Mary was a child who came from a remote community and had been placed with foster carers who also had another child. The other child, because of circumstances in her life, needed medical treatment which was not readily or immediately available in the Northern Territory. Mary had relations somewhere in the Northern Territory. We were not quite able to discover where those relations were. We thought there was a town camp in which Mary might be placed with a distant relative until such time as we could locate mum. We were not sure where she was at the time and God knows where dad was. Alternatively, Mary could have gone with the family because they needed to travel interstate to look after their first foster child. That family loved and protected Mary and gave Mary succour, a bed to sleep in, food in her stomach and a shoulder to cry on.
It did not take me long to decide what should be crafted for Mary. I hope she has a fulfilling life with her adoptive family, for lack of better words. It struck me just before I signed that paper that at my fingertips was an extraordinary power. I remember just before signing looking to see who was looking over my shoulder, in charge of me making that decision, only to discover the buck stopped with me. I happily signed it and I wish Mary the very best in life. That is the nature of the families these kids come from who find themselves subject to long-term orders.
People who have this loving bond with the children they have taken on still have to seek permission from the department to take the kid to the dentist, on holidays or out to do things normal parents would not even think twice about doing, because somehow the state is better than that relationship between the foster parent and the child. I could not begin to imagine how the state could be better than that relationship of love between parent and child.
All I am asking the parliament to do today is pass a legislative instrument which says it is possible to recognise the foster relationship is so close that if a person wants to, they can take that person as a child of their own, subject to certain conditions. We will not change their name or prevent contact with the genetic family of the child, etcetera; we just want to acknowledge the quality of love, tenderness and support a foster parent often feels for a child.
I pick up on what the member for Nelson said about payments. It gets to a point where it is not about the payments, it is about the relationship. Somehow, the payments might, to a degree, diminish the relationship.
I know of one instance quite close to me where there is a foster parent who will exert the powers this legislation enables as soon as possible because that foster parent wants to be a parent to the child they have, and may God bless them.
At the heart of my thinking – and the thinking I suspect of many people in the department about this legislation – is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The vast majority of people who work in the industry – in fact most people who ever walked on their hind legs and have an education – will at some point or another come into contact with the concept of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is basically a hierarchical structure of five tiers, of which the lower tiers deal with the fundamentals of human life. The first two tiers of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a pretty drastic oversimplification but will work for the purposes of this debate. The concept deals with the needs that humans have in sustenance, shelter, security and safety. At the top tier of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs there is the concept of self-actualisation. What many people do not realise is that implies something very important, the hierarchy of rights. This is something that informs me and is an important thing to articulate in this House and to people who work in this area.
The first two tiers of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs about shelter, sustenance, safety and security are, essentially, about fundamental human rights. It then must follow that if there is a hierarchy of needs, inexorably you are led to the conclusion that there must be a hierarchy of rights. The rights to food in your stomach, a roof over your head and safety is more important than rights to things like privacy or cultural integrity.
The reason I articulate this is that I will never allow a child, if I can possibly help it, to go hungry or be exposed to danger for the sake of a right to privacy or, ultimately, even a right to cultural integrity. We will attempt to abide by those principles. That hierarchy and those priorities can never be arse about face because if they are, there will be a calamitous outcome.
I also point out that the assertion that this automatically means an Aboriginal child will be removed from their family in certain circumstances is also misleading in one important way. Whilst a parent may be deprived of control or access to their child because of their neglect or abusiveness, it does not automatically follow that one of their kin is excluded in the same fashion. There are a number of examples where people are foster parents to their kin who are not necessarily their own children.
Those foster parents struggle with the day-to-day knowledge that their own relations have pulled up short in the area of looking after their children, and they stepped in. I believe there was mention on the other side of the House about grandmothers who were deeply concerned about the way their grandkids were being looked after. There might be an instance where a grandmother, uncle, aunty, cousin or nephew might intervene and seek a Permanent Care Order so they can create some security for their kith and kin when their relations who are the parents of that child could not. That is entirely possible and would be embraced for child protection on this side of the House.
I am aware of the letters AMSANT sent, and of the NAAJA media release. I understand their caution in this space. However, I find it inconceivable that a court presented with this legislative instrument would see it as some form of licence to step aside from the processes of trying to contact parents. I am sure any court, after they have cascaded through all of those other points along the journey, would be satisfied that the capacity to contact the parents had been completely exhausted by the time they deal with determining whether or not to make a Permanent Care Order.
Sooner or later, as a society we are compelled to draw a line in the sand and say the rights of the parents must ultimately be subordinated in certain circumstances to the rights of the children, especially when those parents are abusive or neglectful of their children, either by design or incapacity. When those parents find themselves in that place, their rights must be subordinated to the rights of the child to have a safe place to live, food in their stomach and a bed in which to sleep.
I heard the cautious statements by the members opposite. I apologise to the member for Casuarina for being short with her before, but this is a matter that engenders a certain passion in me, which is unusual.
Mr Deputy Speaker and all members of this House, I do not do this lightly, or with a trill of delight in my heart. I would rather this legislation be unnecessary because every kid lives in a house which is safe and secure, but it is not. There are houses for kids that are safe and secure, it just may not be their parent’s house. A vehicle which is as good as any parent must be created to provide that safety and security.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I make a brief statement on the cyclone situation in northeast Arnhem Land. Tropical Cyclone Lam is producing gales across the Gove Peninsula as it approaches the northeast Top End. At 3 pm, Cyclone Lam was Category 3. It was estimated to be 140 km north of Nhulunbuy Airport and 170 km northeast of Elcho Island.
Residents in areas currently under cyclone watch or warning are being urged to closely consider advice from the bureau and emergency services. For areas under warning this means that your emergency plan should be activated. For communities under watch, this means ensuring that you have the appropriate plans in place and have your emergency kit ready. As part of your preparations fill bath tubs and any containers with water before the cyclone arrives. Do not use chemical or fuel containers to store drinking water.
Public shelters in communities from Elcho Island to Cape Shield, including Nhulunbuy, are open for those people who consider their current arrangements not appropriate for the conditions. Thirteen people have now taken up shelter at the Yirrkala Laynhapuy homelands centre, which can accommodate 200 people. Gove District Hospital can accommodate 300 people and 85 have already sought shelter there. Gove House can open as additional shelter should the other shelters become full. It is able to accommodate 300 people. Preparations are being made for a further 340 people.
As a precaution, residents at Wallaby Beach have mostly relocated to shelters in Nhulunbuy. There was no mandatory evacuation. The emergency shelters in Nhulunbuy and Yirrkala will remain open for those currently sheltering there and for anyone else who wants to attend.
The shelters on Elcho Island are now open and include Shepherdson College and the Marthakal workshop. There are currently 101 people sheltering at Shepherdson College. Residents of outstations on Elcho Island are being assisted to relocate into Galiwinku to ensure they have appropriate access to shelter.
As I have previously said, I have closed all non-essential government offices in Nhulunbuy and non-key staff are not required at work today. As the cyclone warning level is now at Category 2, private sector businesses in Nhulunbuy, and organisations, have been able to open at this time. However, employers are reminded of their duty of care to ensure the safety of any employees who are at work, and to exercise care in deciding to open. The police will work with licensed premises and bottle shops to determine appropriate arrangements for opening hours and sales.
I have closed schools in the immediate vicinity of the expected path of the cyclone and they will remain closed until further notice. Schools closed today and tomorrow are Yirrkala School, Yirrkala Homelands School, Nhulunbuy High School, Nhulunbuy Primary School, Nhulunbuy Christian school, Baniyala school, Shepherdson College at Galiwinku, Gapuwiyak School, and Milingimbi School. Ramingining School will also be closed tomorrow.
The Gove Airport is closed. The operator of the airport is monitoring conditions closely to assess when it might be reopened.
The emergency department of Gove hospital has now been relocated to Ward 1 and the entrance is now also at Ward 1. The emergency department will continue to function on a 24/7 basis, and emergency surgery will continue as normal. All primary healthcare remote clinics have activated their emergency plans and all remain open at this time. All centres continue to provide emergency services as required.
With the current cyclonic conditions, it is highly likely that fallen branches and other debris may be scattered across roads. For safety reasons, if you have been asked to take shelter you should not be on the roads. Rain over the next 48 hours may also mean weight restrictions are put in place for heavy vehicles, and/or road closures may be applied at particular points along the Central Arnhem Road. Please drive carefully if you are venturing out in these conditions and check the road report prior to travel. Do not attempt to cross flooded waterways unless you are sure of the depth and speed of the water.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I reassure Territorians in the impacted area that we are continuing to closely monitor the situation. Preparations are in full swing to ensure everyone remains safe. I again urge people to remain calm and listen to the advice of authorities. Please be careful over the next 48 hours and look after your friends and neighbours. Stay informed by monitoring local media and secureNT for updates throughout the day. I will keep the Assembly updated on the latest advice and news as it comes to hand.
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Mr Deputy Speaker, I know this will be very hard to believe but when the Country Liberals came to government just over two years ago the biggest issue facing Territorians was not the budget deficit, it was the land deficit. For the 10 years prior to our election, the median price in Darwin and Palmerston rose by an average of 11% each and every year. In simple terms, a house that cost $190 000 in 2001 now costs well over $600 000 – a 320% increase. Great news, of course, if you were lucky enough to buy a house before 2001, but dreadful news if you are now trying to get into the housing market.
The cost of housing is a huge component of the Territory’s high cost of living. It is for that reason this government has invested in the largest land release program the Territory has ever seen. An amount of $135m was allocated in this year’s budget to fast-track existing, and bring forward new, residential and industrial land release.
It is for that reason that this government has invested in the largest land program the Territory has ever seen. An amount of $135m was allocated in this year’s budget to fast-track existing, and bring forward new, residential and industrial land release.
We have been making some serious progress on that front. Seven residential subdivision sites have been released since May 2013 with the potential to yield around 5500 residential dwellings.
Palmerston has continued to be the centre of growth in the Top End, with land for over 2400 dwellings released in Zuccoli since May 2013. I acknowledge the suburb of Zuccoli began under the former government, with Stage 1 being released in 2009. However, as with other land releases across the Territory, it stalled and little happened until the Country Liberals were elected. We have managed to release the remaining four stages of Zuccoli in less than two years. It goes to show just how serious we take this issue.
Zuccoli Stage 2 was awarded to Territory Life in December last year and is expected to deliver land for 600 dwellings. Sales of the first 46 lots were very successful and construction is now complete with titles issued in mid-November last year. Zuccoli Stages 3 and 4 were released simultaneously to provide a boost of land for around 1700 dwellings to the market. This subdivision was awarded to a consortium called Costojic, comprising of the Costa Property Group and well-known local civil contractor Ostojic, in October last year. We are expecting works on this site will commence early this year. Proposals for the final stage of Zuccoli Stage 5 closed on 15 December and are currently being assessed. This stage will supply land for a further 450 dwellings.
Something this government has been working hard on is including affordability measures in all negotiations for these latest stages of Zuccoli. We have managed to secure an average price of between $160 000 and $180 000 for Stages 2, 3 and 4. This means there is not only more land in the market, but more affordable land.
Outside of Palmerston this government has released the Territory’s largest ever brownfield site. The 168 ha of Berrimah Farm was released on 10 October last year through an expression of interest which closed on 5 December. Three proponents – Gwelo Developments, the Halikos Group and Urbex – were shortlisted out of the EoI process to be invited to submit detailed proposals for redevelopment of the site which could yield up to 3000 dwellings.
Assessment of the expression of interest process was conducted by officials from the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, the Chief Minister’s department and Treasury and Finance, who made the recommendation on the selected proponents which were accepted by the former minister – and a very good former minister too. Following assessment of the detailed proposals, negotiations are expected to commence with the preferred proponent by the middle of this year. Berrimah Farm is an exceptional location situated between two major transport corridors, accessible to public transport and just 10 minutes from Casuarina, Palmerston and Darwin CBD.
Greenfield land release continues outside the Darwin/Palmerston region, with some serious land release in our regions for the first time in over a decade. Kilgariff Stages 1A and 1B in Alice Springs, you will be happy to know, are being undertaken by the Land Development Corporation with 32 affordable lots already sold. Local contractor, Sitzler Bros, has completed construction of Stage 1A with titles issued in late December 2014. Construction of the first homes in Kilgariff will commence early this year. The Chief Minister announced late in November that Stage 1B is now released, bringing the total number of lots available for Territorians to 80.
This government has responded to the local demand for housing by releasing suitable land in Katherine. Stage 1 of a new subdivision in Katherine East has been awarded to the local company, Downes Graderways. This 19 ha site is expected to yield over 100 lots and support more than 200 dwellings. Construction and sales off the plan for its first 71 lot stage will commence early this year. Affordable land is again one of the key objectives to be met as part of this new release, with an average price point of between $110 000 and $130 000 being achieved.
This government is continuing to progress the release of infill and greenfield sites across the Territory. Highlights for the rest of the 2014-15 financial year include:
three serviced lots in Palmerston for community purposes, which include childcare, have been released for proposals
expressions of interest have been called for the development of a prime block of commercial land on Whittaker Street in the heart of Alice Springs for a mixed-use residential, commercial and tourism project
planning is under way for a mixed-use subdivision in Farrar capable of accommodating up to 240 new dwellings
the initial stages of Holtze will be released during 2015 and will provide for approximately 1000 new dwellings. This stage will support the new Palmerston Regional Hospital and the surrounding health precinct
land in Kalkarindji will be released for development this year, and subject to the resolution of native title the regional towns of Mataranka, Timber Creek, Ti Tree and Pine Creek will follow
land in Peko Road and Udall Road will be released for residential and industrial development in Tennant Creek with construction to commence in March and the auction of lots in the middle of the year.
Additional sites across the Territory are being investigated and added to the program on an ongoing basis.
One of the first orders of business for this government was an audit of Crown land to identify any land that could be utilised for development. Seventy parcels of land were identified in the 2013-14 year and 21 lots were auctioned across Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Darwin and Palmerston.
Infill development allows development on appropriately zoned and serviced land. This infill program includes the 1.45 ha Sports House site in Fannie Bay that was released last year. Two private developers have been shortlisted to submit detailed proposals to enter into a joint venture arrangement with the Land Development Corporation for the redevelopment of this site. The successful proponent will be announced mid-year.
I am proud to now be driving the largest land release program the Territory has ever seen. I pay tribute to my predecessor, the member for Brennan, for starting that great land release program. This government is committed to ensuring that we have a supply of new residential land that makes it more affordable to live and work in the Territory.
To ensure the timely construction of dwellings, this government has undertaken significant work to cut red tape. The NT Planning Scheme is continually being streamlined. We have a development one-stop shop that allows developers and the general public to access information about both the development application process and current applications online.
We have amended the Planning Act to provide for a concurrent assessment of planning scheme amendments and development applications, creating a single process for rezoning and development in the planning legislation to save time and money. We have a new single process for unit titles which eliminates second-service authority clearance.
The MD sites now allow for subdivision into 300 m2 freehold lots. Granny flats are now allowed as independent units. We also have online planning applications and development consent authority agendas available online as well.
We have also streamlined the building scheme with the introduction of the Building Approvals Online which enables private building certifiers to lodge their building approval document online, again saving time and money.
Refinements have been made to the swimming pool inspection system. The Land Titles Office can now accept copies of pool fencing certifications and we have also extended the building moratorium.
Land administration has been streamlined with many new initiatives introduced last year, including development of a Land Policy Register and development of a new term Crown development lease, and a new online Crown land application system was also launched.
A new Aboriginal land unit was formed last year to advance resolution of native title and community living areas.
We have streamlined the survey systems with survey plan approvals occurring within days. We have adopted accredited private survey examinations and introduced three-dimensional technology.
Our spatial system is available across the NT public service and ILIS, the Integrated Land Information System, is the best land management system in Australia, overlayed with the most current aerial photography.
Our streamlining does not stop there. We are working on developing uniform subdivision and development guidelines and bonding arrangements for developers. We are proposing MR sites and freehold lots and an SD densification strategy, allowing developments on merit. We are also developing a community titles system.
We are also reviewing the zoning tables of the Planning Scheme to reduce the number of uses that require planning approval. For example, currently a shop in a commercial zone requires the approval of the Development Consent Authority. This could be one use that is permitted subject to normal requirements, such as car parking. Once implemented, the effect of this review will be less red tape burden on developers for minor and low-risk developments.
We are also considering the expansion of the exempt category for minor builds.
I am passionate about eliminating the height limits over the CBD. To this end, government exhibited a Planning Scheme amendment to remove the height limitation in the Darwin CBD, from 26 September to 24 October last year. The reporting body considered the proposal on 26 November, and I expect a decision in relation to the amendment to be made in the coming weeks.
I am proud to have responsibility for the Lands and Planning portfolio. This is a portfolio driven by staff with a can-do approach to working in a dynamic industry. While we have been tirelessly working to address the issues of the here and now, we have also been planning for the future.
The Northern Territory Planning Commission was created to provide strategic planning advice to the government. Its largest piece of work has been the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan. The initial concept documents were released for public consultation 12 months ago, and a long conversation with the public has since followed. Members of the NT Planning Commission took their ideas on the show circuit, speaking with people from Darwin, Palmerston and rural areas. Information booths were set up at shopping centres and at other public places throughout the consultation period to gather the views of the public.
The Darwin Regional Land Use Plan sets out land use objectives for the greater Darwin area for decades to come, including big-vision items like the next airport, the next port and future cities.
Despite what you have heard from the opposition and Independent members, Weddell is in the plan. Weddell was an initiative of a previous Country Liberals government and has been on Darwin’s forward plans since the 1980s. The notion that Weddell was the brainchild of the Wood/Henderson Labor government is, frankly, laughable. Commissioning a few reports and doing up glossy brochures does not provide land for one single house. One report that made an impression on the Labor government is the one stating it would cost $180m – over $200m in today’s money – to turn off the first lots in Weddell. That is the time Labor went cold on the idea, I reckon.
Planning for the future is not about one idea, it is about a strategy, which is what the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan provides. Maybe if Labor had such a plan, the cost of living and the cost of housing would not have skyrocketed so much when they were in charge. In fact, the hard-working staff in the Department of Lands and Planning tried to get the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan happening while the members for Karama and Barkly were ministers. However, they were not listened to. I understand 22 iterations of the plan went to the minister’s office to get a plan happening, but still no decision was made.
However, this plan is in the process of being implemented by this government. On 18 November last year a Planning Scheme amendment was exhibited to include the Darwin Region Land Use Plan as a policy document in the NT Planning Scheme. The exhibition was scheduled to close on 19 December 2014, but following representations from local members the exhibition date was extended to 16 January this year. I anticipate making a final decision on the adoption of the plan in the coming month.
We have achieved so much in just over two years and there is much more to do to support our development industry and the community. I have been in this job only a short time. I again pay major credit to my friend and colleague, the member for Brennan, who was the previous minister. He should take credit and be very proud of the work he has done on this. I am seriously looking forward to working in this portfolio. I know there are big shoes to fill, but the challenge is something I am looking forward to.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Correctional Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table this paper on the youth detention system in the Northern Territory.
In October 2014 a report into youth detention was commissioned following the opening of the Holtze prison. The opposition committed tens of millions of dollars to a prison, but aside from the Carney review in 2011, nothing much has been done in relation to juvenile detention. I am aware, as the minister for corrections for a couple of years now, that a responsibility has been cast upon my shoulders. I am by no means surprised by what has occurred. Covering what the opposition did not get around to during its 11 years in government seems to be a regular occurrence.
I take this opportunity to table the report which is titled Review of the Northern Territory Youth Detention System Report – January 2015. This is the report I alluded to in Question Time today when I took a question from the member for Blain.
The purpose of this review was to look at youth detention centres in the Northern Territory with the aim of examining the existing operations and practices to make recommendations that will inform future direction.
The person commissioned for the review was Michael Vita, a youth justice expert with more than 15 years’ experience managing youth detention centres in Australia who is currently the General Manager of the Reiby Juvenile Justice Centre in Western Sydney.
I asked for this review to be done after a couple of incidents which occurred that received a great deal of publicity, and even mentions in this House. Those matters related to violent incidents which occurred within the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre. I have made no secret whatsoever that I have been highly critical of the former Don Dale Youth Detention Centre in the Northern Territory.
The former Don Dale Youth Detention Centre and places like Aranda House have long since passed their use-by date. By way of example, I have mentioned in this House before that the dormitories inside the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre did not even have toilets, which meant the first time I visited those dormitories – I think there were six beds to a dormitory – I noticed the smell of urine. When I asked about it I discovered if a kid needed to go to the toilet at 3 am they had to wake a corrections officer to let them out of their cell and take them to the toilet.
I also noticed a scorch mark on the wooden ceiling in the ad hoc female section of Don Dale which was caused by a fault in a fluorescent lamp which had nearly caused a fire. There were a number of other infrastructure problems which were issues of great concern, including the fact the girls had to walk through the boys section to get to their classroom.
That occurred because Don Dale was never built for girls. It was never contemplated to have both a female and male section. Don Dale was designed to hold boys exclusively because it was unheard of, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, for juvenile detention centres to hold girls. How times have changed! It has also become apparent that in recent times the nature of the offenders we hold in custody has changed substantially, as evidenced by the events of late last year which ultimately led to the use of CS gas to supress the situation.
Again I congratulate the officers who were involved on that night and continue to support them in the decision they took. I note the Vita report reviewed that incident and concluded the force used on that occasion, as I said last year, was justified in all the circumstances.
Late last year I also announced the change from the old Berrimah medium-security section to a juvenile detention facility. Initially it was intended to cost only $800 000, but has cost $1m. We now have separate classrooms and a much better system of incarceration in place than Don Dale could ever have hoped to offer.
It also enables a level of security to be applied which is particular to some of the kids we have in custody who have been causing problems in the past. Nevertheless, it showed up problems that were apparent inside the system. For this reason I asked the Commissioner for Corrections to have this review commenced and I am glad he did.
The review, as I said in Question Time today, does not automatically give juvenile detention facilities in the Northern Territory a clean bill of health. However, it supports what I, as Minister for Correctional Services, long suspected – that correctional facilities or youth detention facilities should be less about the buildings and more about what you do inside them. That has been clearly encapsulated by Mr Vita, who has done an enormous amount of work to give some guidance to the corrections system.
I also place on the record that we, as a government, are under no obligation to release this report. It was a government report sourced and paid for by the government. There was no legislative instrument to ask or enforce us to table it in this House. However, I and the government have chosen to have this matter tabled, warts and all, so the issues we see surrounding these kids can be discussed in this environment with a view to having an open and honest debate. This is why we are showing this report to the people of the Northern Territory.
It has become clear that there has been an absence of standard operating procedures in the past and, from time to time, what is described as crisis management of the juvenile detention facilities. We are doing more than simply taking all 16 recommendations on board. We will either implement them into the future or, alternatively, they have already been implemented.
It is clear from our mix of offenders that we need training and specific skill sets to be available for the juveniles we have in custody as well as the staff who have to apply them. I am conscious – and spoke to some of the staff today – about some of the issues this makes manifest for those staff members.
The absence of a comprehensive system of standard operating procedures exposes the staff to criticism. Standard operating procedures and other equipment shortcomings, which have been attended to already, are a way to build a shield for staff in the sense that they are then able to apply those procedures in such a way that it avoids escalation of issues into the future. If an escalation does occur, standard operating procedures become their shield in any further investigation. We take the professionalisation of our youth detention workers seriously in the Northern Territory.
This review has also recommended the introduction of a multidisciplinary team approach in all decision-making processes. Detainees rarely present with a single issue, therefore, work has begun to develop stronger cross-agency and NGO partnerships with multidisciplinary teams.
It is obvious that many kids in my care as the minister for child protection are also in my custody as the minister for corrections through child custody systems. That means we have kids who have tracked through their lives on a rather sad and predictable path. We have kids in custody who have been neglected or abused – even on occasions sexually abused – by their parents. This is a matter of concern as it demonstrates that we continue to have a major problem in our community with indifferent parents, or parents who are incapable of looking after their children effectively. Those children then go on to commit offences, and those offences lead them into trouble with the criminal justice system.
I say on the record again, as I have often said in this place, that we are, unfortunately at our tier of government, cleaning up a mess which is directly caused by another tier of government dropping millions of dollars into this jurisdiction in the form of passive welfare every fortnight. We see that reflected in our hospitals, custodial environment, courts and, ultimately, juvenile detention facilities because these indifferent parents are being subsidised by a federal government that thinks that subsidy alone is a sufficient way to address a social problem. It is not. Nevertheless, we are condemned by virtue of this arrangement to have to deal with these kids in our custodial environment and that is what we do.
We have already moved kids into this environment. I note Mr Vita has cast an approving eye over another of my policies, which is the SEED program – Seek Education Employment not Detention – which, in many ways, is a manifestation or an extension of the concept of Sentenced to a Job.
When we have juveniles in our custodial environment and they clearly have disengaged with the schooling process, I have asked my corrections system to consider that these kids should be in the workplace. These kids in youth detention are often 15 or 16.
We lined up, as I understand it – or did late last year – at least one kid into a job. That kid’s attitude and outlook changed immediately when he realised he was playing in the big world, and he had to play very nicely in the big world. All of a sudden, he went from being a little so-and-so to somebody who was a contributor in the society and continues to be so, I understand, up until this day. I will follow that matter up for when I come back to this House once this report has sat on the table for some time.
The Seek Employment and Education not Detention program will continue to operate. I am grateful for the benevolent and approving eye Mr Vita cast upon that program.
I told the media today I do not want to be the minister for child protection or the minister for corrections. What I meant when I said that was that I take those duties very responsibly. I would love to live in a world where neither title is required, because there should be no need for them. I am still of the opinion that we should strive for that outcome, as unlikely as it might be.
I genuinely believe that simple things like having a job will give anybody direction in life, be it a young adult like some of the youth we have in detention or an adult in the custodial environment.
We have moved the kids out of the facility at Holtze. They are now in the new Don Dale Youth Detention Centre, and it will continue to be called the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre, which is the medium-security block at the old Berrimah prison. I also note that Mr Vita cast his independent eye over what we are doing in this space and he has acknowledged that institution is fit for the purpose.
It is not a new youth detention facility. NAAJA and other organisations believe the government should spend somewhere between $100m and $150m on building a new facility. That is beyond the means of this government. We have a number of other demands to meet in the coming budget which will not enable us to accommodate such a process.
The old medium-security block is, and will continue to be, sufficient and will provide security, not only to keep these little people in when they are required to be, but also to keep Territorians aware of the fact there is a institution which is sufficient to provide safety and security for the people of the Northern Territory.
The document is now public and I invite all honourable members to read it. It is a warts-and-all review. It is deliberately done to encourage debate. It is also my desire to ensure we offer the people of the Northern Territory an honest look into government even if, in this instance, it is not a clean bill of health.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to complete my comments at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate suspended.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent General Business commencing at 5.15 pm and continuing until 8.45 pm.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the RL1 and RL2 zones under the NT Planning Scheme be added to Part 4 of the Planning Act Regulations, thereby allowing residents living in these areas the right to appeal against planning applications.
This motion was before parliament once upon a time. It will allow people who live on rural blocks – that is RL, Rural Living and R which is Rural – to have similar rights of third-party appeal that are given to people who live in what they call residential zones. Residential zones, under section 13 of Part 4 of the Planning Regulations, refers to: Single Dwelling Residential; Multiple Dwelling Residential; Medium Density Residential; High Density Residential; CV, Caravan Parks; and CL, Community Living; plus part of the rural area is covered under RR, which is Rural Residential. There are some other groups that are also included.
Section 14 of the Planning Regulations is titled ‘NT Planning Scheme – when no right of third party application for review’ and section 14(3) says:
Section 14(3)(d) says:
That is where the problem occurs. I am asking the government to at least consider changes to that which would allow people on rural blocks to be given the same rights as people on urban blocks in relation to a third-party appeal.
This is not a broad-scale change of the third-party requirements that already exist. They are limited already. You cannot appeal against the subdivision but you can appeal against certain types of development. That has been in the Planning Scheme for a number of years now. I am not sure whether it has been used, but there is a possibility.
When I first raised this a number of years ago, it was in relation to an anomaly in Howard Springs. A little of the Howard Springs locality is on the other side of the highway next to Palmerston on Radford Road. The member for Brennan might know there is a parcel of land there where there are very small blocks – only suburban size. They have been there a very long time, long before even Palmerston was thought of. They also back on to some rural land. That is where we realised there was an anomaly.
There was a block of land next door to the small blocks which applied to have dog kennels. You have to remember the small blocks and the larger blocks were all zoned exactly the same, as Rural Living. Under normal circumstances, those little blocks of land would have a suburban zone – that is a residential zone – and they could have appealed against the kennels. But those small blocks – again, this is historical – were zoned Rural Living, exactly the same as the kennels. The people on those little blocks could not make a third-party appeal under the act against the dog kennels.
Some people might argue to change the zone, but at that stage people were not interested in changing it. It simply highlighted the fact if you live on rural land that is 2 ha and 8 ha or bigger, you do not have a right to appeal. That is unfair.
Since that happened, a couple of issues highlighted the fact that this anomaly will continue, especially if the government allows more small blocks to be developed in the rural area. An example is that the minister has approved a subdivision in Humpty Doo for about 60 800 m blocks which back onto existing rural 2 ha blocks. If one of those rural block owners decides they want to grow mangoes – that is horticulture – they have to get permission from the DCA. If people on the small blocks – they are obviously not living there now – do not agree with mangoes growing next to them, they can put in a third-party appeal.
The problem is people on the large blocks of land cannot appeal against people on the small blocks of land if they do something they feel will affect their block. They will say, ‘If I live on this sized block of land, I can make a third-party appeal. If I am on a rural block, I cannot.’
This issue also arose at Darwin River and is part of the reason I have brought this back to the parliament. Many of you will know Diana Rickard, who strongly opposed a proposal for a workers village or camp on a tourist zone next to the Litchfield Pub. It was under the premise there was permission to have a caravan park and, using that zone, the developer was saying, ‘I should be able to develop it as a workers camp under the umbrella of a caravan park’. There was a range of issues people were concerned about – the effect of the amenity in the area, extra traffic on the roads, etcetera. The problem was a large concentration of people, theoretically, will live in one area. If government had given this developer permission to do it, the people who lived on the rural blocks had no right of appeal. That is unfair.
The minister for Local Government might be interested in this because there is a case coming up soon which I have written a submission about. There has been a request to rezone land on the Stuart Highway for industrial development on a triangular block. On two sides of that block is land zoned as Rural Living. It has the potential to be subdivided into 2 ha blocks. The problem I have is if it is not done carefully – if you look at the Light Industrial zone you will see there is a range of things people can do. They can have a veterinary clinic, a motor repair shop or a transport depot. If the minister decides to approve this development it will be suitable for light industry. If someone starts a trucking depot operating 24 hours a day backing on to the residential blocks, the owners of the residential blocks have no right of appeal because they do not live on so-called residential zones that apply in section 13 of the Planning Regulations.
It might sound like a little thing, but there are many people in the rural area who live on 2 ha and 8 ha blocks who would like to keep living that way. However, there are some issues in relation to conflict. As I said before, the issue with Humpty Doo is small blocks backing onto larger blocks. If the owners of larger blocks do something the people on smaller blocks do not like, they can appeal, but it cannot happen in reverse.
That is the same with this proposed light industrial development at Humpty Doo. I am not saying it does not have some merit, but if someone develops that light industrial land, there is a danger that people who may live on those larger blocks – where the land is quite suitable to be subdivided into 2 ha blocks – will not be able to appeal against that light industrial development if it inhibits their amenity.
It is not a difficult deal I am proposing. I do not think it will cause any major problems with government workload. I have not heard of many third-party appeals at all. The previous minister for Lands might remember whether there have been any. I cannot remember having heard of any. If we are looking at the reality of this change, I do not think it will be a big deal.
If I thought this would bring 1000 cases of third-party appeals before the government I would say it is a bit over the top. However, in this case all it does is give a level playing field for people in the rural area who may be in conflict with one another. It is not just between people on small blocks and large blocks. If people on a 2 ha block get approval to do something which could affect someone’s amenity – and it would have to be a serious effect on the amenity, not minor – presently there cannot be a third-party appeal.
I understand you do not want too many third-party appeals which can hold up development. It is limited under the act anyway, and is not broad scale. I use the example that there have not been many third-party appeals since this act came into effect. I do not think there will be a great outpouring of people having third-party appeals just because you expand what is regarded as residential.
It is a simple change. It will require the government to manipulate the regulations slightly. It might have a special clause. It does not have to necessarily say these blocks are regarded as residential; it might only have another clause under section 13(5) which says RL blocks and R blocks are also included in the section of the act which allows third-party appeals.
I am leaving that technical side up to the government. I prefer the people who know the regulations better than I do to make sure – if the government agrees with this – those changes are accurate and will not be subject to somebody saying we have to amend the act because I did not know where it should fit.
I will leave it at that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am happy to hear from the government and the opposition.
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for proposing this motion.
The government will be supporting this motion. However, let me put the rider on it. I will not be introducing or changing legislation until I have had a deep think about this and a few more chats with the member for Nelson. I have some sympathy for his position, which is why I have discussed with my colleagues the desire to support this motion. Ultimately, it is a motion with agreements on a number of things he raised which we support.
I will outline some of my concerns. As the member for Nelson knows, I know his electorate reasonably well. At times, I believe the member for Nelson oversimplifies things and is branded as anti-development because he does not like rural subdivisions. He seems to oppose most things proposed which, in some way or other, meddle in the rural lifestyle. Having said that, I also understand he is a representative of that electorate, is emblematic in many ways of it, and people in the electorate are proud to have him as their local member.
Having doorknocked that electorate – quite a while ago now, pre-1997, so things have changed – I realise there is an enormous diversity of people and lifestyles in the rural area. It is very hard to put rural people into one box.
When I doorknocked the area I saw a trucking business operating from a five-acre block in Howard Springs. Right next door there was somebody with a mango farm. Behind the mango farm there were a bunch of hippies who never cut their gamba grass the entire time they had lived there, and the shed looked like it was made out of cardboard and bits of corrugated iron. Next door to that was a beautiful magnificent mansion with manicured lawns and tennis courts. My point is you cannot say they are all happy hayseeds living in the rural area; that is not the case at all. There is a huge diversity of people there with a huge diversity of interests.
Not everybody in the rural area is anti-development. Some people want to be away from the bustle of the city, some buy a block in the rural area to spend enormous amounts of money on it. Some of the best houses I have ever seen in the Northern Territory are in the member for Nelson’s electorate – incredible gardens, tennis courts, swimming pools and horse stables. Similarly, some of the most rundown dumps I have ever seen are in the member for Nelson’s electorate. This is what makes the place so unique and such a wonderful place to be. People get along extraordinarily well. But to suggest they all think the same or are out there for the same reasons is somewhat misleading.
I recall going into one of these places which was overgrown. They were living under a piece of corrugated iron – in my vernacular, I call them hippies. Everything had to be organically grown; they had the permaculture garden growing. Their big beef was a fellow next door who was growing five acres of mango trees. They were livid that once or twice a year this guy sprayed his mango trees. I am sure the member for Nelson has heard these complaints. He was out with the fogging spray, and a little breeze during the day or in the evening and all of a sudden the next door neighbours, who were proud of their organic tomatoes, could smell pesticides in the air. I understand and have sympathy for those people.
I am sceptical about this motion for those reasons. I am worried you are opening a can of worms you are not prepared to deal with. At the moment, without this third party or the loose rules which apply there, everybody has to lump it and accept it. The minute things are put into law, those people who want to live an alternative lifestyle and grow permaculture tomatoes may well be able to rip the mango trees out of their next door neighbour’s lot. Similarly, the bloke who has spent a couple of a million dollars on his trucking business, that technically is completely illegal, may well be forced to pull down his sheds and move his business.
It is for those reasons, member for Nelson, I am sceptical. I support the principle that you should have some say on a development going on next door, similar to you have in urban areas. That is why I am prepared to support this motion. If there is a way we can sit down and work these things out so a vast majority of people are happy with it, I am very keen to do that. It is for those reasons that we will support your motion.
You will be aware, member for Nelson, that when the previous Labor government was embarking on taking a hard line on what defined a house, and a shed did not qualify as a house, you were not that keen on enforcing the law at that point in time. I understand why and I support your position. It would be drastic if we were to start turfing thousands of people in the rural area out of sheds because they were not technically houses. I would hate you to open a can of worms like that, member for Nelson.
Again, thank you for bringing this debate to the Chamber. It is worthwhile. Every now and again, as a government we have to look at these things. I do not hear that many screams coming from the rural area with people worrying about their next door neighbours too much – not as much as I hear in some of the suburbs of Darwin. Whilst I imagine it is an issue for you, I am keen to work with you to see whether something can come of this. I am reluctant to do anything at this stage, but we support the sentiment of the motion.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, the nature and tone of my response has changed a little in response to the measured approach from the new Lands and Planning minister. We support the member for Nelson’s motion. The new Lands and Planning minister made some very reasonable comments when he spoke on the issue about the approach he wants to take. I will not criticise the government for not having done this yet, but I believe it is something we should be doing. My remarks are quite similar to the new minister’s, which I was not expecting.
We agree also on the passion the member for Nelson brings to this House on these issues. He is very idiosyncratic in many ways in how he has applied himself to this part of the world. He is the Independent member, but before that was President of the Litchfield Shire. He is very much of the soil out there and has, without doubt in this House, an abiding commitment towards the amenity and lifestyle of the area. He has taken a very strong approach to planning in the local area.
I can understand why he proposed this and thinks it is important. Many residents who chose to live outside the major urban centres did so because they value the peace, quiet and proximity to nature they have there. They want to have a greater ability to comment through the third-party right of appeal. We understand completely where the member for Nelson is coming from.
Rural living is compatible with small- and medium-scale industry such as farming, horticulture, aquaculture, niche market tourism and more. How we embrace those things, take on board the feedback and provide the community with a stronger voice are all worth exploring, as the community is faced with more pressure to accommodate demands. We need to have sustainable practices, be sensitive to the environment and ensure we are not impacting adversely on the amenity and lifestyle of our community. We all agree with that.
The former ministers from our side were also open to these debates. I quote Dr Burns during debate when the member for Nelson raised this some time ago in 2006:
We have not seen a sudden break in development as a result of having those changes in place and studying their impacts. We made those changes, asked how they went and they were okay. Now we are open to this idea of how we can extend it. The minister has some concerns about this and how we make sure it happens in a reasonable and measured way.
Essentially, that is what Dr Burns meant when he said:
That is almost what the member for Fong Lim said so we are all on the same page. We are probably going slower than the member for Nelson would like, but based on what the minister said, we are now open to the member for Nelson working with the government to present draft legislation to this House to test it. Both sides are indicating an appetite for action.
When the member for Barkly was the minister he said he was exploring it during his time in office. I am not critical of this government for not having done it yet; we were looking at it as it needs to happen. There are differences between us, the government and the member for Nelson on the question of urgency, but we are all heading in the same direction for once. It is a pleasure to say that in this Chamber.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for presenting the motion. We support it and the quite measured approach the minister took.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will raise several issues. Minister Tollner and I had a discussion before about some of the things that have happened in the rural area. It is only fair I have at least my two cents worth to articulate why governments have not gone down this road before.
Member for Barkly, correct me if I am wrong, but a word of caution. The minister would apply a cautious approach to this, as would the member for Nelson. My understanding of people living in the rural area is they are pretty independent. They are represented by Independent members in many cases. My experience is they do not much like rules and regulations. They are very protective of their rural lifestyle and their rights and liberties to do what they want on their land. Any government or local member who wants to introduce a new regulation that might inhibit what people do on their land could cause issues for the local member. We should tread through these things carefully if we want to do something in that area.
I have sympathy. At the public meeting we had in the member for Goyder’s office a number of residents from the rural area raised a few issues with me. I go back one step before that meeting. I long had concerns about people using land in the rural area for business activities that technically do not fit the zoning of those blocks. You might have people living next to – as the member for Fong Lim said – a trucking company that has been set up in a wrongly zoned area. However, when you see there were not many options for many of those businesses, you understand. This government quickly looked at areas around Humpty Doo that could be used for light industrial uses so people were provided with options and were not forced to use land that was not zoned appropriately.
My worry was always that if a government came in with a heavy hand and said, ‘You, you, and you have to stop what you are doing’, it caused a lot of angst. If you did not have options for those businesses, it would be a very unfair approach as many of them have been operating for decades in the rural area. Again, there are very independent people who live in the rural area who do not like rules and regulations.
It should also be put on the record that the reason third-party appeal rights are in place in an urban environment is because people live much closer together; the lots are smaller. Usually, if someone is living on a 20 acre block next to another 20 acre block, what they choose to do on their block of dirt – even if they were playing loud music or using angle grinders or other tools in their workshop – will not affect someone who could be literally 300 m, 400 m or 500 m away in another dwelling. Compare that with living in Gunn. My place is about 1 m from the next house and if their angle grinder is on, I know about it. There is a big difference between urban living and rural living
The other thing to consider, whether we like it or not – and many people do not like it – is more urbanisation is happening in our rural areas. You only have to look at Coolalinga. More people will be living in the new units that have been approved in the Coolalinga area. With the type of zoning there, they will have third-party rights of appeal. Over the years, as the area develops, more and more people will have rights of appeal.
I agree with and have sympathy for the motion. I understand wholeheartedly the people I have met in the rural area at and following the meeting we had at the member for Goyder’s office. I have sympathy with those people who think they have been treated differently because they do not have the same third-party rights as someone who lives in an urban environment. I completely understand that.
Madam Speaker, as a government we should tread very carefully when we are applying a new level of rules and regulations to those good folk who live in our rural area.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I make a brief contribution to this debate. I heard the acknowledgement by the Minister for Lands and Planning that he is prepared to take this motion on and look at the issue further. I also echo the cautions outlined by him. There are a couple of issues I believe are worth making observations about.
In land in particular, you are dealing with a finite resource in, essentially, a two dimensional plane. If you grant rights for one, it is invariably at the expense of the rights of another. Many people move into these rural areas, as the member for Nelson knows, so they can stretch their arms and embrace the concept of liberty where you can run around on your back porch in the buff if you feel like and not offend anyone else except for the two bush chooks that happen to be in the flower garden at the time. People like to do their own thing on these blocks, and to introduce the concept of a third-party appeal is to erode the very rights of the people who moved to that area to enjoy these liberties.
I was amused to realise that it does have a certain declaration of independence quality. The member for Nelson interjected about the United States of America earlier. I can inform him that the author of the Declaration of Independence, Mr Thomas Jefferson, lived in Virginia.
You should well know how those people out there think. Just remember when you are busy going in to bat for one team, it will be against the rights of another team. Ultimately, you expand the rights of one person, but you will be doing it at somebody else’s expense, which is why the Minister for Lands and Planning is being cautious in this area.
Third-party appeals have a tendency to attract what, in law, is called the issue of standing. Standing is the concept in law that somebody who approaches a matter before the court should have some recognisable interest in that matter. I cannot remember but I believe the seminal case was the Australian Conservation Foundation against the federal government. In that case, the Australian Conservation Foundation had to prove – and failed to prove – it had standing and sufficient interest in a matter to justify its presence. This problem will invariably crop up when you are dealing with third-party appeal rights.
Whilst it is in the imagination of the member for Nelson that we are talking about next door neighbours or a person one or two blocks down, it is not beyond contemplation that the people who may be attracted to pursuing these things might be organisations like PLan, headed up by the ever-reasonable Margaret Clinch, or perhaps similar organisations such as the Environmental Defenders Office. I do not believe that is the member for Nelson’s intention. I am sure in the conversation he will have with the Minister for Lands and Planning he will deal with this issue as well.
The rules around standing might be sufficient to cover the field in the DCA hearing any application before it. Nevertheless, if you are not careful – and I noticed the member for Fannie Bay was careful to include the word ‘limited’ to do with third-party appeals – every planning application becomes an instant free-for-all for everybody with an axe to grind about planning issues, whether they live in Darwin, Alice Springs or Canberra.
That issue of appropriateness of people who have access to a third-party appeal will need to be contemplated very carefully to ensure the people standing at the table have a right and interest to be there. If you do not, things become complicated. Whilst I heard the member for Nelson say he does not imagine many people will come from the rural area to pursue these things, they may come from way beyond the rural area. Those people can be much more rampant in their intrusion on other people’s property rights – especially rural property rights – than the next door neighbour might be.
Madam Speaker, with those thoughts, I note the government supports the statement. It is a wise thing to do and the conversation should continue.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I take the points the member for Port Darwin raised. Do not get me wrong, they are excellent points.
The member for Blain mentioned being cautious. I believe I am, as this was debated in 2006 and the third-party appeals system has been operating since then. I do not have the act in front of me, but up until now it has operated well and I do not recall thousands of third-party appeals. The existence of third-party appeals ensures good decisions by the DCA.
You mentioned this might upset people living in the rural area. You must remember this only applies to new developments. I have five acres of mango trees next to me which are sprayed about 10 times a year. I know what it is like to have a shirt drying on the back veranda and smelling like carbaryl – not very good. But the mangoes are there and the bloke wants to spray them. He rings us and tells us we will have an evening drift of a certain chemical through our place, but that is part of it.
Down the road a guy is possibly using machinery illegally and there was one complaint. He might be outside the law, but he does not cause a problem and he works elsewhere. There is a bit of give and take in the rural area, which is a bit of a hotchpotch.
My house is not like the one the minister spoke about. There are some fantastic houses. It is funny that those fantastic houses are in the RR zone, Rural Residential which has a third-party appeal right. Yet if you drove through parts of the rural area such as Whitewood Park, which has little blocks, bigger blocks and 2 ha blocks, you would think it is all rural. Yes, but technically the owner of one block can appeal and the owner of the block up the road cannot. I am trying to get rid of an anomaly.
I take notice of what the member for Port Darwin said. I do not want third-party appeals to stifle development. The Development Consent Authority has become a lot better over the years. It has made sure many more things are ticked before it gives approval. There were, and are, cases where developers appealed against the DCA decision so it wants to ensure its decisions are well founded under the act. That can also mean there is a reduction in the number of third-party appeals.
This does not apply to existing developments, but to a new development. In the eight years since we debated this, I do not think there has been a barrage of third-party appeals. I note what you said, minister.
I laugh a little at the member for Fannie Bay, who said, ‘Gerry Wood is like part of the soil’. It is funny, today is Ash Wednesday and the statement is, ‘Dust to dust, you are dust and unto dust you shall return’. I do not know whether you made some religious connotations. Yes, I will be part of the soil when I am older …
Mr Elferink: Perhaps it was wishful thinking.
Mr WOOD: I know, I know. Yes, I thought the member for Fong Lim was wishing I was well and truly in the soil, but …
Mr Tollner: You will be around forever.
Mr Elferink: Only the good die young, Gerry. Do not panic, mate.
Mr WOOD: That is right. I heard talk about me being anti-development. I have heard it from the previous minister and today …
Mr Tollner: Not today.
Mr WOOD: No, not today, but you …
Mr Tollner: I said other people accuse you of being anti-development.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Yes, yes, yes. It is said to me a lot. I reiterate the number of subdivisions I have supported. Yet I received no acknowledgement that I supported those subdivisions. I can name 20 or 30 major subdivisions in the rural area I have supported. I supported Coolalinga, but oh, no, ‘Gerry Wood is anti-development’. There are units, duplexes – all sorts of buildings there.
I have opposed certain things the minister would know about – development outside the area it should be in or that is inappropriate. Surely my job as a local member – not just for my electorate; I am passionate about the rural area – should be done sustainably?
There was a subdivision in the member for Goyder’s area on Dalys Creek. I will not tell you the developer’s name, but he has been around a long time. He wanted to subdivide the wet areas at Dalys Creek. I went down there and walked that country – two or three 20 acre blocks – in February after it rained, and took photographs. The DCA at least took notice that you are not supposed to subdivide drainage areas, which is in the act and the Planning Scheme. Eventually that subdivision application has come back and the drainage area is one area. The subdivision has been given partial approval because some of the blocks are not suitable for subdivision.
I am not saying I am the only one who would have made some remarks about it, but I can tell you there were only two. The department people who happened to be there that day – and I was so happy to see them – were walking through the mud and the long grass as I was.
Who else will make an effort to make sure these subdivisions are done properly? What you have to take into account is somebody will buy that block of land and spend their life savings on it. I and elected members in the planning authority have a responsibility to ensure that block of land is suitable for what is proposed – a house and, if needed, a shed – and it is dry land so people are not flooded. That is a responsibility I take very seriously. To some extent, the third-party issue is part of that philosophy.
I also take the whole issue of planning seriously because when we create new developments in the bush these days, we are the first people – apart from Aboriginal people and a few blokes who run horses and cattle around the place – in this era to permanently change the landscape. It has not been changed for thousands of years, except by fire, cyclones and other events. Basically, we are making the first permanent change.
What happened in 1700 or 1800 in Britain has happened. We are now making the change. There is a responsibility on us to make sure the decisions we make are the right ones for future generations. I do not put that down as some greenie airy-fairy philosophy; it is a reality. We are the first people to make a decision to change that land. Trees will be knocked down, people will build houses, motorbikes will drive around it – all sorts of things. If we do not do it properly we have not done our job, not only as local members, but as members of this parliament. We need to look forward when we make these decisions.
I find it difficult when I am rubbished because I am passionate about planning. I do not like the Darwin regional plan. I said the other day I would love to sit down with you to explain why. It completely throws out rural development and minimum lot sizes of 1 ha. We fought for that; we presented a petition to parliament asking that no blocks in the rural area be smaller than 1 ha. The plan now has one-third of potential rural development containing small blocks. They are 4000 m2, which is what the Northern Territory population outside Litchfield regards as rural. We do not. If that is passed, the rural lifestyle we know is stuffed. It is a gigantic change, not a small one.
You are planning to put at least the equivalent of the population of Palmerston in the rural area, so I would love to talk to you one day. I am not talking anti-development; I am talking about planning, sensible development and retention of the rural area as an area for rural development. Some of that passion is to do with that.
I will give you an example because it will appear on your desk. A light industrial development on the Stuart Highway is coming up for your approval. I understand why it could be a good idea because we have a shortage of industrial land. I did not take it up with the previous minister but – would you believe? – the Spencely Road subdivision part two does not seem to have got off the ground, although tenders were approved over 12 months ago. There is a shortage of industrial land, and because of that people are doing things they should not be on rural land.
The issue you have in that case of the triangular block I spoke of before – you have to make the decision – you will see in my submission. This is an example of why there will be an anomaly if there is no third-party appeal. The owner can subdivide the block into 2 ha lots. The land on two sides of that block is RL, Rural Living. I dropped some mail into the owners of those blocks in Darwin because they did not know there was a yellow development sign up. They do not live on the property but have owned it for years. They were surprised there was a development next door. The problem I see is the owner of the triangular block has an existing right to subdivide their land into 2 ha. The land that is to be changed is zoned Rural Living and the owners want to change it to Light Industry. Under light industrial zoning you can do a range of things such as a transport depot, veterinary clinic, animal boarding or motor repair shop. That is good as we need areas for that.
But if a development goes ahead and some guy says, ‘I have a transport depot and will operate 24 hours a day. I am right on the Stuart Highway, a great spot.’ I back onto a 2 ha block which is not developed at the moment but the person might say, ‘I am not ready to subdivide. I want to wait another few more years to get a better price.’ You could then have a development which would reduce the price of the land next door and inhibit the amenity of that area. If it was a 24-hour transport depot and a guy who owns a 2 ha block next door has lights shining into his back yard, he has no rights of appeal.
Minister, that is where we have to be cautious in the way we develop. Most industrial areas are separate from residential areas. The Humpty Doo industrial area is about 100 m, maybe 200 m from the nearest house. The other industrial area is Holtze. There is a caravan park but, generally speaking, Holtze is nowhere near a residential area.
We try to put these things in the right place so you do not get people ringing saying, ‘I have this bloke panel beating at night and spraying the cars and it is all coming into my place’. To some extent, you need that third-party appeal if something has not been picked up by the DCA and it affects the amenity.
I appreciate that you will look at this issue. I put it in such a way that I did not make it part of legislation as such; I pointed to where the legislation applies. I would be happy to sit down with you and take up any concerns you have. I thought I would give you a little background. If I occasionally get a bit cranky about some things, it is about being told – I have worked with so many developers. Today, I asked about a drain and people said, ‘Oh, you are anti-development’. No, I support development but not that development that caused three or four people to lose their blocks of land that went under water. I told the planning authority those blocks were not suitable. They did not listen. I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars it cost the government to do the drain, and then they had to buy the blocks back. Good planning that is well done does not cause anybody any problems, but if it is poor it does.
The member for Fannie Bay just quoted from the Parliamentary Record. I will read a little from the Parliamentary Record when this debate was on before. I was referring to other members at the time – the member for Goyder I think it was, and the member for Daly. The members were different at that stage. I was asking for their support:
I said:
Ms Lawrie, as it says here, interjected:
I said to her:
I thought that was a bit…
Mr Tollner: Who said that?
Mr WOOD: I said that.
Mr Tollner: But who said the previous comment?
Mr WOOD: The member for Karama said, ‘Play the issue, not the person’. I just said, ‘Thank you, member for Karama, and may you live forever in your suburb’.
For the record and for the CLP, yes I did have some fights with the Labor Party from time to time, in case you think it was all one way.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I gave notice of this motion on 26 November. I move that the government:
negotiate with semi-commercial banana growers or hobby farmers who derive income from the sale of their bananas for some form of compensation for the loss of that income
propagate and grow, in a quarantine area using tissue culture, varieties of bananas that would otherwise be destroyed and not be available after the banana freckle crisis is over, so that those varieties can be regrown when the ban on growing bananas is lifted.
Since that has happened there have been some changes. Madam Speaker, you and I were at a briefing the other day and I thank the department for a very thorough briefing of where we are at present with banana freckle. Even though notice of this motion was given in those days, there have been some changes, and pretty well everything I have asked for in this motion has been done by the government.
I will explain a little about what is happening – partly information from the briefing but also some comments I will make. There is no doubt – I have probably even lost a friend over this – some people do not want to lose, and are very adamant they will not lose, their bananas. I can understand that. I do not have many bananas; I lost them about six months ago. I got over the disappointment of losing them.
I felt at the beginning that there are some things you must do for the benefit of the wider community. Whilst it might affect you personally, which is understandable, there will always be some time when you do something for the good of the community, which is what this banana freckle program is about. There is no doubt there are people losing healthy plants which do not have banana freckle.
However, someone had to draw a line around where the quarantine area had to finish. Someone had to say, ‘If we remove all of these bananas there will be no banana freckle in that area’.
I used to raise chickens. If they had Newcastle disease, there would be no ifs or buts; there would be no chickens within a fairly large area of your chicken farm. If you have had foot and mouth, there would be total destruction. I think horse flu has also been mentioned. It is not new, but it is newer for Darwin. We have had other outbreaks, such as citrus canker and vine leaf rust, which caused a number of issues. At times we have had periods where plants were destroyed simply for the good of the wider community. In this case with banana freckle, it concerns the banana industry of Australia, which many people rely on.
Some people might say it is Queensland’s or New South Wales’ problem, but it is not. We might have our territories and states, but we all eat bananas and are all part of Australia. It is not a case of saying Queenslanders are trying to get away with knocking out all of our bananas. No, it is making sure the banana industry stays clean, green and yellow – I could also say bent, but that could have wrong connotations.
As a community we must realise the banana industry is not just about the farmer, it is about the people who work on the farm, supply the boxes, manufacture the boxes, supply the fuel and chemicals and supply the plants, tractors, trailers, sorting equipment and gas equipment for gassing the bananas. There is a huge range of people whose livelihoods depend on the banana industry. There are also the wholesalers and transporters. In the end, I would love to know how many people would like to eat a banana that is three-quarters black. That is not something many people want.
Banana freckle is not only about the look of the banana; it also affects the vigour of a banana plant and, therefore, productivity. But the look of a banana is also important. How many people would buy a banana like that? Even when you know it is okay, it puts people off.
There is a concern, which was mentioned at the briefing, that the message has not gone out as well as it should. This may have caused some problems the government is trying to address. There will be some people determined to the end that they will not support the loss of their bananas. People have to realise that, yes, it is painful. They can argue the case and say, ‘My plants do not have banana freckle’. This is not long-term pain, it is one year of quarantine without bananas. Then people can start again.
If we had Cyclone Lam come across Darwin, you would not have bananas. They would be the first things to blow over. You could not complain to the government about that.
We need to do something to ensure the industry not only thrives in Queensland – we must remember, we are losing our biggest banana plantation at Lambells Lagoon. Even though they are not happy about it, they have accepted that they will lose all of their bananas. People who might have a few bananas at home should go and see what will go at Lambells Lagoon. They are willing to see it out, stay the distance and come back and grow more bananas. I spoke to the owner – I cannot think of his name off the top of my head – and he asked me to make sure the message gets out that Darwin Banana Company will continue. They are willing to sacrifice a whole year’s production, and probably more than that, to make sure they can come back and grow bananas for the Darwin market.
Of course, we have some new banana growers operating in the Douglas Daly. To reduce the chances of them being affected by banana freckle, we need to make sure there is no banana freckle in the Northern Territory.
As I said, it is true there are some people who are not happy about it. But the figures I have are that the department rang 912 people and only 12 said no to providing information about their block of land. I reckon that gives you a fair indication that people are understanding the importance of what is happening.
The issue I spoke about first in the motion was about some compensation for commercial and semi-commercial growers. There is some good news. You have to understand that you have to be a genuine commercial, hobby or semi-commercial farmer. You have to show you made an income from your bananas. The way to show that is through the paperwork. You have to be a legitimate grower who has the receipts to show that you have earned money from those bananas. The government cannot provide money to people who were working under the cash economy. That would be wrong and the government cannot do that. It would be irresponsible.
Some growers are now being paid some compensation to clear their block of bananas. There is some cash flow, but at the same time the department does not have to put people in there as well. These growers are able to receive compensation for either removing, ploughing in or poisoning the bananas on their blocks. That is a good move.
The other area the government has looked at – again, where you have people who have the paperwork to show they are genuine growers who have been receiving an income from their crops – is a third-party assessor. This is an independent third-party assessor who can go onto a block, not someone from the department. Obviously you have to show the person that you earned money from your bananas so you can apply for compensation. I gather there are a few people in line for doing that at present. At least one person has received compensation and another is on the list.
I stress that if people want to receive compensation, they must have proof that they were genuine growers. It does not matter if you were a small grower or a big grower, if you have the paperwork to prove it, then you are able to get some compensation through a third-party assessor. It will not be done by the government, which is a good initiative as well. It keeps it at arm’s length from government.
Some of the figures at the briefing were that it is estimated there are about 8561 properties with bananas. I always like an estimate that is so accurate. A total of 5639 banana plants on those blocks have been destroyed. I do not know whether it is the bananas plants on 5639 blocks, or it is 5639 banana plants. I think it is the blocks. The department checks about 250 blocks each day. There are about 34 110 blocks which have been surveyed to see if they have bananas. There are about 5500 still to be done.
The good news is between May 2016 and April 2017 people will be able to register – they have to register – to get a permit to buy up to three varieties of bananas from accredited nurseries. These varieties will be grown from tissue culture so they will be disease free when they are sold. The department is looking to see if it can get 3000 or 4000 block owners to become part of that scheme because it wants people to grow those bananas. As they grow they will be inspected at a 60-day interval. They will be the test to see if banana freckle has gone.
We will have one year after April when there will be no bananas grown. After that, a number of people with a permit – they may have to buy these plants, I am not sure what the arrangement will be – will be able to grow two or three varieties. A number of varieties of bananas will be available and will be used and tested in the following year to see if we have banana freckle. Hopefully, if that is clear, people will be able to double up on bananas.
The issue I raised in the debate is some people have special varieties of bananas and are pretty disappointed those varieties will be destroyed. In the briefing it was obvious they can be tissue cultured. My understanding is there is a problem as quarantine laboratories are full to capacity. At the briefing they said people who want this to happen may have to pay for it. This is an area the government is willing to do something about but is still working on the plan. Mentioned at the briefing was one grower who grows many varieties of bananas – as you grow orchids, gingers or whatever – and for that person to keep all those varieties he would need to somehow get some tissue culture from those varieties. They would have to be grown in a quarantine area, and when the quarantine period was finished he could get those bananas back and continue.
Some people wonder who pays for this. A large proportion of this is through the states, via the banana industry levy, and in some cases where bananas are not grown, through the nursery levy. The industry is paying for a lot of it. The industry knows if this fungus gets into other parts of Australia it will be difficult for the banana industry to cope with it and will cause major problems in loss of sales and production.
There does not appear to be many people trying to move plants around. Obviously there are restrictions on where plants can go – not so much fruit, but plants. I get the feeling some people have concerns and do not particularly like what is going on, but the majority of people understand that this is not permanent and the government is setting in place some means of restarting the banana industry – whether it is a back yard hobby or commercial. It will get the industry going again in 2016 and 2017 and, hopefully, if there is no more banana freckle, we will be up and running again. The short-term pain people are going through will be forgotten in a couple of years’ time.
You could get a cyclone through Darwin tomorrow and you would not have any bananas left. It would flatten them and you would have to wait a good year before you had bananas again.
Madam Speaker, since I gave notice of the motion there have been some positive changes. I am happy to hear from the minister on this. He may have more information, especially in relation to tissue culture, as he has been on the news and Country Hour on the ABC about tissue culture. It will be interesting to see how the people who have varieties they would like to retain can retain them.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, it is nice to come into this House – and full marks to you, member for Nelson – and listen to some well-informed, reasonable and sensible debate. I am pleased that you and other members of this House on this side have taken the opportunity to be briefed on what is happening with banana freckle. It is an important issue in the Northern Territory, and something we have to get on and sort out. In saying that, I thank the member for Nelson for his interest in the efforts by government to eradicate this new strain of banana freckle from Top End properties.
I will give some background and run through a few of the machinations of what has been happening, then address some of the areas of concern for the member for Nelson.
The new strain identified in 2013 infects the Cavendish variety of banana. Previous strains existing in the Northern Territory and Queensland did not affect the Cavendish variety, which is the most popular commercially produced variety of banana. If I have been told right, it was the case some time ago that Lady Finger bananas could be infected with banana freckle sitting in a garden beside a Cavendish and the Cavendish would not become infected.
Some sort of mutation, or new strain of this fungus, has come about and now we have the infection on the Cavendish variety, which changed the game in the Northern Territory. Cavendish, as I have pointed out, is the only major commercial variety grown in the Territory. As members would realise, it is a major variety in Queensland and New South Wales as well.
I mentioned in Question Time this morning that this is the largest nationally cost-shared emergency plant pest response to date in Australia. It is on target to eradicate the new strain of banana freckle from the Territory. There are currently over a 100 personnel working from the control and coordination centre in Winnellie. Up to 70 field teams are supported by specialist planners, geospatial or mapping information experts and logistics personnel.
This is a whole-of-government response and my Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries is supported by many Northern Territory government agencies, including Police, Education, and Housing. Before this major response occurred, the initial response involved government as well. All the agencies within government were asked to provide personnel for the initial response. I congratulate all of the agencies which provided personnel to support the DPIF during the initial stages of that first program.
The local governments of Darwin, Litchfield, Daly River and Palmerston are also actively supporting this eradication program with services and on-the-ground resources. The Australian Defence Force has also played a part by destroying all banana plants on their bases across the Northern Territory.
During the first 12 months of the program to eradicate this new strain of banana freckle on Cavendish, teams worked to identify the distribution of the disease and then remove plants from known infected premises. As the program progressed it became apparent that the disease was more widespread in the infected red zones, and new information on the disease biology was also gathered.
All of this updated information was reviewed by a panel of national experts established to provide advice on the response necessary to eradicate the new strain of this disease. This expert panel concluded that the approach currently in place was the most effective option to eradicate the new strain of banana freckle, not just from the Northern Territory, but also from Australia.
This approach was endorsed by the national management group, which has representatives from affected industry associations, the Commonwealth, and all state and territory governments. There are a couple of cases that have to be made when the plan is approved at national management group level. One is that it is technically feasible to eradicate the disease – or the fungus in this case – and that it is cost effective or a business case supports it, given the cost-benefit analysis. Clearly it passed both hurdles to get to where we are today.
The current approach involves the removal and destruction of all banana plants in six zones across the Top End. The six eradication zones are the Darwin region, which includes all properties north of Manton Dam and west of Marrakai, extending to the NT coastline. Then there is the Rum Jungle/Batchelor area, Dundee Beach, Daly River, Milikapiti and Ramingining.
The destruction of all the banana plants from the Northern Territory eradication red zones by the end of April is on target. As I said, this is the largest emergency plant pest program ever undertaken in Australia, and that should never be forgotten. This is huge.
All Australian states and territories and the banana industry are committed to supporting the Northern Territory to eradicate this new strain. Industry and community support and cooperation has played a key part in delivering the results to date, with Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia completing surveillance to show that the new strain of banana freckle is not present in their state; thank goodness for that.
This government takes biosecurity very seriously. My Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries works closely with farmers to protect our primary industries and detect, manage and resolve issues when they occur. The Northern Territory has managed to successfully eradicate a number of exotic pests or diseases of horticultural crops in the past, including citrus canker, Philippine fruit fly and, more recently, grapevine leaf rust. The same strain of banana freckle was eradicated twice from Western Australia, in Kununurra in 1979 and Kalumburu in 2001.
Progress with the destruction of banana plants from the eradication red zones includes local communities from Tiwi – Milikapiti – and Ramingining. Eradication zones have destroyed all banana plants, so two zones are complete. Surveillance for the absence or presence of banana plants has been completed for more than 34 110 properties. It might be marginally different from your figure, member for Nelson. Those premises were all in the eradication red zones. Surveillance in the Darwin rural area is 84% complete and that surveillance has identified 8561 premises with banana plants in the eradication red zones. Banana plants have been destroyed from 5639 premises across all eradication zones, making it more than two-thirds complete.
Householders have undertaken their own destruction on more than 10% of those premises where destruction is complete. In anyone’s language, that is a high level of community participation. I congratulate and thank all of those people involved, because they have made our job much easier.
I take the opportunity to clarify a statement I made earlier in the day in Question Time. Destruction is being completed on about 100 premises per day and surveillance is complete for 150-plus premises per day – I think I said 250 this morning.
The management of high-risk movements of banana plants is an important part of the program. Thanks to the efforts of enterprises handling banana plants and the fruit, and the community, there has been a high level of compliance with movement controls, which are necessary to ensure the banana plants do not move outside eradication red zones.
Surveillance in the areas of the Northern Territory outside eradication red zones has shown banana freckle is not present in these areas. Fruit and vegetable distributors have worked with the banana freckle management team to ensure banana fruit continues to be available to Territorians. There is a good supply of bananas. Every time I walk into Woolworths or Coles, there are plenty of bananas on the shelf and I have never been left wanting for them.
In regard to compensation, there is a nationally funded compensation scheme known as the owner reimbursement costs, or ORC, available to enterprises that demonstrate they meet the nationally endorsed eligibility criteria. All banana growers can submit an application under this scheme.
So far under the scheme, one payment has been made, another has been finalised for payment and a further seven are being assessed by a third-party expert agreed to by industry and by government. I note the comments from the member for Nelson in regard to this. I do not need to cover it as he has done a succinct job of detailing what it takes for people to be eligible for compensation. Not everybody can be, which is regrettable for many people and is probably the cause of some of the pushback government has been getting. At the end of the day, we must be very careful how we manage reimbursement for the loss, lest we set a very dangerous precedent and dive more deeply than we would ever have expected into government coffers. The member for Nelson said that people who are operating in a cash economy cannot expect to qualify for compensation.
The banana freckle eradication program has received widespread support from many local industries and businesses that have provided a range of services, equipment, resources and stores. The amount of cooperation we have received from the community has been outstanding.
I was advised fairly recently that in less than 0.5% of cases have we received any form of aggression or pushback from the program. Less than 0.5% of people we have been in contact with have shown some sign of displeasure or resistance. In the scheme of things, that is quite a low number. Nonetheless, we will continue to work very closely with those people to try to win them over. We do not want to be in a position where we are forcing ourselves upon people. When I say ‘we’ I mean the inspectors who are working for the eradication teams. We would like to resolve those differences amicably and make sure that people do the right thing so we can eradicate this.
I will reinforce something I said this morning. Biosecurity is a big issue for the Territory. In the case of banana freckle, if we have it here we simply will not have a commercial industry into the future. I can assure you that bananas that would be theoretically grown in the Northern Territory while banana freckle is still present could never be transported interstate. You would end up with the potential of only local bananas being bought and sold in the Territory. I do not know if that is sustainable, given what I know about growth plans for the Darwin Banana Farm, and some other commercial growers that are beginning in the early stages of their development.
To repeat this morning’s words: those people who resist the efforts of the banana freckle program are compromising and placing in jeopardy the biosecurity of the Northern Territory with regard to this disease. I do not mean that to sound combative, but I need people to understand there could be some implications from the resistance they are showing. I hope we are able to work with people and negotiate through that.
The member for Nelson pointed out in his remarks that Top End households and banana growing enterprises will be able to replant bananas from April 2016 under the conditions he pointed out. Between April 2016 and April 2017, a large number of premises will need to plant Cavendish and non-Cavendish banana varieties that will act as sentinels to show that the new strain of banana freckle has been successfully eradicated. For those who do not know what a sentinel is, it is something that is set up in a location to attract a disease or see if it is present and what the prevalence is.
Another example is we have always had a sentinel herd of cattle at Berrimah Farm. Those sentinels are there for a reason. They are close to the port so if there is any ingress of any pathogens that might affect cattle in the Northern Territory, we hope they would be the first cattle to get it so we can identify it and stop it before it spreads.
There is also an online survey on the banana freckle website where householders can nominate the varieties they think should be available for replanting in April 2016. The member for Nelson will be relieved to learn that planning is under way to develop arrangements for the retention of genetic material from banana varieties that will be destroyed and are not otherwise available from existing banana variety libraries across Australia. We recognise that.
This is something we do not take lying down. It has been an issue for all of us to consider, not only the response itself, but the political implications and the fact that in some areas some of the research into Panama disease is compromised now because of the banana freckle eradication program. Some of that work has likely been set back a period of time. I hope the research can recover quickly.
All these reasons makes it important for us to eradicate this fungus from the Northern Territory. Any remaining banana plants provide an opportunity for the new strain of banana freckle to survive. That is why we must get rid of this disease across the Territory and Australia. We can eradicate the new strain of banana freckle from the Northern Territory; however, ongoing success depends on continued industry and community support for what is a nationally important program. There are not too many times in this House I will use these words, but this is a matter of national significance. Imagine what Australia would be like without a banana industry? I shudder to think.
If this disease is not eradicated from the Northern Territory there is a possibility it could spread to other states. That would be terrible, which is understating it. It would also mean someone has not taken their responsibilities seriously enough to eradicate this in the Territory where there is a real opportunity to do so.
I can advise the member for Nelson that we will not be opposing the motion. You are on a roll tonight, member for Nelson; you are doing well. Support for the wording of the motion is also predicated and conditional upon the comments made in this House tonight regarding the compensation side of things and what I mentioned about some of the varieties where the genetics will be saved.
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for presenting this motion. It gives me another opportunity to dispel a few myths. I congratulate the member Nelson for dispelling a few of the myths. It is the responsibility of parliamentarians not just to take a populist approach, to blindly take the views of some and try to represent them beyond where they should be represented, but to take that information back to constituents so they can be fully informed.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for presenting this motion. As shadow for Primary Industries it is an area I am interested in. At the moment, along with the melon virus, banana freckle is a huge talking point and issue for many people in the rural area and urban centres in the northern suburbs where people have, over many years – longer than I have been around – grown their own bananas, like Lady Fingers.
Part of my growing up was visiting people’s places and grabbing them off the tree, and my grandparents freezing bananas and telling me they were a treat. I realise they were just being cheap; it was not a treat. I mention that because it is important.
This has brought a lot of emotions to the forefront of discussion as some people have strong feelings about their produce. My electorate in the northern suburbs has the Rapid Creek Markets on Sunday, and many stallholders have bananas. I will not mention any names, but I am sure the minister and the member for Nelson are fully aware of a certain stallholder who is quite passionate – and I respect that he is passionate – about this issue. I have an opportunity every Sunday morning to meet the stallholders as part of my rounds, saying g’day to everyone. I have been going there for three-and-a-half years with the preselection period, so I have come to know people at the markets very well.
When I became the Primary Industry shadow, I thought I would make it a formal get together. I met about 17 growers at the office of the member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, at Coolalinga. It was very insightful for me to meet them and listen to their concerns, not only about banana freckle but other viruses and other concerns they had. It was forced home to me that this is their livelihood, their job and what they do, so it is very important.
Many people have come to me saying it has been a disaster from the start. That has been the issue. Banana freckle inspectors went to everybody’s house checking for bananas in the red zones and saying their bananas were fine. Maybe six weeks later – I am not sure how long after that – they came back and notified the residents that their bananas would be eradicated, and not just the Cavendish bananas. That upset many people.
There are a number of issues around this. Going onto somebody’s property and saying, ‘I will destroy your trees’, was one of the main issues. As I said earlier, people have feelings about their trees, the fruits, their yards and how much time and effort they put in. They are a lot more educated now. They have researched for themselves. My understanding of the banana freckle is that it is purely a cosmetic fungus; you can still eat the fruit. But you cannot grow it commercially as it does not look as nice as fruit without the fungus.
I take the opportunity to thank the minister, the minister’s staff and staff of the department. They have been fantastic about briefings. I have had a couple of briefings in the minister’s office which were very insightful and professional. I listen intently because you learn. If you are not listening to the people conducting these programs, you cannot give advice to the growers and other people you speak to at the markets. This has been a journey for me. We will still go ahead. It will be a talking point for a while.
I was very happy to rock up to my office just before 8 am on a Sunday morning at the Rapid Creek Markets and see Mr Kevin Cooper and a staff member – I have forgotten your name and I apologise for that – next to Jay’s Coffee, where On, the massage person, normally is, but she is away on holidays at the moment. It was a great idea to have Kevin and his staff member set up at the Rapid Creek Markets before 8 am. I left just after 12.30 pm and they were still there. Well done, because it gave people the opportunity to have a discussion – the growers, the stallholders who sell bananas and interested people. Many people spoke to them. They had a great spot, because Jay the coffee man makes amazing coffee and he always has a long line-up of people waiting. Some people would talk while they were waiting, which was good to see. It is good stakeholder consultation, which we talk about in this House a lot. I know how important that is and what a commitment it is for departmental staff to give up their Sunday morning. It was well done by Kevin Cooper and the department.
I will read an e-mail a concerned citizen has sent me which goes to the core of many things. Yes, it is quite passionate. It talks of people being confused and quite upset about the banana freckle eradication program and what it means to them:
The minister for Primary Industries, the member for Katherine:
She is saying to me:
That was from a concerned resident about banana freckle. From that e-mail and others I received, as well as the many conversations I have had with people about banana freckle, I can see people are passionate. I said at the start of my contribution that people are passionate about this because it is part of our existence in the Northern Territory, especially in the Top End – growing our own melons, bananas and mangoes. I remember people coming to Darwin from interstate to visit me who could not believe that you could go to somebody’s yard and pick off a mango on the way to cricket training. We thought they were a pest, but they are great when we want to eat them. This is the effect the banana freckle issue is having on people; they are concerned, upset and want a solution.
My job, as opposition shadow minister, is to relay people’s concerns. The minister would have heard these concerns as well. When people come to me to talk about issues concerning them, it is my responsibility to bring those issues to parliament. It is important I get the opportunity, as the Sunday markets are in my electorate and people speak to me about this issue every weekend. I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this into parliament so I can share the concerns of people who have met with me many times.
The minister mentioned in Question Time, and briefly in his speech this evening, that people are not complying. This concerns me. I ask the minister what will happen to that growing number of people? What will happen to those growers, farmers or hobby farmers who have banana freckle but will not to let you on to their property? As I said many times already, people are passionate about this issue and the relationship with the bananas in their yard. This is their house, their property, and now you are telling them you are coming in to rip these plants out. I would like an answer from the minister at some stage, because I am concerned about this. It is concerning that we will possibly have people chaining themselves to the fence and not allowing people to come in. It is a serious concern that needs to be looked at. At a later stage I will ask this question again about what we will do with people who will not let you on their properties, and how we can get that message out. People have a right to do what they want with their properties, but I hope there is a respectful plan and process so this could happen in a nice, relaxed way. I would hate to see footage of people in the rural area being dragged off their properties, arrested and their fences being cut.
I have a few residents in my electorate who said, ‘There is no way I am allowing people to come into my yard and take stuff out of it that is my property, not the government’s’. How we do that will be a serious issue. As I said, I hope the minister will be able to give me an answer on the strategies they will employ in doing that. It is a growing number of people. There is a number of Facebook sites and groups which are now lobbying government harder, as well as elected members, both rural and in the northern suburbs. The growers do not want to lose the bananas they are growing. There are many conspiracy theories about supporting the Queensland industry and getting rid of the bananas when we do not really have to. ‘I had bananas all my life, I can grab one off the tree to eat.’
April 2015 is when all the bananas have to be eradicated, so it is getting down to crunch time for many people. It means by April, or the end of March, all bananas in the red zone have to be eradicated.
Because it started in October 2013, I have heard many stories of people who have cut out their plants and now sucklings are growing. We have that issue. The minister said over 100 personnel in 70 field teams are, without a doubt, working very hard. However, the situation we will have is people again growing their plants in those red zones. We are still trying to eradicate all the plants in the red zone by the end of March. This is an issue that is not going away. I am not sure the government will be able to eradicate all the plants in the red zones in the next couple of months, by April this year. There will be resistance, as there is already resistance.
Madam Speaker, I will continue to monitor the situation. I thank the member for Nelson for bringing the motion before the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister and the shadow minister for their responses. Member for Johnston, the issue I raised today about preserving varieties of bananas came from your electorate. Some people came to my office who were concerned that the variety of bananas they had was a particularly nice variety they used for cooking banana fritters at the Rapid Creek Markets. I think they might even have a shop there ...
Mr Vowles: Right at the front of my office.
Mr WOOD: Right. That is where this issue came from. If you are talking to them you can say the government is willing to set up a program so there is an opportunity for those specific varieties they were concerned about to be retained. That is what this is about. Those varieties can have a portion of the plant removed and grown as tissue culture. Obviously they have to be kept in quarantine until bananas are able to be grown again, and they will be able to then continue with that variety. If you are talking to them – I cannot remember their names off the top of my head but I thank them for coming to see me about it – you can say that was the issue and the minister has given a response. You could probably use the Hansard because something positive has come out of this today.
The good thing about General Business Day is it gives us an opportunity for issues people may think are mundane, but the issue with the bananas affects many people. The issue the member for Johnston raised about what we do with people who are adamant they will not lose their bananas is an important one.
As local members we have to give the facts to people. Some people are very concerned about tissue culture, which has been around for many years. Tissue culture was used when I went to horticultural college in the 1960s. It is nothing to do with genetically modified foods, it is just a process of cutting a very small portion of the plant which is small enough not to be infected. There are things which need to be put to people who have some doubts, and it is up to us to have briefings and then try to disseminate that information when people come into your office. It is not easy sometimes.
Some of us lost our bananas six months ago so some of us …
Mr Chandler: He said that.
Mr WOOD: I did not say I was going bananas, I said some of us lost our bananas. There is a difference, member for Brennan, but I take your point. I am not bent; at least I do not think so. For some things I am green ...
Mr Gunner: You are very appealing.
Mr WOOD: That is right. We are getting into banana jokes so I will get back to the point.
We, as local members, have to give accurate information to those people. Sometimes, because the information is not out there, people do not understand it. As the member for Johnston said, there are sometimes conspiracy theories and, unfortunately, people get their back up and it is difficult to sort through.
I thank the minister for the support of the government for people to grow varieties of bananas they are concerned about losing. Using tissue cultures is a positive approach because people are worried about losing their favourite variety of banana. Cavendish, even though it is the most popular and most widely grown banana in Australia, many people – we have a lot of Asian people in the Northern Territory – love their cooking bananas and other varieties.
We need to not only do what the minister said, but tell people they can get those bananas if they know what variety they are. Tell people this service will be available. It is not much good telling me in the parliament, the message needs to be spread.
Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their support.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the member for Brennan said I was on a roll; I do not expect to be on a roll all the time. General Business Day is an important day to raise issues for debate. It gives us an opportunity, in this case, to debate an area of local government. We have a new minister for local government, so it will be interesting to hear what she has to say.
I move that the government does not extend the terms of local government councils beyond their present four-year term, but instead reduces the next term of local government to three-and-a-half years.
On 17 October 2014 the Minister for Local Government and Regions, who was then the Chief Minister, wrote to me and said, ‘On 4 December 2013 the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly tabled a report 2012 NT Council Elections authored by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission. The report contains recommendations aimed at improving the administration of local government elections in the Northern Territory. A number of recommendations, together with other reforms aimed at reducing the costs of elections for councils, are being progressed as part of a package of amendments to the Local Government Act and the Local Government Electoral Regulations. In particular, the proposed amendments seek to change the timing of the next periodic general election to 2017 and every four years after that, and fix polling day to be the fourth Saturday in August.’
On 6 November, the minister then issued a media release which said:
In theory that sounds good, but in practice I have some concerns. When a person votes for a council, especially where there are fixed terms, that is a contract. Madam Speaker, if I am voting for you and I know the set period for a member of this parliament is four years, then that is the contract. I have voted for you for four years, not five years, six years, three years or two years. I have voted for you. This is a basic principle we cannot ignore.
The previous minister said:
What the Chief Minister forgot to listen to was the opinion of the voters. It is the voters who elect the councillors, not the councillors who elect the voters. The voters elect councillors for four years. That is in the Local Government Act. That is the contract. I do not believe governments have the power to do that.
There is a section in the Local Government Act which allows the minister to change the time of the election. I am not sure whether time means the date, or whether the hours in which the election will occur. I am interested if there is an explanation in relation to that.
In Victoria elections can be changed, but they are changed for reasons which are a necessity, such as a natural disaster or a general election of the House of Representatives. In our legislation we have the room to move our elections if the federal government election clashes. In certain circumstances in Victoria the minister can move the date. However, we are not talking about moving the date one or two weeks across either side, but moving it by one-and-a-half years. That is adding more than 33% of an elected person’s time in that job without any approval from the voters. The minister has the right to do it, but I thought this was an issue not so much about the minister’s powers, but what the opinion is of the voters.
The minister said the council supported it. I have a copy of the Alice Springs News online – I think it was 11 November 2014 – with a summary of the things happening in Alice Springs at the time. It said:
They went on with some other issues. For instance, they did not want the mayor appointed, he should be elected, etcetera. My understanding from reading this is the council was against deferring the next election by 18 months.
I can understand it may be good to move council elections to August. However, the way to do that without breaking the contract with the people is to allow this election to go ahead when it should – which is next year – and make the next term three-and-a-half years. You then get into the August cycle. At least the people know they have voted for them for three-and-a-half years. The next terms can all be four years. That way you are not removing what I call the contractual arrangements the voters have with the people they elected.
I can understand if there is a cyclone; if we were having an election today, Nhulunbuy might have to move it by a week or so. That is slightly different; that is an urgent matter that needs to be dealt with straightaway.
One of the other issues is having three elections in one year. We have a Northern Territory Electoral Commission and its full-time job is to run elections. If it does not have enough staff, employ some more people to run those elections. It should have running elections down to a tee. After all, that is the profession of the people who work there; they do it all the time. They do not run the tennis club or a shop, they run elections. There will be periods when there are only by-elections.
We will have three elections in one year, and after that we will not have any for a while. We will have the odd by-election, but there will be three years of peace and quiet. Will they complain about it being too quiet and say, ‘We need an election; we have had three years without one’? Yes, we will have a busy period, no doubt about it.
We have too much concern about people not being able to handle three elections. The people will have a rest for three years after that; there will be no elections for a while so they might be happy about that. However, no one has asked the people; they have presumed they would be unhappy to have three elections.
NTEC has said, ‘It will be difficult for us in practical terms to have three elections’. However, the first election will be in March, the second will be in August, and I am not sure when the federal election will be. That date is flexible. Why do we not just go down the path we normally do? We know two elections will be on a certain date. Have them, but change the time period of the local government election so people know exactly what period they are voting for those councillors. At the same time, you will get that election into the August period so if councils are concerned about new people coming on to the council who need more time to understand the budget, that would be solved.
This is a bit of overkill. The government should have put this out for consultation, because neither the councils nor the government have the right to say they will change that election period to the extent it has been. A changed year-and-a-half is not the same as a week either side or a couple of weeks simply because there is a disaster or a federal election clashes. This is a considerable period of time that has been extended to a councillor who has not been elected for that period. It is like being appointed by the minister who will give them a free extra year-and-a-half on the council. That is not the way local government should occur unless there are very special circumstances. I do not think those circumstances have been made clear.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the concern I have, as I said before, is that this is not the democratic way to do things. It is not the government’s role to appoint councillors for such a long period. This is an issue for voters. Voters elect people for four years and that is the way it should remain until the next election when you can then do the adjustment.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for his contribution.
This is my first major contribution as the Minister for Local Government and Community Services. I thank the CE of the newly-combined department, Mr Mike Chiodo, for his efforts in quickly and seamlessly pulling staff together and getting them to work.
The member for Nelson is aware that I have hit the ground running. Given my recent announcements, I am not afraid of taking action against councils that are failing their constituents. Our government was elected to fix the mess of local government and that is what we are doing. Sometimes that involves some temporary pain in order to fix underlying problems. I let all councils know that I want to work with them to deliver good governance and service delivery in local communities.
I thank the Chief Minister for his passion and drive, as the previous Local Government minister, and for the reforms he has commenced in this portfolio. Good, effective local government is vital for all Territorians. It delivers a range of services right across the Territory, from rubbish collection to local roads, signs, libraries, tourism infrastructure, as well as providing local jobs.
This motion really comes down to a simple couple of points – ideology and personal politics. I appreciate the member for Nelson’s perspective on this issue. However, sometimes it seems he is of the view that there are some hidden, ulterior motives behind these things. It was not an easy decision for Cabinet to make. As with every decision we make, there are pros and cons that are discussed. In the end, Cabinet decided that more time is better to make sure the process is properly implemented, people have adequate time and councils are not rushed into the cost of an election. It is better for government to be on the right side of time than being criticised for rushing electoral changes through and forcing councils into early elections.
That is why we have decided to put to the House that the legislation should be changed to push back the elections to 2017 to allow some clear air. In this sittings I expect to introduce the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill. The majority of that bill implements recommendations from the Northern Territory Electoral Commission’s 2012 NT Council Elections Report. It also addressed proposals from councils identified during consultation which aim to improve the scheme of local government elections.
The most recent periodic general elections for local government were held on 24 March 2012. Those elections were the first to be conducted for all councils in the Northern Territory on the same date under the current legislation. After those elections, the Northern Territory Electoral Commission produced the 2012 Northern Territory Council Elections Report.
The report examined and recorded the arrangements and processes used by the councils and the commission. It contained various recommendations aimed at improving practices and procedures for future elections. It was a recommendation of the Electoral Commissioner that the date for the next periodic general elections be changed.
On 19 December 2013 the then Minister for Local Government and Regions directed my department to consult with the local government sector on the recommendations made in the report. A committee of representatives from my department, the Electoral Commission and LGANT considered the various submissions and other proposals that arose during consultation.
The first recommendation of the committee was that the date of the next general election for local government be moved to the last Saturday in August 2017. Subsequent elections will be held every four years after that. The change of date was recommended by the commissioner because there are three major elections due to be held in 2016. These would be the local government general elections, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly election and the Commonwealth government election. A national Census will also be held in 2016. Given all those factors it is preferable that the local government elections be held in a different year.
Apart from changing the year, consideration was given as to whether March was an appropriate month for local government elections. Council submitted that holding elections in March posed problems. When elections were held in March, new council members did not have sufficient experience or familiarity with council matters to confidently frame a budget for the ensuing financial year. Further, because of frequent public holidays in March and April, there has in the past been difficulty in satisfying the requirement to hold the first council meeting within 14 days of election. Another consideration is the disruptive weather in March which can hinder polling and reduce voter turnout, particularly for regional councils in the Top End.
A new date, the fourth Saturday in August every four years commencing in 2017, will ensure adequate time and resources is allocated to both local government and Legislative Assembly elections. It will ensure new council members have time to acquaint themselves with financial matters well before they are required to set a budget. There will be a better chance of fine weather and accessibility to polling stations, and planning will be more certain.
Officers of my department have consulted widely concerning the proposal. They have attended council meetings for each council across the Territory. No councillors have objected to the proposed date of the next periodic general election.
The local government sector supports the revised date. A motion was passed at the November 2014 LGANT annual conference supporting deferral of the next periodic general election until August 2017.
The member for Nelson has suggested cutting short the current term of members to three-and-a-half years. This would mean general elections in September 2015. Even if this was a feasible option, I am not aware of support for it. Current council members have been elected for at least a four-year term. They are entitled to serve that term.
A number of disruptions would be avoided by not holding major elections within close proximity of each other. For example, a number of failed local government elections in March 2012 required supplementary elections and caused significant distractions for the Electoral Commission when preparing for the Legislative Assembly election in August 2012.
It is preferable that the local government elections follow the Legislative Assembly elections to avoid election fatigue for voters. A general election in September 2015 would be too soon; councils and the Electoral Commission would not have sufficient notice. Potential candidates need time to consider their decisions on whether they wish to stand and how they would organise their life. They need to have time to design and run an information campaign if they so desire.
The Electoral Commission has advised that it takes 12 months of planning to run a Territory-wide major election. For a local government general election this includes negotiating services and costs with councils, developing enrolment drive, advertisement campaigns, website design and a PR campaign to promote participation, arranging secondments from NTG staff in regional towns and interstate electoral specialists, securing appropriate early voting and static polling places, developing a remote mobile polling schedule that ensures remote Territorians have an opportunity to vote and procuring services by tender such as planes, four-wheel drives, ballot papers and scanning. Because of the rush, an early election would be more expensive and councils would have to pick up the additional costs.
During each term of a council they must consider their boundaries and representation to ensure they are adequate for the next periodic general election. The outcome of these reviews may not have been finalised if there was an early election date. Councils need to have at least the time they have been promised in order to make presentations for changes to me as the minister for Local Government. In turn, I need time to consider any requests arising from those reviews.
The short answer to the member for Nelson is that even if this idea is a desirable one, which it is not, there is simply insufficient time to bring the local government elections forward. If he would like to be the mayor of Litchfield, he may have to change his plans. This government will not be supporting the member for Nelson’s motion today.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for proposing this motion to the House. It gives us a great opportunity to debate local government, the third tier of Northern Territory government – the real grassroots of governance within the Northern Territory.
I congratulate the new minister on her appointment. This debate offers a real opportunity in learning lessons. Essentially, for the new minister, the lessons to be learnt start with the Chief Minister’s media release on the 6 November 2014 ‘Giving certainty to local government’. I quote from that media release:
The Chief Minister issued it and told Territorians what will be happening.
I quote from an article by Lyndon Keane on 12 November 2014, ‘Council extension a drag for frustrated communities’:
That, for the new minister, is one of the many good lessons to be learnt. Once again, the Chief Minister has created more problems and posed more questions than he ever answers by not being consultative and dictating to Northern Territorians what he thinks is in our best interest. It relates to that autocratic style of governance we know.
Not only are Territorians frustrated with it, but nine members of the CLP are frustrated with it and made an attempt to overturn it to get some sanity into the government’s operations on that side of the House. I have asked questions in the House to give me some strategy at an interest level, but we are not aware of what threats and intimidation were used. The toppling of the Chief Minister was not successful, so we are still burdened with this autocratic dictatorial governance that represents four members of government.
The minister has a great portfolio and opportunities, but needs to address the basic point at the start relating to not working against people, or making decisions and telling people what will be done, but being a good elected community member, being consultative and working with Territorians.
We in the Territory opposition have always been focused on supporting development of local government in the Territory, going back to a previous minister, John Ah Kit’s seminal speech on 7 March 2002 on local government in the bush, followed by the Labor government’s 2008 reforms. The Territory opposition is pleased the CLP has taken up our policy proposals and continued the process within our regional councils by strengthening the roles of local authorities. That is giving them capacity to prioritise local government activity within our local government framework.
Good work, minister, you are now in the saddle and can continue the good policy from Labor. We are pleased you have picked up on that. I have many ideas for you – if you are interested – around continuing to strengthen those local authorities and empowering people in the bush about participating and being proactive in local government.
We have always believed that building strong local government – the third tier of government in the Territory – is important. In that exercise we believe it is important to hear the views of the local government sector, especially elected members and their representative body, the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory.
Having spoken to people in the local government sector and attended the most recent LGANT conference in Darwin in November last year, I am mindful there has been considerable discussion about the government’s proposal to defer the next scheduled local government elections from 2016 to 2017. The opportunity to vote for local council members is the foundation of a democratic system for strong local government. It is important we all work together to ensure we have the best elections possible and continue working towards improving voter turn-out in local government elections. I was pleased to hear the minister briefly touch on the importance of voter turn-out. We need to work on good policy ideas to achieve that.
It is important to remember the proposal to extend the current terms of local government councils, or at least those not under official management. Deferring the next local government elections to 2017 is a response to concerns of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, which has said it does not have the capacity to provide local government elections in 2016 to the standards expected and which must be observed. This goes to capacity issues, given that the Northern Territory Electoral Commission has commitments of a Northern Territory general election, and the likelihood of a federal election in that same year.
Of course, if current disarray in government and CLP infighting continues – and there are many Territorians who believe it will – and the Northern Territory general election comes forward, then there still may be an opportunity for local government elections to occur in 2016.
Once again, it is important to touch on the opportunity for Territorians who want to have their voice heard through their elected community members in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly participating in the motion of no confidence against the government on Tuesday 24 February. That provides every member in this House an opportunity to represent the vast majority of constituents who are saying enough is enough. They are calling for an early NT general election across regional areas and in the urban areas. We have become the laughing stock of the nation. This opportunity will emerge in this House on Tuesday.
It is not about the CLP losing government, but it represents a pragmatic opportunity to send your message to the member for Braitling and say enough is enough. You do not have to create that physical spectacle of crossing the floor; there are other ways you can send that message. I will leave your imaginations to think about that, but it can be done. This will be a very important time for elected community members to stand up for Territorians who are now completely reeling from the ridiculous chaotic episodes that now have become a point of conversation across the Northern Territory.
As I said, I attended the LGANT conference where the proposal to amend the Local Government Act and to defer local government elections to 2017 was announced and discussed by elected members and senior staff of local government councils. I was impressed that a central part of those discussions was how voters would feel about this change. I have already pointed out that the Chief Minister neglected any real consultations and essentially created this problem we are dealing with here in debate. Councillors were keenly focused on the need for voters to have their say at the ballot box, as expected. This is also a key concern of the member for Nelson in bringing this motion to the House.
I have heard the views of some of the voters in the Litchfield Council area expressed through the local media that they would like to see the opportunity for fresh elections. I am also aware that a number of councillors of the City of Darwin have also expressed the view that their elections should not be deferred. I also understand that on the balance, the majority of local government councils understand the purpose of the proposed change, the reason for it as outlined by the independent election experts, the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, and support the one-off amendment to a fixed election term. I understand a motion to not support the changes was debated, but not supported, at that LGANT conference.
One of our challenges in developing strong local government across the Territory is that we have long-standing and well-developed local government municipal councils. Our reforms in 2008 were all about building the same in the regions, breaking out of the too-often pattern of small local councils collapsing under the weight of service delivery obligations and heavy reliance on grant funding. In saying that, I also acknowledge that there were also many well-performing smaller councils in the bush but they were always at the risk of financial stress.
Mutual support for the development of strong local government across the Territory is one of the great features of the work of LGANT. An important point at the LGANT conference was that an extension to the current term of local government would not just assist with supporting the work of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, but would also allow current good work to continue uninterrupted in developing the important role and governance capacity of the emerging local authorities. I stress to the minister that a critical point in developing local governance in the bush is continuing to work with local authorities, listening to and supporting them.
Regarding the second point of the motion, I understand discussion about improving local government elections has included the suggestion that the fixed date for these elections should move from the current April date every four years to later in the Top End Dry Season and cooler months in Central Australia every three-and-a-half years. It has been suggested this would reduce the cost of conducting elections but, more importantly, enhance the standard of these important elections.
That access and support for elections would be easier for the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, voters and candidates and would likely support work to continually improve voter turn-out at local government elections. The proposal has merit, but I would like to see more developed proposals on how to best achieve voter turn-out – community participation at that local government level. I would like to see proposals put forward by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission and the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory. I would like to see a bipartisan approach within the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory to address those issues and work together to improve voter turn-out and community engagement in local government.
For that reason we do not oppose the intent of the second part of the motion, but there are many more important areas we believe we could work on together. I would like to see more discussion and agreement on the objectives being sought in this motion and in driving options, potentially a package including other support of enhanced local government elections, not just deferral to a new fixed-term date. I would welcome more opportunity for discussion of these matters and the views of the new minister for Local Government.
I am sure we will see material coming forward in this Assembly. It will be difficult to deal with when it is dropped on the table as the minister speaks, which is the current practice of the gun-shy government. If you are serious about good debate and working together to create enhanced ideas, programs and strategies for improving local government across the Territory, that element of trust has to be addressed. We look to your leadership, minister, to engender that trust.
It was important that the member for Fannie Bay outlined today that currently you are a government in deficit of trust within the community. You need to show the community real changes are afoot. I do not believe you can do it with the member for Braitling at the helm, but we will leave that to you guys.
There are many in the community, as well as members of the opposition and the Independent members in this House, who would like to hear from the minister how we can take this forward. In discussing what could be debated in this House, minister, we could look at the statements of the new Treasurer on his proposals for merging some of our Top End councils of Darwin, Palmerston and Litchfield. He made very clear the other day that he wants to open up that discussion.
I have already had a number of conversations with constituents in those areas that I do not directly represent, but indirectly represent as a member of this Legislative Assembly. That conversation is now reverberating through those areas so it would be good to hear what you think about that and if you have any plans to merge the three Top End councils. Once again, learning lessons where we started, it would be very important to be truly consultative and engage with the community before any decisions were made. You can see it is a recipe for destruction if it is not done in a democratic way.
Media reports suggest the Treasurer is keen to form a mega-council. I am interested to hear more from the residents of those councils, particularly the Litchfield residents, about what has been, once again, dropped and interpreted as a dictatorial-type approach which will create further problems, not only for you, minister, but for the government you are a part of.
It would also be good to hear more about the Treasurer’s plans for rating the lands not currently incorporated in local government areas, such as Dundee Beach and Marrakai, using the new powers he introduced and passed through his amendments to the Darwin Rates Act. There is another example of what we can talk about in this House together and offer a good bipartisan approach to debating. Then we can support you in your government’s new consultative style of governance we have heard about lately in the media.
That is my contribution, but in the couple of minutes I have left it is important to issue a couple of challenges. In the community you are looking a bit heavy handed with a brief time in the job but already two councils under administration. We are wondering whether that is the way to do business and a good strategy to start with as a new minister.
A clear alternative in policy would be to work with those elected members, with those council officials. I spoke on radio about what I considered appropriate for the Litchfield issue about conflict resolution, the possibility of using the principles of natural justice around good conferencing and having people work out their problems together, as opposed to the strategy of putting in an administrator and consequently denying true democracy and governance of, particularly now, the Litchfield Council over the next six months.
We can always offer clear alternatives, whether you are interested or not we are not quite sure. This week we have seen the matter of the Tiwi Regional Council emerge. Once again, the clear alternative policy from the Labor opposition would be to work with that regional council, as opposed to what you have done in your dictatorial approach. You even opened your speech tonight with a statement that you are not frightened to crack a walnut with a 10-pound hammer. If you look at where that got the Chief Minister, maybe you want to re-evaluate that as a policy around good governance.
Thank you to the member for Nelson for bringing this to the House. It has been an opportunity to talk briefly about local government. I hope those on the other side treat it in good faith. I look forward to working further on this important area.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the speakers who have contributed. I am not sure who wrote the speech for the minister, but some of it had a tone of CLP politics in it that disappoints me because there are people who cannot get out of the past when it comes to some of these issues.
I congratulate Mike Chiodo for being CEO. Mike is a good bloke. He has been around for a while and has had quite a few portfolios to deal with. He is a practical, down-to-earth bloke. He will be good for local government.
Minister, you said I have some hidden ulterior motives. Have you heard of somebody putting forward a philosophy? It is nothing to do with politics, but to do with the philosophy that voters are the ones who put us into the positions we are in. You do not have to agree with my philosophy, but that does not mean there is an ulterior motive.
The issue I was trying to put forward is that the voters should have been consulted. You said you have consulted with LGANT, the department and the NTEC commissioner – very fine, terrific – but they are on the other side of the debate. The voters have not been consulted. I read today:
You have, through a decision of government, done something fundamentally undemocratic. You have removed people’s right to vote for their members by adding a year-and-a-half on to their term. They were voted in for four years. There is no ulterior politics, it is simply a fundamental issue of how we elect people, nothing more, nothing less. To drag that in shows there is no level of understanding of what this was about. Even worse, a third of the speech was about an early election. I do not know whether you wrote the speech, minister, or someone else did, but whoever did it did not read the motion.
The motion clearly states, ‘but, instead, reduces the next term of local government’ – not this term – ‘to three-and-a-half years’. The idea was to take this term to four years and then have an election. The next one is for three-and-a-half years, which puts into place all the things you are talking about. You stipulated an August election for whatever reason. You do not then cut off this term; you stick with the contract which states the voters elected those people for four years. The next term will be three-and-a-half years, which will satisfy the concerns you raised.
I am not saying they are bad concerns, but my fundamental philosophy is the government does not have the right to override the wishes of the voter. The voter wants that person elected for four years. It might sound a bit airy-fairy, but I do not think it is. I do not think NTEC, the minister or LGANT have the right to get together and say this is the change they want without consulting with the voters. That is the basis on which I brought this; there is no politics in it.
Minister, I do not know who wrote the end of your speech or whether there is a CLP person up there who wants to spread rumours. I have heard the rumour recently that the only reason this has been brought up is because Gerry Wood wants to become the Mayor of Litchfield. For crying out loud, I have enough trouble in this job without taking on another one! It is silliness. Some people do not like me and want to get me out of the seat of Nelson. The people of Nelson will decide that, and I will decide whether I want to keep going. It is not for the CLP to spread false rumours about what my future is and whether I want to go back to being mayor of the council.
That spoils this debate. It does not need to move into that level, because this is not anti-government from the point of view of ‘I hate the CLP government’. I am raising this as a fundamental issue which we should debate.
The government members clearly do not agree with me. That is fine; I will not kick them in the teeth because they do not agree with me. But I raised it as there is an important philosophy that needs to be debated. I do not even mind if the Labor Party does not agree with me. One of the great things about General Business Day is you can raise and debate issues no one else supports.
I always laugh when we come in here to debate – and this is a House of debate – and there is one person from one side, one person from the other side, and that is the debate. I could not sit here for too long and not want to debate various issues. That is why this place is important. I raise that issue simply to highlight the fact that I disagree with it. If other people do not agree with it, that is okay. I believe we have not done the right thing.
The member for Barkly mentioned amalgamation. The first thing that came to my head was I just heard the member for Fong Lim, who is the new Minister for Lands and Planning, describing the rural area. Usually, if councils are being amalgamated, they are amalgamated because they are of like kind. I can tell you that Litchfield is not like Palmerston or Darwin, and it is very proud to be different. Any attempt to amalgamate Litchfield with Darwin or Palmerston would be fought vigorously by the residents. Some people might prefer no local government; that is another issue.
Neither government has been willing to tackle the issue of the non-incorporated land in the Northern Territory. It has been a difficult issue, I understand that. But who has been brave enough to tackle the issue of Marrakai, Dundee, Douglas Daly and those areas that still do not come under local government? It is not easy, I grant you that, because there is opposition from people in those areas to having local government and paying rates. But that is an issue that needs to be looked at before we start amalgamating councils. That is not to say that discussion cannot be held.
I thought, as the member for Barkly said, any amalgamation of councils was done with like-minded councils. Litchfield is certainly not like-minded with Palmerston or Darwin, simply because it is basically rural. Someone said on the radio today that people in Howard Springs are quaint. I thought that was a nice turn of phrase. I figure it reflected that we are different. We are a bit like mixed lollies. People have different reasons for living in the rural area and that is something I honestly believe is forgotten when the big planners try to change things in the rural area.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the minister’s comments. I felt that part of what she told me was based on not having an early election. Someone has misread my motion. It was based on that we keep this election for four years, and we change the next one to three-and-a-half years, thereby making sure the contract with the people who vote for them is certain, and we know for exactly what period we are voting for those councils.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 27 November 2013.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, we will clear my name out of the General Business Day agenda. This one goes back a long time, minister, long before you were the minister for Local Government. There have been a couple – the Chief Minister, the member for Fong Lim. I am trying to think who else was around in those days. This goes back to 27 November 2013. It would have been the member for Fong Lim who was the minister then.
Although it is old, it is relevant for debate. It raises a couple of other issues. I asked for this boundary commission because this was related to the breaking up of the Victoria Daly Shire. That break-up was political. It was done because the Chief Minister, the member for Daly and maybe the member for Fong Lim went out and stood under a tree at Peppimenarti and said, ‘We promise you local government’. That was a fine promise to make without looking at whether breaking up the council was viable, but onward they went.
That is why I raise this issue. If we are to raise issues about boundaries we need to make sure those boundaries are not put in place for political reasons but for the right reasons. That was the reason for this motion.
I will read the motion:
Of course, that boundaries commission would not have to be a permanent commission; it could operate when it needed to.
I am on record as saying I always believed the councils were too big, but the facts are those councils exist today and are set up with their bureaucracies, work force and structure. Before the government goes down the path of breaking up the super shires, a neutral independent needs to see if this is a good idea.
One of the issues I believe was not looked at properly in relation to the Victoria Daly Shire split was viability. I would love the government, the department or the minister to come back with a report on the viability of those two shires and how much money the government has had to put into them. We have not had a report on local government – either amalgamations or divisions – for ages.
I attended a couple of meetings, thanks to the previous minister for Local Government, the member for Fong Lim, who invited me to some of the meetings surrounding the new structure for the Victoria Daly Shire. It was good to attend them. There were issues about who would pay for new headquarters and how the assets would be split up. There was little discussion about the viability of the council. Once you cut a council up you reduce your rate income.
One of the things I hope the new minister can bring to this parliament is a statement on where the new Victoria Daly Shire is from the point of view of viability. What is the status of that shire at present, especially the new shire in relation to the headquarters, and have any issues arisen from the break-up of the shire. Has the Victoria part of the shire become less viable because the Daly part of the shire has split away? They are the matters the government needs to report to this parliament.
On top of that, a previous minister for Local Government hinted that Maningrida and Groote Eylandt might be looked at as being separate councils. Has there been any response or any report carried out by the government on the viability of those concepts. If we are to drive changes to local government by political popularity, many councils might go bung in the process.
The issue I have raised today – which is old, I admit – of having an independent local government boundary commission also came from what happened in Queensland. Queensland had a big amalgamation program, then it had a de-amalgamation program. Some councils were permitted to de-amalgamate and some did, but they had to show how it would be done and the viability of doing it. Many of those issues had to come into play.
We need to be very careful if we will split up the existing system. There are advantages of splitting up big councils into smaller councils. Obviously a smaller council becomes more local, whereas a big council becomes far more regional – as they are called now.
The government introduced new authorities which replaced the boards. Could someone give us an indication of how many people are turning up for authority meetings? It would be interesting to know. The idea of scrapping the boards and paying people to go to authority meetings was to encourage people to turn up for those meetings.
They are the things we need to know to get an idea whether the changes to local government that were brought in by this government are working. I have not heard boo about local government. I am not blaming you, minister, because you have only just started. There have been very few statements about local government for a long time, except, ‘We will change a few things in the Electoral Act’, which are not the end of the world but they seem to have a higher priority than finding out whether local governments and the authorities are working or the government has looked at de-amalgamating some of the shires. I have not heard any of those discussions.
There are issues about rating. One of the issues that has been raised is the inability to rate Aboriginal land. Where has that discussion gone? One of the big issues Deloitte raised in its report was the lack of real income these large councils can make through rating. Many of them rely on being an agency for different government departments for their income. If that fell over tomorrow because those government departments decided to run the show themselves, these councils would not have a lot of money to keep going. Where are we in relation to rating? The government obviously has control over the rating for pastoral properties, mineral leases and the rating is very limited on Aboriginal land, except where land is being leased. It would be good to find out what movements the government has in this area.
Getting back to this commission, the issue about rating is also part of what a local government boundary commission would be looking at to make sure if there were changes, as is said in this motion:
You would expect this commission would be looking at what the future is for a council in raising more revenue, and those issues about Aboriginal land, pastoral properties and mining leases, which all have limitations. They are some of the matters I imagine this commission would look at before it gave a recommendation on whether a council should be either de-amalgamated or amalgamated.
Although I gave notice of this motion in November, I still think it has merit. It may be for the Northern Territory that the local government boundaries commission could be smaller. That is something that could be sorted out. However, it needs to be independent from the government.
With all due respect for the member for Daly – I know things are done and promises made during election campaigns – there is a fairly large element of politics in the decision to split the big Barkly shire. If we de-amalgamate or amalgamate a council, we need to have it arm’s length from the politicians and be sure, because taxpayers will pick up the bill if a council is unviable but has to be kept going simply because a poor decision was made about changing the boundaries of councils.
There are ramifications in making councils smaller which need to be clearly articulated before the government makes a decision. The best way to do that is by having an independent body, not a political promise or by thinking, ‘This will get us a few votes at the next election’, but by making sure a non-partisan, non-political body makes the recommendations so we do not have interference from politics which could lead to making a bad decision.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 14 May 2014.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak to this important motion before the Assembly on our precious water resources, granted it has been some time since this was last before the Chamber. I believe it was in May last year, and the member for Katherine moved an amendment to the motion.
Speaking to that amendment, originally we came into this Chamber with a motion by the member for Nhulunbuy which said:
However, during that debate the motion was amended by the member for Katherine, who is the minister for natural resources, paying particular attention to amending the last two points. The member for Katherine wanted to remove the points that the Assembly supports Indigenous economic development and understands the importance of strategic Indigenous reserves, and resolves that the Water Act be amended to incorporate the provision of strategic Indigenous reserves. He moved to strip away the references to strategic Indigenous reserves, to have it read that ‘the Assembly supports Indigenous economic development through strategic and appropriate allocation of the Territory’s resources’.
We have a few different points of view. We, on our side of parliament, have made it very clear on the record that we support strategic Indigenous reserves – the importance of water to traditional owners and the opportunity that presents to them for economic development. The idea of strategic Indigenous reserves was not pulled out of thin air. There was a great deal of strategic thinking, policy development work and consultation to come up with the strategic Indigenous reserves.
The National Water Commission also places a strong emphasis on supporting and giving Indigenous Australians access to water resources. It said in June 2012 its position with regard to Indigenous access to water resources was:
The Territory government, under the CLP, scrapped all the work on strategic Indigenous reserves. On 9 October 2013, the member for Katherine, the minister for natural resources, in a ministerial statement to the House, stated with regard to water resources:
Clearly we are debating a motion the government is moving to amend to say strategic Indigenous reserves should not be considered in water allocation licensing. The strategic Indigenous reserve policy is gone. The government made a commitment in October 2013 that it would be looking at this over the next two-and-a-half years. I am keen to hear what work has been done in that area. I am also keen to hear from the members for Stuart and Arafura on their views with regard to strategic Indigenous reserves and the value their constituents place on their water resources within the electorates.
We believe strategic Indigenous reserves should be included in the motion put before the House in May last year. It was a shame to see the strategic Indigenous reserves were completely dumped by the CLP government. They gave fair recognition to traditional owners and great opportunity for them to look at economic development opportunities on their land. This is another episode in the CLP saga with regard to water allocations and licences.
When people reflect on this CLP government, water licences will be one of the issues people remember. It has been an extremely controversial matter under this government, particularly the process of allocating licences.
There is a lot of business to get through on General Business Day, but the debate has not gone away. People have not forgotten. People remember some controversial processes and changes in the allocation of water licences in the Northern Territory. There will be much more debate on this in time to come. At a time when this government has a mantra of developing the north, it is important it does that to the best of its ability and takes all Territorians on that journey. By denying strategic Indigenous reserves it is silencing the voice of traditional owners and not giving them an opportunity to look into more economic development opportunities for their land.
We have also seen in this period that the important key environmental stakeholders and advocates have been silenced. They are struggling at the moment. We are talking about the Environment Centre of the NT, the Arid Lands Environment Centre and the Environmental Defenders Office. They have had significant cuts under the Giles government. They have also faced significant cuts to funding under the Abbott government. It is making it very hard for them to get on with business.
Clearly government will often not see eye to eye with the environmental advocates but it is very important in a democracy that you have strong independent voices holding government to account. That is what the Environment Centre of the Northern Territory and the Arid Lands Environment Centre has endeavoured to do for a very long time.
At this time, when we are seeing some significant changes in the area of water licences, it is a shame to see that voice for the environment is being silenced. They are struggling to keep their head above water, keep staff on and ensure there is strong, independent advocacy in the Northern Territory for the environment.
I will leave it at that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I support the original motion, but I do not support that we have not made an exact reference to strategic Indigenous reserves, which was in the motion before the House in May last year.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): You thought you got rid of me. We might agree on banana freckle, but we do not always agree on water, minister.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to talk on a couple of issues that need to be raised in relation to water resources.
I have not heard anything for ages about the catchments committees. I am not even sure what they do. It would be good to find out from the minister, maybe through a statement that could perhaps be delivered to all people on this side the night before – one of those statements – and a discussion about the water advisory committees.
The water advisory committees were never formally dissolved, but there was a new water advisory committee process that started with advertisements in the paper. I might have put my name down for that. I have not heard anything about those water advisory committees either. Parliament could do with a report on those committees and what they are doing.
I raise that not only because government needs to tell us about those bodies but because it is one of the issues that has been raised in the rural area is an increase in the production of water from the Howard East bore field by Power and Water.
I remember when the government was in opposition, it used to cry, ‘Yes, Labor government you have to build the Warri dam’. Lord knows how much it would have cost. Now the government is in power it realises the Warri dam is not a simple matter. It will be pretty expensive to build and has some environmental and a few other issues. So they have gone down what I regard as a more sensible path and are trying to get people to use water wisely.
In that process they have looked at other ways of increasing the amount of water into the Darwin water supply. They have been looking at the possibility of reusing Manton Dam, and would be good for the minister to say where that has gone. I had some concerns raised with me last week by recreational users of Manton Dam who thought that under the Darwin regional plan or the new water strategy that was released last year – which is an excellent strategy – there was talk about the future of the recreational use of Manton Dam. The government might want to use it to augment the Darwin water supply.
One reason I am a bit sad tonight is because the Development Consent Authority is having a night meeting at Howard Springs to discuss the future of the Darwin regional plan. I thank the Chair of the DCA for allowing me to have another time to put my submission directly to him as, unfortunately, it was difficult to get there tonight, especially as I had the first four items on the Notice Paper, even if I did stuff up on the very last one, but that is neither here nor there.
The issue I am raising is that people were concerned about the future recreational use of Manton Dam. There is a rumour – whether it is based on fact, I cannot say – on Facebook there was a call for people who use Manton Dam to turn up tonight at the DCA meeting, because they thought the government would close it.
I understand the government is looking at other ways of reducing the need to build another dam. The department – or perhaps Power and Water – has instigated a program telling people to use water wisely and turn off sprinklers. That is happening at the moment. I encourage the departments to also grow a few more native plants, not a bundle of Queensland imported swamp lilies and sweet potatoes down kilometres of median strip in the member for Port Darwin’s electorate...
Mr Elferink: Just leave my bloody swamp lilies.
Mr WOOD: Well, if I see you out at night with a pitchfork digging up potatoes, I will know the reason why they planted them in the median strip. Having grown sweet potatoes for a fair while at Bathurst Island, I know they use a lot of water. That was a dumb thing to do when you consider some other plantings around the highways, like near Howard Springs where they get no water except for during the Wet Season. The government needs to reduce the amount of water used.
The motion says:
That refers to primary producers’ allocation of water. It should also apply in relation to Power and Water. I understand Power and Water has limitations on its water licence but it is increasing the volume of water pumped out of that area. If the Howard East Water Advisory Committee still operated, we would be getting the knowledge firsthand from Power and Water to see whether that increase in water pumped out of the Howard East bore field will affect other bores or the biodiversity of the area. If you pump water for a long period of time, the water table drops and river flows stop earlier than they would normally. Water consumption in the rural area can have an effect on the biodiversity of the area.
It is controversial and there has been much discussion about who the government gave water to. One reason you gave water to those people is because they promised to grow crops. I would love a report on that person who said they needed that much water to grow a crop, and whether it has been grown. Part of the philosophy behind what the government promoted was ‘use it or lose it’ – or was that with gas?
Mr Westra van Holthe: Both.
Mr WOOD: Both, yes.
We need some indication. If we gave 10 times more water to somebody who said, ‘I will grow this crop’, who some of us believe should not have received it without proof they could grow the crop, I am interested to know if we can receive a report which gauges whether the capacity of the water licence was used. That would be an open and transparent process. We could see that people were not hoarding water and were using it for what they said they would. That undertaking would be welcomed.
The government does not support the strategic Indigenous reserves. I can understand why, but I do not think it is good. It would make more sense for the government to conserve some water for future use for Aboriginal groups in that area.
The argument is that Aboriginal people can put their name down for water just like anyone else. However, for whatever reason some of these Aboriginal places are not ready for that kind of development yet. Some of them may be. My understanding is some Aboriginal groups put their names down for water. It is not quite as simple as saying, ‘You can apply for water but you need to have a farm that is ready to use that water with the machinery and the skilled people’. Sometimes, even though you hope those type of developments could occur, those communities are not ready to move into that sort of production.
If you give all the water away, the only other option for those people later is to buy the water. That is …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Like everybody else.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I realise that. Of course, that raises an interesting discussion about whether water should be traded for dollars or handed back to the government and kept as a no-cost resource. If someone is asking for a larger amount of water than they need, and we have run out of water allocation licences because the aquifer has reached its limits, can people make money out of their water licence? To me, water is an asset that belongs to the government, is it right that it is then used to make money? Or should it retain its zero value and we have tighter controls on its use? Obviously there is some philosophy on that as well.
I am not sure that people who have been given water licences under the first allocation should be allowed to use water they do not particularly want as a commercial enterprise. It is an issue about which we have not had enough debate. Perhaps we are not at a stage where people are wanting to sell a portion of their water to someone else. I do not know. I feel if people cannot use the water, then they should hand it back to the government so government can find another person who can use it, and it is not used as a means of income. Those are my thoughts on that.
Obviously, you would hope the water advisory committees look at more specific issues. I would love to know how a water advisory committee relates to a catchment. The Howard River is a catchment. The water advisory committees can advise on big and small catchments. We talk about red tape sometimes. As much as I believe we should have water advisory committees, I hope they do not have overlapping work, because it is important work. We need to set up those committees in a useful way.
I mentioned the water strategy that has been issued. I believe it is Power and Water’s strategy. That is a good document. It would be worthwhile getting an update on where the government sees the strategy in that document going. It has a whole series of dams. One of the areas which should be looked at more closely is the off-river dam near the Adelaide River, which has potential. It would be interesting to see whether the government has done any serious work on that option to reduce the need for the government to build a dam, but still have a large reserve of water. I do not know whether the government has done any costings on that project, but it is one that caught my eye when reading that strategy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not have much more to say. I do not know whether another member of the opposition would like to speak. I raised a few points that need looking at. It would be good, minister, if you made a statement dealing with these issues I have raised today.
There comes a time when the punishment is finished. The members on this side should be given a reasonable time to read statements so we can have a good process of debate, which we did not have today in relation to one of the statements. We need to move on from that and make sure everyone has a fair chance to read what the government has to say.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, we are not accepting the amendments proposed by the member for Katherine because they basically remove any commitment the government might have to incorporating strategic Indigenous reserves through the Water Act. Clearly it is just paying lip service to this.
This government now claims to have turned over a new leaf, saying it will be listening to and consulting with people. I am interested to see how that plays out in this sphere. We know that government has successfully put offside a whole range of stakeholders, including traditional owners, the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the NT, the NT Farmers Association and environmental groups. I am interested to see how the government moves forward with this.
I thank everybody who has made a contribution to this statement. It is an important issue in the Territory and is close to the hearts of many. I genuinely hope we see a commitment to some change from this government after witnessing the unprecedented step the Environment Centre has taken in legal action against the minister with regard to his obligations under the act to fully investigate allocations.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall leave it there, but this issue will not go away. We need to see some real commitment on it from the government.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I will talk about a well-respected, well-known Territorian whose work achievements and life passion have benefited many grateful Territorians. I am talking about David Miller.
Dave retired at the end of last year after more than 50 years serving Territorians as a public servant. When he retired Dave was the drilling and bore test manager for the southern region in the Department of Land Resource Management. Dave was an icon in the Northern Territory public service in Alice Springs. In his role as a driller he has been involved in every major water project in the Northern Territory since the 1960s. Many Territorians owe him a great debt.
Dave embodies the professional spirit of the public service and his commitment to the job is an example to others. Last year he won the Chief Minister’s Public Sector Medal for outstanding leadership. Throughout his career he was often recognised for his abilities in the management of staff and drilling operations going above and beyond the call of duty and making his job a way of life.
David Miller has been a constant throughout the last 50 years, which has seen great change across the Territory. He has covered hundreds of thousands of kilometres and worked and lived in some of the harshest and most remote locations in the Territory.
Dave joined the Commonwealth Department of Territories aged just 16 years on 5 March 1964 as a junior driller in Alice Springs. At that point, I was not even a year-and-a-half old. Dave was transferred to the Northern Territory Public Sector on 1 July 1978. Except for a period of active service from 1967 to 1969 as a national serviceman during the Vietnam War, Dave has worked continuously in the water drilling section of the NT public service ever since.
Interestingly, when Dave started work in 1964 he was not interested in working as a driller. He had left school and went bush for two years for cattle work. Following this stint he returned to Alice Springs and looked for work.
A friend encouraged him to apply for a job as a driller with the NT Water Resources Division. However, as he was only 17 at the time, on the advice of his friend he fudged his paperwork and put his age as 19. Because of this, after working for 12 months he was sent service papers and in 1967 Dave was called up to serve in the Vietnam War. After serving Australia for two years in Vietnam, Dave returned to drilling. He says he never thought of doing anything else.
In a recent interview with ABC radio, Dave said the most rewarding part of his work was the appreciation he received from Aboriginal people after finding water for them. Indeed, some of his best memories were when his team would install a bore in a remote outstation and provide the residents with good, clean water. He said it was a rewarding experience.
His commitment to the job was an example to others. Territorians on the land owe Dave a great debt of gratitude. On behalf of Territorians I say thank you to Dave for your service to the Northern Territory. I wish you well in your retirement.
It was a pleasure late last year to go to Alice Springs to join Dave and many of his colleagues with the Department of Land Resource Management, and many other government departments, who attended his farewell. It was very interesting listening to some of the stories Dave told. I am sure anybody who could corner Dave and sit down with him for half-an-hour would come away much wiser. Based on some of the things he could tell you, it would be an extremely valuable experience.
After 50 years in the Northern Territory public service David Miller will no longer be drilling or testing bores throughout Central Australia. He has retired. I thank him personally, but also on behalf of the Northern Territory government, for his years of service to the Northern Territory.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, in Question Time this morning the Chief Minister was asked who made the decision to terminate the appointment of Terry Mills as the Territory’s representative in Indonesia. Typically, the Chief Minister’s response was deceptive.
The Chief Minister said that any matters about the engagement of any public employee should be put to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment. This echoes the Chief Minister’s statement at a media conference in response to a question on the Mills’ termination:
Are the Chief Minister’s responses to the questions in parliament and the media conference true? The answer is no. Why? Because the Chief Minister knows he approved the appointment of Terry Mills as the NT’s representative in Jakarta and Mr Mills was engaged as a company under a contract signed by the then Chief Minister’s CEO Gary Barnes. These facts were confirmed unequivocally in an answer to a written question provided by the Chief Minister in documents discovered under FOI.
The Chief Minister must now tell the truth to the media and correct the record in this Assembly. Terry Mills has also spoken on this matter. Mr Mills said he found the Chief Minister’s comments hard to believe and added:
Terry Mills is spot on. The optics are appalling, particularly for his successor Adam Giles who stabbed Terry in the back on two separate occasions while he was representing the Northern Territory overseas, once in Japan and once in Jakarta.
The optics are not good for the Chief Minister when viewed through the lens of decency, character and truth. The optics will not be lost on the Territory community because, once again, it exposes the Chief Minister as unfit to hold the high office of head of government in the Northern Territory. The optics are not good for members opposite who trailed on the coattails of Terry Mills, who led them to government two-and-a-half years ago, and stood by when he was cut down by Adam Giles while he was representing the Northern Territory in Japan.
First-time CLP MLAs who owe their careers to Terry Mills should be ashamed. They are the members for Arafura, Daly and Stuart. What have they to say about the Chief Minister’s treatment of Terry Mills? Will the members for Drysdale and Sanderson stand up for decency and speak out on the second overseas attack on Terry Mills? Will Terry Mills’ successor, the member for Blain, hang his head in shame or place his disgust about the second assassination on the public record? These questions need to be answered.
It will be instructive to see the advice on Mills’ termination request from the Commissioner for Public Employment by the Chief Minister. Will he table the document?
The last word rightfully belongs to Terry Mills. He believes his sacking will add to the turmoil created by the leadership coup. It certainly will. Will the nine members opposite finally summon up the courage to do what the community is crying out for?
Mr Deputy Speaker, the government led by Adam Giles is bereft of decency.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek support from the new Minister for Housing, the member for Stuart. In the electorate of Barkly, at the community of Ali Curung, there are three elderly couples who do not have working stoves in their Territory housing. In one case, the matter was reported in September 2014, with a new stove delivered, but never connected. The lots in Ali Curung that have no working stoves in their Territory houses are Lot 75, which was reported in September 2014, Lot 231, which was reported on 16 November 2014, and Lot 232, reported in December 2014.
The elderly residents of these Territory houses have advised me they were told the Northern Territory Housing department has no money left to effect repairs. They are asking you to please help them install the stoves to a working order and, in Lot 75, to connect the new stove which is physically sitting in the house.
This also relates to an alarming situation across the Barkly electorate, where I am witnessing Territory houses boarded up and unoccupied when we have extensive waiting lists for families that need support, which must start with an appropriate dwelling. Not only does the matter of housing relate to family safety and security, it also relates to regional economic development. With Territory housing stock sitting idle, it means contractors are idle. When we have busy contractors, we have a regional economy which is moving forward and generating income for the workers. Those workers and their families channel that income back into the regional economy.
The important work to start with is those dwellings in the community of Ali Curung. The tenants that have advised me of this intolerable situation are elderly, respected people within their community. They are tenants of government housing who are doing the best they can, but are being neglected by the CLP government. You have a perfect opportunity to address this and you will get the accolades you deserve, minister.
I hope we can work together on this, and you will come to the Barkly to witness for yourself those Territory houses standing idle and boarded up, untenanted, and meet contractors who have some important information to share, as constituents and business people, about the panel contract of operating repairs and maintenance in the housing sector. Also, you can obtain an understanding of an important electorate which is part of your jurisdiction – constituents we both represent and support.
I am very happy to talk with you about this issue; I will meet with you anytime. You are most welcome to come to the Barkly. Most importantly, I appreciate you addressing this issue immediately.
I have a letter drafted to send to the senior citizens at Ali Curung who have raised the issue. I will also follow up with a letter to you to give you the details. I am sure together, as elected members of the community, we can resolve this important issue. Then we can move on to other issues within the electorate that now come under your jurisdiction as the Minister for Housing.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, today I have a passionate concern during a premier time of focus on the military history of the Northern Territory. February every year sees deserved attention in this area – now, rightly commemorated every 19 February with a national day of recognition. Although much has to be done, there is more to remember.
This April I will travel to Gallipoli for a number of reasons. One is personal; my grandfather was an Anzac soldier. He was wounded in action and I seek to understand and commemorate his service in my journey.
I advise this House that I am undertaking travel at my own expense and I have been given a place in the commemoration, travelling with Dr Tom Lewis OAM, well-known Territory military historian who was awarded a place as a veteran of our forces, having served in the Middle East at war.
I secondly wish to travel to Gallipoli as a tribute to our own Territory men. I go there to salute around 400 men who journeyed to the Great War from all around the outback and its scattered settlements of those days – men like mechanic Gordon Cowper of the Australian Flying Corps; Sergeant James McDonald, the carpenter from Katherine who was awarded both the Distinguished Conduct Medal and a mention in despatches; Frank Brazill, a stockman from Alice Springs who became a Light Horseman; and of course Alfred O’Neill, a miner from Pine Creek who fought in the Battle of Messines, made famous in the Australian film, Beneath Hill 60.
Of course, we now realise we are the Territory of Albert Borella VC, one of the immortal 100 who has been given the highest honour of the Victoria Cross, loaned to us recently by the most generous Borella family. The cross is in our own Parliament House as I speak, in the Main Hall.
The saluting of the Anzac spirit is more than just World War I. It is about being conscious of further conflicts: World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, peace-keeping operations, and more.
In the Territory and across the Top End, bombed and at war for two years in 1942 and 1943, we have a special understanding that the rest of Australia is beginning to appreciate the unique nature of our battles. But it is more than just the 235 dead on the first day of 19 February 1942. It is also about more than 80 who lie outside our harbour in the Japanese submarine the I124. It is more than appreciating the nearly 2000 people we know died in the defence of the Top End in numerous air raids.
We have not done enough to commemorate the defenders of northern Australia. For instance, who knows Francis Emms, the Navy cook who fought so well behind a machine gun in the harbour that so many considered him worthy of a Victoria Cross? Who knows about the nursing sister, Margaret de Mestre who died on the hospital ship Manunda? Who celebrates the bravery of USA fighter pilot Major Floyd Pell who led the flight of 10 Kitty Hawks which were our aerial defence on 19 February 1942? We should know more about Wing Commander Tindal who died manning a gun at the RAAF Base. Of course, who knows about the tremendous Tasmanian, Teddy Sheehan, who put out from here on board HMAS Armidale north of Darwin in 1942 to go down fighting in a gallant defence of his ship as it was under attack?
I suggest we must do more to bring these heroes not just into the consciousness of Territorians but of all Australians. For this is the place where battles were fought on our own homeland. Where else in Australia can that be said?
I speak too of understanding the enemy dead within our shores and seas. I recently was at Pearl Harbour, standing over the wreck of the mighty warship, USS Arizona. I was struck to see so many Japanese people visiting. We do not see so many here. But we still do not know the names of all those from Japan who died here and whose bodies still lie unidentified and alone. Perhaps it is time we should.
In 1934 a Turkish commander certified that his country would take charge of those World War I Anzacs who fought and found permanent homes in Gallipoli’s ground. My grandfather was nearly one of them. He was wounded and evacuated from that campaign. So I do not have a reason to be personally grateful to the Turkish leader, but nearly 10 000 Australian families do.
Kemal Atatrk, Commander of the 19th Turkish Division and later his country’s first president, said – I have been to Gallipoli and read this at Anzac Cove:
That inscription also appears on the Kemal Atatrk Memorial, Anzac Parade, Canberra.
It is time we did something about those anonymous war dead from the Japanese forces who lie in our waters and in our land. It is time for further reconciliation.
Recently I was a guest on board the Japanese destroyer Hatakaze when a ceremony was held for all maritime people who died in World War II in and around Darwin. The ship’s company paid their respects to those who died on board Neptuna, Peary, Zealander, Meigs and a number of others, as well as their own comrades still inside the submarine I124. I was struck by Captain Umezaki and his respectful drive for what he felt important. He understood our feelings about the war. He wished to be sensitive but also to step forward.
I would like us to join the captain and many others who wish to open up their hearts in the cause of maintaining freedom and becoming closer. I do not draw back from saying there are some who will find this difficult. I believe if you do the wrong thing in warfare you should be held accountable for your actions. These were military like our military – warrior against warrior. Sometimes they won, sometimes they lost.
Some time ago I saw a film called The Railway Man. It is about a British prisoner of war imprisoned by the Japanese and treated badly. Surviving the war, many years later he seeks revenge on one of his former captors. Imprisoning him, he treated him badly. In the end he releases his former captor and tells him while he cannot forget, he can forgive. He tells his former captor, ‘I would say to anyone who condemns this action that sometimes the hating has to stop’.
I hope we can open up more understanding of Australia’s military historical past. I would like to take Territorians forward to a brave new era. I hope to see you all there when we achieve that success.
Mr Deputy Speaker, tomorrow is 19 February and we commemorate the Bombing of Darwin at the Cenotaph. When I first came to Darwin 33 years ago a small crowd would gather there. Now thousands come along to what will be the 73rd commemorative event of the Bombing of Darwin tomorrow. I encourage everyone listening to this broadcast to take the time tomorrow to attend. If you are unable to attend, at least stop between 9.30 am and 10 am to reflect on those who fought and died and paid the ultimate price during World War II to maintain our freedom and democracy, those who fought in subsequent battles, the peace-keeping missions and those who today are out there somewhere protecting our freedom, democracy and our wonderful way of life. At the very least they deserve our special thanks and our admiration.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I talk about the rally which was organised on the steps of parliament at 12.30 pm yesterday. It was one of an unprecedented number of rallies held by Territorians since the CLP came to government some two-and-a-half years ago. They were rallies with strong and passionate messages from Territorians fighting for their rights and exercising their democratic right to hold peaceful, non-violent rallies about holding government to account and having their voices heard.
Whether it be nurses, teachers, firefighters, ambos, paramedics, workers from all walks of life, or women, families and kids, we have seen them all on the steps of Parliament House over the last two-and-a-half years. Sadly, the messages from these rallies too often fall on deaf ears. The opposite members of the government very rarely attend these rallies and dismiss them as gatherings not worthy of their attention.
Yesterday’s rally was organised by our hard working firefighters, along with their union United Voice. I note it was also attended by other sector workers, including some teachers, which was great to see.
The firefighters are weary. They are fed up with the CLP government that until today has done nothing to address their call for cancer legislation which we know exists in other jurisdictions. No doubt, the media release that has been issued today by the Minister for Business is a direct result of the call for action that went out from the firefighters’ rally yesterday.
I want to tell members of this House how it is that the planning for yesterday’s rally by the firefighters evolved because the Minister for Business, the member for Sanderson, came in here at Question Time today and said that it was simply a rally organised by the Labor Party, and shamefully described it as a cynical scam.
I came into Darwin just over a fortnight ago to attend briefings on the fifth floor, as well as meetings with other stakeholders associated with my shadow responsibilities. I was here throughout the whole sorry saga that was the failed coup – or the coup, coup, coup – over 2 and 3 February 2015.
Whilst some of my briefings on the fifth floor were cancelled because the place was in meltdown, I always have plenty of things to do and fill my time when I come across from Nhulunbuy, and had no difficulty filling the vacancies that came up in my calendar.
On the afternoon of Tuesday 3 February 2015, the CLP was locked up in a parliamentary wing meeting fighting over who would be the Chief Minister with, no doubt, threats being hurled about who might be taking their bats and balls and going home if they did not get to be the Chief Minister or let the member for Braitling hold on to the top job. While the government of the Northern Territory played out this brawl very publically with, bizarrely, a 1 am media conference announcing a Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister elect, it highlighted how focused the government members were on themselves.
That same afternoon, whilst the parliamentary wing of the CLP was locked up in a room somewhere in parliament having this internal brawl, I was sitting in a Darwin caf having a coffee with Jock McLeod, 70 years of age and a veteran Territory firefighter of 47 years’ service. He is also a great fighter for the rights of firefighters to be recognised with special legislation to ensure that those who have contracted cancer in the course of their work can receive adequate cover through workers compensation.
While I have only known Jock for a few months since I came into the shadow responsibility for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, anyone who knows Jock McLeod would know him to be one of the most selfless individuals, who is more about looking out for his fellow firies than for himself. That is the assessment I have arrived at of Jock McLeod and what kind of a man he is. Yes, he has also battled cancer for a couple of years and thankfully is currently in remission. That is not to say he does not still suffer a number of things associated with his cancer.
It struck me as we sat in this caf talking about the journey of the firefighters trying to have presumptive legislation put into place, that two private members’ bills had been introduced by the member for Fannie Bay when he held responsibility for this shadow portfolio. He told me about the incredibly disappointing meetings he had with the Chief Minister and the member for Fong Lim when he was the Deputy Chief Minister, and how incredibly frustrating it was that the rights of firefighters were simply being ignored by this government, which was full of talk about what it would do, but never actually did anything.
It struck me as I sat there in this caf listening to this man who was so passionate, who was not about to give up, who wanted to keep fighting, that all the while at the other end of the mall, the CLP government parliamentary wing was battling it out with one another over the jobs, loyalties or whatever rumours it was they were hooked up on. It struck me how reprehensible it was that the CLP government was in lockdown fighting for 18 hours over who would be the Chief Minister and who would be in Cabinet and who would not. All the while that was happening, Jock McLeod was one example of a Territorian doing his best to have his voice heard, representing the firefighters with this important legislation.
It was during that conversation that Jock said, ‘I really think we need to be doing more. Lynne, when is parliament sitting? What is the date, because we need to start the year with firefighters. I will get the lads together. I will get the boys and girls together and we will be there on the steps of parliament. You just let me know what the date is’, which I did. He said, ‘I will rally the troops’.
I place that on the record and hope the member for Sanderson is listening to this. He has no idea of the deep offence he caused this morning when he responded to a question I put to him in Question Time which concluded with:
He began his response by talking about what a cynical scam the rally on the steps of Parliament House was yesterday.
I can feed straight back to the member for Sanderson that the firefighters, and Jock McLeod in particular, were outraged by that description, particularly so that a member of parliament who is a former policeman should know what it is like to be at the front line protecting Territorians day in, day out, in what can be very dangerous work.
Yesterday’s gathering was small, but the resolve amongst those gathered was strong and resolute. I thank those firefighters who gathered. Those who were at work were not given permission to step out to attend, thanks very much to the government, so numbers were slightly fewer. I thank Keith Hutton, who emceed the event. He had travelled up from Alice Springs to be present at it. Jock McLeod delivered a very powerful message to those who were gathered. I hope someone up on the fifth floor was sticking their head out of the comfort of their parliamentary suite and listening over the balcony.
I put on the record the names that Jock McLeod read out of firefighters he commemorated with the placing of firefighters’ helmets on the steps of Parliament House. I would like you to bear with me while I read through this list of some 28 or so names.
Those who have passed away: Ray Kinter, Paul Lomas, Dennis Lugg, Bob Wills, Chris Lake, Peter Luke, Adrian Creighton, Ian Orr, Brian Chong Wee, Ron Maddox, Tony Robinson, Max Schmidt, Jim Wilson, Alan Stubbs, John Pithy, Jack Myte, Bish Hyke, Des Lambshed, Martin Gentle, Bill Moore, Cecil de Masso, Don Cubillo, Ken Frost and Billy Muir.
The names of those firefighters who continue to battle, or have perhaps come through their battle and into remission: Dave Barjury, Danny McManus, Colin Snowden, Jock McLeod, Tom Lawler and Ray Tandy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an important issue for Territory firefighters. We look forward to seeing the legislation which is to be introduced next week. We hope it is comprehensive and meets the needs of firefighters.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a topic that has been kept hidden by a minister who does things after parliament sits and sometimes late on a Friday night – the lifting of the pokies cap. I have a media story from June 2014 where the Treasurer, Dave Tollner, hinted that he would like to see the number of pokies in pubs rise to 30, and in clubs up to 90. He explained why that would help make pubs a bit more friendly, and said he had the backing of the Australian Hotels Association NT.
President of the Australian Hotels Association NT, Justin Coleman said:
Then at 6 pm on Friday 12 December the minister announced that the government would lift the cap on poker machines. It introduced an amendment to the Gaming Machine Act. Under that change, under Regulation 3A, they lifted the cap from 10 to 20 for pubs, and for clubs from 45 to 55. That was done after parliament had finished, late on a Friday.
I remind the minister that this was said the other day:
What makes it more cynical is one of the deemed papers yesterday was called Gaming Machine Amendment (Levies) Regulation 2014. This makes regulations to introduce a new levy on electronic gaming machines. The tabling note says:
Even that did not get a mention. I am cynical of this government, knowing that throughout Australia there are concerns in the boarder community about the effects of poker machines. I go to the pokies every now and then. I am not against the pokies, but I understand they can be a major issue in the Northern Territory. You only have to go to the casinos in Darwin and Alice Springs to know that. Blind Freddy can see that.
Yet there was no discussion by this government about whether we should lift the number of pokies. I can understand that new pubs, for instance, would want to be on a level playing field and perhaps should get the same number of pokies as other pubs. That is different. This is about lifting the number of machines in pubs in my area from 10 to 20. This is about lifting the number in the clubs from 45 to 55.
Is this really about consultation? Is this really about discussing these important issues out in the open? Or is this just doing what the AAHA pays you for at election time? It gives you a donation of $150 000 and, ‘To repay that we will bump up the number of pokies’. Is there any concern or discussion about the possible effects of increasing the number of pokies in our community?
Plenty of commentators are saying increasing the number of pokies will increase the problems. Do we discuss that? No, we ignore it by issuing a media release one evening after parliament finished announcing we will raise the number of poker machines in pubs and clubs. If that is the way we run government then the government is a disgrace.
The same thing happened with the sale of the Government Printing Office and the Darwin Bus Service. Announcements were made when parliament had finished at the end of the year. There was no opportunity for anyone to debate whether it was good or bad.
This is even worse. Many people, not only in the Territory but in Australia, have concerns about poker machines having a detrimental effect on the livelihood of people who become addicted to playing them. We know people become addicted to them, use all their money and end up in debt or committing crimes to repay some of that debt.
Is there a discussion about it? What is the point of having parliament if the minister can, behind closed doors, change the regulations about poker machines without an in-depth, mature discussion about whether we need to increase the number. It is a disgrace that this government would make its friends in the AHA a priority to keep them happy. It would be more worried about …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, you are very close to making allegations of bribery in this parliament.
Mr WOOD: No, no.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I want you to be aware of how close you are sailing to the wind. Those comments you can make by way of substantive motion at any time, but please be conscious of what you are alleging.
Mr WOOD: I will repeat what the Australian Hotels Association said:
That is what this is about. There is no doubt the hotels association has been pushing this for a long time. The alcohol industry, the gambling industry and land developers – as in New South Wales – should not be allowed to donate to political parties so there is a separation of that risk of those accusations being made.
There was no discussion about this. It is about increasing the profits in the hotels, clubs and pubs. It is probably taking advantage that we have many fly-in fly-out workers as well. I do not have any problem saying this government has been lobbied by the Australian Hotels Association to increase the number of poker machines, and has done exactly that. People can make up their minds whether those decisions have been influenced by any other factors.
Having tried to find out whether we could reduce the closing times of pubs in Mitchell Street, and knowing where that got me – both sides of this House received donations from the Australian Hotels Association during the last election. I have no doubt it is a very influential group when it comes to government policy.
The government should be a lot more open and transparent. It can do that by bringing those important matters to this House and having the guts to debate them. Also, have a discussion about whether it is appropriate that the Australian Hotels Association pushed the government for more pokies. It appears to be a one-sided debate. I am disgusted that this government has not had the gumption to come into this parliament before it raised the number of pokies in clubs and pubs without a proper discussion.
Where does that fit with the statement that ‘we have to have consultation with Territorians before we make crucial decisions in relation to the future of the Territory’? It was not done in this case.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I talk about a subject that has been hitting us all, the latest power and water tariff increases that have hit all of our bills with the 5% increase passed on as of 1 January 2015. We have also seen the latest Auditor-General’s report where he carefully looked through the financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2014 of a broad range of departments and government-owned corporations.
However, it was the Power and Water Corporation statements that reminded me of this government’s broken promise to Territorians that it would reduce the cost of living. We can see in the financial information the huge impact the CLP government is having on day-to-day lives of Territorians as they find more money to keep the lights on and the water running.
In 2012 the then CLP opposition, under the leadership of the former member for Blain, the former Chief Minister and now the former Ambassador to Indonesia, Terry Mills, promised all Territorians the CLP would reduce the cost of living. They told Territorians by voting for the CLP they were voting to reduce the cost of living. Every successful CLP candidate in this Chamber signed gigantic contracts and put their names to the commitment to reduce the cost of living. It was a key promise to Territorians which has been broken. It was smashed to pieces when the CLP put up power tariffs by 30%, water by 40% and sewerage by 25%. It cost Terry Mills his leadership of the CLP, and our current Chief Minister announced these increases would be staggered over three years but would still have the full effect of the original price increases.
It was only recently on an ABC interview after the attempted coup of the current Chief Minister’s leadership that he reminded us he temporarily lowered the massive power and water price increases. However, he failed to tell people at the time that the original 30%, 40% and 25% increases were passed on in full on 1 January 2015.
From 1 January 2013 power tariffs increased by 20%, water by 30% and sewerage by 15%. On 1 January 2014 a 5% increase was applied across all tariffs. Another 5% hike in power, water and sewerage hit family bills on 1 January 2015. We are all now feeling the full force of these cruel hikes as we receive bills which include the latest price hike that has the CLP putting profits before people.
Power, water and sewerage are essential services we all need, whether we live in the urban centres or the bush. These services directly impact the hip pocket of the family budget. The costs of power, water and sewerage that businesses have had to cope with has meant they have had to pass on those extra increases to their customers. We have also seen the impact this increase of power and water tariffs has had on rates and rents. We have even seen sporting clubs have to increase their fees and registration to pay the bills. The CLP government does not seem to care about the full flow-on impacts of the power, water and sewerage tariff increases that have hit Territorians.
From power bills alone, the government has ripped about $115m out of the pockets of Territorians with electricity tariff increases. They have stripped about $23m from water tariff increases and about $13.8m in sewerage tariff increases. That does not include the increases that took place on 1 January this year. That $151m in extra revenue taken out of family budgets due to power, water and sewerage tariff increases does not include the latest increase on 1 January 2015.
I acknowledge that some of the electricity revenue I just mentioned was received from contestable and franchise customers’ 2.8% tariff increase, but the bulk of that, the lion’s share, has been paid for by everyday Territorians.
Territory families are struggling to keep their heads above water and keep up with the bills these latest power and water price increases have delivered to them. The increases the CLP has delivered have not discriminated; they are hurting families in Darwin, Palmerston, Alice, Katherine and Tennant Creek, and families in remote communities who are chewing through their power cards at lightning speed. They have hurt families, singles, couples, seniors, low-income earners and middle-class families; they have hurt everyone. They have hurt business; everyone has been stung.
The exact cost of the flow-on effects from the higher prices for rates, rents, foods, services, fees and so on are not included in that $151m figure I mentioned before. How much extra revenue the government will receive from the latest 5% increases we will see in the next round of the annual reports and Statements of Corporate Intent.
The media is running hot with this, especially within social media networks. Many people are talking to their friends about the impact the latest increases are having on them. When power and water increases were passed on at around CPI rates, you did not feel them so much. I have to say the latest 5% increase is stinging people pretty hard because they have just gone up by so much more over the last few years.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a great concern that we have seen more power, water and sewerage tariff increases passed on to Territory families as of 1 January. Families are hurting under the cost of living. They are feeling pressures every day. It was another broken promise by the CLP government.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month
Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, you will note that teal ribbons in support of Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month have been placed on your desks.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 6 classes from Nakara Primary School accompanied by Mrs Vicki Manley and Mr Gaetano Gugliotta. On behalf of members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here and the tour.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY CHIEF MINISTER
Cyclone Lam
Cyclone Lam
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I make a brief statement on the cyclone situation in the Gulf of Carpentaria.
Our thoughts this morning are with the people of northeast Arnhem Land as they prepare for the arrival of tropical Cyclone Lam. I assure people that authorities are well trained for this event. They are doing everything they can to ensure people are safe as the weather worsens. The Bureau of Meteorology has advised that Cyclone Lam is expected to produce gales this morning across the Gove Peninsula as it approaches the northeast Top End.
Residents in areas currently under cyclone watch or warning are asked to closely listen to advice from the bureau and emergency services. For areas under warning, this means enacting your emergency plan. For communities under watch this means ensuring you have the appropriate plans in place and have your emergency kit ready.
I inform the Assembly that the Gove Airport is closed. I also inform the Assembly that public cyclone shelters from Elcho Island to Cape Shield, including Nhulunbuy, are now open for those who do not feel they are safe in their own homes. This currently includes the Gove District Hospital and Yirrkala Laynhapuy homelands centre emergency shelters. Gove District Hospital has well-established emergency plans in place for adverse events such as cyclones, and 85 people have already sought shelter there. Thirteen people have now taken up shelter at the Yirrkala Laynhapuy homelands centre. The emergency department of Gove hospital has been relocated to Ward 1 and the usual entrance is now also at Ward 1. The emergency department will continue to function on a 24/7 basis.
Gove House will also open should the other shelters become full. Gove House is able to accommodate 300 people, and preparations are being made for a further 340 people.
On Elcho Island two shelters are now open with a capacity for 500 people. These are at Shepherdson College and Marthakal workshop. Residents should make their own decision about moving to a shelter quickly as winds are shortly expected to reach a dangerous level. If they do not have accommodation constructed to the building code or are unsure of their present accommodation, they should proceed immediately to shelter with family, friends or one of the local emergency shelters and take their emergency kit with them to these shelters. Residents should not forget to make plans for their pets as animals are not allowed in public shelters.
Private sector businesses and organisations still open at this time are strongly advised to consider securing and closing their premises. Employers are reminded of their duty of care to ensure the safety of any employees still at work. As I announced yesterday, schools across the affected region are closed today and all non-essential government offices are closed. Government staff who are not listed as key government employees in their agency cyclone plan and who do not have emergency management roles will be permitted to be absent from work today. All NT government staff should ensure their managers have their current contact details.
The closed schools are Yirrkala School, Yirrkala Homelands School, Nhulunbuy High School, Nhulunbuy Primary School, Nhulunbuy Christian school and Baniyala school. I also announced today that I have approved the immediate closure of two additional schools, being Shepherdson College in Galiwinku and Gapuwiyak School. A decision will be made later today about any further school closures along the coast.
In conclusion, Territorians are not strangers to these kinds of extreme weather events. I assure all residents that we are ready and prepared for all possibilities. Please be careful over the next 48 hours. Look after each other and follow the advice of emergency services. Stay informed by monitoring local media and secureNT for updates throughout the day. I will keep the Assembly updated on the latest advice as news comes to hand throughout the day.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I understand the member for Nhulunbuy wishes to make some comments. In no way do I wish to diminish the anxiety the member for Nhulunbuy feels. Nevertheless, this report to the House is outside the terms of the normal operation of standing orders.
Members appreciate the importance of this issue and that the executive arm of government reports to the parliament and the people of the Northern Territory as to what is occurring. Consequently, it does not invite debate, but I place myself in your hands.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. I do not view it as a debate, it is a statement and an update. It is an important update and statement so I am quite comfortable with the member for Nhulunbuy – given it is her electorate and her family is there –saying a few words.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I could probably have said my few words in the same time it took the Leader of Government Business to try to curtail debate.
I thank the Chief Minister for his statement this morning. I also thank him for the personal updates he provided me yesterday afternoon and again early this morning. I am extremely worried about my electorate, my constituents and my family.
However, I take heart knowing the communities are well prepared, the local emergency committee has activated its plans, those plans are well prepared and well advanced, and the right decisions have been made. I thank the government for its decisions yesterday to give notice that schools would close, to advise public servants not to come to work today and advise local businesses to consider closing.
I have spoken with a number of my constituents and people in Nhulunbuy, and I am assured that people do not appear to be anxious. They feel the preparations are in place; people are in their homes, and if their homes are not safe they have sought shelter. Social media tells me that people are quite buoyant in their spirits. We take heart where we see some residents offering their homes to others, including those who may need to find shelter for their animals.
I was one of a handful of people at Darwin airport this morning, somewhat hopeful we may have caught the Airnorth flight home. Madam Speaker, I thank your staff for making arrangements for me to have travelled home this morning.
Of course, it was not safe to travel. Gove Airport had been closed. Having travelled quite a lot around my electorate, often in small aircraft, ringing in my ears is always the wise words from one of our MAF pilots that it is better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground.
Madam Speaker, we will sit tight. People in Gove, Elcho Island and all those communities and homeland communities are also sitting tight and we will wait to see what happens next. Again, I thank the government for bringing forward this statement. I feel assured we are in the safe hands of emergency services.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Disallowance of Remuneration
Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2014
Disallowance of Remuneration
Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2014
Mr ELFERINK: (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move to disallow Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2014. I will not spend a great deal of time on my feet discussing this issue. The matter was reflected on yesterday, at some length, by members of both sides of the House and a clear pathway forward was described by various members of this House.
This is as much procedural as anything else. As a consequence, I bring this motion to the House to assist it to step through this issue in a logical and sensible fashion.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, the Leader of Government Business correctly spoke to this yesterday. I will summarise briefly what we said yesterday. On our side we applied cautious support. We agree to a model of independent statutory authority where independent people, separate to politicians, are making these decisions so it is nothing to do with us. We are very comfortable with this process. I refer anyone listening to this broadcast to our comments yesterday when we discussed this. Today, this is essentially procedural.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not know whether I am any wiser about why the government decided at the death knell to pull this determination from the books. My understanding is this has been before us for a considerable amount of time, and if it is not dealt with today then it will be accepted.
I have been trying to work through what issues there are, besides a change to the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act which would enable an independent tribunal to look at setting payments for members of this parliament, and whether there is anything else that is of concern to the government in relation to matters included in Determination No 1 of 2014.
I have heard some people were not happy with the idea that members of parliament would have to submit quarterly reports explaining how they spent their electorate allowance. I do not have a problem with that. As long as that continues in the changes the government is bringing forward, then perhaps the new tribunal will maintain that status quo. Even though it creates a bit more paperwork, it does at least tell the public where we spend our money and make sure we spend it for the right reasons. Obviously there is a fair bit of latitude with an electorate allowance, but as long as you have a good explanation for what it was used for – I do not think anyone would say that was not a reasonable request from the tribunal.
My understanding of having a tribunal – or I might say a tri-tribunal because ‘tri’ can be three but can also simply mean one person – is the tribunal will now be of three people. That is a good idea ...
Mr Giles: It already is.
Mr WOOD: Yes. My understanding is the three people are very knowledgeable people who have worked in the public service and the community and will have a good understanding of the issues they have to deal with.
I am interested to know if there are other issues that concerned the government. The government initiated this disallowance motion yesterday. My feeling is this is more due to the principle under the existing act where the government, more or less, has a say in what the remuneration for members of parliament would be. The government is saying that should not be the case; that we should have an independent body, a tribunal, which determines that so government is at arm’s length from making those decisions.
We have seen what happened in Queensland when the Newman government first came in. I do not think it had a tribunal; it just decided it would set salaries on the basis of a percentage smaller than the federal government members were receiving. Of course, there was a huge uproar from the public because of the huge increases in salaries.
We also have to be aware that by having a tribunal – my understanding is Queensland did not have it at that stage – it gives you that arm’s length. I also understand the Queensland government then set up a tribunal which made the determination for what the salaries should be, and they were a lot less than what was originally determined.
What salaries members of parliament receive is always a very sensitive issue. In having this tribunal with three local people who have been involved in the public service, the private sector and the community in many other ways, you are likely to get a determination which reflects not only whether members of parliament are entitled to an increase, but also what the public thinks of us as well.
People would say we deserve it if we do our job properly, but the way we look at the moment I doubt anybody would want to give us a pay rise.
Madam Speaker, I support the concept that the tribunal will look independently at these things. However, I am interested if there are any other concerns the government had about the proposed Determination No 1 of 2014 which it felt needed to be looked at again by the new tribunal.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, it has all been said.
I thank honourable members for their contributions. The issue articulated by the member for Nelson about the importance of arm’s length being the driving force behind this was also articulated by government and opposition members in this House yesterday. Further work will be done on this in the not-so-distant future.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Establishment of a Select Committee
on the Port of Darwin
Establishment of a Select Committee
on the Port of Darwin
Mr GILES (Economic Development and Major Projects): Madam Speaker, I move that:
2. the committee shall inquire into and report on the Port of Darwin lease model proposed in the Port of Darwin Bill 2014 (Serial 111) and recommend options to enhance the model to ensure that the chosen partner:
- (a) has a vision for growth and development of the port which is aligned to that of the NT government
(b) is required to charge realistic and competitive pricing that promotes business and economic development
3. in consideration of these matters, the committee should:
(b) consider existing Northern Territory public private partnerships
(c) balance the commercial drivers for a private operator against NT government objectives from a long-term lease to the private sector
(e) consider mechanisms for the NT government to receive ongoing financial returns over the duration of the lease while continuing to motivate the private sector partner to continue to invest in and grow business through the port
5. the committee may elect a Deputy Chair of the committee, who may act as the Chair when the Chair is absent from a meeting or there is no Chair of the committee
6. a quorum of the committee shall be two members of the committee
7. the committee is to report by 20 March 2015
8. the provisions of this resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
In regard to the establishment of the parliamentary committee inquiry for the future of the Port of Darwin and how we ensure the port meets the needs and requirements of a growing Northern Territory into the future, we have a small economy with limited capacity to raise capital.
The infrastructure tasked to grow our economy and facilitate new industry and generate jobs is large, and quite often beyond the Territory government’s capacity to fund. However, we are committed to delivering new public infrastructure to serve the needs of Territorians. Given this, there is a need to investigate alternative forms of infrastructure funding if we want to be in a position to meet the needs of the future and be well positioned to seize economic opportunities as they arise.
Not many people would be aware, but the Northern Territory government made a request for funding of $336m for port expansion under the previous Labor government. It was knocked back at that time by the former Labor government – when there was the infighting of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard – which said no to providing any Infrastructure Australia money to the Northern Territory, backed by then Infrastructure minister at the federal level, Anthony Albanese. It turned its back on the Northern Territory. It was quite happy to waste money all over the place but not in the Northern Territory to provide an investment for the Territory’s future.
We are now in a position where the federal Coalition is trying to fix its finances, so it is in a position where it is somewhat loathe to assist with significant sums to fix the port. It is a shame that Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard did not back us.
The port is currently operating at around 43% capacity. As I said yesterday, full capacity is around 65%. When capacity reaches 65% it is very hard to get any more trade over the wharf face at the port. We are at 43% now, but we expect to see continued increase in traffic through the port, with anticipated growth in naval vessel visits, the oil and gas industry choosing to base out of Darwin, and the changing dynamics of the economy in the Northern Territory which will see a greater level of exports in the coming years, as presented to us by many experts, including Deloitte.
Quite frankly, a good example is if Olympic Dam was to come online tomorrow, the Port of Darwin would not be able to service the requirements of exporting goods and services coming out of Olympic Dam. It will be the same if Tellus, the proposed salt mine at Chandler to the south of Alice Springs at Maryvale Station, gets up and running. The trade required for that going over the port has increased issues with capacity. We will not get it to 65%, but all of these things start to add up.
The livestock trade is booming and we expect it to continue to increase as a result of AACo’s new boxed beef model coming out of the Livingstone abattoir.
We believe we have a very firm well-established business case to seek private investment in the port. It is well established because the NT government cannot afford to expand, and the federal government cannot afford to expand because of the debt worries of the former Labor governments of Gillard and Rudd and the position they left it in. Besides that, Gillard, Rudd and Albanese refused to give the former Labor government any money.
However, we have to look at the way other models of port operations have occurred. Labor signed the deal for the Marine Supply Base construction at the port. They outsourced part of the port already with the MSB, where they brought in ShoreASCO to build, own and operate it – well, not so much build. The Northern Territory government put $100m-odd into building the Marine Supply Base, but now a private operator owns and runs it and collects the profits for the MSB in an outsource model that Labor put at the port. That is an important point to remember. Labor has already outsourced a large component of the port – three berths at the MSB.
When Labor outsourced the Marine Supply Base at the port to the private sector, it did not form a committee to inquire into how that would be done, did not seek public comment, did not assume any responsibility in that role or bring in legislative change. It put in the Marine Supply base without an inquiry and without telling anybody. One day I would love to be able to set up an inquiry about the financial arrangements for the establishment of the Marine Supply Base and how much money went into that. Labor put $100m in and gave the asset away, which is quite interesting, although they did not give it away forever because it is on a lease too, something that Labor opposes. So not only did the Labor government put all the money in, they have leased it out as well, privatising part of the Darwin port.
The model we have proposed to seek investment into the Darwin port is of a similar arrangement. We have proposed a private sector partnership arrangement for the operation, management and development of the port. We believe there is a flexible approach we can take in that regard.
We have legislation on the table and there will be more introduced today, particularly around consequential amendments and small areas. We believe there is a way forward to retain government ownership of the port – we are not selling the port – by bringing in a financial investor who will increase the size and capability of the port and put in operational arrangements which will protect the rights of employees, but also ensure we have a bigger and better port to support expanding industry in the Northern Territory in the future.
There is a range of ways which the government can continue to be a partner and receive ongoing returns from the asset. Different models for working with the private sector have been tried and tested in the Northern Territory in the past. As well as the MSB, the Northern Territory has previously partnered with the private sector in the development and operation of the railway between Darwin and Alice Springs, or Darwin to Adelaide if you like. Something still continuing now with Toga, in that partnership arrangement, is the outsourcing of the waterfront to Toga.
If you look at the railway – and Labor opposed building the railway, by the way – the Northern Territory government contributed $190m to its construction. The concession holder, Genesee and Wyoming Australia Corporation, is party to a concession deed covering rights and obligations, including project risk.
It is the same model we are working towards with the port and Labor’s Marine Supply Base, and a similar concept to the outsourcing of the waterfront to Toga, something that is lost on Labor.
Let us look at the railway. In the first year of operation, the railway line carried 600 000 tonnes of domestic freight and 20 000 tonnes of international cargo. That was the first year of operation when government had a stake in it. Government removed its stake 10 years later. Let us look at the data. A combined total of over 3.65 million tonnes of freight was transported in 2014. That is up from 600 000 tonnes of domestic freight when it first started 10 years ago.
Benefits of the Ghan passenger service include jobs, tourism dollars to the Territory and spending in the local economy. We do not own the trains that travel along the train track, the cargo containers, the containers which carry the dry goods or the locomotives. We got out of that business because the private sector invests and delivers those jobs. It is leading to a range of benefits in the Territory.
Other infrastructure investment followed, including a common user terminal and business park near Darwin’s East Arm port and a rapid expansion of logistics businesses on the back of the railway, which Labor opposed and then opposed private sector investment in.
A 2008 independent assessment undertaken when Labor was in government in the Northern Territory on the economic benefits generated by the railway conservatively estimated that since the commencement of operations in 2004 to 2008, approximately five million tonnes of freight and 400 000 passengers have been moved at an economic return to the Territory of $211m.
These are all things that would not come without private investment in our infrastructure, which Labor members opposed. I am not surprised they opposed it. Who would forget Labor’s opposition to a range of government-backed infrastructure projects? They opposed the railway, and then were happy to open it. They opposed the construction of the Ayers Rock Resort, and then when we tried to sell it they opposed the sale. They opposed the construction of the Sheraton resort in Alice Springs then opposed us selling it.
Infrastructure Australia has highlighted that the railway is …
Mr McCarthy interjecting.
Mr GILES: I give you respect and listen when you talk. You should pass the same respect on, member for Barkly.
Infrastructure Australia has highlighted the railway as a project which demonstrates poor value for money due to inadequate project selection, assessment, development and design. It is saying if we put a proposal to the Productivity Commission or Infrastructure Australia today to build the railway line between Alice Springs and Darwin, they would knock us back on funding. They would knock us back on funding to build the Port of Darwin because it is not financially viable. This is the Productivity Commission, separate of politics. It would knock both those projects back.
So we must provide private sector investment in this infrastructure to grow the Territory’s economy and ensure there are jobs to support other jobs down the track. We must continue to partner with the private sector to stay ahead of the game and achieve economic development outcomes. However, we know this should not be at the expense of Territorians or the environment. We have made clear to all parties which have expressed an interest in the port that the government’s objective is to seek a partner with a shared vision to grow the port, which will have direct benefits for the Northern Territory and the community.
I had a chat with the member for Nelson this morning and said our interest is not about the economic return on a lease, what Labor or that goose, Sam Dastyari, from Canberra is pushing about – 15% for asset recycling. It is not about the 15%, we have not mentioned that. This is about how we build the port to meet tomorrow’s needs.
It went out for expressions of interest and 30 came back. One has now been removed to go to the next stage and will be part of the process of this inquiry. What the shape of the port will look like in the future is important, because that is what we need to grow. The Northern Territory needs to stay ahead of the game and have infrastructure in place to seize the opportunities we know are coming as they arise.
I have asked a select committee of parliament to look at the model proposed for private investment and confirm in their minds if this is the best structure available. The committee will consider alternative models for private sector engagement which balances the commercial drivers for private operators against the Northern Territory objectives from a long-term lease. I am quite excited that the member for Blain, Nathan Barrett, has accepted the offer to undertake a role on that parliamentary inquiry, also the member for Drysdale who, geographically, is located close to the port, with many constituents within the Drysdale electorate working at or influenced by the port and related activities, particularly around logistics.
Selling to the public the transition to what we are trying to do with the port is a challenge for a number of reasons. One is because I do not think there would be very many people in the general public who have ever been to a port and know what a port looks and sounds like. They would not know about or understand what a quay line, reefer point or hardstand area is, what the retention ponds are for or how a conveyor belt works. It is very difficult to explain the port. Detailing the cost required to expand the port to meet greater requirements is also a challenge.
Last year the port made profit for the first time, I think, but is still carrying enormous amounts of debt. To enable it to expand is simply not feasible, so we are looking at private partners for this. It will support the Territory.
I have no doubt, member for Fannie Bay, you will oppose it, along with your leader, if she is still the leader, or you are. If she is still the leader she will definitely oppose it and play political games. But if you get in there, your Labor apparatchiks will tell you you have to oppose it.
However, this is good for business. This will drive more jobs on and around the port and in the logistics industry. It will increase the trade through the port. It will lower the cost of doing business through the port through greater economies of scale. It will increase the level of expertise at the port. It also has strong potential to drive down the cost of living. It is a winner in all parts.
However, as I said, it is difficult to explain what a port is, what it looks like, what it feels like and how it operates. We will have to get to some type of marketing approach so we can start to educate people on the port. If anyone in this Chamber has not had the opportunity of going down there, I very much welcome opening the port and showing you around so you can understand what the port is and how it looks. The member for Drysdale has already spoken to me about that.
Member for Blain, I thank you for signing up to be chairperson of this parliamentary committee. I commend this motion and I look forward to hearing the outcomes in five weeks. Five weeks is a very lengthy time for a parliamentary committee to be able to travel around the 10 or so ports around the country and understand the administrative processes, and use the resources within the Parliamentary Library and the committee structure to get information and form opinions. It is quite sufficient. I know on this side of the Chamber we work hard. I am not sure how they work on the other side.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, this government has a trust deficit and trust issue. The Chief Minister’s speech has gone no way to addressing it.
This committee has been brought forward to look at the port. The Chief Minister’s comments reinforce the community’s belief that this government has already made up its mind about selling the port, leasing the port or whatever words the Chief Minister wants to use today around the privatisation of the port. There are genuine community concerns that this government has already made up its mind and this committee is just a PR exercise. I will not be so churlish as to not participate in this committee, but there are things this committee should be doing that are not in the terms of reference to make it genuine and allow it to do genuine work.
One of those concerns goes to the length of time the committee has to look at these issues. I note the member for Nelson has an amendment about the breadth of what this committee can look at, including the current model of what the port is, which is not there at the moment.
This government has a trust issue. This committee, which is meant to be part of trying to repair that trust issue, if done properly can be one small step in the path you need to take to address community concerns on trust.
If you want this committee to be successful then you need to look at a couple of changes to the terms of reference, including the length of time the committee operates and the ability for the committee to look at the current model at the port. Otherwise, this is just a PR exercise, a fig leaf for a government that has already made up its mind to sell, lease or privatise the port – whatever language you want to use today about the port.
Territorians are not silly. It does not matter how you swap those words around, they know what your agenda is for the port. They have seen your agenda on public assets over a long period of time – an agenda that was not taken to the last Territory election, not discussed with Territorians, and does not have a mandate.
We on this side have a very simple position. If Territorians are to be at the forefront of decision-making, that means the sale of assets owned by Territorians should get the approval of Territorians. That is why Labor believes the Port of Darwin should only be privatised with an election mandate. We do not think that is a controversial or extraordinary statement. We simply believe that if you are selling something then you should get the permission of the owners, and the taxpayers are the owners. That is a position that Australians are taking at the moment. It is the message we received very strongly from the community during the sale of TIO.
We have seen this government go down the path of the GPO, the Darwin buses, the split of Power and Water, TIO gone, and now the port on the table – the greatest fire sale of the Territory’s assets ever, all done without proper conversation with Territorians, or permission of the owners, Territorian taxpayers. We do not believe this government is putting Territorians first.
We now have a committee, but this committee does not go far enough. It should go further if you want to address those genuine, deep community concerns about your attitude towards Territory taxpayer assets. It would be very simple to make a couple of changes to this committee if you want to appear you are carrying out a genuine exercise and not just a PR exercise.
Before this motion and this committee was talked about, we saw a Chief Minister who was in lock-step with Tony Abbott and former Premier Campbell Newman about their agenda to sell or privatise public assets without a mandate. The community verdict is very clear; if you do that then you are arrogant and out of touch with the community. That has been expressed very strongly in the Territory and around Australia.
There is no better example of being arrogant and out of touch than the decision that was made around TIO without proper consultation with the community, and ignoring legitimate concerns about the sale. There was no mandate to sell TIO, and this decision is impacting on Territorians. This decision did not put Territorians first. We have seen, and will see, impacts on premiums and flood protection. Coverage costs will become prohibitive. Territorians were short-changed in that deal. There is no doubt they want to see proper consultation on anything else done with Territory assets, giving them a chance to have a say.
The clear message from Territorians, and from other actions around the country, is that involves an election. Elected CLP members know in their hearts that the sale of TIO was a betrayal of Territorians. That will be remembered at the next Territory election.
It has informed actions of the majority of members on the other side. In the previous sittings of this parliament, the Chief Minister introduced bills to lease and sell the port, which was very consistent with the legislation to split Power and Water as a potential precursor to privatisation of those assets. The port bills gave the Chief Minister unfettered power to sell Darwin Port Corporation assets.
However, some significant things have changed since that bill was introduced. There were two in particular: the loss in Queensland by Premier Newman, with a very similar agenda and behaviour to the current government, and the recognition of that loss and that behaviour by that Premier; and the actions of the majority of the CLP opposite who say, ‘We reject this Chief Minister and his attitude towards selling private assets’. For some reason that was very poorly delivered and we have seen the Chief Minister remain where he is. There was a strong message sent to the current Chief Minister by the majority of members of the CLP that their behaviour has been wrong and there are parallels to Queensland.
How they put that message was poorly handled. We saw a debacle over the last couple of weeks, and we still have the current Chief Minister. The new Deputy Chief Minister compared the current Chief Minister to Campbell Newman:
- If you look at the result of the Queensland election, government there was punished because the people of Queensland thought they had lost touch with real people ...
Certainly that’s the feeling that a number of my colleagues were getting across the Northern Territory as well.
They didn’t want to be put in the same position as Campbell Newman was put in just a few days ago.
That is a clear vote of no confidence in the approach this government has been taking.
This committee that has been proposed as a result of that does not go all the way this government needs to take it to address legitimate community concerns. Even if it is done properly, it is only one small step this government needs to make in a journey to address its trust deficit with Territorians.
We can understand the panic amongst the CLP as a result of the Queensland election. It led to a failed leadership coup, and it has now led to an almost-good-enough committee in this Chamber.
There is great scepticism amongst the community about the Chief Minister’s commitment to consultation on a great number of issues. That is why, if the Chief Minister wants this committee to be seen as legitimate and not simply PR, he needs to make those couple of changes we and the member for Nelson have recommended to the terms of reference so the committee can conduct its business in good faith with the community, so it does not look like a decision has already been made and this is purely done as a fig leaf, PR exercise. That is a threshold question this community needs to face up front: is the government genuine about consulting or has it made its decision and is only pretending? The 30 days makes you think it is the latter, and that is a real problem with the formation of this committee.
We have six months for the fuel disclosure committee and we have 30 days for this inquiry. I will talk about that in some detail, but there are a couple of points I want to make up front on that.
I do not believe selling the port is of greater urgency than addressing and tackling petrol prices in the Territory. These are two very significant issues. To take this approach shows the government is out of touch.
On the five week time frame – I know the member for Nelson will talk about this in much greater detail – we want all witnesses and stakeholders who want to appear to have the time to prepare and submit submissions, and for the committee to have time to consider and respond to those submissions. You need time to do that.
I do not know how members on the other side conduct their business and manage their diaries, but I have existing legitimate work obligations over the next five weeks. I would find it extraordinary if members on that side do not have the same work obligations. I am a member of parliament; I have business to conduct. I am the member for Fannie Bay, so I am a local member, but I am also a shadow minister. I have work commitments over the next five weeks that are important. I would find it extraordinary if members on that side do not have similar work obligations. It would be almost laughable.
It is not a question of working hard, it is a question of working smart, acknowledging the realities of what witnesses and stakeholders will have to do in submitting to this committee and the committee considering and responding to those submissions. It is also about what workload we, as members of parliament, have. That is a very genuine consideration for the length of this committee we have been asked to serve on over 30 days. We do not have a program yet.
The Chief Minister has touched upon visiting 10 ports. I am happy to take up that challenge, but in taking up that challenge – the member for Nelson might have other ports he wants to visit, I do not know. We have not seen the program yet. I have said to the Chief Minister that I am happy to sit down and talk about a program, but it is impossible to sign up to a program when we have been given a curtailed, constrained, limited time frame. We should properly organise a program and work out what is realistic. That is what helps set the basis for the time frame this committee needs to meet. The committee should have flexibility about being able to work out the time.
Let us take this challenge seriously. Walk down the mall and ask people what they want done first: privatising the port or reducing petrol prices. This committee, as it stands, fails that mall challenge; it fails that test with Territorians.
We need to take this committee seriously. More importantly for the government than for us, the government needs to take this committee seriously because it has a significant trust deficit within the community around its agenda on privatising assets.
This is an agenda we have seen very strongly from the new Chief Minister – the current Chief Minister, the one who took over from the elected Chief Minister. There have been a number of Chief Ministers, and brief ministers. This agenda has been placed very firmly on the table by Adam Giles since Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, was elected and said to state governments, ‘We want you to sell your assets’. Look at what has happened since. We have seen the GPO shut, Darwin Bus sold, Power and Water split, TIO gone, and now the port is on the table. In putting that agenda forward we have put Territorians second, and the CLP has broken its pledge about cutting the cost of living in pursuing that agenda.
This has been a significant mistake by the government. It is taking a half step in the right direction by establishing this committee, but it should be taking a full step forward in addressing those legitimate concerns about the terms of reference that I and the member for Nelson share.
I wrote to the Chief Minister yesterday, I called him this morning, I spoke with member for Nelson this morning, and I know the member for Nelson spoke to the Chief Minister. There was an incomplete triangle happening this morning. I have tried to extend an arm to the Chief Minister in good faith about my concerns with this committee, to make it work as best it can. I am happy to table that letter at the end of my contribution. In that letter we made several requests which, I believe, were reasonable. We asked that the time frame of five weeks be extended. Privatisation is a complex issue and there is not enough time for important stakeholders to address the terms of reference, put together comprehensive submissions and have the inquiry analyse them and report back.
I formally put this to the Chief Minister yesterday and I have not received a formal response. The Chief Minister put on the record during Question Time, and in his contribution, his position on the time frame. He still has time to consider this matter and change his position on the time frame.
The Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee was started on 21 October and is still having hearings. The Commonwealth asset recycling scheme – which has been used in the past to justify the sale of public assets – does not exist yet. There is no need to rush this. We can get it right. I do not think there is any need for this arbitrary five-week time frame, at least not one the Chief Minister has articulated that stacks up. It is reasonable that we have an extension to the five-week time frame. Any reading of the terms of reference would see that the five weeks should be extended. This is a genuine request from this side.
I am trying to operate in good faith for the Chief Minister. I will not be so churlish as to not participate in the committee, but if this committee is to function properly, it should run for longer than five weeks.
Another request I made to the Chief Minister was regarding analysis of port privatisation in other states. He has talked to this regarding looking at their models and success in the stakes, and the inquiry being resourced to do that. That goes back to having a program and the length of time this committee sits for. Those two are interlinked. To have a proper program you must revisit the five weeks.
The third request I made is that the government release all the documents it has in relation to the potential sale of the port and make them available to the committee. This includes the Renewal Management Board report, which the government said would assess options for government owned corporations, including the port. The government promised it would release that report, but has yet to do so, even though it was completed almost two years ago.
If we are serious about involving Territorians in decision-making, that report should be released. It should be made available to the committee. We should be able to look at it and other documentation the government has regarding the port, including business cases regarding privatisation. Those documents are important for this committee’s deliberations. In some respects it is impossible to stick to a five-week time frame without knowing what is in those reports and who we may need to speak to the committee about what is in the reports.
We simply do not know, yet we are being asked to sign up to this ridiculous five-week time frame. It is not fair dinkum to have a five-week time frame. It does not pass the mall test, the commonsense test or the logical test of how you create a committee, establish a program, work out what you have to do, who to meet with or how to consider what they put forward. It does not acknowledge the current workload of members of parliament over the next five weeks. It is an unreasonable and ridiculous time frame and I have said to the Chief Minister, in very good faith, that we should look at extending it.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table that letter I sent to the Chief Minister.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER: I am very happy to receive a formal response and for the Chief Minister to respond to some of the issues in his remarks. We are making genuine, considered requests of the government that go toward improving this committee and ensuring it is seen to be a genuine exercise, not a PR exercise.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended
MOTION
Change to Membership of Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future
Change to Membership of Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I advise the House, regarding the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future, the member for Blain will be removed and the member for Greatorex will be placed on the committee.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Establishment of a Select Committee
on the Port of Darwin
Establishment of a Select Committee
on the Port of Darwin
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, in relation to the issue of the port, there are a few things I want to outline regarding what has already been said.
In regard to the trust deficit mentioned by the member for Fannie Bay, who spoke about the way we have in the past talked about things with the community, he is missing the wood for the trees, because the process we are going through is exactly for the reason he is implying. We need to work this process through and bring people along this journey.
That is precisely what this committee is about. This committee is not a PR exercise. This is a genuine look at different models and what would be best for the people of the Northern Territory, looking at the long-term future of what we need to do. The model we could work with to expand the port fits in with the development of northern Australia anyway.
I will outline a few things regarding economics and the macroeconomic picture. The Northern Territory cannot control interest rates within its own borders. Because of that, we cannot influence monetary policy. I hazard to say that right now in Darwin, given the economic activity, it is quite possible the interest rate is too low and, therefore, the level of investment and heat in the economy is creating a problem we need to address.
That issue we need to address can only really be addressed by supply-side economics. What we need to do in regard to a demand supply model is always work in Territory politics on the supply side of this function. We see our government doing those things with land release, with an increase in the supply which brings down the price and increases the quantity to match demand. We are not trying to control people’s demand, we are working on increasing the supply in areas where demand cannot be controlled through normal levers that a federal government might be able to control it with.
In my opinion, what makes Territory politics so interesting is we cannot use the big blunt levers. We need to be very considered, careful and specific about the supply-side measures we take in order to make sure we are growing the Northern Territory.
The member for Fannie Bay spoke about the Queensland issues. In the Northern Territory we have a lot of blue sky above our private sector. We can grow our private sector to become a lot more effective in regard to the Northern Territory economy so the Territory can move ahead in leaps and bounds.
The member for Fannie Bay spoke about us treating Territorians as if they are silly. I do not see that. Some of the things the opposition spreads around and the language it uses might lead people to believe certain things, but it is not considered and does not assess all the evidence. Having this committee report to parliament after looking at what is important in this whole issue – it is the opposition trying to treat the people of the Northern Territory as if they are silly, not us.
When the opposition members say the Chief Minister has given himself the ability to do whatever he wants, they fail to notice that the Chief Minister has set up a framework of legislation that allows this committee to not necessarily eliminate any kind of modelling that might exist within that framework. I turn this around and say to the opposition that we have a fantastic opportunity to do something good for the Northern Territory. I encourage the member for Fannie Bay, through the Chair, to take part in this process and have some quality input, alongside the rest of the people on this committee, to see a fantastic outcome for the people of the Northern Territory.
Getting more specific on the supply-side function the port can provide the Northern Territory economy, we have a few problems. These problems can be alleviated by increasing the size, volume and efficiency of what happens within the Port of Darwin.
Having spent a few years and many hours at that wharf area at East Arm, and having some pretty intimate knowledge of how things operate in the shipping and logistics world, I can say that because of the lack of throughput there are definite problems that exist with the port being a supply-side hindrance. That centres on the fact it is expensive to get containers through Darwin port.
That is not because our stevedores do a bad job and are inefficient, or because the people who work on the ground on the wharf within DPC do a bad job; they do a fantastic job. The issue is about throughput. In Darwin it costs about twice what it costs in Fremantle to land a container. There are fees and charges associated with landing freight in Darwin that other ports, particularly in capital cities, do not have, which makes doing business in the Northern Territory very expensive. Obviously this has flow-on effects to the cost of living in the Northern Territory. I see the opportunity to look at what kind of model we can use to create a much bigger, more effective and more efficient port as a way to eliminate these issues.
Much of the pricing that happens at this port is based around Dampier. Dampier is not a capital city. Dampier is a little place in Western Australia that has many high-end mining companies and oil and gas companies operating through it. Most of what they do is time sensitive, not cost sensitive. They can charge high rates and get away with it because it is more important that things are done on time than at a price.
In Darwin we are effectively being put into that mould when general freight comes over our port and we have exports leaving our port that are subject to these same charges.
Looking at the overall picture of what this government is trying to achieve, I wonder what would we like to see. I would like to see a fantastic port in Darwin that has the capacity to unload efficiently and effectively a vessel carrying 1200 boxes. At the moment we have vessels that carry more along the lines of 300, and it is not a particularly quick process. The hardstand areas are not big enough so there are big backlogs in handling containers on that wharf. We need a lot more space if we are to have a lot more containers come through the port.
There are time restrictions on when you can pick up containers, which again makes it hard to do business through the port. It is not necessarily because of any particular issue or anyone doing a bad thing, it is just that for safety reasons there needs to be the proper lighting, access, roadways and those sorts of things. There are big issues around landing freight in Darwin and getting it off the port and into circulation.
Another issue we have become aware of recently is a bunkering adjustment factor. This is basically a hedge against movements in fuel prices when things are on the water. When shipping companies buy fuel they put this bunkering adjustment factor in place so they can have a hedge against movements in the fuel prices.
If you are landing something in the Port of Fremantle it will cost you about $71, here it is about $500 per container. There are costs associated that we can look at very quickly and easily. Because of the lack of throughput here we have issues that larger economies of scale and better efficiencies would solve. We are trying to set up a scenario with the possibility of bringing a private investor into the Northern Territory to work hand-in-hand with the government and people of the Northern Territory so we can have a world-class asset.
I would love to see a port with the efficiency of how Singapore operates. It has a throughput of phenomenal amounts on not much space. Darwin truly can become a hub of trade in the Southeast Asian region, especially with the bulk freight coming in and out of Australia.
Having a few more sidings and working with Genesee Wyoming on how our existing railways are put together opens up a lot of potential. We have approximately a four-day freight advantage over southern cities. I recall from my time at the waterfront that if things were time sensitive and not cost sensitive we would have more work in getting things through the port. That is because we have the ability to get things off the wharf and onto a truck moving south quickly and have a four-day advantage over other places which may take it around the Western Australian coast or the Great Barrier Reef.
I see fantastic potential and opportunity in regard to this. I also see a fantastic opportunity for this committee to work on the best way forward. I encourage a collegiate working environment within it.
I have heard the opposition talk about the time factor, saying this is very rushed and the recent fuel committee had more time. I point out that on the day of the hearing one member of the committee did not turn up, and the other did not have a great deal of input when questioning the people involved. If you are part of a process, be part of the process. We are here for the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory and to put something good in place.
With regard to economies of scale, at the moment we are unloading 300 containers. If we get to a point where we can efficiently and effectively do 1200 at a time, I see huge potential, especially for the stevedoring industry here. I worked for a stevedoring company and it would be great to see it employing more people. It is a fantastic employer, with good jobs, and they are good guys working there. I would love to see all of the employment associated with shipping companies, stevedoring companies, heavy lift shift companies, trucking companies and the rail all achieve better utilisation of their productive capacity if we work towards having a port which has efficient and effective throughput.
Shipping agents have to jump through hoops to get things over the line in Darwin. Having spent some time with shipping agents and listened to the conversations they had about the difficulties in moving things on and off the port, I have nothing but praise for a plan to give us a much more effective port.
We are in a position in the Northern Territory government where we have a debt level we cannot move beyond, thanks to what I can only describe as the slash-and-burn mentality of the opposition. They left us no room to move to do anything productive. They could have carried out projects like this, but instead chose to go ahead with a prison.
I see having an economic capacity to improve the Northern Territory as more important. A port bringing private investment – because we cannot carry this ourselves – is part of that solution.
Within the shipping and logistics industry, it is important for global players to have access to the ports within which they operate their business models. In the Northern Territory we have an opportunity where, if we get the right partner involved, those partners can bring in a fantastic amount of throughput. Having some kind of lease agreement – which is bandied around – is part of the puzzle. We also must look at the type of partner we want. We want a partner to bring throughput over the wharf. They are the types of partners which already operate many other ports. They have built, operated and managed ports, and have multiple sites throughout Southeast Asia in which Darwin can become a lynchpin.
From an investment point of view – the opposition has been very forthcoming in saying we need to ensure Territorians get the best result – if we can, through this committee, come up with a plan and some terms we can work with in leases, Northern Territory people can benefit, not just from the investment we have made now, but from the investment that private companies will make. An agreement means we are getting income from not just our investment but future investments by private investors, the people of the Northern Territory will be in a much better place to have a greater income derived from this private investment.
All these are very sound economic arguments. The time frame is valid. Given that we are looking at what kind of models give us the ability to maximise the benefit for the people of the Northern Territory, while making sure the partner we get is the right partner we need, we have the ability to put something together for the Northern Territory which is very beneficial, and fantastic as part of developing northern Australia.
I see this as being nothing but fantastic for the rail network we have, which arguably, is underutilised. Genesee Wyoming would love to have a greater throughput, and the people of the Northern Territory would love to see that asset they put a lot of dollars into grow and work towards much greater and more efficient utilisation.
The economic arguments that stack up around trying to get the right partner and the right model are very important and should not be overlooked in order to play cheap politics. I came into politics to do good things for the Northern Territory, and I am looking forward to working with this committee to come up with the best possible option for the people of the Northern Territory. It is not a foregone conclusion that anything will happen. We have an opportunity to create the conclusion.
Madam Speaker, I admonish those on all sides of the House to work together within this committee so we can have a fantastic outcome.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his contribution. I enjoyed listening to it. I did not agree with his comments about playing politics. Sometimes constructive criticism is not about politics, it is about working together for Territorians in a constructive way. That is what I hope this debate today is about.
When there were some problems in the government this statement was made:
- Under my leadership, this government will be more consultative with Territorians and engage with them before we make important and crucial decisions on the future of the Territory.
It was made in the beginning of February, from memory. I support that.
This is a crucial decision. The port is one of our last publicly-owned government assets. After reading the guidelines for the select committee that were issued – and I only received it this morning; I had trouble trying to find it last night on the website – I have to say that consultation with Territorians did not exist. It is three or four steps ahead of where the consultation should start. The basic consultation is about whether the people of the Northern Territory want their port to be privatised. Forget whether it will be leased, it will be privatised.
If you think people of the Northern Territory should be consulted, we need a reasonable debate about the existing port. Those people who want it privatised have to show that by privatising it there will be advantages to the people of the Northern Territory through cheaper costs of exporting and importing. That is the bottom line, because that is all a port is: a place where goods are brought in or sent out. Whether those goods will be competitive to a large extent will depend on how much you pay to get them through that port. That is the bottom line. So if the government says it will privatise the port, then it is up to the government to show that privatising the port will be advantageous to the people of the Northern Territory.
This set of guidelines did not cover that. Thankfully, after some discussions this morning, the Chief Minister has agreed – it still has to be brought before us and debated – to look at a clause which will consider the case for bringing private sector funding to develop the port. At least that opens it up so we can go to the port – you have much more knowledge than me and I appreciate that – and look at the status quo. At the same time, I have worries about cutting it short.
During my lunch break I read the 2014 annual report for the Darwin Port Corporation. These are the people we need to talk to as part of our strategy to consult. The report said:
- Our stakeholders include but are not limited to:
Importers and exporters
Port operators
Freight forwarders
Mining sector
Oil and gas companies
Shipping lines and agents’ operators
Pearling companies
Commercial fishing and seafood
- operators
Recreational fishermen
Transport companies
Rail operators and users
Conservationists
Defence
Unions.
That on its own is a major indicator of who we should be discussing this issue with. We need to talk to the grassroots people who use our port. We also need to get an understanding from those people of the issues they face at present. We need to talk to the Darwin Port Corporation, which has an advisory board, about what it sees as the future. This document talked about the possibility of private investment in the port, so they are not shying away from it.
However, before we look at balance to commercial drivers for a private operator and consider the structure, duration and timing of proposed lease agreements – important, do not get me wrong – we need to start at the beginning, because if we want to bring people along, the basic question the community will ask is, ‘Why are you selling our asset?’
The big disappointment with TIO was the government did not consult with the people. It does not mean the TIO decision was necessarily bad, but the government did not consult. That is the danger we have if we go off with, to some extent, predetermined concepts.
The member for Blain – this is constructive criticism, do not get me wrong – said things have not been predetermined. I know – you can read through this report – the government has been dealing with various companies throughout the world and Australia asking for expressions of interest. Fair enough. That has been happening for quite a while. I question why we did not set up this committee at that stage.
My understanding of why we are rushing this is because there are some financial considerations that have to be taken into account regarding people who have already submitted expressions of interest. I did not necessarily get that from here. I have already travelled to a port in Victoria and one in South Australia, and the impression I get is you cannot leave these things for too long. Is that the fault of this committee? Is that the fault of Territorians? We have to balance the need to expedite this discussion reasonably quickly against the requirements of consulting. As the Deputy Chief Minister said, we need to:
- … engage with them before we make important and crucial decisions on the future of the Territory.
That is a good statement. I will keep that paper because it is something the government needs to be reminded of.
Five weeks is too short. When you say you are busy, people say, ‘Oh, yes?’ I have some important meetings at the beginning of March I cannot and do not want to get out of. They are to do with the Darwin regional plan, which is important for my area. I do not want to be locked into a situation where I cannot do other work. I sit on four other committees. One will probably finish at these sittings anyway.
You have to remember staff have to run these committees. They will not only have to rush around trying to organise where we go and who we talk to, they also operate and look after other committees as well. It seems to me the committee is rushed, which is not our fault; it is because the government has decided to bring on this consultation at the last minute.
It is important that we have this consultation. I give the government its due, at least it is starting to consult. The only problem is it is rushing the process more than it should. There would be nothing worse than if we rush the process and come out with a poor-quality result. We need to get a good-quality set of recommendations for the government. We need to work as a group, as you say, for the benefit of Territorians so the decision the government makes is understood by, and will be for, the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory, especially those people I just mentioned.
I spent a day at the Port of Portland. I also spent about three-quarters of a day at the Port of Adelaide. The big concern raised by exporters, shipping agents and stevedoring in Portland was they felt there was no control over the prices. They told me the price of taking materials off the wharf in Portland had gone up 10% to 12% above CPI each year, and they had no way they could stop that because Portland was a monopoly. That is what we are setting up here.
Victoria has an Essential Services Commission, which is like our Utilities Commission, which is supposed to make sure monopolies do not abuse their position in the market. My understanding is they do not worry about Portland because they claim that Geelong is competition. The problem for the woodchip industry is they cannot send their product to Geelong as it is too far by road. They have a high-volume, low-cost material, so they are stuck with Portland. There is a danger if you do not have the right regulation.
There is a bill before us that talks about the regulation. That is something we need to look at if we are going down the path of privatisation. Whatever form it is, you need to make sure regulations are adequate to ensure companies do not rip off consumers.
I am not against ports being privatised. All the ports in South Australia are private and my understanding is the South Australian Labor government did it. All the wheat ports and the main ports are privatised.
I have a problem with a company which says, for arguments sake, ‘We put in a bid for the Darwin port and we will give the government $200m. We will promise to invest another $200m in upgrading the infrastructure.’ That company has a $400m bill it needs to recover. One way to recover some of that money is by improving the number of goods that go over that wharf and doing it efficiently so you improve the efficiency of the wharf and get as much as you can through it. How do you increase the amount going through the wharf? Unless you are producing more goods, you take them from somewhere else and get them to come through our port.
The issue that worries me is if you charge too much and require too much from the company, the people who get hit are the exporters and importers. They bump the price up to pay for the $400m they had to invest in the port through the purchase price and the money they will invest. That is what I would like to see in detail to ensure the government does not ask for too much money. If you ask for too much money, it is very hard for that company to get that money back through efficiencies and it will more than likely increase the prices.
They are my concerns. I raise them as concerns I heard during my visit to those two ports. The visit to Portland gave me a good idea of what a middle-sized to small mixed port looks like. It is, in some ways, similar to us, except we probably have more bulk material in the form of minerals than Portland, which has mineral sands, and lots of woodchip and timber – bulk material.
There are issues about who owns what on a port. Adelaide Port owns the channels, pilotage, the whole lot. Portland might not have quite as much. I do not think they own everything. In the case of Darwin, the government has said that not everything would be privatised. Again, they are issues we need to look at.
We also have Defence. We are not just a standard port like Portland, which I do not think has anything to do with Defence; we have a Defence capability in the area. That is an important group we need to talk to in relation to how this would work.
I have one amendment the government is agreeing to. I presume the other amendment is from the government. I could get clarification from the government, but I was given an amendment by the government to the terms of reference, and I presume the government will go ahead with it. I can read it to you, but I cannot move it as an amendment because it is not mine.
They have added, ‘consider the case for bringing private sector funding to develop the port’, which at least allows us to look at the port as it is and whether it would be a good idea to put private investment in.
I move that the following words be inserted after the words ‘20 March 2015’:
- The committee may extend the reporting period if it feels there is insufficient time to complete its hearings, inquiries and write its report before reporting back to parliament.
I mentioned in the previous part of my debate that five weeks is too short. We will have another week of parliament, and that cuts it down to four weeks. This is a complex issue and we need to do it properly. Four weeks does not give us enough time to come back to parliament with the quality report expected.
I would have loved to have had much longer – maybe a few extra weeks. As much as some of our committees drag on a bit, at least you get the chance to sit down in a quiet moment, read the report and to try to gather your thoughts about it. If we are rushed to a timetable, I am scared that not only will we not speak and deal with all the people we need to, but we will not produce a report that is of high quality.
The other area we have to make sure we do not forget in this debate is coming back to the people. There needs to be an opportunity for the public to be part of this process. I can talk about all the people who use the port, all the finances and all the models, but people in the Northern Territory need to have an opportunity to have a say. The Labor Party said it should go to an election. I do not have anything against that, but the reality is that will not happen. This will go through before that election.
I would like a guarantee that there will be – and I suppose this might be up to the committee – adequate time for the community to voice its opinion about whether our port should be privatised. The government will do itself a great service if it does not go down the path of TIO, but goes down a new way of consultation with Territorians and engaging with them before – the key word there, ‘before’ – we make crucial decisions about the future of the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I remind the government members of that, because since all the kerfuffle occurred in the government, I am hoping out of that comes some real change and the government will consult.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will speak to the whole debate but start with the amendment. I acknowledge the comments made by the member for Nelson and understand where he is coming from in relation to this. I will wait for him to finish signing the document so he becomes alive to the issues I will raise.
I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, saying no; an extension of time is up to the Chief Minister. From a Leader of Government Business’ perspective there is one complicating feature to what you are suggesting; that is, part of the bills you have referred to deal with some pretty normal processes in fees and charges and the way they are being rolled out, starting on 1 July.
I suggest to you – and you will have to do some negotiating behind the scenes with the Chief Minister while I am on my feet – that if we are to go down this path the House would have to at least acknowledge that we will need to uncouple that other legislative instrument from the process, particularly if the time frame the member for Nelson is talking about takes you beyond that 1 July period ...
Mr Wood: I did not expect that, no.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, that is fine. I am just letting you know that one of the bills has that component attached to it. I am asking that you appreciate that. If we come into the House in the meantime and have to pass motions to uncouple those bills so one set of bills stays in the committee and the other bill remains in the public domain and is disposed of as a normal legislative instrument, then that mechanism must be made available, otherwise you will run into that 1 July time frame. In fact, we would have to pass it substantially before 1 July to allow it to go through its processes ...
Mr Wood: I wrote to the Chief Minister mentioning April, but I just left it open here.
Mr ELFERINK: Sure. It is just that we made a conscious decision to leave that material where it is at the moment because of the anticipation that this matter would be dealt with prior to that 1 July deadline.
For that reason, I make those comments in relation to the proposed amendment. I expect the Chief Minister and you will be having a discussion whilst I am on my feet talking more generally about the motion before the House ...
Mr Giles: I am not talking to him.
Mr ELFERINK: Right.
More generally, I make one observation in relation what I have heard today. It is a question of how the ducks are being lined up, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition. I welcome the comments from the member for Fannie Bay in relation the need for this to go to a committee. I understand his argument; if I was to paraphrase it, it is a step in the right direction but not far enough. I appreciate what he is trying to say.
What concerns me is that the language of privatisation has found its way into the vernacular of the members opposite, particularly yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition used her response to the ministerial debate to lay the platform for a future Labor government, should one occur in the Northern Territory.
If the members opposite will be legitimate in this process and their attitude towards this committee, then they are already pressing up against a structural problem they have created by making the announcements they made yesterday, in as much as if you want to go into a committee with an open mind then you cannot presume or pre-empt the outcome. This is the argument the member for Nelson consistently puts: that the purpose of a committee is not window dressing; it is a legitimate examination of the matters under consideration.
The Leader of the Opposition, however, has said that is already decided, from a Labor Party perspective. ‘It is already decided because we will take this to the people, no matter what.’ That places the Labor Party in a position where, come hell or high water, it cannot support whatever this committee finds, unless it finds its solution. That is problematic because this approach warrants examination, because it is potentially good for the people of the Northern Territory.
The position of the Labor Party – and this is true to their stripes – is that this must be all taxpayers’ dollars. The position of the Country Liberals government is quite different. We are saying this is, essentially, a business, and being a business it may attract business people to come into that environment and put private investment into some type of partnership arrangement. Philosophically, the members opposite are not necessarily against PPPs. The goal, when they went down that path, was a PPP arrangement.
If we are able to attract money into development of the port through a partnership and not taxpayers’ money, it will provide more jobs. That partnership does not cost us the asset if we do not sell it but merely lease it. We will be in an environment where we would have to seriously look at this. It is potentially good because it means more taxpaying Territorians providing more income for the people of the Northern Territory. That is why I am attracted to this approach.
The Chief Minister has been abundantly clear in saying he would sign in blood that this is not about selling the port. He is looking at a leasing arrangement and a partnership with a private business so that private business can continue to generate income and wealth and we, as a jurisdiction, can be the beneficiary of that approach.
As time passes, it is increasingly clear that the lines between the public domain and the private sector, because of the nature of how government operates throughout the western world, are no longer as clear as they have been in the past. If you look at the gaol as an example, those lines are becoming increasingly blurred.
We are not – and I have not heard the Chief Minister suggest we are – selling anything. We are looking for partners because those partnerships will generate any number of potential outcomes. If we were to say, ‘No, private over there, public over here and never the twain shall meet’ going forward, then we are asking the taxpayer to collect the burden. At the moment, the port’s infrastructure circumstances present a number of challenges to the taxpayer.
The question I would ask in such a committee is how will we meet those challenges? You either increase taxes, borrow or stop spending in areas like child protection, health, education or policing. As a consequence of that approach, by drawing a line in the sand and saying the two will never meet, we may be missing an opportunity.
The Chief Minister and the government are bringing before this House the idea that we should pursue an opportunity. Before the battle lines of politics get too entrenched in this place and in the public domain, I counsel, in the strongest possible terms, that the language surrounding this issue is tempered, at least until the committee has an opportunity to report back to this House on its findings.
I argue that members on the other side of the House should temper the language and say, ‘We will look at this committee as a serious investigation of the potential before us’. If the solution becomes apparent that this is a valuable thing which will generate jobs, union members and union funds into the future, then the Labor Party should not commit to a position simply because of an ideology – something it has been stridently arguing in the last few days. It said, ‘Allow yourself to be guided by the evidence not ideology’. Okay, stump up! Here is the opportunity to allow yourselves to be guided by the evidence. Allow yourselves to be taken on the journey. Do not pre-empt the results of that committee by saying this has to go to an election when a delay by taking it to an election may cost jobs in the short to medium term. We may see a situation pass us by where a potential investor says it is all too hard because it is too controversial. It may see investment capital go to New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia or Indonesia when it should be here.
Madam Speaker, for all those reasons I support what the Chief Minister is trying to do in this process. I understand that the member for Nelson is trying to make sure the time frames are right. I observed today that a conversation, albeit brief, was held between the member for Nelson and the Chief Minister. I place on the record my appreciation for what the member for Nelson is trying to do. I encourage the Labor members of this Chamber not to entrench themselves in a solution of their own making before they listen to the committee process, because it would be contrary to everything they have said in this House over the last couple of days.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, in speaking to the amendment, the member for Nelson and I are in sensible agreement about the approach to extending the time the committee can meet. I support the amendment.
Briefly on what the member for Port Darwin said, I always go into committees with an open mind. I will be taking an open mind into this committee. I enunciated in my contribution that we have a current party position. As always, when you are on a committee, you have to attend with as open a mind as possible. I will do that, and would appreciate as much time as possible to be able to do that. The member for Nelson has moved an amendment to the terms of reference to allow that. We are in sensible agreement that time should be allowed.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, are we speaking to the amendment or to the motion itself?
Madam SPEAKER: You can speak to the amendment if you want to, and/or the motion.
Mr GILES: I will speak to both in part, if that is okay.
Madam Speaker, it has been a great little debate so far. I thank the member for Blain, the future chairperson of the committee, for his contribution, the member for Port Darwin for his most recent contribution and other members of the Chamber.
They were valuable contributions. I acknowledge there are a few populists on the other side of the room who will try to run this as an asset leasing issue and a political agenda rather than looking at forecasting how we can support the advancement of the Northern Territory by building future port infrastructure to ensure we can meet a growing export demand in the future.
I take exception to one of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fannie Bay, when he was saying how important the fuel inquiry was as it is, and its time frame. One has to question his comments. The fuel legislation brought in by this government, the changes in the pricing regime, the pressures put on the fuel companies and the direction that has been provided between government and United – particularly through David Szymszak from United – in having a price leader in the market with that change, not just in Darwin but across the Territory, has been quite positive.
We set up a fuel inquiry to look at the bill. We thought we would do the right thing through democratic parliamentary process. Labor huff and puff about it, as it has today. Look at the participation in the committee proceedings at the fuel inquiry. The member for Johnston, Ken Vowles, could not even be bothered turning up at the fuel inquiry – for all the huff and puff, he could not turn up ...
Ms Fyles interjecting.
Mr GILES: The member for Nightcliff sat at the fuel inquiry playing on her phone, sending text messages and twitters to everybody, not actually worrying about Territorians and talking at the fuel inquiry.
The member for Fannie Bay turned up today with all his might and huff and puff saying, ‘Five weeks is not enough because you cannot work in an iron lung’. I understand one of the problems with Labor is it cannot work in an iron lung, cannot manage to get around to 10 different ports. I have already had a chat to the member for Blain about ducking off to Singapore, Hong Kong and maybe Shanghai, looking at some ports – Melbourne, Brisbane and Fremantle, for example – to start to identify some of the port management practices.
You can do all that in five weeks. You can use the library, the research officers and the committee structure. They do not like it because they know that Ken Vowles was too lazy to turn up at the fuel committee …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw that Chief Minister. Refer to members by their electorate names please.
Mr GILES: Oh sorry, the member for Johnston was too lazy to turn up at the fuel committee hearing …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw that too, Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: Withdraw what?
Madam SPEAKER: References to a person’s character.
Mr VOWLES: Standing Order 62!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Johnston, please be seated.
Mr GILES: Sorry, I withdraw. The member for Johnston could not be bothered turning up at …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62: offensive. It was quite clear the member for Johnston was sick and the committee was told that.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, please discontinue comments with reference to members.
Mr GILES: The constituents of Johnston, and those represented by the Labor Party, must feel disenfranchised and disheartened that the member for Johnston could not be bothered turning up to a committee hearing …
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, it is clear that the member was not at the committee meeting because of an illness. Please refrain from commenting on that.
Mr GILES: Okay, sorry. If, as politicians, we all take a day off when we get crook, we will just not turn up ...
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He keeps referring to something that happened, but I note that a minister from his side also did not attend.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, member for Johnston. Chief Minister, if you can keep to the topic, please.
Mr GILES: One of the points of reference from the member for Fannie Bay was the length of tenure of the fuel committee. When Labor members do not turn up, or play on their phones and not participate, it shows not only their inability to do the job, but their desire for a resolution within that fuel committee within a succinct time frame. You have based that same justification on a five-week committee hearing for the port. I find that ironic and, clearly, you are playing politics.
However, I spoke to the member for Nelson earlier this morning and agreed with him to bring in an amendment to the terms of reference. I put that as a new 3(a). The current 3(a) becomes 3(b), and 3(a) would now include a dot point and become:
- Consider the case for bringing private sector funding to develop the port.
That would be one slight amendment in the terms of reference, as agreed with the member for Nelson, if I read that correctly, from what we discussed.
I am happy to look at some of the merits. No doubt, Labor will try to play politics with this rather than do anything. They will send it to their little apparatchiks hidden away in their office upstairs and try to do something in regard to asset sales. Rather than looking after Territorians, they will play games again.
That is something we have agreed to with the member for Nelson. I have also had the opportunity to chat with the members for Blain and Drysdale who will both be on the committee, the member for Blain being the chairperson, regarding the timing of parliamentary sittings. The next parliamentary sittings after March is 27 April. We will amend that the parliamentary inquiry reports back to parliament on the morning of 27 April, at which point the legislation will be debated.
We will look at the legislation now to see whether or not any amendments are required in its timing. I have not looked at that today, but on this side of the Chamber we decided to move it from five weeks to 10 weeks. Let us see if the member for Fannie Bay can turn up at the hearings, unlike the member for Johnston who is too lazy to stand up for Territorians ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, please withdraw.
Mr GILES: We will see whether the member for Fannie Bay can turn up and be part …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62 …
Madam SPEAKER: No, he has withdrawn it, member for Johnston.
Mr Gunner: A question, Adam. Are you …
Mr GILES: It is Chief Minister to you in the Chamber, Michael, and if you have a point of order I am happy for you to jump up and ask it.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister and member for Fannie Bay, refer to members by their electorate names!
Mr Gunner: Are you accepting the member for Nelson’s amendment in the committee setting a new date, or are you moving an amendment to set the new date?
Mr GILES: No. The date the committee will be reporting back to parliament is 27 April.
Mr Gunner: Will you set that or will you accept Mr Woods’ amendment?
Mr GILES: I have just moved that as an amendment.
Mr Gunner: You are moving the amendment.
Mr GILES: Yes, I am still talking in the debate, thank you, member for Fannie Bay.
I have previously agreed on an amendment with the member for Nelson, which is the new 3(a):
Consider the case for bringing private sector funding to develop the port.
The second amendment at the end will be to change ‘The committee is to report by 20 March 2015’ to:
- The committee is to report back on 27 April 2015 at the start of the day.
We can then debate the legislation during that week of parliament. That is the two cognate bills, as well as the consequential amendment bill which I will introduce to parliament after this debate today. Those are the two amendments the government will be putting forward. Member for Nelson, we will not be supporting the amendment previously put forward.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I presume I can speak to the amendments?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Okay. Forgetting all the other stuff about whether the member for Johnston turned up at a fuel meeting, as the Chair of that meeting I can put it on the Parliamentary Record that I was told he could not turn up because he was sick. He had severe laryngitis, from memory, which is probably not a bad thing in the case of the member for Johnston because we did not have to listen to him. Yes, it was a genuine case of being ill.
Be that as it may, I appreciate and it is good to see we are working constructively. We might not always agree, but we have come to a good compromise. We have opportunities to talk about the existing port now, as it is. It is important that we look at that. We have opportunities now to make sure we have a bit more time to come back to this parliament with a report based on the terms of reference which is also important.
I reiterate that we have to make sure Territorians come along with this discussion at, hopefully, as many meetings as possible we have open to the public, and that they are advertised as open to the public. It would be good to have an educated public when they want to have their say. If we have discussions with the commercial fishermen, the mining industry or the oil industry at our meetings, the public will be invited to listen to their concerns as well. When Territorians want to have their say, they can at least have it from an educated basis. That is a problem with much of the debate we have. Sometimes people read it off the back of a Kellogg’s cornflake packet and think that is correct. Here is an opportunity for people, and for me as a member of parliament, to learn.
I already found that in my trips to Portland and Adelaide. I learnt so much in those days. I knew nothing much about ports except you put goods over and bring goods back, and in the case of the Territory, lots of moo cows. They are much more complicated than that. The member for Blain obviously has a good understanding of how complex ports are. They are not simple.
I should mention that two departments I forgot to mention that we must include in the discussions are AQIS – which is now called the Department of Agriculture – and Customs, because they play an intricate part in the port. We need to ensure they are part of this discussion.
Madam Speaker, I support the amendments the Chief Minister has brought before us, and I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
Leave granted; amendment withdrawn.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, speaking to the Chief Minister’s amendments, I thank the Chief Minister for considering these things. I agree with the member for Nelson that considering the case for bringing in private sector funding to develop the port is very important. I very much look forward to having those discussions.
I love economics. As I said in my initial speech, which addressed many of those issues, we need to spend time considering private sector investment because of the expertise it brings and the sheer inability for us to fund development of the port within our own means because of the fiscal position we are in, and consider the right partner, right place, right time and right type of partnership because of the complex networks that exist within global shipping. They are all things I am very keen to work out. I am also very committed to finding a good solid answer for many of the issues you raised.
I take the member for Nelson’s point regarding bringing people on this journey with us. I had many dealings with AQIS over time but not so much Customs. We might need to consider their work and functions on the port, as well as their thoughts in relation to that.
I thank the Chief Minister and support the amendments he has brought to the House because it will be in everybody’s best interests that we do this right.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the amendments.
The member for Nelson feels the amendment, ‘Consider the case for bringing private sector funding to develop the port,’ is strong enough to allow us to investigate the current model at the port, which is one reason he negotiated that with the Chief Minister this morning. We support that amendment. It could be stronger or clearer, but if the member for Nelson is comfortable with that phrasing and it gives us an opportunity to explore the current model at the port, we are comfortable with that and will support it.
I also support the amendment to change the date to 27 April for the committee to report. This committee is meant to take a step forward in rebuilding the government’s trust deficit. The Chief Minister’s contribution to debate has not been helpful in changing the government’s approach on these issues. The committee can be a step forward in having a conversation with Territorians about what happens with their asset, and allowing us time to talk with stakeholders and engage with people at the port. That is why we support the change of time frame. I do not think the Chief Minister was helpful in his contribution in trying to establish that new narrative with Territorians. If this committee is a half a step forward, then he took a full step back. If we are coming to this in good faith, as we are trying to, the Chief Minister needs to come in good faith as well. His contribution was not helpful.
We support the two amendments. Looking at the existing model at the port is important. We believe the committee needs more time to properly examine the issues raised and meet and talk with the people who want to submit to this committee. They will need time to develop those submissions. We also need time to consider those submissions, have conversations with them and report back to this House. There is a range of stakeholders and the member for Nelson read the comprehensive list from the annual report. However, the general community is not in that list. We do not know how much and to what extent the general community wants to submit to this committee.
Madam Speaker, we now have a longer time frame. It could have been longer, but we have a compromise and are happy to work with 27 April. If this is an attempt by the government to take a step forward in its relationship with the Territory people, that last contribution was not helpful.
Amendments agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Change to Membership of Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future
Change to Membership of Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, whilst there is no question before the Chair, I move that the member for Daly be appointed to the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Routine of Business
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that during the present session the Assembly shall proceed each day with its ordinary business in the following routine:(1) Tuesday and Thursday:
- Prayers
Business of the Assembly
Government business – Notices and Orders of the Day
at 2 pm:
- Notices
Petitions
Questions
Government Business – Notices and Orders of the Day
Ministerial Statements
Papers
Committee Reports Consideration
Matters of Public Importance
(2) Wednesdays:
- Prayers
Business of the Assembly
Government Business – Notices and Orders of the Day
at 2 pm:
Notices
Petitions
Questions
Government Business – Notices and Orders of the Day
Ministerial Statements
Papers
Committee Reports Consideration
Matters of Public Importance
from 5:30 pm to 9 pm:
General Business – Notices and Orders of the Day.
The essence of this motion is to move Question Time from 10 am to 2 pm every day. It will place us in accord with every other parliament in the country, as I understand ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, before I hear it from the members opposite, it was a road to Damascus conversion. I was Saul now I am Paul.
When coming into government we returned to a system that had been in place under a prior CLP government which had served that government well.
Unfortunately in more recent times, particularly since the Labor Party became the opposition in the Northern Territory since the 2012 election, the quality of invective of the members opposite has had the effect of creating problems in the subsequent debates. There is a wash-over effect from an angry opposition in debates that matter to the people in the Northern Territory, and to effective debate of issues such as laws that matter to the people of the Northern Territory. We understand it is important to have at least two hours of rational debate before the irrational washes over the members opposite ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I am amazed I am hearing as much noise as I am because this is what they said they wanted. They originally wanted a 2 pm Question Time. They have what they want and now you cannot keep them quiet.
I will not be one of those people who champions the – I am trying to find the right word at the moment and unfortunately I have only one but it would be unparliamentary – abuse of the parliamentary system the former Labor government used to have in place. Nevertheless, we are prepared to change our minds on this side of the House. That is what this motion represents.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I was looking forward to hearing the Leader of Government Business’ explanation for the Damascene conversion, but I was not expecting him to say we get people angry during Question Time, therefore, we were having irrational debate. I was not expecting that reason for the shift of Question Time.
I was not aware we had that great an effect on the CLP’s behaviour from 11 am to 12 pm based on Question Time experiences. I feel I go into debate at 11 am perfectly reasonable and rational. I did not realise there was this state of frothing uncertainty on the other side as a result of the terriers of Question Time that we are.
We were not consulted about that shift from 10 am to 2 pm. Obviously, the Leader of Government Business knows we are on the record at the start of this term with a 2 pm preference, which is what we had during government.
This did not go to the Standing Orders Committee. As I understand it, the media, which has a great interest in when Question Time is held, was not consulted either and has made some protestations about this shift. With this new narrative of the CLP government about consultation, in this instance there was no consultation. As opposition, we are prepared to take that because we have placed our position on the record. However, I know there are others who would have liked to have been consulted.
I was not expecting the reason for the shift from 10 am to 2 pm to be the wobbles the CLP had from 11 am to 12 pm as a result of Question Time.
Our position is known. I am fascinated by the Leader of Government Business’ shift of things but we welcome his conversion. There are a number of other things I might bring to his attention over time to see if he can convert on those as well …
Ms Lawrie: More epiphanies.
Mr GUNNER: We look forward to more epiphanies from the member for Port Darwin. This one obviously happened in more amusing circumstances than I realised ...
Ms Lawrie: More 1 am media conferences.
Mr GUNNER: Yes, I am just glad Question Time has not shifted to 1 am. We acknowledge this. We have placed our position on the record before. I would have been happy to have a discussion about this in the Standing Orders Committee, which might be the normal procedure. I know the media and others would like to have been consulted. We are on the record about our preference for Question Time and we thank the Leader of Government Business for his conversion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not know anything about it either. In fact, I could not care when Question Time is on as long as we have Question Time ...
Mr Vowles: 1 am?
Mr WOOD: At 1 am as long as …
Mr Gunner: As long as it goes longer than three minutes.
Mr WOOD: Yes. I must admit, I missed the reason. It is a bit hard to guess the reason. I was talking to the member for Blain about the debate we just had. Again, it says here:
- … this government will be more consultative with Territorians and engage with them before we make important and crucial decisions on the future of the Territory.
Obviously, because they have not engaged with me, this is not an important or crucial decision.
I will not waffle on any more, but what was the big reason for changing it considering you went to such effort to change it when you first came to government? I am confused.
Madam Speaker, I could not care less as long as we have at least one hour of Question Time and at least four questions from the Independents.
Motion agreed to.
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS AND STATUTORY OFFICERS (REMUNERATION AND OTHER ENTITLEMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 115)
(Serial 115)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act to provide the NT Remuneration Tribunal with the power to determine the salaries of members of the Legislative Assembly, including office holders. Under the act as it currently stands, movements in MLA salaries are directly linked to movements in NT Public Sector wages.
The Remuneration Tribunal, in its 2012 report on MLA entitlements, noted the current legislative framework removes the capacity for independent assessment of parliamentary remuneration levels based on the actual duties and responsibilities of Assembly members. The tribunal commented that this has had the effect of devaluing the base remuneration of Assembly members and office holders by not taking into account relevant considerations, which will continue to be exacerbated in the future due to the compounding effect of increases, year after year, which do not reflect actual work considerations. The tribunal recommended that these provisions in the act be repealed and replaced with a power for the tribunal to determine basic salary and additional salary of office for MLAs.
It also recommended the legislation provide that the tribunal cannot determine basic salary to be more than that to which a federal MHR is entitled, less a fixed amount to be nominated in the act. This would establish a salary ceiling which the tribunal could not exceed in determining a basic salary. This is a variation on the nexus which existed in earlier legislation whereby MLAs were entitled to a basic salary equivalent to that of a federal member of the House of Representatives, less $3000.
The tribunal reiterated its recommendation in its 2013 report, adding that rather than a fixed dollar differential in the legislation, it now favoured the use of a fixed percentage differential between an MHR and an MLA basic salary. The government has given careful consideration to the independent tribunal’s recommendation and has decided to accept it.
Expert advice from Mercer, a division of Marsh Mercer Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd, was sought as to an appropriate formula for establishing a proportionate relationship between a basic salary of a member of the House of Representatives and that of a Northern Territory MLA. The report recommended a range of different areas which will be investigated.
I will be pleased to make this report available to the Leader of the Opposition and the Independent member for Nelson if they wish. It is not government’s position but an independent report.
Accordingly, this bill places the provisions which link MLA salary movements to NTPS salary movements, with the power for the independent Remuneration Tribunal to determine basic salary for NT parliamentarians up to a maximum level of 80% of a federal MHR basic salary. This cap is an important governance measure to ensure that NT MLA salaries remain at a reasonable level, compared to salaries in other jurisdictions.
The tribunal will also have the power to determine additional salary of office for MLA office holders, and to determine the list of office holders who are entitled to additional salary.
Another important governance measure in this bill is a requirement for the tribunal to take into account the following matters when determining basic salary or additional salary of office for Assembly members: the nature of the duties and obligations of an Assembly member or office holder; Consumer Price Index movements; public sector wage policies; and parliamentary salaries in other Australian jurisdictions. This list is not exclusive and the tribunal may take into account other matters it considers relevant to setting parliamentary remuneration.
Transitional provisions have been put in place to ensure that existing parliamentary salaries remain in place after the new legislation has commenced, until such time as the tribunal’s first determination on basic and additional salary of office comes into effect.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
PORTS MANAGEMENT (REPEALS AND RELATED AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 113)
(Serial 113)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Economic Development and Major Projects): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Ports Management (Repeals and Related and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2015 (Serial 113).
As I explained in the November 2014 sittings when introducing the Ports Management Bill, my government is committed to implementing an improved regulatory regime for designated ports in the Northern Territory and to facilitate a commercially efficient Port of Darwin which will expand and grow in line with the Northern Territory economy.
The Ports Management (Repeals and Related and Consequential Amendment) Bill 2015 – hereafter referred to as the consequential bill – has been drafted to deal with a number of minor, related or consequential issues which were not incorporated into the Ports Management Bill due to time constraints. These relate in the main to conversion of offences within the Marine Act to ensure compliance with Part 2AA of the Criminal Code Act, consequential amendments as a result of the impending repeal of the Darwin Port Corporation Act and other minor amendments which have been identified since the introduction of the Ports Management Bill in the November 2014 sittings.
The consequential bill amends a number of acts and regulations to support the operation of the new regulatory regime created by the Ports Management Bill. Under the Litter Act, the Darwin Port Corporation currently has a legislative ability to issue infringement notices for offences. Advice from the corporation is that it has never used this power. Given the expected move to a private operator of the port, the consequential bill removes all references to the corporation from the Litter Act and also removes the power of the corporation to issue infringement notices. However, the minister retains the power under section 5 of the Litter Act to appoint a person to be an officer for the purposes of the act. This will allow the private port operator to seek appointments should litter enforcement become a significant issue at the port.
Section 8 of the Litter Act also has been amended to replace the Darwin Port Authority as a body which can certify ownership of vessels for prosecution purposes with the boat registration authority as defined.
The majority of the amendments to the Marine Act contained in the consequential bill are to ensure that offences are compliant with Part 2AA of the Criminal Code Act. In addition, the consequential bill:
amends the definition of ‘marine incident’ to make it clear that it covers incidents involving all types of vessels, not just domestic commercial vessels
removes a number of offences relating to obstructing officers or crew members in the course of their duties, and inserts them into a new dedicated obstruction offence section
amends the forfeiture of dangerous goods provisions and offences in relation to navigation aids so they mirror equivalent provisions within the Ports Management Bill
reinstates an obligation on the master of a recreational vessel to report marine incidents in which they are involved
transfers the function of administrative review of decisions made by the director from the Local Court to the recently-created NT Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal
includes moorings as structures which must be approved by the director under section 188A
provides a power to the minister to close waters for more than 48 hours
includes a transitional provision to allow the Local Court to finalise any administrative appeal lodged but not determined at the time of commencement of the consequential bill.
The Port of Darwin is currently exempt from the legislative requirements to register and be licensed as a major hazards facility under the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Regulations. Given the expected move to a private operator of the port, this blanket exemption has been removed by the consequential bill. However, the consequential bill provides that section 15, ‘Chemicals in transit in a designated port’, are not to be considered when determining whether a port is a major hazards facility. ‘In transit’ is defined to include goods which are supplied or stored or used at a workplace and which are kept at the workplace for no more than five consecutive days.
The effect of these amendments is that the Port of Darwin will continue to not be categorised as a major hazards facility unless it materially changes its methods of storage and handling of dangerous goods. Should this occur it will be required to comply with the major hazards facility requirements under the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Regulations.
The consequential bill makes a minor amendment to the AustralAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Act to remove reference to the Darwin Port Corporation and replace it with reference to the Northern Territory.
The consequential bill makes a minor amendment to the Fisheries Regulations by replacing the current definition of the Darwin Port with the definition included in the Ports Management Bill.
To ensure consistency, the consequential bill amends regulation 161(b) of the Marine (General) Regulations by referring to pilotage area as defined in the Ports Management Bill. It also removes regulation 23 which prescribes the Darwin Port Corporation as the operator of the Coast Radio Darwin. This role is now redundant as it is being undertaken by a private third party.
The consequential bill amends regulation 37 of the Marine Pollution Regulations to update who should be notified of reportable incidents. Specifically, reference to the Marine Branch, the Harbourmaster and the Darwin Port Corporation have been removed and replaced with the Regional Harbourmaster and the Port Management Officer for a designated port. This is in line with the new regulatory regime under the Ports Management Bill.
The Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority has requested that it also be included in the list of agencies to be notified, given it has taken over administration of the Marine Pollution Act and Regulations. This has been incorporated into the consequential bill. Reference to the Harbourmaster Nabalco Pty Ltd, Gove Harbour, has also been replaced with Harbourmaster, Alcan Gove Pty Ltd, Gove Harbour.
The consequential bill repeals a number of marine (pilotage) regulations given the removal of pilotage provisions from the Marine Act into the Ports Management Act.
The consequential bill makes a very minor amendment to the Mining Management Act by replacing the current reference to Darwin Port Corporation with a reference to the port operator as defined in clause 3 of the Ports Management Bill. The consequential bill also makes a number of minor amendments to the Ports Management Bill including:
amending the definitions of ‘buoy’ and ‘Port of Darwin’
amending reference to the Darwin Port Corporation Act to include ‘(Repealed)’, given the expected move to a private operator of the port
ensuring that the powers to approve the erection of structures in waters within designated ports are in line with the powers in section 188A of the Marine Act for approval of structures in other waters
clarifying that section 87(1), ‘Record keeping and reporting obligations of a pilotage services provider’ only extends to incidents involving a licensed pilot employed or engaged by the provider or a vessel that he or she has charge of
inserting a specific regulation-making power in section 127 to ensure that the regulator has the discretion to determine any matters about which guidelines should be issued among the prescribed matters relating to access policies and related reports
In closing, I restate that the consequential bill makes relatively minor and non-controversial amendments to a number of acts and regulations to support the operation of the new regulatory regime created by the Ports Management Bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 106)
(Serial 106)
Continued from 27 November 2014.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Children and Families for bringing the Care and Protection of Children Amendment Bill to the House for debate. It goes without saying that the safety and wellbeing of children is paramount and, quite rightly, a focus and priority of all of us in this Chamber and an area where we all want to make a big difference.
In the second reading of this bill, the member for Port Darwin discussed the need for us to look for more ways to increase the stability of home life of children and young people who come into contact with the Department of Children and Families. That goal, I believe, is shared by all of us in the Chamber, those in the Territory and national sector that I had the pleasure of meeting over the last month or two and by the community. We all want the best possible outcomes for children and young people in care through to adulthood. I know that is what the minister would like as well.
Also acknowledged in that reading was that conversations pertaining to providing longer-term stability to these children have been occurring for quite some time. Whether referred to as enduring parental responsibility orders or Permanent Care Orders, the intention has been one that successive governments have sought to achieve. Given the vast and far-reaching implications of policy decisions in this area, the design and implementation must be done thoughtfully and in collaboration with the sector that supports children and families in the Northern Territory.
There are positive aspects to this amendment. Stability for children in care – in particular those who are already on long-term protection orders and, therefore, family reunification has already been ruled out – is incredibly important. For carers to have increased freedoms around the day-to-day running of their family, for the department to take a step back and for those children to have greater opportunity at normalcy and stability is important. That the government is working towards removing stigma for those families by reducing the role of the department is a positive thing for children and their families.
It is important for me to acknowledge the non-government sector and its vital and important role in delivering services and support to children and families across the Northern Territory, including those that are in contact with the child protection system. Its commitment and work in this area is vital to the ongoing functioning of service provision in this area.
It was encouraging over the last week to hear the announcement from the Chief Minister relating to a new set of standards for how the government and non-government sector will work together going forward. At around the same time the government decided it would be a more consultative government. The media release from 12 February stated:
- This new Statement of Principles will underpin how NGOs and the Territory Government agencies work together to support Territorians in policy, program design and service delivery.
- Several new initiatives have been, and will continue to be, introduced to build the working relationship between the government and the non-government organisation sector, including a partnership group initially focusing on how both parties can work together in a more streamlined way.
And later:
- It reaffirms our shared commitment to working together to achieve outcomes for those most vulnerable and at risk within the Northern Territory.
This is music to my ears as I value consultation and collaboration. It makes us more responsive to community needs, increases our ability to share knowledge and resources, and means we have more effective policy and legislation responses for Territorians. I firmly believe this is where the government could be doing much better in relation to this amendment.
It was interesting to hear the minister discuss this morning misrepresentation coming from certain organisations or people across the sector. It was interesting because it has become clear to me from correspondence and my own conversations with the sector that the feeling in relation to this amendment has been minimal at best. The sector would like to be, and should be, involved in ensuring the amendment is as strong as it can be for Territory children. We all want to do the best we can in this regard, to make a difference and to create appropriate and strong legislation in the best interests of Territorians.
It would be good to get everybody on the same page with this and to hear what people’s concerns and thoughts are. To not involve the sector in a meaningful way in this process is certainly not the best way to achieve that goal or demonstrate that the NGO work is valued.
On 5 February a letter was sent to the Minister for Children and Families from NTCOSS on behalf of a number of other organisations which also expressed support for the principle of Permanent Care Orders. However, it requested that the NT government consider deferring debate in consideration of the Care and Protection of Children Amendment Bill to allow for appropriate consultation to occur. This is not an unreasonable request, particularly not of a government with a renewed focus on being consultative.
On Monday this week I also wrote to the Minister for Children and Families with the same request: to allow those who work in and have vast experience and knowledge in child protection and support of Territory families to discuss this amendment with the government, and any further potential amendments to strengthen outcomes for the Territory’s children. This was on top of two requests to the minister’s office for the projected numbers from a desktop study which we were told would go ahead so there might be an idea of how many children the Permanent Care Orders may be an option for.
Those requests asked for clarification about the consultation process which occurred, and to date no response has been received. This is disappointing, especially since in the second reading the minister referred to the potential for this to alleviate caseloads for child protection workers. It is possible that Permanent Care Orders are an option for a small number of children in the system. I do not want us to lose sight of the fact there are still workers in the Department of Children and Families with huge caseloads.
On Thursday last week, a submission was received from NAAJA and Northern Territory Legal Aid, supported by seven other community-based non-government organisations, making recommendations on this amendment. Sixteen recommendations were made on a range of issues, including cultural care plans, family support resourcing and who can be party to decision-making in court. I ask the government members whether they believe their consultation process has been thorough enough for these important points to be considered at any great length. The recommendations throw some light on issues which need more focus and work, including, but not limited to, investment on resourcing, early intervention and intensive family support services. More must be done to prevent, where we can, families from coming into contact with the system in the first place.
I thank the organisations I have had the pleasure of meeting with over the last few months, because I have heard of some amazing and inspirational initiatives occurring in the Territory and all over the country.
While we all know and believe it is the role of parents to act in the best interests of their children, this does not always happen and it is not the fault of the children involved. It also does not account for the families who do their best but, for a range of reasons, are unable to support their families. There are families for whom the transition from just coping to not coping can be avoided, because there are services wanting to provide them with the help they need. We should support them in doing so.
We have also seen the results of government cuts. I reflect on the announcement of $4.2m for the youth sector over the last couple of weeks, which is a fraction of what has been cut from youth services and Children and Families since the CLP government came to power in 2012. Yesterday, the Chief Minister talked about this funding saying:
- We have heard this message and have just announced a $4.2m funding package for regional youth programs focused on early intervention and prevention, which we believe is the key to tackling this issue.
I also believe strongly in early intervention and prevention, as do most of the stakeholders I have spoken to over the last few months. If the CLP government truly believes in the importance of early intervention and prevention, it should be taking those recommendations from NAAJA, NT Legal Aid and others for early intervention and family support investment more seriously.
We must continue to ask critical questions about how children and families who come to the attention of government and non-government services time after time continue to fall through the cracks. This is a job for all of us. It will not get any easier without the acknowledgment of important, consistent, culturally-appropriate and intensive family support, and its role in the ongoing work of family reunification, which is a priority where it is an option.
Stability is the overall message, and I am supportive of the intention of more stability for children in the child protection system. However, we must not forget that our child protection system and department is currently without a CEO. We do not know who the new Children’s Commissioner is, despite the fact that Dr Howard Bath left in December.
Mr Elferink: That is not correct; he is still employed.
Ms MOSS: He is not in the position currently.
Mr Elferink: I cannot replace a guy who is still employed.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: Get it right.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can we please not have interjections across the floor? Can we allow the member to speak?
Madam SPEAKER: We should have the courtesy to listen to the member in silence.
Ms MOSS: There are arguments for and against the ceasing of departmental support, including financial support for those who enter into Permanent Care Orders. I note the position paper in relation to the South Australian system – referenced by the Minister for Children and Families in the second reading of the bill – referred to keeping cases open within the department so families which might require ongoing support had more options. Given that we want placements to have the greatest chance of success, this provides families with that support should it be required.
I believe there is plenty of room in this amendment to strengthen what is currently happening in relation to care and cultural plans for children and young people under the care and protection of the department. It is incredibly important that the government commits to this and works to strengthen it in practice.
It is clear that while successive governments have, without a doubt, been committed to wanting to make a difference in the lives of children and families, we still have a long way to go. Prevention and early intervention is vital. Investment in education, training and employment is vital. Celebrating the achievements of our communities and making a concerted effort to listen to those who know the needs of their communities best is vital.
It is for those reasons I ask the CLP government to make the commitment that in the implementation of Permanent Care Orders they will do what they say they will in abiding by their own standards of engagement, and work alongside the non-government sector to ensure our children have the best opportunity for stability and connection to culture and family.
Additionally, we ask the government to commit to a review of Permanent Care Orders in 12 months which involves the sector. A review will demonstrate commitment to continuous improvement of Permanent Care Orders and of the system more generally, and provide that opportunity, with communities and the sector, to strengthen the legislation which has a huge impact for children in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I encourage and urge the government to chat to some of those people in the sector who have taken enormous amounts of time over the last few weeks to try to put something together. I hope it is considered by the government, particularly cultural care plans. I thank the minister for bringing the amendment to the House.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, as my colleague, the shadow Minister for Child Protection has said, we are very supportive of work to provide the best possible outcomes and support for all children who come to the attention of our child support system.
We acknowledge that Permanent Care Orders can be another tool in providing more stability for kids in long-term care who have been reluctantly determined to have little prospect of return to a stable life with their own parents or family.
We should also remain focused on promoting wellbeing through all the life stages of a child who has been in care. That should still be the big lesson of failed policies of the past, understanding that we need to focus on future adult wellbeing as well as child wellbeing, and that entails opportunities for children to stay connected to their cultural backgrounds and their biological families, to know who they are and where they come from. This is especially so for the adult wellbeing of Indigenous children in care.
However, these are not matters that are important for all people of all backgrounds. I have heard what the minister has said about these matters being part of a consideration of Permanent Care Orders. I hope he stays true to his word and respects the importance of those arrangements, especially for kids in long-term care who may be benefiting from those arrangements which can strongly influence decision-making.
I am still troubled by the provisions of this bill that relate to notification to biological parents of any decision on Permanent Care Orders – potentially a letter in a letter box. I note that kids likely to benefit from these Permanent Care Orders are those already in long-term care for whom, as expected, there would already have been exhaustive attempts to reconcile families.
Again I urge that magistrates review operational practice in making their determinations in relation to Permanent Care Orders to ensure, to the best of their ability, there has been appropriate contact and support for parents of children in long-term care who may be recommended for Permanent Care Orders and long-term care orders. Likewise, I urge that other relatives – grandparents, aunts and uncles, for example – also be involved in exploring the best options for the children in our care.
Of course, our loving and reliable foster carers are critical to this work. I congratulate those foster carers who have selflessly dedicated themselves to the wellbeing of children. I also want to ensure these foster carers are able to access continued support from child support workers as they embark on providing permanent care – that they are not cut adrift.
I note our past Children’s Commissioner reported an increase in the need for resolution of disputes between carers and the department in recent years. I urge that any such issues are addressed in a timely fashion to support our carers and provide stable, caring arrangements.
I am also troubled by the increasing number of kids coming to care and our declining standards in reconciliation of notifications. The then Children’s Commissioner reported in his last annual report that investigations had not begun or were overdue in nearly 1200 cases.
Of course, we would all be alarmed by the high proportion of Indigenous children coming to the attention of the child protection system and being placed in care. I know this is difficult policy and a difficult program area. We continue to have problems in attracting and retaining quality staff to provide frontline services.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the dedication our child protection workers have to their work and the difficult circumstances they continue to work in every day. In particular, I support the work of frontline workers, teachers, family, support workers, nurses and police who take the initiative of advising our Department of Children and Families of children who may be at risk. This important work is not assisted by the instability at the highest levels of government, nor the loss of another CEO of the Department of Children and Families.
It is not good enough to respond to criticism of increasing backlogs and attention to notifications by blaming the police for the increased reporting as the minister did last year, describing police as overzealous. It was simply appalling. We know child protection is an expensive business, both in emotional and financial terms. That is why we committed to our board of inquiry’s report, Growing them strong, together, and a new $30m investment to improve our child protection system when we saw kids were falling through the cracks.
I fear the momentum we created in improving our child protection system is waning. We look forward to early replacement of our recently retired Children’s Commissioner – I have been informed he is still employed as the Children’s Commissioner – so the Northern Territory and wider Australian community can have independent advice and confidence in the progressive improvement of our child protection framework.
It is also not good enough to say this government cannot do more in the area of preventing child abuse and that the heart of that problem is the Commonwealth passive welfare arrangements, as the current minister alluded to in estimates last year. Your government should be doing more to implement the broad-ranging recommendations relating to early intervention and family support contained in Chapter 5 of the Growing them strong, together report, and doing the best it can to invest in the progressive improvement of early intervention and family support programs, particularly young families in overcrowded and often unsafe housing, who are also struggling with low fixed incomes and constant financial stress.
I note AMSANT has suggested consideration of remote support for programs such as the Nurse Family Partnership Program, the work of which has been shown to assist in reducing child abuse. The current minister with responsibility for this portfolio is well placed to advance this type of work.
In the same week as the most recent Closing the Gap in Indigenous Disadvantage report which our Prime Minister described as profoundly disappointing, The Guardian newspaper reported the concerns of grandmothers against removals across Australia – some 15 000 children have been taken into care since Kevin Rudd’s 2008 apology to the Stolen Generations.
I also note that the recent sad reports in the national press – reporting on the 2013-14 Productivity Commission’s report into government services – said across Australia over 300 children were reported to have been abused by somebody while living in a foster home. I understand the intention of the Permanent Care Orders is to help reduce that risk by supporting long-term and loving placements. However, the risk exists. I believe, as do others, that there is still a need for the Department of Children and Families to have a role in providing ongoing support to parents participating in a permanent care arrangement both in practical support and the monitoring of the commitments made in making applications for Permanent Care Orders.
Another new report on the same day reported that Aboriginal children across Australia are 10 times more likely than non-Aboriginal children to be removed from parents and taken into care. That gap is increasing across Australia and is simply not good enough.
I note our recent Children’s Commissioner’s words that a key recommendation of one of the most recent boards of inquiry that led to the Growing them strong, together report was that within five years as much would be spent on child abuse and neglect prevention services and preventing kids coming into care as is spent on child protection investigations. Our eminent Children’s Commissioner also told the ABC PM program:
- … on that one we’ve actually gone backwards.
In December last year the NT News reported that since the CLP came into power in 2012 DCF staff levels are down by about 90, while close to $8m was slashed from its budget last year. While I acknowledge the merit of Permanent Care Orders for some – though we do not know how many kids are in long-term care – this legislation would have been enhanced by proper consultation with key stakeholders. We have called on you to defer debate on this legislation pending further consultation. You have chosen not to do that.
We support the intention of stable placements for kids in long-term care. We support families that want to commit to Permanent Care Orders. We urge more attention to respectful engagement with biological parents before their rights are permanently put to one side in the interests of the child. We call for more attention to cultural care plans, and that magistrates considering applications for Permanent Care Orders give weighty considerations to these issues and, where possible, the views of affected children and their biological family, as well as support for new parents accepting responsibility for the wellbeing of the children in permanent care.
Madam Speaker, I urge the minister to walk the talk and commit to deeper and more effective consultation in all matters to do with child protection, policy and practice. We must remember and learn from the lessons and the hurt of the past.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Johnston and Casuarina for their contributions. I will not go into as much detail, but I felt I needed to say something about what must be one of the hardest areas a government has to deal with. It is so sad that our society needs a Care and Protection of Children Act, but it does because we know that children should be protected.
We have had the Little Children are Sacred report, the Growing them strong, together report and we still have many kids who need care and protection. It is an indictment on our society that we seem to have a continual problem in this area.
I am concerned that much of the discussion is after the event. If we are ever to get on top of this – there were all the recommendations in those reports that would, hopefully, change things. There are many good people working in a very difficult area. I cannot say that if you fix this, this will change. I am not qualified to say that. I just say to those who work on the front line and the people who make the policy decisions, to not ever give up. There must be times when people in this area must throw their hands up and think, ‘Not again. Here we go again.’ At times it must be despairing, but in other times there must be great joy.
We have a bill before us which now enables families to receive long-term care for people who presently have intermittent care they are unsure how long will last. I feel this bill is worthy of support; it is a way forward. There is some criticism from some people who have written to me and to other members. I am interested to hear the government’s response to that. In general, allowing a child to have a more permanent home is good for the child and the parents.
When I first read this legislation, I thought this might be a bit tricky in regard to the bit about not getting any financial support as you did before, if you take responsibility of a child. I thought, ‘Oh gee, people might not be too keen on doing that’, but then I thought the people who want to do this do so for the love of the child, not the dollar. There is a genuine request from the carers that they have that child as their own as part of their family, not as someone they get a dollar for from the government. That is good and shows genuineness of the people caring for the child – that they do it for the right reasons.
There have always been concerns about cultural placements of children. Even though that is a fine goal, the reality is, when you look at the number of Indigenous children requiring care, it is probably impossible simply because there are not enough carers with the cultural background you would prefer.
The last page of the second reading said:
- Furthermore, Aboriginal children are overwhelmingly represented in out-of-home care placements. In making any decisions about permanency for these children, maintaining strong family relationships and cultural connectedness is paramount and consistent with principles under section 12 of the Care and Protection of Children Act. In determining the Permanent Care Order is the best means of meeting a child’s needs and safeguarding their wellbeing, carers will be required to give a commitment to maintain these connections. Again, this is consistent with current requirements for foster carers and adoptive parents.
That is important to people. If they are critical, they realise there are requirements in the act for that connection to occur where practical. It may not always be practical, so it is good to see that in there. I have heard debates in this area before; people are concerned we are getting another Stolen Generation. I have also heard debates from Aboriginal members of parliament in days gone by saying the welfare of the child is most important. Whilst cultural connection is important, it is not the most important issue. The welfare of the child is most important. Whilst we must do our best to ensure there is a cultural connection, in the end that needs to be the bottom line.
While we are talking about this issue, one thing I hoped the government would do after bringing out the Growing them strong, together report was something Lesley Taylor from NAPCAN always said to me. ‘The area we have to focus on is the area of parenting.’ The government has to try to invest more money into this as it is a difficult area.
From one of the committees I am on, we know many Indigenous girls of a young age are having children. Are they mature enough to parent those children? They may be, but we hope there is help for those young mothers to ensure they care properly for that child. I am not saying they do not, but there is an idea that people are having children before being mature enough to care properly for the child and know all the requirements to bring that child up in a loving, disciplined and healthy way. There are cases where that does not occur, sadly.
My wife, not that many years ago, worked at one of the schools in Palmerston. She used to look after many of the Indigenous kids who went to that school. Many of those kids had learning difficulties. I have no doubt many of those learning difficulties were because parents had no concerns about the children. They would be up late at night drinking, watching videos, and kids would come to school in the morning starving. Because I had a chicken farm at that stage, my wife used to use all the cracked eggs to make sandwiches for the kids. Those kids were not being cared for or well parented.
We need to keep stressing that the government makes initiatives to ensure we try, as best we can, to instil those basic skills of parenting – no matter how young the mother is – to show that we are concerned about mum as well as the child, but we are there to help.
As I said, I do not come from a background where I know all the issues, and there are people here today who will know much more about that than me. I thought I would reiterate something about Lesley Taylor whom I have known for many years and believe is one of those wonderful people who has spent her life caring for children. When she tells me that is where we should be going, I will agree with her because she knows best. I raise that issue as well.
It is also an opportunity to thank Howard Bath. I did not know he was still employed by the government. He is one of the finest people the Territory has had working for it. He has always had children at heart, been knowledgeable about the issues and will give wise counsel. In my position I have always been able to discuss matters with him, as he knew so much and he would give me advice that, in many cases, I would not be able to get from anyone else. He is a wonderful man. If he is still with us, hopefully working in the Territory, that is great. He is a great bloke.
As I said before, I also thank all the workers. There have been rumours about the CEO, which were mentioned yesterday. I put on record – even though she and I had a few battles in this House – that she was one of the main drivers behind the Growing them strong, together report. I was partly involved in that, along with Lesley Taylor and minister McCarthy. Jodeen Carney was much of the reason that report was written. When she was in this parliament she fought very hard on these issues, and from inside information, she was much loved by the staff. Although there may be something that may have occurred, one needs to balance the good with the bad sometimes, and be careful you do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Regardless of our imperfections in this life, let us not make them so big that we forget the good people have done. In the case of Jodeen, she has done a lot of good and we should acknowledge that and keep things in perspective.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I said I would raise a couple of issues. John Paterson e-mailed me the other day and raised a couple of issues. I will raise them so you can answer them, minister. He said in this letter to you, but he has also e-mailed to me …
Mr Elferink: I am aware of it.
Mr WOOD: Yes. He said:
- AMSANT is deeply concerned that the amendments to the Care and Protection Act are being introduced without proper consultation and that the proposed amendments will greatly increase the risk that children will be removed from families permanently without ensuring that other options have been thoroughly explored and that parents/caregivers have been given every opportunity to present their case for maintaining custody of their children.
It says further:
- AMSANT is concerned that the legislation is very weak on ensuring that the parents are advised about the order and have the opportunity to participate in the court case including with legal representation. This is of paramount concern given that the consequences may be the removal of their children. The provision of written information at the last known address with no requirements about the amount of notice that the parents must be given is totally inadequate.
It went on to say:
- AMSANT would also raise a concern regarding section 137M and revoking a permanent protection order which in this act can only be done by the CEO. It would seem a great injustice not only to the parent(s) and the child(ren) but also the family to not have the opportunity to apply to revoke a permanent order after it has been issued, be that soon after or even years later. We would ask this to be amended after consultation also.
NAAJA’s media release said:
- The proposed regime does not have sufficient safeguards to ensure that permanent care orders are made only as a last resort and Aboriginal children are able to maintain their connection with family and culture.
I have read some of what I thought covered that, as these papers came before me at the beginning of the week. I note – and the member for Casuarina mentioned it – they are claiming there was lack of consultation. I rang your office, minister – I hope I do not verbal anyone – and my impression was this has been around for quite a while. It is not new in the sense of a new concept, and it had been discussed by the previous government. I might be wrong there. Of course, sometimes things sit for a while and become stale, then when legislation turns up people have forgotten what happened in the past. I do not know, but consultation in this area of child protection is important.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope to hear from the minister in relation to some of the issues AMSANT and NAAJA have raised.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak on this bill as an Indigenous member of this parliament, but also on behalf of some of the families that have raised concerns with me and my colleague around the Katherine region, in my electorate, in Alice Springs and everywhere I have been to, even Darwin.
As much as I do not agree, I am not against kids being in care when they need to be. However, I have many concerns about consideration of them being permanently taken away from their family until they are 18, especially the issue of the family if it comes back together, trying to to get their kids back and not being able to. It is hurting the parents; it is breaking family connections.
Once you take one child out of a circle, that child will never go back to that circle. That child will be replaced for the rest of its life. This is how serious child protection is in Aboriginal families. I am sure we are well aware of that because we have spoken about this so many times in this House. Bringing that kid back into an Aboriginal family will take more than that child’s surname. That kid will have nothing.
That is what the government, from Stolen Generations times, has done. I am fortunate my parents were never taken, but I know a lot of families which still express that deep cut today, the emotions they have to experience about their kids or their parents being taken away. If you listen to some of the Aboriginal activists around Australia today, that is the biggest talk around.
The percentage of kids in the Northern Territory being taken into care has gone up and that is a concern to me as an Indigenous politician. Talking to NAAJA, AMSANT and working with grassroots people trying to put the best policies in place for these kids would probably be the best idea. But, we as politicians, and you as a government, cannot try to force this on Indigenous families.
I know there are problems. I grew up in an alcohol-fuelled family with drugs around us. Did I turn out that way? No. Not all of us do. We have aspirations. We have a lot of life ahead of us and we want to see that for our kids.
We need serious consultation about this. Rushing this through parliament will not do any good to the families that have already lost their kids – some that are grieving badly and whose kids have died in care. They can never be brought back.
I had to support a family in Katherine that lost two kids in care. That hurt me. I did not know the family that well. I knew their family as I have been around Katherine all my life. These are kids we are talking about. I have my own kids. This is something I am very concerned about. I would not want my kids to be taken off me until they are 18.
There is good and bad in everybody. We do not have to punish everybody. But we have to be very careful about how we put the policies in place. Indigenous people and organisations see this as another Stolen Generation. I am just being honest.
It is emotional, there is a lot of anger around it, and until we get it right we will not go anywhere. Where is the talk of closing the gap and bringing everybody together? This is a very big issue, especially in the Northern Territory, where there is a high percentage of Indigenous kids in care. There are a few of my family members in care. Yes, there are other good family members trying to get those kids back. This bill will take them away from us until they are 18 ...
Mr Elferink: That is not correct.
Ms LEE: That is what it says in there.
I am against adoption of children and I am sure the member for Namatjira is the same ...
Mr Elferink: Even by other family members?
Ms LEE: By family members, but at the moment there are – my own sister is trying to get her daughter back. It has taken her about six months to even try that. That is personal experience.
Do not get me wrong; I appreciate the hard work DCF does, but there are Aboriginal organisations which are happy to take these kids and put them in care so they can feel like they are connected and still part of something. When parents are on drugs, if they are on ice – the issue with ice at the moment in the communities and towns is just going up – I understand that kids have to be taken from that situation.
As an Indigenous person I thought I would hear from the members for Arafura and Stuart. There should be some concern about this but there is nothing. I cannot hear anybody speaking up about the Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. If they are members of the parliament, like they are, they would be out there listening to these people.
People approach me at the car wash; that is how bad this is. It is agitating because I always have to hear the stories. I am always trying to get a briefing on this, briefing on that, but it is hard. Where do we find the middle line? Where do we stop the hurt with these kids? The three little boys that ran away from care in Western Australia – what is going on? Why are these kids not happy?
What are we doing right, what are we doing wrong? When will we bring everybody together? When will the system be there to provide and protect these kids? There needs to be very big consultation around this, especially with Indigenous people because a percentage of the kids in care are our Indigenous kids.
The sad thing about this is that it will take away two generations and we will go back to the same place – the generation after me will be looking for ‘sorry’ again. Sorry generation of another Stolen Generation. What are we trying to do here?
I understand the hard work, but these are the kids I have to see and bury, and they will bury me. These are the kids I still live with today. I do not live in a town, I do not live in a city, I come from the bush. I am a bush member, I live in my bush in my home town. I only speak on their behalf. It is a privilege to be in this House to say what I have to say.
Of course, the minister for child protection does not want to hear this because that is the last thing on his mind. If you were out there in the community they would probably tell you the same thing: it is an outrage, it is a cry.
We do not have nuclear families as the western world does. I have 10 mothers and 10 fathers. We were not raised that way. Why are we not looking at this? Last year we had Indigenous organisations coming forward asking, ‘Why are we not given opportunities to take care of these kids?’ Why have they not been considered in the past to help raise these kids in care? They said the government will not even talk to them. Why are you not talking to any Aboriginal organisations about this?
You cannot enforce laws that continue to hurt people; you must talk to Indigenous people. These are the people who put you into power and the same people you are throwing it back to. That is a shame.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this opportunity will not be given again, mark my words on that.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to respond to the member for Arnhem. If she cares to listen I will explain to her some of the issues. But that opportunity will pass by me, by virtue of the fact she has just walked out of the Chamber. So much for caring.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you know that is …
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I am aware of the convention, but I agonise over being lectured to in such a fashion from such a naive position.
I really must start where she finished. I heard several people mention the Stolen Generations during this debate. Let me describe how the legislation which surrounded the Stolen Generations issues, and child protection legislation, worked.
Let us look at the Stolen Generations and the approach that legislation took. Public servants – often police officers and occasionally Department of Aboriginal Affairs officers or other officers of the Crown – were authorised to remove children of part colour from what were then called full-blood women in remote communities. The decision was arbitrary. Those kids were taken for no other reason than their mixed race background, and were placed into an environment which was considered to be care at the time. Any woman or family affected by that officer’s decision was not subject to any form of review.
Now let us look at the legislation we are talking about today for child protection. I will walk honourable members through the process so they get a sense of the safeguards that exist, and why the comparison between the two is such a monumental absurdity that anybody who relies on it as an argument against this proposal is being either irresponsible or deliberately reckless in their characterisation of the legislation.
When a person is concerned about a child’s welfare – be it a police officer or whoever – they contact Central Intake. In that office there are experienced childcare workers of at least eight years’ experience – if you include their academic training – at the other end of the telephone.
At that point an assessment is made at an administrative level as to whether or not that notification should be passed on to investigation. A substantial majority of notifications made do not pass onto investigations because the thresholds of neglect or abuse are not met, which is apparent in the initial communication.
Some of those matters are not entirely clear over the telephone, so those matters are then investigated. Once an investigation is commenced, a child protection worker looks at the circumstances surrounding the wellbeing of that child. That may lead to a suspected circumstance where a provisional protection order might be sought – if you like, an initial substantiation sufficient to require the seeking of a provisional protection order, which is issued by a court. After the provisional protection order is issued, a subsequent investigation is conducted and the matter is either substantiated in its entirety or not.
The number of substantiations, thank goodness, has not significantly changed over the last five or six years. There have been fluctuations, but they are well within the bell curve and the standard deviation. According to the Commissioner for Child Protection’s annual report, that basically means that whilst notifications and, consequently, investigations are going up, substantiations – that is the discovery of child neglect, abuse or sexual abuse – have remained reasonably static.
The next step is a temporary protection order issued by a court if the matter has been substantiated. Then a whole bunch of forces come into play in an effort to make sure we look at reunification as a vehicle to protect that child and keep them inside their family. We do that because we find ourselves, as a government, admitting this great truth: governments are not good parents, we are awful parents. Historically that has proven to be true, and it continues to be true to this day. I suspect no bureaucracy, no matter how well intended, will ever become good parents.
It astonishes me how many kids go through those government-run systems and end up being well-adjusted, normal human beings. Many kids come out of those places who are not well adjusted and have ongoing problems in their lives.
We then, of course, apply for a protection order. A number of questions are raised regarding the capacity for reunification to occur. If reunification is likely – even conceivable is probably a long bow to draw – and within the reasonable contemplation of the court, short-term orders will continue to apply, which means these kids will be placed into short-term foster or other systems of out-of-home care. If reunification is not possible then ultimately a long-term order is issued.
These days there are a number of appearances in a courtroom, which means the processes described earlier in relation to policies from the 1950s and 1960s are in no way reflected within the child protection system. It is only when all of those other options are exhausted and it becomes clear that reunification is unlikely that a long-term order is given.
I understand that 543 children in the Northern Territory at the moment are subject to long-term orders until they are 18 years of age. Some of those kids will be with foster parents, some will be in out-of-home care. For those kids it is impossible to imagine how they could live in that environment without building bonds with the people looking after them. Alternatively, I could not imagine looking after a child for a number of years, or even months, without forming bonds with that child. It would take an extraordinary person to remain that removed from the task asked of them or that they have volunteered to do.
There is a bunch of review processes placed along that pathway, including courts as well as professional people. To suggest that somehow this is a new Stolen Generation is such a departure from reality you would successfully be able to argue that white is black and black is white in the space you have to be in to come to that conclusion.
Permanent Care Orders are a vehicle by which a person who forms a bond with a child in their care feels that bond is of such a magnitude that it should no longer be merely an arrangement for the sake of the protection of that child, but a permanent arrangement which recognises that bond and, ultimately, will offer the child a level of stability the child would otherwise, in every likelihood, never know in their life.
I promised myself when I became minister for child protection that I would not buy into this emotionally, and would be solid and firm. However, I am not capable of being that brittle and have found this is emotionally one of the most taxing portfolios you could have because of the wreckage that neglectful, abusive parents leave in their wake in the pursuit of their own selfish interests or their incapacity to be parents to their children.
One of the first decisions I had to make upon becoming minister related to a file I received in my office. For the purposes of this conversation we will call the subject of the file Mary. Mary was a child who came from a remote community and had been placed with foster carers who also had another child. The other child, because of circumstances in her life, needed medical treatment which was not readily or immediately available in the Northern Territory. Mary had relations somewhere in the Northern Territory. We were not quite able to discover where those relations were. We thought there was a town camp in which Mary might be placed with a distant relative until such time as we could locate mum. We were not sure where she was at the time and God knows where dad was. Alternatively, Mary could have gone with the family because they needed to travel interstate to look after their first foster child. That family loved and protected Mary and gave Mary succour, a bed to sleep in, food in her stomach and a shoulder to cry on.
It did not take me long to decide what should be crafted for Mary. I hope she has a fulfilling life with her adoptive family, for lack of better words. It struck me just before I signed that paper that at my fingertips was an extraordinary power. I remember just before signing looking to see who was looking over my shoulder, in charge of me making that decision, only to discover the buck stopped with me. I happily signed it and I wish Mary the very best in life. That is the nature of the families these kids come from who find themselves subject to long-term orders.
People who have this loving bond with the children they have taken on still have to seek permission from the department to take the kid to the dentist, on holidays or out to do things normal parents would not even think twice about doing, because somehow the state is better than that relationship between the foster parent and the child. I could not begin to imagine how the state could be better than that relationship of love between parent and child.
All I am asking the parliament to do today is pass a legislative instrument which says it is possible to recognise the foster relationship is so close that if a person wants to, they can take that person as a child of their own, subject to certain conditions. We will not change their name or prevent contact with the genetic family of the child, etcetera; we just want to acknowledge the quality of love, tenderness and support a foster parent often feels for a child.
I pick up on what the member for Nelson said about payments. It gets to a point where it is not about the payments, it is about the relationship. Somehow, the payments might, to a degree, diminish the relationship.
I know of one instance quite close to me where there is a foster parent who will exert the powers this legislation enables as soon as possible because that foster parent wants to be a parent to the child they have, and may God bless them.
At the heart of my thinking – and the thinking I suspect of many people in the department about this legislation – is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The vast majority of people who work in the industry – in fact most people who ever walked on their hind legs and have an education – will at some point or another come into contact with the concept of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is basically a hierarchical structure of five tiers, of which the lower tiers deal with the fundamentals of human life. The first two tiers of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a pretty drastic oversimplification but will work for the purposes of this debate. The concept deals with the needs that humans have in sustenance, shelter, security and safety. At the top tier of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs there is the concept of self-actualisation. What many people do not realise is that implies something very important, the hierarchy of rights. This is something that informs me and is an important thing to articulate in this House and to people who work in this area.
The first two tiers of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs about shelter, sustenance, safety and security are, essentially, about fundamental human rights. It then must follow that if there is a hierarchy of needs, inexorably you are led to the conclusion that there must be a hierarchy of rights. The rights to food in your stomach, a roof over your head and safety is more important than rights to things like privacy or cultural integrity.
The reason I articulate this is that I will never allow a child, if I can possibly help it, to go hungry or be exposed to danger for the sake of a right to privacy or, ultimately, even a right to cultural integrity. We will attempt to abide by those principles. That hierarchy and those priorities can never be arse about face because if they are, there will be a calamitous outcome.
I also point out that the assertion that this automatically means an Aboriginal child will be removed from their family in certain circumstances is also misleading in one important way. Whilst a parent may be deprived of control or access to their child because of their neglect or abusiveness, it does not automatically follow that one of their kin is excluded in the same fashion. There are a number of examples where people are foster parents to their kin who are not necessarily their own children.
Those foster parents struggle with the day-to-day knowledge that their own relations have pulled up short in the area of looking after their children, and they stepped in. I believe there was mention on the other side of the House about grandmothers who were deeply concerned about the way their grandkids were being looked after. There might be an instance where a grandmother, uncle, aunty, cousin or nephew might intervene and seek a Permanent Care Order so they can create some security for their kith and kin when their relations who are the parents of that child could not. That is entirely possible and would be embraced for child protection on this side of the House.
I am aware of the letters AMSANT sent, and of the NAAJA media release. I understand their caution in this space. However, I find it inconceivable that a court presented with this legislative instrument would see it as some form of licence to step aside from the processes of trying to contact parents. I am sure any court, after they have cascaded through all of those other points along the journey, would be satisfied that the capacity to contact the parents had been completely exhausted by the time they deal with determining whether or not to make a Permanent Care Order.
Sooner or later, as a society we are compelled to draw a line in the sand and say the rights of the parents must ultimately be subordinated in certain circumstances to the rights of the children, especially when those parents are abusive or neglectful of their children, either by design or incapacity. When those parents find themselves in that place, their rights must be subordinated to the rights of the child to have a safe place to live, food in their stomach and a bed in which to sleep.
I heard the cautious statements by the members opposite. I apologise to the member for Casuarina for being short with her before, but this is a matter that engenders a certain passion in me, which is unusual.
Mr Deputy Speaker and all members of this House, I do not do this lightly, or with a trill of delight in my heart. I would rather this legislation be unnecessary because every kid lives in a house which is safe and secure, but it is not. There are houses for kids that are safe and secure, it just may not be their parent’s house. A vehicle which is as good as any parent must be created to provide that safety and security.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
STATEMENT BY CHIEF MINISTER
Cyclone Lam
Cyclone Lam
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I make a brief statement on the cyclone situation in northeast Arnhem Land. Tropical Cyclone Lam is producing gales across the Gove Peninsula as it approaches the northeast Top End. At 3 pm, Cyclone Lam was Category 3. It was estimated to be 140 km north of Nhulunbuy Airport and 170 km northeast of Elcho Island.
Residents in areas currently under cyclone watch or warning are being urged to closely consider advice from the bureau and emergency services. For areas under warning this means that your emergency plan should be activated. For communities under watch, this means ensuring that you have the appropriate plans in place and have your emergency kit ready. As part of your preparations fill bath tubs and any containers with water before the cyclone arrives. Do not use chemical or fuel containers to store drinking water.
Public shelters in communities from Elcho Island to Cape Shield, including Nhulunbuy, are open for those people who consider their current arrangements not appropriate for the conditions. Thirteen people have now taken up shelter at the Yirrkala Laynhapuy homelands centre, which can accommodate 200 people. Gove District Hospital can accommodate 300 people and 85 have already sought shelter there. Gove House can open as additional shelter should the other shelters become full. It is able to accommodate 300 people. Preparations are being made for a further 340 people.
As a precaution, residents at Wallaby Beach have mostly relocated to shelters in Nhulunbuy. There was no mandatory evacuation. The emergency shelters in Nhulunbuy and Yirrkala will remain open for those currently sheltering there and for anyone else who wants to attend.
The shelters on Elcho Island are now open and include Shepherdson College and the Marthakal workshop. There are currently 101 people sheltering at Shepherdson College. Residents of outstations on Elcho Island are being assisted to relocate into Galiwinku to ensure they have appropriate access to shelter.
As I have previously said, I have closed all non-essential government offices in Nhulunbuy and non-key staff are not required at work today. As the cyclone warning level is now at Category 2, private sector businesses in Nhulunbuy, and organisations, have been able to open at this time. However, employers are reminded of their duty of care to ensure the safety of any employees who are at work, and to exercise care in deciding to open. The police will work with licensed premises and bottle shops to determine appropriate arrangements for opening hours and sales.
I have closed schools in the immediate vicinity of the expected path of the cyclone and they will remain closed until further notice. Schools closed today and tomorrow are Yirrkala School, Yirrkala Homelands School, Nhulunbuy High School, Nhulunbuy Primary School, Nhulunbuy Christian school, Baniyala school, Shepherdson College at Galiwinku, Gapuwiyak School, and Milingimbi School. Ramingining School will also be closed tomorrow.
The Gove Airport is closed. The operator of the airport is monitoring conditions closely to assess when it might be reopened.
The emergency department of Gove hospital has now been relocated to Ward 1 and the entrance is now also at Ward 1. The emergency department will continue to function on a 24/7 basis, and emergency surgery will continue as normal. All primary healthcare remote clinics have activated their emergency plans and all remain open at this time. All centres continue to provide emergency services as required.
With the current cyclonic conditions, it is highly likely that fallen branches and other debris may be scattered across roads. For safety reasons, if you have been asked to take shelter you should not be on the roads. Rain over the next 48 hours may also mean weight restrictions are put in place for heavy vehicles, and/or road closures may be applied at particular points along the Central Arnhem Road. Please drive carefully if you are venturing out in these conditions and check the road report prior to travel. Do not attempt to cross flooded waterways unless you are sure of the depth and speed of the water.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I reassure Territorians in the impacted area that we are continuing to closely monitor the situation. Preparations are in full swing to ensure everyone remains safe. I again urge people to remain calm and listen to the advice of authorities. Please be careful over the next 48 hours and look after your friends and neighbours. Stay informed by monitoring local media and secureNT for updates throughout the day. I will keep the Assembly updated on the latest advice and news as it comes to hand.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Land Release across the Territory
Land Release across the Territory
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Mr Deputy Speaker, I know this will be very hard to believe but when the Country Liberals came to government just over two years ago the biggest issue facing Territorians was not the budget deficit, it was the land deficit. For the 10 years prior to our election, the median price in Darwin and Palmerston rose by an average of 11% each and every year. In simple terms, a house that cost $190 000 in 2001 now costs well over $600 000 – a 320% increase. Great news, of course, if you were lucky enough to buy a house before 2001, but dreadful news if you are now trying to get into the housing market.
The cost of housing is a huge component of the Territory’s high cost of living. It is for that reason this government has invested in the largest land release program the Territory has ever seen. An amount of $135m was allocated in this year’s budget to fast-track existing, and bring forward new, residential and industrial land release.
It is for that reason that this government has invested in the largest land program the Territory has ever seen. An amount of $135m was allocated in this year’s budget to fast-track existing, and bring forward new, residential and industrial land release.
We have been making some serious progress on that front. Seven residential subdivision sites have been released since May 2013 with the potential to yield around 5500 residential dwellings.
Palmerston has continued to be the centre of growth in the Top End, with land for over 2400 dwellings released in Zuccoli since May 2013. I acknowledge the suburb of Zuccoli began under the former government, with Stage 1 being released in 2009. However, as with other land releases across the Territory, it stalled and little happened until the Country Liberals were elected. We have managed to release the remaining four stages of Zuccoli in less than two years. It goes to show just how serious we take this issue.
Zuccoli Stage 2 was awarded to Territory Life in December last year and is expected to deliver land for 600 dwellings. Sales of the first 46 lots were very successful and construction is now complete with titles issued in mid-November last year. Zuccoli Stages 3 and 4 were released simultaneously to provide a boost of land for around 1700 dwellings to the market. This subdivision was awarded to a consortium called Costojic, comprising of the Costa Property Group and well-known local civil contractor Ostojic, in October last year. We are expecting works on this site will commence early this year. Proposals for the final stage of Zuccoli Stage 5 closed on 15 December and are currently being assessed. This stage will supply land for a further 450 dwellings.
Something this government has been working hard on is including affordability measures in all negotiations for these latest stages of Zuccoli. We have managed to secure an average price of between $160 000 and $180 000 for Stages 2, 3 and 4. This means there is not only more land in the market, but more affordable land.
Outside of Palmerston this government has released the Territory’s largest ever brownfield site. The 168 ha of Berrimah Farm was released on 10 October last year through an expression of interest which closed on 5 December. Three proponents – Gwelo Developments, the Halikos Group and Urbex – were shortlisted out of the EoI process to be invited to submit detailed proposals for redevelopment of the site which could yield up to 3000 dwellings.
Assessment of the expression of interest process was conducted by officials from the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, the Chief Minister’s department and Treasury and Finance, who made the recommendation on the selected proponents which were accepted by the former minister – and a very good former minister too. Following assessment of the detailed proposals, negotiations are expected to commence with the preferred proponent by the middle of this year. Berrimah Farm is an exceptional location situated between two major transport corridors, accessible to public transport and just 10 minutes from Casuarina, Palmerston and Darwin CBD.
Greenfield land release continues outside the Darwin/Palmerston region, with some serious land release in our regions for the first time in over a decade. Kilgariff Stages 1A and 1B in Alice Springs, you will be happy to know, are being undertaken by the Land Development Corporation with 32 affordable lots already sold. Local contractor, Sitzler Bros, has completed construction of Stage 1A with titles issued in late December 2014. Construction of the first homes in Kilgariff will commence early this year. The Chief Minister announced late in November that Stage 1B is now released, bringing the total number of lots available for Territorians to 80.
This government has responded to the local demand for housing by releasing suitable land in Katherine. Stage 1 of a new subdivision in Katherine East has been awarded to the local company, Downes Graderways. This 19 ha site is expected to yield over 100 lots and support more than 200 dwellings. Construction and sales off the plan for its first 71 lot stage will commence early this year. Affordable land is again one of the key objectives to be met as part of this new release, with an average price point of between $110 000 and $130 000 being achieved.
This government is continuing to progress the release of infill and greenfield sites across the Territory. Highlights for the rest of the 2014-15 financial year include:
three serviced lots in Palmerston for community purposes, which include childcare, have been released for proposals
expressions of interest have been called for the development of a prime block of commercial land on Whittaker Street in the heart of Alice Springs for a mixed-use residential, commercial and tourism project
planning is under way for a mixed-use subdivision in Farrar capable of accommodating up to 240 new dwellings
the initial stages of Holtze will be released during 2015 and will provide for approximately 1000 new dwellings. This stage will support the new Palmerston Regional Hospital and the surrounding health precinct
land in Kalkarindji will be released for development this year, and subject to the resolution of native title the regional towns of Mataranka, Timber Creek, Ti Tree and Pine Creek will follow
land in Peko Road and Udall Road will be released for residential and industrial development in Tennant Creek with construction to commence in March and the auction of lots in the middle of the year.
Additional sites across the Territory are being investigated and added to the program on an ongoing basis.
One of the first orders of business for this government was an audit of Crown land to identify any land that could be utilised for development. Seventy parcels of land were identified in the 2013-14 year and 21 lots were auctioned across Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Darwin and Palmerston.
Infill development allows development on appropriately zoned and serviced land. This infill program includes the 1.45 ha Sports House site in Fannie Bay that was released last year. Two private developers have been shortlisted to submit detailed proposals to enter into a joint venture arrangement with the Land Development Corporation for the redevelopment of this site. The successful proponent will be announced mid-year.
I am proud to now be driving the largest land release program the Territory has ever seen. I pay tribute to my predecessor, the member for Brennan, for starting that great land release program. This government is committed to ensuring that we have a supply of new residential land that makes it more affordable to live and work in the Territory.
To ensure the timely construction of dwellings, this government has undertaken significant work to cut red tape. The NT Planning Scheme is continually being streamlined. We have a development one-stop shop that allows developers and the general public to access information about both the development application process and current applications online.
We have amended the Planning Act to provide for a concurrent assessment of planning scheme amendments and development applications, creating a single process for rezoning and development in the planning legislation to save time and money. We have a new single process for unit titles which eliminates second-service authority clearance.
The MD sites now allow for subdivision into 300 m2 freehold lots. Granny flats are now allowed as independent units. We also have online planning applications and development consent authority agendas available online as well.
We have also streamlined the building scheme with the introduction of the Building Approvals Online which enables private building certifiers to lodge their building approval document online, again saving time and money.
Refinements have been made to the swimming pool inspection system. The Land Titles Office can now accept copies of pool fencing certifications and we have also extended the building moratorium.
Land administration has been streamlined with many new initiatives introduced last year, including development of a Land Policy Register and development of a new term Crown development lease, and a new online Crown land application system was also launched.
A new Aboriginal land unit was formed last year to advance resolution of native title and community living areas.
We have streamlined the survey systems with survey plan approvals occurring within days. We have adopted accredited private survey examinations and introduced three-dimensional technology.
Our spatial system is available across the NT public service and ILIS, the Integrated Land Information System, is the best land management system in Australia, overlayed with the most current aerial photography.
Our streamlining does not stop there. We are working on developing uniform subdivision and development guidelines and bonding arrangements for developers. We are proposing MR sites and freehold lots and an SD densification strategy, allowing developments on merit. We are also developing a community titles system.
We are also reviewing the zoning tables of the Planning Scheme to reduce the number of uses that require planning approval. For example, currently a shop in a commercial zone requires the approval of the Development Consent Authority. This could be one use that is permitted subject to normal requirements, such as car parking. Once implemented, the effect of this review will be less red tape burden on developers for minor and low-risk developments.
We are also considering the expansion of the exempt category for minor builds.
I am passionate about eliminating the height limits over the CBD. To this end, government exhibited a Planning Scheme amendment to remove the height limitation in the Darwin CBD, from 26 September to 24 October last year. The reporting body considered the proposal on 26 November, and I expect a decision in relation to the amendment to be made in the coming weeks.
I am proud to have responsibility for the Lands and Planning portfolio. This is a portfolio driven by staff with a can-do approach to working in a dynamic industry. While we have been tirelessly working to address the issues of the here and now, we have also been planning for the future.
The Northern Territory Planning Commission was created to provide strategic planning advice to the government. Its largest piece of work has been the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan. The initial concept documents were released for public consultation 12 months ago, and a long conversation with the public has since followed. Members of the NT Planning Commission took their ideas on the show circuit, speaking with people from Darwin, Palmerston and rural areas. Information booths were set up at shopping centres and at other public places throughout the consultation period to gather the views of the public.
The Darwin Regional Land Use Plan sets out land use objectives for the greater Darwin area for decades to come, including big-vision items like the next airport, the next port and future cities.
Despite what you have heard from the opposition and Independent members, Weddell is in the plan. Weddell was an initiative of a previous Country Liberals government and has been on Darwin’s forward plans since the 1980s. The notion that Weddell was the brainchild of the Wood/Henderson Labor government is, frankly, laughable. Commissioning a few reports and doing up glossy brochures does not provide land for one single house. One report that made an impression on the Labor government is the one stating it would cost $180m – over $200m in today’s money – to turn off the first lots in Weddell. That is the time Labor went cold on the idea, I reckon.
Planning for the future is not about one idea, it is about a strategy, which is what the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan provides. Maybe if Labor had such a plan, the cost of living and the cost of housing would not have skyrocketed so much when they were in charge. In fact, the hard-working staff in the Department of Lands and Planning tried to get the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan happening while the members for Karama and Barkly were ministers. However, they were not listened to. I understand 22 iterations of the plan went to the minister’s office to get a plan happening, but still no decision was made.
However, this plan is in the process of being implemented by this government. On 18 November last year a Planning Scheme amendment was exhibited to include the Darwin Region Land Use Plan as a policy document in the NT Planning Scheme. The exhibition was scheduled to close on 19 December 2014, but following representations from local members the exhibition date was extended to 16 January this year. I anticipate making a final decision on the adoption of the plan in the coming month.
We have achieved so much in just over two years and there is much more to do to support our development industry and the community. I have been in this job only a short time. I again pay major credit to my friend and colleague, the member for Brennan, who was the previous minister. He should take credit and be very proud of the work he has done on this. I am seriously looking forward to working in this portfolio. I know there are big shoes to fill, but the challenge is something I am looking forward to.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Review of the Northern Territory Youth Detention System Report – January 2015
Review of the Northern Territory Youth Detention System Report – January 2015
Mr ELFERINK (Correctional Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table this paper on the youth detention system in the Northern Territory.
In October 2014 a report into youth detention was commissioned following the opening of the Holtze prison. The opposition committed tens of millions of dollars to a prison, but aside from the Carney review in 2011, nothing much has been done in relation to juvenile detention. I am aware, as the minister for corrections for a couple of years now, that a responsibility has been cast upon my shoulders. I am by no means surprised by what has occurred. Covering what the opposition did not get around to during its 11 years in government seems to be a regular occurrence.
I take this opportunity to table the report which is titled Review of the Northern Territory Youth Detention System Report – January 2015. This is the report I alluded to in Question Time today when I took a question from the member for Blain.
The purpose of this review was to look at youth detention centres in the Northern Territory with the aim of examining the existing operations and practices to make recommendations that will inform future direction.
The person commissioned for the review was Michael Vita, a youth justice expert with more than 15 years’ experience managing youth detention centres in Australia who is currently the General Manager of the Reiby Juvenile Justice Centre in Western Sydney.
I asked for this review to be done after a couple of incidents which occurred that received a great deal of publicity, and even mentions in this House. Those matters related to violent incidents which occurred within the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre. I have made no secret whatsoever that I have been highly critical of the former Don Dale Youth Detention Centre in the Northern Territory.
The former Don Dale Youth Detention Centre and places like Aranda House have long since passed their use-by date. By way of example, I have mentioned in this House before that the dormitories inside the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre did not even have toilets, which meant the first time I visited those dormitories – I think there were six beds to a dormitory – I noticed the smell of urine. When I asked about it I discovered if a kid needed to go to the toilet at 3 am they had to wake a corrections officer to let them out of their cell and take them to the toilet.
I also noticed a scorch mark on the wooden ceiling in the ad hoc female section of Don Dale which was caused by a fault in a fluorescent lamp which had nearly caused a fire. There were a number of other infrastructure problems which were issues of great concern, including the fact the girls had to walk through the boys section to get to their classroom.
That occurred because Don Dale was never built for girls. It was never contemplated to have both a female and male section. Don Dale was designed to hold boys exclusively because it was unheard of, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, for juvenile detention centres to hold girls. How times have changed! It has also become apparent that in recent times the nature of the offenders we hold in custody has changed substantially, as evidenced by the events of late last year which ultimately led to the use of CS gas to supress the situation.
Again I congratulate the officers who were involved on that night and continue to support them in the decision they took. I note the Vita report reviewed that incident and concluded the force used on that occasion, as I said last year, was justified in all the circumstances.
Late last year I also announced the change from the old Berrimah medium-security section to a juvenile detention facility. Initially it was intended to cost only $800 000, but has cost $1m. We now have separate classrooms and a much better system of incarceration in place than Don Dale could ever have hoped to offer.
It also enables a level of security to be applied which is particular to some of the kids we have in custody who have been causing problems in the past. Nevertheless, it showed up problems that were apparent inside the system. For this reason I asked the Commissioner for Corrections to have this review commenced and I am glad he did.
The review, as I said in Question Time today, does not automatically give juvenile detention facilities in the Northern Territory a clean bill of health. However, it supports what I, as Minister for Correctional Services, long suspected – that correctional facilities or youth detention facilities should be less about the buildings and more about what you do inside them. That has been clearly encapsulated by Mr Vita, who has done an enormous amount of work to give some guidance to the corrections system.
I also place on the record that we, as a government, are under no obligation to release this report. It was a government report sourced and paid for by the government. There was no legislative instrument to ask or enforce us to table it in this House. However, I and the government have chosen to have this matter tabled, warts and all, so the issues we see surrounding these kids can be discussed in this environment with a view to having an open and honest debate. This is why we are showing this report to the people of the Northern Territory.
It has become clear that there has been an absence of standard operating procedures in the past and, from time to time, what is described as crisis management of the juvenile detention facilities. We are doing more than simply taking all 16 recommendations on board. We will either implement them into the future or, alternatively, they have already been implemented.
It is clear from our mix of offenders that we need training and specific skill sets to be available for the juveniles we have in custody as well as the staff who have to apply them. I am conscious – and spoke to some of the staff today – about some of the issues this makes manifest for those staff members.
The absence of a comprehensive system of standard operating procedures exposes the staff to criticism. Standard operating procedures and other equipment shortcomings, which have been attended to already, are a way to build a shield for staff in the sense that they are then able to apply those procedures in such a way that it avoids escalation of issues into the future. If an escalation does occur, standard operating procedures become their shield in any further investigation. We take the professionalisation of our youth detention workers seriously in the Northern Territory.
This review has also recommended the introduction of a multidisciplinary team approach in all decision-making processes. Detainees rarely present with a single issue, therefore, work has begun to develop stronger cross-agency and NGO partnerships with multidisciplinary teams.
It is obvious that many kids in my care as the minister for child protection are also in my custody as the minister for corrections through child custody systems. That means we have kids who have tracked through their lives on a rather sad and predictable path. We have kids in custody who have been neglected or abused – even on occasions sexually abused – by their parents. This is a matter of concern as it demonstrates that we continue to have a major problem in our community with indifferent parents, or parents who are incapable of looking after their children effectively. Those children then go on to commit offences, and those offences lead them into trouble with the criminal justice system.
I say on the record again, as I have often said in this place, that we are, unfortunately at our tier of government, cleaning up a mess which is directly caused by another tier of government dropping millions of dollars into this jurisdiction in the form of passive welfare every fortnight. We see that reflected in our hospitals, custodial environment, courts and, ultimately, juvenile detention facilities because these indifferent parents are being subsidised by a federal government that thinks that subsidy alone is a sufficient way to address a social problem. It is not. Nevertheless, we are condemned by virtue of this arrangement to have to deal with these kids in our custodial environment and that is what we do.
We have already moved kids into this environment. I note Mr Vita has cast an approving eye over another of my policies, which is the SEED program – Seek Education Employment not Detention – which, in many ways, is a manifestation or an extension of the concept of Sentenced to a Job.
When we have juveniles in our custodial environment and they clearly have disengaged with the schooling process, I have asked my corrections system to consider that these kids should be in the workplace. These kids in youth detention are often 15 or 16.
We lined up, as I understand it – or did late last year – at least one kid into a job. That kid’s attitude and outlook changed immediately when he realised he was playing in the big world, and he had to play very nicely in the big world. All of a sudden, he went from being a little so-and-so to somebody who was a contributor in the society and continues to be so, I understand, up until this day. I will follow that matter up for when I come back to this House once this report has sat on the table for some time.
The Seek Employment and Education not Detention program will continue to operate. I am grateful for the benevolent and approving eye Mr Vita cast upon that program.
I told the media today I do not want to be the minister for child protection or the minister for corrections. What I meant when I said that was that I take those duties very responsibly. I would love to live in a world where neither title is required, because there should be no need for them. I am still of the opinion that we should strive for that outcome, as unlikely as it might be.
I genuinely believe that simple things like having a job will give anybody direction in life, be it a young adult like some of the youth we have in detention or an adult in the custodial environment.
We have moved the kids out of the facility at Holtze. They are now in the new Don Dale Youth Detention Centre, and it will continue to be called the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre, which is the medium-security block at the old Berrimah prison. I also note that Mr Vita cast his independent eye over what we are doing in this space and he has acknowledged that institution is fit for the purpose.
It is not a new youth detention facility. NAAJA and other organisations believe the government should spend somewhere between $100m and $150m on building a new facility. That is beyond the means of this government. We have a number of other demands to meet in the coming budget which will not enable us to accommodate such a process.
The old medium-security block is, and will continue to be, sufficient and will provide security, not only to keep these little people in when they are required to be, but also to keep Territorians aware of the fact there is a institution which is sufficient to provide safety and security for the people of the Northern Territory.
The document is now public and I invite all honourable members to read it. It is a warts-and-all review. It is deliberately done to encourage debate. It is also my desire to ensure we offer the people of the Northern Territory an honest look into government even if, in this instance, it is not a clean bill of health.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to complete my comments at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate suspended.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Commence General Business
Commence General Business
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent General Business commencing at 5.15 pm and continuing until 8.45 pm.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Planning Act Regulations Amendment
Planning Act Regulations Amendment
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the RL1 and RL2 zones under the NT Planning Scheme be added to Part 4 of the Planning Act Regulations, thereby allowing residents living in these areas the right to appeal against planning applications.
This motion was before parliament once upon a time. It will allow people who live on rural blocks – that is RL, Rural Living and R which is Rural – to have similar rights of third-party appeal that are given to people who live in what they call residential zones. Residential zones, under section 13 of Part 4 of the Planning Regulations, refers to: Single Dwelling Residential; Multiple Dwelling Residential; Medium Density Residential; High Density Residential; CV, Caravan Parks; and CL, Community Living; plus part of the rural area is covered under RR, which is Rural Residential. There are some other groups that are also included.
Section 14 of the Planning Regulations is titled ‘NT Planning Scheme – when no right of third party application for review’ and section 14(3) says:
- There is no right of review if the determination relates to any of the following proposed developments on land to which a planning control provision applies:
Section 14(3)(d) says:
- any other type of development on land that is not a residential zone …
That is where the problem occurs. I am asking the government to at least consider changes to that which would allow people on rural blocks to be given the same rights as people on urban blocks in relation to a third-party appeal.
This is not a broad-scale change of the third-party requirements that already exist. They are limited already. You cannot appeal against the subdivision but you can appeal against certain types of development. That has been in the Planning Scheme for a number of years now. I am not sure whether it has been used, but there is a possibility.
When I first raised this a number of years ago, it was in relation to an anomaly in Howard Springs. A little of the Howard Springs locality is on the other side of the highway next to Palmerston on Radford Road. The member for Brennan might know there is a parcel of land there where there are very small blocks – only suburban size. They have been there a very long time, long before even Palmerston was thought of. They also back on to some rural land. That is where we realised there was an anomaly.
There was a block of land next door to the small blocks which applied to have dog kennels. You have to remember the small blocks and the larger blocks were all zoned exactly the same, as Rural Living. Under normal circumstances, those little blocks of land would have a suburban zone – that is a residential zone – and they could have appealed against the kennels. But those small blocks – again, this is historical – were zoned Rural Living, exactly the same as the kennels. The people on those little blocks could not make a third-party appeal under the act against the dog kennels.
Some people might argue to change the zone, but at that stage people were not interested in changing it. It simply highlighted the fact if you live on rural land that is 2 ha and 8 ha or bigger, you do not have a right to appeal. That is unfair.
Since that happened, a couple of issues highlighted the fact that this anomaly will continue, especially if the government allows more small blocks to be developed in the rural area. An example is that the minister has approved a subdivision in Humpty Doo for about 60 800 m blocks which back onto existing rural 2 ha blocks. If one of those rural block owners decides they want to grow mangoes – that is horticulture – they have to get permission from the DCA. If people on the small blocks – they are obviously not living there now – do not agree with mangoes growing next to them, they can put in a third-party appeal.
The problem is people on the large blocks of land cannot appeal against people on the small blocks of land if they do something they feel will affect their block. They will say, ‘If I live on this sized block of land, I can make a third-party appeal. If I am on a rural block, I cannot.’
This issue also arose at Darwin River and is part of the reason I have brought this back to the parliament. Many of you will know Diana Rickard, who strongly opposed a proposal for a workers village or camp on a tourist zone next to the Litchfield Pub. It was under the premise there was permission to have a caravan park and, using that zone, the developer was saying, ‘I should be able to develop it as a workers camp under the umbrella of a caravan park’. There was a range of issues people were concerned about – the effect of the amenity in the area, extra traffic on the roads, etcetera. The problem was a large concentration of people, theoretically, will live in one area. If government had given this developer permission to do it, the people who lived on the rural blocks had no right of appeal. That is unfair.
The minister for Local Government might be interested in this because there is a case coming up soon which I have written a submission about. There has been a request to rezone land on the Stuart Highway for industrial development on a triangular block. On two sides of that block is land zoned as Rural Living. It has the potential to be subdivided into 2 ha blocks. The problem I have is if it is not done carefully – if you look at the Light Industrial zone you will see there is a range of things people can do. They can have a veterinary clinic, a motor repair shop or a transport depot. If the minister decides to approve this development it will be suitable for light industry. If someone starts a trucking depot operating 24 hours a day backing on to the residential blocks, the owners of the residential blocks have no right of appeal because they do not live on so-called residential zones that apply in section 13 of the Planning Regulations.
It might sound like a little thing, but there are many people in the rural area who live on 2 ha and 8 ha blocks who would like to keep living that way. However, there are some issues in relation to conflict. As I said before, the issue with Humpty Doo is small blocks backing onto larger blocks. If the owners of larger blocks do something the people on smaller blocks do not like, they can appeal, but it cannot happen in reverse.
That is the same with this proposed light industrial development at Humpty Doo. I am not saying it does not have some merit, but if someone develops that light industrial land, there is a danger that people who may live on those larger blocks – where the land is quite suitable to be subdivided into 2 ha blocks – will not be able to appeal against that light industrial development if it inhibits their amenity.
It is not a difficult deal I am proposing. I do not think it will cause any major problems with government workload. I have not heard of many third-party appeals at all. The previous minister for Lands might remember whether there have been any. I cannot remember having heard of any. If we are looking at the reality of this change, I do not think it will be a big deal.
If I thought this would bring 1000 cases of third-party appeals before the government I would say it is a bit over the top. However, in this case all it does is give a level playing field for people in the rural area who may be in conflict with one another. It is not just between people on small blocks and large blocks. If people on a 2 ha block get approval to do something which could affect someone’s amenity – and it would have to be a serious effect on the amenity, not minor – presently there cannot be a third-party appeal.
I understand you do not want too many third-party appeals which can hold up development. It is limited under the act anyway, and is not broad scale. I use the example that there have not been many third-party appeals since this act came into effect. I do not think there will be a great outpouring of people having third-party appeals just because you expand what is regarded as residential.
It is a simple change. It will require the government to manipulate the regulations slightly. It might have a special clause. It does not have to necessarily say these blocks are regarded as residential; it might only have another clause under section 13(5) which says RL blocks and R blocks are also included in the section of the act which allows third-party appeals.
I am leaving that technical side up to the government. I prefer the people who know the regulations better than I do to make sure – if the government agrees with this – those changes are accurate and will not be subject to somebody saying we have to amend the act because I did not know where it should fit.
I will leave it at that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am happy to hear from the government and the opposition.
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for proposing this motion.
The government will be supporting this motion. However, let me put the rider on it. I will not be introducing or changing legislation until I have had a deep think about this and a few more chats with the member for Nelson. I have some sympathy for his position, which is why I have discussed with my colleagues the desire to support this motion. Ultimately, it is a motion with agreements on a number of things he raised which we support.
I will outline some of my concerns. As the member for Nelson knows, I know his electorate reasonably well. At times, I believe the member for Nelson oversimplifies things and is branded as anti-development because he does not like rural subdivisions. He seems to oppose most things proposed which, in some way or other, meddle in the rural lifestyle. Having said that, I also understand he is a representative of that electorate, is emblematic in many ways of it, and people in the electorate are proud to have him as their local member.
Having doorknocked that electorate – quite a while ago now, pre-1997, so things have changed – I realise there is an enormous diversity of people and lifestyles in the rural area. It is very hard to put rural people into one box.
When I doorknocked the area I saw a trucking business operating from a five-acre block in Howard Springs. Right next door there was somebody with a mango farm. Behind the mango farm there were a bunch of hippies who never cut their gamba grass the entire time they had lived there, and the shed looked like it was made out of cardboard and bits of corrugated iron. Next door to that was a beautiful magnificent mansion with manicured lawns and tennis courts. My point is you cannot say they are all happy hayseeds living in the rural area; that is not the case at all. There is a huge diversity of people there with a huge diversity of interests.
Not everybody in the rural area is anti-development. Some people want to be away from the bustle of the city, some buy a block in the rural area to spend enormous amounts of money on it. Some of the best houses I have ever seen in the Northern Territory are in the member for Nelson’s electorate – incredible gardens, tennis courts, swimming pools and horse stables. Similarly, some of the most rundown dumps I have ever seen are in the member for Nelson’s electorate. This is what makes the place so unique and such a wonderful place to be. People get along extraordinarily well. But to suggest they all think the same or are out there for the same reasons is somewhat misleading.
I recall going into one of these places which was overgrown. They were living under a piece of corrugated iron – in my vernacular, I call them hippies. Everything had to be organically grown; they had the permaculture garden growing. Their big beef was a fellow next door who was growing five acres of mango trees. They were livid that once or twice a year this guy sprayed his mango trees. I am sure the member for Nelson has heard these complaints. He was out with the fogging spray, and a little breeze during the day or in the evening and all of a sudden the next door neighbours, who were proud of their organic tomatoes, could smell pesticides in the air. I understand and have sympathy for those people.
I am sceptical about this motion for those reasons. I am worried you are opening a can of worms you are not prepared to deal with. At the moment, without this third party or the loose rules which apply there, everybody has to lump it and accept it. The minute things are put into law, those people who want to live an alternative lifestyle and grow permaculture tomatoes may well be able to rip the mango trees out of their next door neighbour’s lot. Similarly, the bloke who has spent a couple of a million dollars on his trucking business, that technically is completely illegal, may well be forced to pull down his sheds and move his business.
It is for those reasons, member for Nelson, I am sceptical. I support the principle that you should have some say on a development going on next door, similar to you have in urban areas. That is why I am prepared to support this motion. If there is a way we can sit down and work these things out so a vast majority of people are happy with it, I am very keen to do that. It is for those reasons that we will support your motion.
You will be aware, member for Nelson, that when the previous Labor government was embarking on taking a hard line on what defined a house, and a shed did not qualify as a house, you were not that keen on enforcing the law at that point in time. I understand why and I support your position. It would be drastic if we were to start turfing thousands of people in the rural area out of sheds because they were not technically houses. I would hate you to open a can of worms like that, member for Nelson.
Again, thank you for bringing this debate to the Chamber. It is worthwhile. Every now and again, as a government we have to look at these things. I do not hear that many screams coming from the rural area with people worrying about their next door neighbours too much – not as much as I hear in some of the suburbs of Darwin. Whilst I imagine it is an issue for you, I am keen to work with you to see whether something can come of this. I am reluctant to do anything at this stage, but we support the sentiment of the motion.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, the nature and tone of my response has changed a little in response to the measured approach from the new Lands and Planning minister. We support the member for Nelson’s motion. The new Lands and Planning minister made some very reasonable comments when he spoke on the issue about the approach he wants to take. I will not criticise the government for not having done this yet, but I believe it is something we should be doing. My remarks are quite similar to the new minister’s, which I was not expecting.
We agree also on the passion the member for Nelson brings to this House on these issues. He is very idiosyncratic in many ways in how he has applied himself to this part of the world. He is the Independent member, but before that was President of the Litchfield Shire. He is very much of the soil out there and has, without doubt in this House, an abiding commitment towards the amenity and lifestyle of the area. He has taken a very strong approach to planning in the local area.
I can understand why he proposed this and thinks it is important. Many residents who chose to live outside the major urban centres did so because they value the peace, quiet and proximity to nature they have there. They want to have a greater ability to comment through the third-party right of appeal. We understand completely where the member for Nelson is coming from.
Rural living is compatible with small- and medium-scale industry such as farming, horticulture, aquaculture, niche market tourism and more. How we embrace those things, take on board the feedback and provide the community with a stronger voice are all worth exploring, as the community is faced with more pressure to accommodate demands. We need to have sustainable practices, be sensitive to the environment and ensure we are not impacting adversely on the amenity and lifestyle of our community. We all agree with that.
The former ministers from our side were also open to these debates. I quote Dr Burns during debate when the member for Nelson raised this some time ago in 2006:
- An election commitment when first coming to office was that Labor would introduce limited rights of appeal for what are termed third parties to appeal against a decision of the Consent Authority under the Planning Act. As part of the review of the Planning Act, which culminated in the Planning Amendment Act last year, government delivered on its commitment.
Prior to these amendments the only person having a right to appeal a decision of the Consent Authority was the applicant. In extending the appeal rights to third parties, government is conscious that it does not create an environment to the detriment of people engaging in development or commerce that they have a reasonable expectation of being able to do according to the planning regulations of the day.
We have not seen a sudden break in development as a result of having those changes in place and studying their impacts. We made those changes, asked how they went and they were okay. Now we are open to this idea of how we can extend it. The minister has some concerns about this and how we make sure it happens in a reasonable and measured way.
Essentially, that is what Dr Burns meant when he said:
I will lay it on the record again, member for Nelson. We have had conversations on this matter. I have indicated to you – and I might even be on the public record in terms of this – that once the implementation of the planning scheme that is currently out for consultation is implemented, government, in time, will consider amending the Planning Act. I am more than happy to consider, at that time, extending rights of appeal. However, as I have indicated in my speech, it has to be balanced with people’s reasonable expectations who have bought some of those properties that they can develop them in certain ways.
That is almost what the member for Fong Lim said so we are all on the same page. We are probably going slower than the member for Nelson would like, but based on what the minister said, we are now open to the member for Nelson working with the government to present draft legislation to this House to test it. Both sides are indicating an appetite for action.
When the member for Barkly was the minister he said he was exploring it during his time in office. I am not critical of this government for not having done it yet; we were looking at it as it needs to happen. There are differences between us, the government and the member for Nelson on the question of urgency, but we are all heading in the same direction for once. It is a pleasure to say that in this Chamber.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for presenting the motion. We support it and the quite measured approach the minister took.
Mr CHANDLER (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will raise several issues. Minister Tollner and I had a discussion before about some of the things that have happened in the rural area. It is only fair I have at least my two cents worth to articulate why governments have not gone down this road before.
Member for Barkly, correct me if I am wrong, but a word of caution. The minister would apply a cautious approach to this, as would the member for Nelson. My understanding of people living in the rural area is they are pretty independent. They are represented by Independent members in many cases. My experience is they do not much like rules and regulations. They are very protective of their rural lifestyle and their rights and liberties to do what they want on their land. Any government or local member who wants to introduce a new regulation that might inhibit what people do on their land could cause issues for the local member. We should tread through these things carefully if we want to do something in that area.
I have sympathy. At the public meeting we had in the member for Goyder’s office a number of residents from the rural area raised a few issues with me. I go back one step before that meeting. I long had concerns about people using land in the rural area for business activities that technically do not fit the zoning of those blocks. You might have people living next to – as the member for Fong Lim said – a trucking company that has been set up in a wrongly zoned area. However, when you see there were not many options for many of those businesses, you understand. This government quickly looked at areas around Humpty Doo that could be used for light industrial uses so people were provided with options and were not forced to use land that was not zoned appropriately.
My worry was always that if a government came in with a heavy hand and said, ‘You, you, and you have to stop what you are doing’, it caused a lot of angst. If you did not have options for those businesses, it would be a very unfair approach as many of them have been operating for decades in the rural area. Again, there are very independent people who live in the rural area who do not like rules and regulations.
It should also be put on the record that the reason third-party appeal rights are in place in an urban environment is because people live much closer together; the lots are smaller. Usually, if someone is living on a 20 acre block next to another 20 acre block, what they choose to do on their block of dirt – even if they were playing loud music or using angle grinders or other tools in their workshop – will not affect someone who could be literally 300 m, 400 m or 500 m away in another dwelling. Compare that with living in Gunn. My place is about 1 m from the next house and if their angle grinder is on, I know about it. There is a big difference between urban living and rural living
The other thing to consider, whether we like it or not – and many people do not like it – is more urbanisation is happening in our rural areas. You only have to look at Coolalinga. More people will be living in the new units that have been approved in the Coolalinga area. With the type of zoning there, they will have third-party rights of appeal. Over the years, as the area develops, more and more people will have rights of appeal.
I agree with and have sympathy for the motion. I understand wholeheartedly the people I have met in the rural area at and following the meeting we had at the member for Goyder’s office. I have sympathy with those people who think they have been treated differently because they do not have the same third-party rights as someone who lives in an urban environment. I completely understand that.
Madam Speaker, as a government we should tread very carefully when we are applying a new level of rules and regulations to those good folk who live in our rural area.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I make a brief contribution to this debate. I heard the acknowledgement by the Minister for Lands and Planning that he is prepared to take this motion on and look at the issue further. I also echo the cautions outlined by him. There are a couple of issues I believe are worth making observations about.
In land in particular, you are dealing with a finite resource in, essentially, a two dimensional plane. If you grant rights for one, it is invariably at the expense of the rights of another. Many people move into these rural areas, as the member for Nelson knows, so they can stretch their arms and embrace the concept of liberty where you can run around on your back porch in the buff if you feel like and not offend anyone else except for the two bush chooks that happen to be in the flower garden at the time. People like to do their own thing on these blocks, and to introduce the concept of a third-party appeal is to erode the very rights of the people who moved to that area to enjoy these liberties.
I was amused to realise that it does have a certain declaration of independence quality. The member for Nelson interjected about the United States of America earlier. I can inform him that the author of the Declaration of Independence, Mr Thomas Jefferson, lived in Virginia.
You should well know how those people out there think. Just remember when you are busy going in to bat for one team, it will be against the rights of another team. Ultimately, you expand the rights of one person, but you will be doing it at somebody else’s expense, which is why the Minister for Lands and Planning is being cautious in this area.
Third-party appeals have a tendency to attract what, in law, is called the issue of standing. Standing is the concept in law that somebody who approaches a matter before the court should have some recognisable interest in that matter. I cannot remember but I believe the seminal case was the Australian Conservation Foundation against the federal government. In that case, the Australian Conservation Foundation had to prove – and failed to prove – it had standing and sufficient interest in a matter to justify its presence. This problem will invariably crop up when you are dealing with third-party appeal rights.
Whilst it is in the imagination of the member for Nelson that we are talking about next door neighbours or a person one or two blocks down, it is not beyond contemplation that the people who may be attracted to pursuing these things might be organisations like PLan, headed up by the ever-reasonable Margaret Clinch, or perhaps similar organisations such as the Environmental Defenders Office. I do not believe that is the member for Nelson’s intention. I am sure in the conversation he will have with the Minister for Lands and Planning he will deal with this issue as well.
The rules around standing might be sufficient to cover the field in the DCA hearing any application before it. Nevertheless, if you are not careful – and I noticed the member for Fannie Bay was careful to include the word ‘limited’ to do with third-party appeals – every planning application becomes an instant free-for-all for everybody with an axe to grind about planning issues, whether they live in Darwin, Alice Springs or Canberra.
That issue of appropriateness of people who have access to a third-party appeal will need to be contemplated very carefully to ensure the people standing at the table have a right and interest to be there. If you do not, things become complicated. Whilst I heard the member for Nelson say he does not imagine many people will come from the rural area to pursue these things, they may come from way beyond the rural area. Those people can be much more rampant in their intrusion on other people’s property rights – especially rural property rights – than the next door neighbour might be.
Madam Speaker, with those thoughts, I note the government supports the statement. It is a wise thing to do and the conversation should continue.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I take the points the member for Port Darwin raised. Do not get me wrong, they are excellent points.
The member for Blain mentioned being cautious. I believe I am, as this was debated in 2006 and the third-party appeals system has been operating since then. I do not have the act in front of me, but up until now it has operated well and I do not recall thousands of third-party appeals. The existence of third-party appeals ensures good decisions by the DCA.
You mentioned this might upset people living in the rural area. You must remember this only applies to new developments. I have five acres of mango trees next to me which are sprayed about 10 times a year. I know what it is like to have a shirt drying on the back veranda and smelling like carbaryl – not very good. But the mangoes are there and the bloke wants to spray them. He rings us and tells us we will have an evening drift of a certain chemical through our place, but that is part of it.
Down the road a guy is possibly using machinery illegally and there was one complaint. He might be outside the law, but he does not cause a problem and he works elsewhere. There is a bit of give and take in the rural area, which is a bit of a hotchpotch.
My house is not like the one the minister spoke about. There are some fantastic houses. It is funny that those fantastic houses are in the RR zone, Rural Residential which has a third-party appeal right. Yet if you drove through parts of the rural area such as Whitewood Park, which has little blocks, bigger blocks and 2 ha blocks, you would think it is all rural. Yes, but technically the owner of one block can appeal and the owner of the block up the road cannot. I am trying to get rid of an anomaly.
I take notice of what the member for Port Darwin said. I do not want third-party appeals to stifle development. The Development Consent Authority has become a lot better over the years. It has made sure many more things are ticked before it gives approval. There were, and are, cases where developers appealed against the DCA decision so it wants to ensure its decisions are well founded under the act. That can also mean there is a reduction in the number of third-party appeals.
This does not apply to existing developments, but to a new development. In the eight years since we debated this, I do not think there has been a barrage of third-party appeals. I note what you said, minister.
I laugh a little at the member for Fannie Bay, who said, ‘Gerry Wood is like part of the soil’. It is funny, today is Ash Wednesday and the statement is, ‘Dust to dust, you are dust and unto dust you shall return’. I do not know whether you made some religious connotations. Yes, I will be part of the soil when I am older …
Mr Elferink: Perhaps it was wishful thinking.
Mr WOOD: I know, I know. Yes, I thought the member for Fong Lim was wishing I was well and truly in the soil, but …
Mr Tollner: You will be around forever.
Mr Elferink: Only the good die young, Gerry. Do not panic, mate.
Mr WOOD: That is right. I heard talk about me being anti-development. I have heard it from the previous minister and today …
Mr Tollner: Not today.
Mr WOOD: No, not today, but you …
Mr Tollner: I said other people accuse you of being anti-development.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Yes, yes, yes. It is said to me a lot. I reiterate the number of subdivisions I have supported. Yet I received no acknowledgement that I supported those subdivisions. I can name 20 or 30 major subdivisions in the rural area I have supported. I supported Coolalinga, but oh, no, ‘Gerry Wood is anti-development’. There are units, duplexes – all sorts of buildings there.
I have opposed certain things the minister would know about – development outside the area it should be in or that is inappropriate. Surely my job as a local member – not just for my electorate; I am passionate about the rural area – should be done sustainably?
There was a subdivision in the member for Goyder’s area on Dalys Creek. I will not tell you the developer’s name, but he has been around a long time. He wanted to subdivide the wet areas at Dalys Creek. I went down there and walked that country – two or three 20 acre blocks – in February after it rained, and took photographs. The DCA at least took notice that you are not supposed to subdivide drainage areas, which is in the act and the Planning Scheme. Eventually that subdivision application has come back and the drainage area is one area. The subdivision has been given partial approval because some of the blocks are not suitable for subdivision.
I am not saying I am the only one who would have made some remarks about it, but I can tell you there were only two. The department people who happened to be there that day – and I was so happy to see them – were walking through the mud and the long grass as I was.
Who else will make an effort to make sure these subdivisions are done properly? What you have to take into account is somebody will buy that block of land and spend their life savings on it. I and elected members in the planning authority have a responsibility to ensure that block of land is suitable for what is proposed – a house and, if needed, a shed – and it is dry land so people are not flooded. That is a responsibility I take very seriously. To some extent, the third-party issue is part of that philosophy.
I also take the whole issue of planning seriously because when we create new developments in the bush these days, we are the first people – apart from Aboriginal people and a few blokes who run horses and cattle around the place – in this era to permanently change the landscape. It has not been changed for thousands of years, except by fire, cyclones and other events. Basically, we are making the first permanent change.
What happened in 1700 or 1800 in Britain has happened. We are now making the change. There is a responsibility on us to make sure the decisions we make are the right ones for future generations. I do not put that down as some greenie airy-fairy philosophy; it is a reality. We are the first people to make a decision to change that land. Trees will be knocked down, people will build houses, motorbikes will drive around it – all sorts of things. If we do not do it properly we have not done our job, not only as local members, but as members of this parliament. We need to look forward when we make these decisions.
I find it difficult when I am rubbished because I am passionate about planning. I do not like the Darwin regional plan. I said the other day I would love to sit down with you to explain why. It completely throws out rural development and minimum lot sizes of 1 ha. We fought for that; we presented a petition to parliament asking that no blocks in the rural area be smaller than 1 ha. The plan now has one-third of potential rural development containing small blocks. They are 4000 m2, which is what the Northern Territory population outside Litchfield regards as rural. We do not. If that is passed, the rural lifestyle we know is stuffed. It is a gigantic change, not a small one.
You are planning to put at least the equivalent of the population of Palmerston in the rural area, so I would love to talk to you one day. I am not talking anti-development; I am talking about planning, sensible development and retention of the rural area as an area for rural development. Some of that passion is to do with that.
I will give you an example because it will appear on your desk. A light industrial development on the Stuart Highway is coming up for your approval. I understand why it could be a good idea because we have a shortage of industrial land. I did not take it up with the previous minister but – would you believe? – the Spencely Road subdivision part two does not seem to have got off the ground, although tenders were approved over 12 months ago. There is a shortage of industrial land, and because of that people are doing things they should not be on rural land.
The issue you have in that case of the triangular block I spoke of before – you have to make the decision – you will see in my submission. This is an example of why there will be an anomaly if there is no third-party appeal. The owner can subdivide the block into 2 ha lots. The land on two sides of that block is RL, Rural Living. I dropped some mail into the owners of those blocks in Darwin because they did not know there was a yellow development sign up. They do not live on the property but have owned it for years. They were surprised there was a development next door. The problem I see is the owner of the triangular block has an existing right to subdivide their land into 2 ha. The land that is to be changed is zoned Rural Living and the owners want to change it to Light Industry. Under light industrial zoning you can do a range of things such as a transport depot, veterinary clinic, animal boarding or motor repair shop. That is good as we need areas for that.
But if a development goes ahead and some guy says, ‘I have a transport depot and will operate 24 hours a day. I am right on the Stuart Highway, a great spot.’ I back onto a 2 ha block which is not developed at the moment but the person might say, ‘I am not ready to subdivide. I want to wait another few more years to get a better price.’ You could then have a development which would reduce the price of the land next door and inhibit the amenity of that area. If it was a 24-hour transport depot and a guy who owns a 2 ha block next door has lights shining into his back yard, he has no rights of appeal.
Minister, that is where we have to be cautious in the way we develop. Most industrial areas are separate from residential areas. The Humpty Doo industrial area is about 100 m, maybe 200 m from the nearest house. The other industrial area is Holtze. There is a caravan park but, generally speaking, Holtze is nowhere near a residential area.
We try to put these things in the right place so you do not get people ringing saying, ‘I have this bloke panel beating at night and spraying the cars and it is all coming into my place’. To some extent, you need that third-party appeal if something has not been picked up by the DCA and it affects the amenity.
I appreciate that you will look at this issue. I put it in such a way that I did not make it part of legislation as such; I pointed to where the legislation applies. I would be happy to sit down with you and take up any concerns you have. I thought I would give you a little background. If I occasionally get a bit cranky about some things, it is about being told – I have worked with so many developers. Today, I asked about a drain and people said, ‘Oh, you are anti-development’. No, I support development but not that development that caused three or four people to lose their blocks of land that went under water. I told the planning authority those blocks were not suitable. They did not listen. I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars it cost the government to do the drain, and then they had to buy the blocks back. Good planning that is well done does not cause anybody any problems, but if it is poor it does.
The member for Fannie Bay just quoted from the Parliamentary Record. I will read a little from the Parliamentary Record when this debate was on before. I was referring to other members at the time – the member for Goyder I think it was, and the member for Daly. The members were different at that stage. I was asking for their support:
- Madam Speaker, I am disappointed I did not hear from some of our local members in relation to this. It shows you belong to a party and you are just one opinion.
I said:
- I am sure the public would like to know what that input is. That is why this is a House of debate. I am very interested …
Ms Lawrie, as it says here, interjected:
- Play the issue, not the person.
I said to her:
- Thank you, member for Karama, and may you live forever in your suburb.
I thought that was a bit…
Mr Tollner: Who said that?
Mr WOOD: I said that.
Mr Tollner: But who said the previous comment?
Mr WOOD: The member for Karama said, ‘Play the issue, not the person’. I just said, ‘Thank you, member for Karama, and may you live forever in your suburb’.
For the record and for the CLP, yes I did have some fights with the Labor Party from time to time, in case you think it was all one way.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Negotiation with Banana Growers
Negotiation with Banana Growers
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I gave notice of this motion on 26 November. I move that the government:
negotiate with semi-commercial banana growers or hobby farmers who derive income from the sale of their bananas for some form of compensation for the loss of that income
propagate and grow, in a quarantine area using tissue culture, varieties of bananas that would otherwise be destroyed and not be available after the banana freckle crisis is over, so that those varieties can be regrown when the ban on growing bananas is lifted.
Since that has happened there have been some changes. Madam Speaker, you and I were at a briefing the other day and I thank the department for a very thorough briefing of where we are at present with banana freckle. Even though notice of this motion was given in those days, there have been some changes, and pretty well everything I have asked for in this motion has been done by the government.
I will explain a little about what is happening – partly information from the briefing but also some comments I will make. There is no doubt – I have probably even lost a friend over this – some people do not want to lose, and are very adamant they will not lose, their bananas. I can understand that. I do not have many bananas; I lost them about six months ago. I got over the disappointment of losing them.
I felt at the beginning that there are some things you must do for the benefit of the wider community. Whilst it might affect you personally, which is understandable, there will always be some time when you do something for the good of the community, which is what this banana freckle program is about. There is no doubt there are people losing healthy plants which do not have banana freckle.
However, someone had to draw a line around where the quarantine area had to finish. Someone had to say, ‘If we remove all of these bananas there will be no banana freckle in that area’.
I used to raise chickens. If they had Newcastle disease, there would be no ifs or buts; there would be no chickens within a fairly large area of your chicken farm. If you have had foot and mouth, there would be total destruction. I think horse flu has also been mentioned. It is not new, but it is newer for Darwin. We have had other outbreaks, such as citrus canker and vine leaf rust, which caused a number of issues. At times we have had periods where plants were destroyed simply for the good of the wider community. In this case with banana freckle, it concerns the banana industry of Australia, which many people rely on.
Some people might say it is Queensland’s or New South Wales’ problem, but it is not. We might have our territories and states, but we all eat bananas and are all part of Australia. It is not a case of saying Queenslanders are trying to get away with knocking out all of our bananas. No, it is making sure the banana industry stays clean, green and yellow – I could also say bent, but that could have wrong connotations.
As a community we must realise the banana industry is not just about the farmer, it is about the people who work on the farm, supply the boxes, manufacture the boxes, supply the fuel and chemicals and supply the plants, tractors, trailers, sorting equipment and gas equipment for gassing the bananas. There is a huge range of people whose livelihoods depend on the banana industry. There are also the wholesalers and transporters. In the end, I would love to know how many people would like to eat a banana that is three-quarters black. That is not something many people want.
Banana freckle is not only about the look of the banana; it also affects the vigour of a banana plant and, therefore, productivity. But the look of a banana is also important. How many people would buy a banana like that? Even when you know it is okay, it puts people off.
There is a concern, which was mentioned at the briefing, that the message has not gone out as well as it should. This may have caused some problems the government is trying to address. There will be some people determined to the end that they will not support the loss of their bananas. People have to realise that, yes, it is painful. They can argue the case and say, ‘My plants do not have banana freckle’. This is not long-term pain, it is one year of quarantine without bananas. Then people can start again.
If we had Cyclone Lam come across Darwin, you would not have bananas. They would be the first things to blow over. You could not complain to the government about that.
We need to do something to ensure the industry not only thrives in Queensland – we must remember, we are losing our biggest banana plantation at Lambells Lagoon. Even though they are not happy about it, they have accepted that they will lose all of their bananas. People who might have a few bananas at home should go and see what will go at Lambells Lagoon. They are willing to see it out, stay the distance and come back and grow more bananas. I spoke to the owner – I cannot think of his name off the top of my head – and he asked me to make sure the message gets out that Darwin Banana Company will continue. They are willing to sacrifice a whole year’s production, and probably more than that, to make sure they can come back and grow bananas for the Darwin market.
Of course, we have some new banana growers operating in the Douglas Daly. To reduce the chances of them being affected by banana freckle, we need to make sure there is no banana freckle in the Northern Territory.
As I said, it is true there are some people who are not happy about it. But the figures I have are that the department rang 912 people and only 12 said no to providing information about their block of land. I reckon that gives you a fair indication that people are understanding the importance of what is happening.
The issue I spoke about first in the motion was about some compensation for commercial and semi-commercial growers. There is some good news. You have to understand that you have to be a genuine commercial, hobby or semi-commercial farmer. You have to show you made an income from your bananas. The way to show that is through the paperwork. You have to be a legitimate grower who has the receipts to show that you have earned money from those bananas. The government cannot provide money to people who were working under the cash economy. That would be wrong and the government cannot do that. It would be irresponsible.
Some growers are now being paid some compensation to clear their block of bananas. There is some cash flow, but at the same time the department does not have to put people in there as well. These growers are able to receive compensation for either removing, ploughing in or poisoning the bananas on their blocks. That is a good move.
The other area the government has looked at – again, where you have people who have the paperwork to show they are genuine growers who have been receiving an income from their crops – is a third-party assessor. This is an independent third-party assessor who can go onto a block, not someone from the department. Obviously you have to show the person that you earned money from your bananas so you can apply for compensation. I gather there are a few people in line for doing that at present. At least one person has received compensation and another is on the list.
I stress that if people want to receive compensation, they must have proof that they were genuine growers. It does not matter if you were a small grower or a big grower, if you have the paperwork to prove it, then you are able to get some compensation through a third-party assessor. It will not be done by the government, which is a good initiative as well. It keeps it at arm’s length from government.
Some of the figures at the briefing were that it is estimated there are about 8561 properties with bananas. I always like an estimate that is so accurate. A total of 5639 banana plants on those blocks have been destroyed. I do not know whether it is the bananas plants on 5639 blocks, or it is 5639 banana plants. I think it is the blocks. The department checks about 250 blocks each day. There are about 34 110 blocks which have been surveyed to see if they have bananas. There are about 5500 still to be done.
The good news is between May 2016 and April 2017 people will be able to register – they have to register – to get a permit to buy up to three varieties of bananas from accredited nurseries. These varieties will be grown from tissue culture so they will be disease free when they are sold. The department is looking to see if it can get 3000 or 4000 block owners to become part of that scheme because it wants people to grow those bananas. As they grow they will be inspected at a 60-day interval. They will be the test to see if banana freckle has gone.
We will have one year after April when there will be no bananas grown. After that, a number of people with a permit – they may have to buy these plants, I am not sure what the arrangement will be – will be able to grow two or three varieties. A number of varieties of bananas will be available and will be used and tested in the following year to see if we have banana freckle. Hopefully, if that is clear, people will be able to double up on bananas.
The issue I raised in the debate is some people have special varieties of bananas and are pretty disappointed those varieties will be destroyed. In the briefing it was obvious they can be tissue cultured. My understanding is there is a problem as quarantine laboratories are full to capacity. At the briefing they said people who want this to happen may have to pay for it. This is an area the government is willing to do something about but is still working on the plan. Mentioned at the briefing was one grower who grows many varieties of bananas – as you grow orchids, gingers or whatever – and for that person to keep all those varieties he would need to somehow get some tissue culture from those varieties. They would have to be grown in a quarantine area, and when the quarantine period was finished he could get those bananas back and continue.
Some people wonder who pays for this. A large proportion of this is through the states, via the banana industry levy, and in some cases where bananas are not grown, through the nursery levy. The industry is paying for a lot of it. The industry knows if this fungus gets into other parts of Australia it will be difficult for the banana industry to cope with it and will cause major problems in loss of sales and production.
There does not appear to be many people trying to move plants around. Obviously there are restrictions on where plants can go – not so much fruit, but plants. I get the feeling some people have concerns and do not particularly like what is going on, but the majority of people understand that this is not permanent and the government is setting in place some means of restarting the banana industry – whether it is a back yard hobby or commercial. It will get the industry going again in 2016 and 2017 and, hopefully, if there is no more banana freckle, we will be up and running again. The short-term pain people are going through will be forgotten in a couple of years’ time.
You could get a cyclone through Darwin tomorrow and you would not have any bananas left. It would flatten them and you would have to wait a good year before you had bananas again.
Madam Speaker, since I gave notice of the motion there have been some positive changes. I am happy to hear from the minister on this. He may have more information, especially in relation to tissue culture, as he has been on the news and Country Hour on the ABC about tissue culture. It will be interesting to see how the people who have varieties they would like to retain can retain them.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, it is nice to come into this House – and full marks to you, member for Nelson – and listen to some well-informed, reasonable and sensible debate. I am pleased that you and other members of this House on this side have taken the opportunity to be briefed on what is happening with banana freckle. It is an important issue in the Northern Territory, and something we have to get on and sort out. In saying that, I thank the member for Nelson for his interest in the efforts by government to eradicate this new strain of banana freckle from Top End properties.
I will give some background and run through a few of the machinations of what has been happening, then address some of the areas of concern for the member for Nelson.
The new strain identified in 2013 infects the Cavendish variety of banana. Previous strains existing in the Northern Territory and Queensland did not affect the Cavendish variety, which is the most popular commercially produced variety of banana. If I have been told right, it was the case some time ago that Lady Finger bananas could be infected with banana freckle sitting in a garden beside a Cavendish and the Cavendish would not become infected.
Some sort of mutation, or new strain of this fungus, has come about and now we have the infection on the Cavendish variety, which changed the game in the Northern Territory. Cavendish, as I have pointed out, is the only major commercial variety grown in the Territory. As members would realise, it is a major variety in Queensland and New South Wales as well.
I mentioned in Question Time this morning that this is the largest nationally cost-shared emergency plant pest response to date in Australia. It is on target to eradicate the new strain of banana freckle from the Territory. There are currently over a 100 personnel working from the control and coordination centre in Winnellie. Up to 70 field teams are supported by specialist planners, geospatial or mapping information experts and logistics personnel.
This is a whole-of-government response and my Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries is supported by many Northern Territory government agencies, including Police, Education, and Housing. Before this major response occurred, the initial response involved government as well. All the agencies within government were asked to provide personnel for the initial response. I congratulate all of the agencies which provided personnel to support the DPIF during the initial stages of that first program.
The local governments of Darwin, Litchfield, Daly River and Palmerston are also actively supporting this eradication program with services and on-the-ground resources. The Australian Defence Force has also played a part by destroying all banana plants on their bases across the Northern Territory.
During the first 12 months of the program to eradicate this new strain of banana freckle on Cavendish, teams worked to identify the distribution of the disease and then remove plants from known infected premises. As the program progressed it became apparent that the disease was more widespread in the infected red zones, and new information on the disease biology was also gathered.
All of this updated information was reviewed by a panel of national experts established to provide advice on the response necessary to eradicate the new strain of this disease. This expert panel concluded that the approach currently in place was the most effective option to eradicate the new strain of banana freckle, not just from the Northern Territory, but also from Australia.
This approach was endorsed by the national management group, which has representatives from affected industry associations, the Commonwealth, and all state and territory governments. There are a couple of cases that have to be made when the plan is approved at national management group level. One is that it is technically feasible to eradicate the disease – or the fungus in this case – and that it is cost effective or a business case supports it, given the cost-benefit analysis. Clearly it passed both hurdles to get to where we are today.
The current approach involves the removal and destruction of all banana plants in six zones across the Top End. The six eradication zones are the Darwin region, which includes all properties north of Manton Dam and west of Marrakai, extending to the NT coastline. Then there is the Rum Jungle/Batchelor area, Dundee Beach, Daly River, Milikapiti and Ramingining.
The destruction of all the banana plants from the Northern Territory eradication red zones by the end of April is on target. As I said, this is the largest emergency plant pest program ever undertaken in Australia, and that should never be forgotten. This is huge.
All Australian states and territories and the banana industry are committed to supporting the Northern Territory to eradicate this new strain. Industry and community support and cooperation has played a key part in delivering the results to date, with Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia completing surveillance to show that the new strain of banana freckle is not present in their state; thank goodness for that.
This government takes biosecurity very seriously. My Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries works closely with farmers to protect our primary industries and detect, manage and resolve issues when they occur. The Northern Territory has managed to successfully eradicate a number of exotic pests or diseases of horticultural crops in the past, including citrus canker, Philippine fruit fly and, more recently, grapevine leaf rust. The same strain of banana freckle was eradicated twice from Western Australia, in Kununurra in 1979 and Kalumburu in 2001.
Progress with the destruction of banana plants from the eradication red zones includes local communities from Tiwi – Milikapiti – and Ramingining. Eradication zones have destroyed all banana plants, so two zones are complete. Surveillance for the absence or presence of banana plants has been completed for more than 34 110 properties. It might be marginally different from your figure, member for Nelson. Those premises were all in the eradication red zones. Surveillance in the Darwin rural area is 84% complete and that surveillance has identified 8561 premises with banana plants in the eradication red zones. Banana plants have been destroyed from 5639 premises across all eradication zones, making it more than two-thirds complete.
Householders have undertaken their own destruction on more than 10% of those premises where destruction is complete. In anyone’s language, that is a high level of community participation. I congratulate and thank all of those people involved, because they have made our job much easier.
I take the opportunity to clarify a statement I made earlier in the day in Question Time. Destruction is being completed on about 100 premises per day and surveillance is complete for 150-plus premises per day – I think I said 250 this morning.
The management of high-risk movements of banana plants is an important part of the program. Thanks to the efforts of enterprises handling banana plants and the fruit, and the community, there has been a high level of compliance with movement controls, which are necessary to ensure the banana plants do not move outside eradication red zones.
Surveillance in the areas of the Northern Territory outside eradication red zones has shown banana freckle is not present in these areas. Fruit and vegetable distributors have worked with the banana freckle management team to ensure banana fruit continues to be available to Territorians. There is a good supply of bananas. Every time I walk into Woolworths or Coles, there are plenty of bananas on the shelf and I have never been left wanting for them.
In regard to compensation, there is a nationally funded compensation scheme known as the owner reimbursement costs, or ORC, available to enterprises that demonstrate they meet the nationally endorsed eligibility criteria. All banana growers can submit an application under this scheme.
So far under the scheme, one payment has been made, another has been finalised for payment and a further seven are being assessed by a third-party expert agreed to by industry and by government. I note the comments from the member for Nelson in regard to this. I do not need to cover it as he has done a succinct job of detailing what it takes for people to be eligible for compensation. Not everybody can be, which is regrettable for many people and is probably the cause of some of the pushback government has been getting. At the end of the day, we must be very careful how we manage reimbursement for the loss, lest we set a very dangerous precedent and dive more deeply than we would ever have expected into government coffers. The member for Nelson said that people who are operating in a cash economy cannot expect to qualify for compensation.
The banana freckle eradication program has received widespread support from many local industries and businesses that have provided a range of services, equipment, resources and stores. The amount of cooperation we have received from the community has been outstanding.
I was advised fairly recently that in less than 0.5% of cases have we received any form of aggression or pushback from the program. Less than 0.5% of people we have been in contact with have shown some sign of displeasure or resistance. In the scheme of things, that is quite a low number. Nonetheless, we will continue to work very closely with those people to try to win them over. We do not want to be in a position where we are forcing ourselves upon people. When I say ‘we’ I mean the inspectors who are working for the eradication teams. We would like to resolve those differences amicably and make sure that people do the right thing so we can eradicate this.
I will reinforce something I said this morning. Biosecurity is a big issue for the Territory. In the case of banana freckle, if we have it here we simply will not have a commercial industry into the future. I can assure you that bananas that would be theoretically grown in the Northern Territory while banana freckle is still present could never be transported interstate. You would end up with the potential of only local bananas being bought and sold in the Territory. I do not know if that is sustainable, given what I know about growth plans for the Darwin Banana Farm, and some other commercial growers that are beginning in the early stages of their development.
To repeat this morning’s words: those people who resist the efforts of the banana freckle program are compromising and placing in jeopardy the biosecurity of the Northern Territory with regard to this disease. I do not mean that to sound combative, but I need people to understand there could be some implications from the resistance they are showing. I hope we are able to work with people and negotiate through that.
The member for Nelson pointed out in his remarks that Top End households and banana growing enterprises will be able to replant bananas from April 2016 under the conditions he pointed out. Between April 2016 and April 2017, a large number of premises will need to plant Cavendish and non-Cavendish banana varieties that will act as sentinels to show that the new strain of banana freckle has been successfully eradicated. For those who do not know what a sentinel is, it is something that is set up in a location to attract a disease or see if it is present and what the prevalence is.
Another example is we have always had a sentinel herd of cattle at Berrimah Farm. Those sentinels are there for a reason. They are close to the port so if there is any ingress of any pathogens that might affect cattle in the Northern Territory, we hope they would be the first cattle to get it so we can identify it and stop it before it spreads.
There is also an online survey on the banana freckle website where householders can nominate the varieties they think should be available for replanting in April 2016. The member for Nelson will be relieved to learn that planning is under way to develop arrangements for the retention of genetic material from banana varieties that will be destroyed and are not otherwise available from existing banana variety libraries across Australia. We recognise that.
This is something we do not take lying down. It has been an issue for all of us to consider, not only the response itself, but the political implications and the fact that in some areas some of the research into Panama disease is compromised now because of the banana freckle eradication program. Some of that work has likely been set back a period of time. I hope the research can recover quickly.
All these reasons makes it important for us to eradicate this fungus from the Northern Territory. Any remaining banana plants provide an opportunity for the new strain of banana freckle to survive. That is why we must get rid of this disease across the Territory and Australia. We can eradicate the new strain of banana freckle from the Northern Territory; however, ongoing success depends on continued industry and community support for what is a nationally important program. There are not too many times in this House I will use these words, but this is a matter of national significance. Imagine what Australia would be like without a banana industry? I shudder to think.
If this disease is not eradicated from the Northern Territory there is a possibility it could spread to other states. That would be terrible, which is understating it. It would also mean someone has not taken their responsibilities seriously enough to eradicate this in the Territory where there is a real opportunity to do so.
I can advise the member for Nelson that we will not be opposing the motion. You are on a roll tonight, member for Nelson; you are doing well. Support for the wording of the motion is also predicated and conditional upon the comments made in this House tonight regarding the compensation side of things and what I mentioned about some of the varieties where the genetics will be saved.
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for presenting this motion. It gives me another opportunity to dispel a few myths. I congratulate the member Nelson for dispelling a few of the myths. It is the responsibility of parliamentarians not just to take a populist approach, to blindly take the views of some and try to represent them beyond where they should be represented, but to take that information back to constituents so they can be fully informed.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for presenting this motion. As shadow for Primary Industries it is an area I am interested in. At the moment, along with the melon virus, banana freckle is a huge talking point and issue for many people in the rural area and urban centres in the northern suburbs where people have, over many years – longer than I have been around – grown their own bananas, like Lady Fingers.
Part of my growing up was visiting people’s places and grabbing them off the tree, and my grandparents freezing bananas and telling me they were a treat. I realise they were just being cheap; it was not a treat. I mention that because it is important.
This has brought a lot of emotions to the forefront of discussion as some people have strong feelings about their produce. My electorate in the northern suburbs has the Rapid Creek Markets on Sunday, and many stallholders have bananas. I will not mention any names, but I am sure the minister and the member for Nelson are fully aware of a certain stallholder who is quite passionate – and I respect that he is passionate – about this issue. I have an opportunity every Sunday morning to meet the stallholders as part of my rounds, saying g’day to everyone. I have been going there for three-and-a-half years with the preselection period, so I have come to know people at the markets very well.
When I became the Primary Industry shadow, I thought I would make it a formal get together. I met about 17 growers at the office of the member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, at Coolalinga. It was very insightful for me to meet them and listen to their concerns, not only about banana freckle but other viruses and other concerns they had. It was forced home to me that this is their livelihood, their job and what they do, so it is very important.
Many people have come to me saying it has been a disaster from the start. That has been the issue. Banana freckle inspectors went to everybody’s house checking for bananas in the red zones and saying their bananas were fine. Maybe six weeks later – I am not sure how long after that – they came back and notified the residents that their bananas would be eradicated, and not just the Cavendish bananas. That upset many people.
There are a number of issues around this. Going onto somebody’s property and saying, ‘I will destroy your trees’, was one of the main issues. As I said earlier, people have feelings about their trees, the fruits, their yards and how much time and effort they put in. They are a lot more educated now. They have researched for themselves. My understanding of the banana freckle is that it is purely a cosmetic fungus; you can still eat the fruit. But you cannot grow it commercially as it does not look as nice as fruit without the fungus.
I take the opportunity to thank the minister, the minister’s staff and staff of the department. They have been fantastic about briefings. I have had a couple of briefings in the minister’s office which were very insightful and professional. I listen intently because you learn. If you are not listening to the people conducting these programs, you cannot give advice to the growers and other people you speak to at the markets. This has been a journey for me. We will still go ahead. It will be a talking point for a while.
I was very happy to rock up to my office just before 8 am on a Sunday morning at the Rapid Creek Markets and see Mr Kevin Cooper and a staff member – I have forgotten your name and I apologise for that – next to Jay’s Coffee, where On, the massage person, normally is, but she is away on holidays at the moment. It was a great idea to have Kevin and his staff member set up at the Rapid Creek Markets before 8 am. I left just after 12.30 pm and they were still there. Well done, because it gave people the opportunity to have a discussion – the growers, the stallholders who sell bananas and interested people. Many people spoke to them. They had a great spot, because Jay the coffee man makes amazing coffee and he always has a long line-up of people waiting. Some people would talk while they were waiting, which was good to see. It is good stakeholder consultation, which we talk about in this House a lot. I know how important that is and what a commitment it is for departmental staff to give up their Sunday morning. It was well done by Kevin Cooper and the department.
I will read an e-mail a concerned citizen has sent me which goes to the core of many things. Yes, it is quite passionate. It talks of people being confused and quite upset about the banana freckle eradication program and what it means to them:
- This is destroying people, especially older residents. Willem …
The minister for Primary Industries, the member for Katherine:
- … obviously has not been listening to the people’s concerns about what is going to happen next. This machete-wielding eradication team exercise has caused a lot of anguish, hurt, shock and uncertainty.
She is saying to me:
- You are more than aware of how attached long-term residents – urban, rural and remote – are to the banana plants. We have far more than the commercial varieties and we have all had them for a long time without any form of disease. We do not want the new upgraded four or five varieties. We want our good old reliable stock of many colours, shapes, sizes and tastes.
This is not security, bio or otherwise, it is coercion, intervention and humiliation, and it is being controlled by non-Territorians. We do not like their divide and conquer strategy and control methods.
The evidence from overseas is that banana freckle is culturally acceptable for small scale and backyard growers wanting their own food, and why should we sacrifice our local plants, freckled or healthy, to the commercial whims?
The former Queensland minister for Agriculture, John McVeigh, said that the chances of our local banana plants presenting any risk to the Queensland banana industry is very low.
I suggest that the chances are zilch. Remember also that there is no chance of spreading freckle on banana fruit once it is off the plant. The conidia is very short-lived and only exists on living plant material.
That was from a concerned resident about banana freckle. From that e-mail and others I received, as well as the many conversations I have had with people about banana freckle, I can see people are passionate. I said at the start of my contribution that people are passionate about this because it is part of our existence in the Northern Territory, especially in the Top End – growing our own melons, bananas and mangoes. I remember people coming to Darwin from interstate to visit me who could not believe that you could go to somebody’s yard and pick off a mango on the way to cricket training. We thought they were a pest, but they are great when we want to eat them. This is the effect the banana freckle issue is having on people; they are concerned, upset and want a solution.
My job, as opposition shadow minister, is to relay people’s concerns. The minister would have heard these concerns as well. When people come to me to talk about issues concerning them, it is my responsibility to bring those issues to parliament. It is important I get the opportunity, as the Sunday markets are in my electorate and people speak to me about this issue every weekend. I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this into parliament so I can share the concerns of people who have met with me many times.
The minister mentioned in Question Time, and briefly in his speech this evening, that people are not complying. This concerns me. I ask the minister what will happen to that growing number of people? What will happen to those growers, farmers or hobby farmers who have banana freckle but will not to let you on to their property? As I said many times already, people are passionate about this issue and the relationship with the bananas in their yard. This is their house, their property, and now you are telling them you are coming in to rip these plants out. I would like an answer from the minister at some stage, because I am concerned about this. It is concerning that we will possibly have people chaining themselves to the fence and not allowing people to come in. It is a serious concern that needs to be looked at. At a later stage I will ask this question again about what we will do with people who will not let you on their properties, and how we can get that message out. People have a right to do what they want with their properties, but I hope there is a respectful plan and process so this could happen in a nice, relaxed way. I would hate to see footage of people in the rural area being dragged off their properties, arrested and their fences being cut.
I have a few residents in my electorate who said, ‘There is no way I am allowing people to come into my yard and take stuff out of it that is my property, not the government’s’. How we do that will be a serious issue. As I said, I hope the minister will be able to give me an answer on the strategies they will employ in doing that. It is a growing number of people. There is a number of Facebook sites and groups which are now lobbying government harder, as well as elected members, both rural and in the northern suburbs. The growers do not want to lose the bananas they are growing. There are many conspiracy theories about supporting the Queensland industry and getting rid of the bananas when we do not really have to. ‘I had bananas all my life, I can grab one off the tree to eat.’
April 2015 is when all the bananas have to be eradicated, so it is getting down to crunch time for many people. It means by April, or the end of March, all bananas in the red zone have to be eradicated.
Because it started in October 2013, I have heard many stories of people who have cut out their plants and now sucklings are growing. We have that issue. The minister said over 100 personnel in 70 field teams are, without a doubt, working very hard. However, the situation we will have is people again growing their plants in those red zones. We are still trying to eradicate all the plants in the red zone by the end of March. This is an issue that is not going away. I am not sure the government will be able to eradicate all the plants in the red zones in the next couple of months, by April this year. There will be resistance, as there is already resistance.
Madam Speaker, I will continue to monitor the situation. I thank the member for Nelson for bringing the motion before the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister and the shadow minister for their responses. Member for Johnston, the issue I raised today about preserving varieties of bananas came from your electorate. Some people came to my office who were concerned that the variety of bananas they had was a particularly nice variety they used for cooking banana fritters at the Rapid Creek Markets. I think they might even have a shop there ...
Mr Vowles: Right at the front of my office.
Mr WOOD: Right. That is where this issue came from. If you are talking to them you can say the government is willing to set up a program so there is an opportunity for those specific varieties they were concerned about to be retained. That is what this is about. Those varieties can have a portion of the plant removed and grown as tissue culture. Obviously they have to be kept in quarantine until bananas are able to be grown again, and they will be able to then continue with that variety. If you are talking to them – I cannot remember their names off the top of my head but I thank them for coming to see me about it – you can say that was the issue and the minister has given a response. You could probably use the Hansard because something positive has come out of this today.
The good thing about General Business Day is it gives us an opportunity for issues people may think are mundane, but the issue with the bananas affects many people. The issue the member for Johnston raised about what we do with people who are adamant they will not lose their bananas is an important one.
As local members we have to give the facts to people. Some people are very concerned about tissue culture, which has been around for many years. Tissue culture was used when I went to horticultural college in the 1960s. It is nothing to do with genetically modified foods, it is just a process of cutting a very small portion of the plant which is small enough not to be infected. There are things which need to be put to people who have some doubts, and it is up to us to have briefings and then try to disseminate that information when people come into your office. It is not easy sometimes.
Some of us lost our bananas six months ago so some of us …
Mr Chandler: He said that.
Mr WOOD: I did not say I was going bananas, I said some of us lost our bananas. There is a difference, member for Brennan, but I take your point. I am not bent; at least I do not think so. For some things I am green ...
Mr Gunner: You are very appealing.
Mr WOOD: That is right. We are getting into banana jokes so I will get back to the point.
We, as local members, have to give accurate information to those people. Sometimes, because the information is not out there, people do not understand it. As the member for Johnston said, there are sometimes conspiracy theories and, unfortunately, people get their back up and it is difficult to sort through.
I thank the minister for the support of the government for people to grow varieties of bananas they are concerned about losing. Using tissue cultures is a positive approach because people are worried about losing their favourite variety of banana. Cavendish, even though it is the most popular and most widely grown banana in Australia, many people – we have a lot of Asian people in the Northern Territory – love their cooking bananas and other varieties.
We need to not only do what the minister said, but tell people they can get those bananas if they know what variety they are. Tell people this service will be available. It is not much good telling me in the parliament, the message needs to be spread.
Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their support.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Terms of Local Government
Terms of Local Government
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the member for Brennan said I was on a roll; I do not expect to be on a roll all the time. General Business Day is an important day to raise issues for debate. It gives us an opportunity, in this case, to debate an area of local government. We have a new minister for local government, so it will be interesting to hear what she has to say.
I move that the government does not extend the terms of local government councils beyond their present four-year term, but instead reduces the next term of local government to three-and-a-half years.
On 17 October 2014 the Minister for Local Government and Regions, who was then the Chief Minister, wrote to me and said, ‘On 4 December 2013 the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly tabled a report 2012 NT Council Elections authored by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission. The report contains recommendations aimed at improving the administration of local government elections in the Northern Territory. A number of recommendations, together with other reforms aimed at reducing the costs of elections for councils, are being progressed as part of a package of amendments to the Local Government Act and the Local Government Electoral Regulations. In particular, the proposed amendments seek to change the timing of the next periodic general election to 2017 and every four years after that, and fix polling day to be the fourth Saturday in August.’
On 6 November, the minister then issued a media release which said:
- Chief Minister Adam Giles has confirmed that the next local government elections will be deferred to August 2017 to avoid a clash with Territory and Federal Government polls due in 2016.
Mr Giles made the announcement at the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory Conference in Darwin this morning.
‘I have listened to the concerns raised by both Councils and the NT Electoral Commission and have acted to ensure elections at all levels of government run smoothly in 2016 and 2017’, Mr Giles said.
‘Elections in our remote areas are extremely complicated operations and it is simply not practical for all three polls to be conducted in a single year.
‘This will mean existing members of local governments will have their terms extended until the new election date on the fourth Saturday in August 2017. Polling day will then be fixed to this day in August every four years.
‘Changing the elections to August every four years will have the added benefit of giving council members more time to become familiar with the workings of local government before they start framing a council budget for the next financial year.’
In theory that sounds good, but in practice I have some concerns. When a person votes for a council, especially where there are fixed terms, that is a contract. Madam Speaker, if I am voting for you and I know the set period for a member of this parliament is four years, then that is the contract. I have voted for you for four years, not five years, six years, three years or two years. I have voted for you. This is a basic principle we cannot ignore.
The previous minister said:
- ‘I have listened to the concerns raised by both Councils and the NT Electoral Commission ...
What the Chief Minister forgot to listen to was the opinion of the voters. It is the voters who elect the councillors, not the councillors who elect the voters. The voters elect councillors for four years. That is in the Local Government Act. That is the contract. I do not believe governments have the power to do that.
There is a section in the Local Government Act which allows the minister to change the time of the election. I am not sure whether time means the date, or whether the hours in which the election will occur. I am interested if there is an explanation in relation to that.
In Victoria elections can be changed, but they are changed for reasons which are a necessity, such as a natural disaster or a general election of the House of Representatives. In our legislation we have the room to move our elections if the federal government election clashes. In certain circumstances in Victoria the minister can move the date. However, we are not talking about moving the date one or two weeks across either side, but moving it by one-and-a-half years. That is adding more than 33% of an elected person’s time in that job without any approval from the voters. The minister has the right to do it, but I thought this was an issue not so much about the minister’s powers, but what the opinion is of the voters.
The minister said the council supported it. I have a copy of the Alice Springs News online – I think it was 11 November 2014 – with a summary of the things happening in Alice Springs at the time. It said:
On November 6 Mr Giles said in a media release: ‘Chief Minister Adam Giles has confirmed that the next local government elections will be deferred to August 2017 to avoid a clash with Territory and Federal Government polls due in 2016.’
Last night the council seemed inclined to have the four-yearly election moved from March to August.
This would avoid holding the poll during the wet season – a big issue in the Top End – and newly elected members would have more time to deal with the annual budget, handed down in June.
It would give new members a longer ‘learning period,’ suggested Cr Paech.
But the mood of the meeting was clearly against deferring the next council election by 18 months.
Other suggestions found unacceptable by the council included ...
They went on with some other issues. For instance, they did not want the mayor appointed, he should be elected, etcetera. My understanding from reading this is the council was against deferring the next election by 18 months.
I can understand it may be good to move council elections to August. However, the way to do that without breaking the contract with the people is to allow this election to go ahead when it should – which is next year – and make the next term three-and-a-half years. You then get into the August cycle. At least the people know they have voted for them for three-and-a-half years. The next terms can all be four years. That way you are not removing what I call the contractual arrangements the voters have with the people they elected.
I can understand if there is a cyclone; if we were having an election today, Nhulunbuy might have to move it by a week or so. That is slightly different; that is an urgent matter that needs to be dealt with straightaway.
One of the other issues is having three elections in one year. We have a Northern Territory Electoral Commission and its full-time job is to run elections. If it does not have enough staff, employ some more people to run those elections. It should have running elections down to a tee. After all, that is the profession of the people who work there; they do it all the time. They do not run the tennis club or a shop, they run elections. There will be periods when there are only by-elections.
We will have three elections in one year, and after that we will not have any for a while. We will have the odd by-election, but there will be three years of peace and quiet. Will they complain about it being too quiet and say, ‘We need an election; we have had three years without one’? Yes, we will have a busy period, no doubt about it.
We have too much concern about people not being able to handle three elections. The people will have a rest for three years after that; there will be no elections for a while so they might be happy about that. However, no one has asked the people; they have presumed they would be unhappy to have three elections.
NTEC has said, ‘It will be difficult for us in practical terms to have three elections’. However, the first election will be in March, the second will be in August, and I am not sure when the federal election will be. That date is flexible. Why do we not just go down the path we normally do? We know two elections will be on a certain date. Have them, but change the time period of the local government election so people know exactly what period they are voting for those councillors. At the same time, you will get that election into the August period so if councils are concerned about new people coming on to the council who need more time to understand the budget, that would be solved.
This is a bit of overkill. The government should have put this out for consultation, because neither the councils nor the government have the right to say they will change that election period to the extent it has been. A changed year-and-a-half is not the same as a week either side or a couple of weeks simply because there is a disaster or a federal election clashes. This is a considerable period of time that has been extended to a councillor who has not been elected for that period. It is like being appointed by the minister who will give them a free extra year-and-a-half on the council. That is not the way local government should occur unless there are very special circumstances. I do not think those circumstances have been made clear.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the concern I have, as I said before, is that this is not the democratic way to do things. It is not the government’s role to appoint councillors for such a long period. This is an issue for voters. Voters elect people for four years and that is the way it should remain until the next election when you can then do the adjustment.
Mrs PRICE (Local Government and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for his contribution.
This is my first major contribution as the Minister for Local Government and Community Services. I thank the CE of the newly-combined department, Mr Mike Chiodo, for his efforts in quickly and seamlessly pulling staff together and getting them to work.
The member for Nelson is aware that I have hit the ground running. Given my recent announcements, I am not afraid of taking action against councils that are failing their constituents. Our government was elected to fix the mess of local government and that is what we are doing. Sometimes that involves some temporary pain in order to fix underlying problems. I let all councils know that I want to work with them to deliver good governance and service delivery in local communities.
I thank the Chief Minister for his passion and drive, as the previous Local Government minister, and for the reforms he has commenced in this portfolio. Good, effective local government is vital for all Territorians. It delivers a range of services right across the Territory, from rubbish collection to local roads, signs, libraries, tourism infrastructure, as well as providing local jobs.
This motion really comes down to a simple couple of points – ideology and personal politics. I appreciate the member for Nelson’s perspective on this issue. However, sometimes it seems he is of the view that there are some hidden, ulterior motives behind these things. It was not an easy decision for Cabinet to make. As with every decision we make, there are pros and cons that are discussed. In the end, Cabinet decided that more time is better to make sure the process is properly implemented, people have adequate time and councils are not rushed into the cost of an election. It is better for government to be on the right side of time than being criticised for rushing electoral changes through and forcing councils into early elections.
That is why we have decided to put to the House that the legislation should be changed to push back the elections to 2017 to allow some clear air. In this sittings I expect to introduce the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill. The majority of that bill implements recommendations from the Northern Territory Electoral Commission’s 2012 NT Council Elections Report. It also addressed proposals from councils identified during consultation which aim to improve the scheme of local government elections.
The most recent periodic general elections for local government were held on 24 March 2012. Those elections were the first to be conducted for all councils in the Northern Territory on the same date under the current legislation. After those elections, the Northern Territory Electoral Commission produced the 2012 Northern Territory Council Elections Report.
The report examined and recorded the arrangements and processes used by the councils and the commission. It contained various recommendations aimed at improving practices and procedures for future elections. It was a recommendation of the Electoral Commissioner that the date for the next periodic general elections be changed.
On 19 December 2013 the then Minister for Local Government and Regions directed my department to consult with the local government sector on the recommendations made in the report. A committee of representatives from my department, the Electoral Commission and LGANT considered the various submissions and other proposals that arose during consultation.
The first recommendation of the committee was that the date of the next general election for local government be moved to the last Saturday in August 2017. Subsequent elections will be held every four years after that. The change of date was recommended by the commissioner because there are three major elections due to be held in 2016. These would be the local government general elections, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly election and the Commonwealth government election. A national Census will also be held in 2016. Given all those factors it is preferable that the local government elections be held in a different year.
Apart from changing the year, consideration was given as to whether March was an appropriate month for local government elections. Council submitted that holding elections in March posed problems. When elections were held in March, new council members did not have sufficient experience or familiarity with council matters to confidently frame a budget for the ensuing financial year. Further, because of frequent public holidays in March and April, there has in the past been difficulty in satisfying the requirement to hold the first council meeting within 14 days of election. Another consideration is the disruptive weather in March which can hinder polling and reduce voter turnout, particularly for regional councils in the Top End.
A new date, the fourth Saturday in August every four years commencing in 2017, will ensure adequate time and resources is allocated to both local government and Legislative Assembly elections. It will ensure new council members have time to acquaint themselves with financial matters well before they are required to set a budget. There will be a better chance of fine weather and accessibility to polling stations, and planning will be more certain.
Officers of my department have consulted widely concerning the proposal. They have attended council meetings for each council across the Territory. No councillors have objected to the proposed date of the next periodic general election.
The local government sector supports the revised date. A motion was passed at the November 2014 LGANT annual conference supporting deferral of the next periodic general election until August 2017.
The member for Nelson has suggested cutting short the current term of members to three-and-a-half years. This would mean general elections in September 2015. Even if this was a feasible option, I am not aware of support for it. Current council members have been elected for at least a four-year term. They are entitled to serve that term.
A number of disruptions would be avoided by not holding major elections within close proximity of each other. For example, a number of failed local government elections in March 2012 required supplementary elections and caused significant distractions for the Electoral Commission when preparing for the Legislative Assembly election in August 2012.
It is preferable that the local government elections follow the Legislative Assembly elections to avoid election fatigue for voters. A general election in September 2015 would be too soon; councils and the Electoral Commission would not have sufficient notice. Potential candidates need time to consider their decisions on whether they wish to stand and how they would organise their life. They need to have time to design and run an information campaign if they so desire.
The Electoral Commission has advised that it takes 12 months of planning to run a Territory-wide major election. For a local government general election this includes negotiating services and costs with councils, developing enrolment drive, advertisement campaigns, website design and a PR campaign to promote participation, arranging secondments from NTG staff in regional towns and interstate electoral specialists, securing appropriate early voting and static polling places, developing a remote mobile polling schedule that ensures remote Territorians have an opportunity to vote and procuring services by tender such as planes, four-wheel drives, ballot papers and scanning. Because of the rush, an early election would be more expensive and councils would have to pick up the additional costs.
During each term of a council they must consider their boundaries and representation to ensure they are adequate for the next periodic general election. The outcome of these reviews may not have been finalised if there was an early election date. Councils need to have at least the time they have been promised in order to make presentations for changes to me as the minister for Local Government. In turn, I need time to consider any requests arising from those reviews.
The short answer to the member for Nelson is that even if this idea is a desirable one, which it is not, there is simply insufficient time to bring the local government elections forward. If he would like to be the mayor of Litchfield, he may have to change his plans. This government will not be supporting the member for Nelson’s motion today.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for proposing this motion to the House. It gives us a great opportunity to debate local government, the third tier of Northern Territory government – the real grassroots of governance within the Northern Territory.
I congratulate the new minister on her appointment. This debate offers a real opportunity in learning lessons. Essentially, for the new minister, the lessons to be learnt start with the Chief Minister’s media release on the 6 November 2014 ‘Giving certainty to local government’. I quote from that media release:
- Chief Minister Adam Giles has confirmed that the next local government elections will be deferred to August 2017 to avoid a clash with Territory and Federal Government polls due in 2016.
The Chief Minister issued it and told Territorians what will be happening.
I quote from an article by Lyndon Keane on 12 November 2014, ‘Council extension a drag for frustrated communities’:
- The decision to extend the tenure of our current councils by 18 months without public consultation is one of the surest signs yet that the Northern Territory government prefers to lead by providing what it thinks voters want, rather than by asking them what they need.
Some of the other local government changes announced last week will provide a range of positive outcomes for communities, but not allowing voters to have their say for five-and-a-half years is not one of them.
That, for the new minister, is one of the many good lessons to be learnt. Once again, the Chief Minister has created more problems and posed more questions than he ever answers by not being consultative and dictating to Northern Territorians what he thinks is in our best interest. It relates to that autocratic style of governance we know.
Not only are Territorians frustrated with it, but nine members of the CLP are frustrated with it and made an attempt to overturn it to get some sanity into the government’s operations on that side of the House. I have asked questions in the House to give me some strategy at an interest level, but we are not aware of what threats and intimidation were used. The toppling of the Chief Minister was not successful, so we are still burdened with this autocratic dictatorial governance that represents four members of government.
The minister has a great portfolio and opportunities, but needs to address the basic point at the start relating to not working against people, or making decisions and telling people what will be done, but being a good elected community member, being consultative and working with Territorians.
We in the Territory opposition have always been focused on supporting development of local government in the Territory, going back to a previous minister, John Ah Kit’s seminal speech on 7 March 2002 on local government in the bush, followed by the Labor government’s 2008 reforms. The Territory opposition is pleased the CLP has taken up our policy proposals and continued the process within our regional councils by strengthening the roles of local authorities. That is giving them capacity to prioritise local government activity within our local government framework.
Good work, minister, you are now in the saddle and can continue the good policy from Labor. We are pleased you have picked up on that. I have many ideas for you – if you are interested – around continuing to strengthen those local authorities and empowering people in the bush about participating and being proactive in local government.
We have always believed that building strong local government – the third tier of government in the Territory – is important. In that exercise we believe it is important to hear the views of the local government sector, especially elected members and their representative body, the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory.
Having spoken to people in the local government sector and attended the most recent LGANT conference in Darwin in November last year, I am mindful there has been considerable discussion about the government’s proposal to defer the next scheduled local government elections from 2016 to 2017. The opportunity to vote for local council members is the foundation of a democratic system for strong local government. It is important we all work together to ensure we have the best elections possible and continue working towards improving voter turn-out in local government elections. I was pleased to hear the minister briefly touch on the importance of voter turn-out. We need to work on good policy ideas to achieve that.
It is important to remember the proposal to extend the current terms of local government councils, or at least those not under official management. Deferring the next local government elections to 2017 is a response to concerns of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, which has said it does not have the capacity to provide local government elections in 2016 to the standards expected and which must be observed. This goes to capacity issues, given that the Northern Territory Electoral Commission has commitments of a Northern Territory general election, and the likelihood of a federal election in that same year.
Of course, if current disarray in government and CLP infighting continues – and there are many Territorians who believe it will – and the Northern Territory general election comes forward, then there still may be an opportunity for local government elections to occur in 2016.
Once again, it is important to touch on the opportunity for Territorians who want to have their voice heard through their elected community members in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly participating in the motion of no confidence against the government on Tuesday 24 February. That provides every member in this House an opportunity to represent the vast majority of constituents who are saying enough is enough. They are calling for an early NT general election across regional areas and in the urban areas. We have become the laughing stock of the nation. This opportunity will emerge in this House on Tuesday.
It is not about the CLP losing government, but it represents a pragmatic opportunity to send your message to the member for Braitling and say enough is enough. You do not have to create that physical spectacle of crossing the floor; there are other ways you can send that message. I will leave your imaginations to think about that, but it can be done. This will be a very important time for elected community members to stand up for Territorians who are now completely reeling from the ridiculous chaotic episodes that now have become a point of conversation across the Northern Territory.
As I said, I attended the LGANT conference where the proposal to amend the Local Government Act and to defer local government elections to 2017 was announced and discussed by elected members and senior staff of local government councils. I was impressed that a central part of those discussions was how voters would feel about this change. I have already pointed out that the Chief Minister neglected any real consultations and essentially created this problem we are dealing with here in debate. Councillors were keenly focused on the need for voters to have their say at the ballot box, as expected. This is also a key concern of the member for Nelson in bringing this motion to the House.
I have heard the views of some of the voters in the Litchfield Council area expressed through the local media that they would like to see the opportunity for fresh elections. I am also aware that a number of councillors of the City of Darwin have also expressed the view that their elections should not be deferred. I also understand that on the balance, the majority of local government councils understand the purpose of the proposed change, the reason for it as outlined by the independent election experts, the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, and support the one-off amendment to a fixed election term. I understand a motion to not support the changes was debated, but not supported, at that LGANT conference.
One of our challenges in developing strong local government across the Territory is that we have long-standing and well-developed local government municipal councils. Our reforms in 2008 were all about building the same in the regions, breaking out of the too-often pattern of small local councils collapsing under the weight of service delivery obligations and heavy reliance on grant funding. In saying that, I also acknowledge that there were also many well-performing smaller councils in the bush but they were always at the risk of financial stress.
Mutual support for the development of strong local government across the Territory is one of the great features of the work of LGANT. An important point at the LGANT conference was that an extension to the current term of local government would not just assist with supporting the work of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, but would also allow current good work to continue uninterrupted in developing the important role and governance capacity of the emerging local authorities. I stress to the minister that a critical point in developing local governance in the bush is continuing to work with local authorities, listening to and supporting them.
Regarding the second point of the motion, I understand discussion about improving local government elections has included the suggestion that the fixed date for these elections should move from the current April date every four years to later in the Top End Dry Season and cooler months in Central Australia every three-and-a-half years. It has been suggested this would reduce the cost of conducting elections but, more importantly, enhance the standard of these important elections.
That access and support for elections would be easier for the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, voters and candidates and would likely support work to continually improve voter turn-out at local government elections. The proposal has merit, but I would like to see more developed proposals on how to best achieve voter turn-out – community participation at that local government level. I would like to see proposals put forward by the Northern Territory Electoral Commission and the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory. I would like to see a bipartisan approach within the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory to address those issues and work together to improve voter turn-out and community engagement in local government.
For that reason we do not oppose the intent of the second part of the motion, but there are many more important areas we believe we could work on together. I would like to see more discussion and agreement on the objectives being sought in this motion and in driving options, potentially a package including other support of enhanced local government elections, not just deferral to a new fixed-term date. I would welcome more opportunity for discussion of these matters and the views of the new minister for Local Government.
I am sure we will see material coming forward in this Assembly. It will be difficult to deal with when it is dropped on the table as the minister speaks, which is the current practice of the gun-shy government. If you are serious about good debate and working together to create enhanced ideas, programs and strategies for improving local government across the Territory, that element of trust has to be addressed. We look to your leadership, minister, to engender that trust.
It was important that the member for Fannie Bay outlined today that currently you are a government in deficit of trust within the community. You need to show the community real changes are afoot. I do not believe you can do it with the member for Braitling at the helm, but we will leave that to you guys.
There are many in the community, as well as members of the opposition and the Independent members in this House, who would like to hear from the minister how we can take this forward. In discussing what could be debated in this House, minister, we could look at the statements of the new Treasurer on his proposals for merging some of our Top End councils of Darwin, Palmerston and Litchfield. He made very clear the other day that he wants to open up that discussion.
I have already had a number of conversations with constituents in those areas that I do not directly represent, but indirectly represent as a member of this Legislative Assembly. That conversation is now reverberating through those areas so it would be good to hear what you think about that and if you have any plans to merge the three Top End councils. Once again, learning lessons where we started, it would be very important to be truly consultative and engage with the community before any decisions were made. You can see it is a recipe for destruction if it is not done in a democratic way.
Media reports suggest the Treasurer is keen to form a mega-council. I am interested to hear more from the residents of those councils, particularly the Litchfield residents, about what has been, once again, dropped and interpreted as a dictatorial-type approach which will create further problems, not only for you, minister, but for the government you are a part of.
It would also be good to hear more about the Treasurer’s plans for rating the lands not currently incorporated in local government areas, such as Dundee Beach and Marrakai, using the new powers he introduced and passed through his amendments to the Darwin Rates Act. There is another example of what we can talk about in this House together and offer a good bipartisan approach to debating. Then we can support you in your government’s new consultative style of governance we have heard about lately in the media.
That is my contribution, but in the couple of minutes I have left it is important to issue a couple of challenges. In the community you are looking a bit heavy handed with a brief time in the job but already two councils under administration. We are wondering whether that is the way to do business and a good strategy to start with as a new minister.
A clear alternative in policy would be to work with those elected members, with those council officials. I spoke on radio about what I considered appropriate for the Litchfield issue about conflict resolution, the possibility of using the principles of natural justice around good conferencing and having people work out their problems together, as opposed to the strategy of putting in an administrator and consequently denying true democracy and governance of, particularly now, the Litchfield Council over the next six months.
We can always offer clear alternatives, whether you are interested or not we are not quite sure. This week we have seen the matter of the Tiwi Regional Council emerge. Once again, the clear alternative policy from the Labor opposition would be to work with that regional council, as opposed to what you have done in your dictatorial approach. You even opened your speech tonight with a statement that you are not frightened to crack a walnut with a 10-pound hammer. If you look at where that got the Chief Minister, maybe you want to re-evaluate that as a policy around good governance.
Thank you to the member for Nelson for bringing this to the House. It has been an opportunity to talk briefly about local government. I hope those on the other side treat it in good faith. I look forward to working further on this important area.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the speakers who have contributed. I am not sure who wrote the speech for the minister, but some of it had a tone of CLP politics in it that disappoints me because there are people who cannot get out of the past when it comes to some of these issues.
I congratulate Mike Chiodo for being CEO. Mike is a good bloke. He has been around for a while and has had quite a few portfolios to deal with. He is a practical, down-to-earth bloke. He will be good for local government.
Minister, you said I have some hidden ulterior motives. Have you heard of somebody putting forward a philosophy? It is nothing to do with politics, but to do with the philosophy that voters are the ones who put us into the positions we are in. You do not have to agree with my philosophy, but that does not mean there is an ulterior motive.
The issue I was trying to put forward is that the voters should have been consulted. You said you have consulted with LGANT, the department and the NTEC commissioner – very fine, terrific – but they are on the other side of the debate. The voters have not been consulted. I read today:
Under my leadership, this government will be more consultative with Territorians and engage with them before we make important and crucial decisions on the future of the Territory.
You have, through a decision of government, done something fundamentally undemocratic. You have removed people’s right to vote for their members by adding a year-and-a-half on to their term. They were voted in for four years. There is no ulterior politics, it is simply a fundamental issue of how we elect people, nothing more, nothing less. To drag that in shows there is no level of understanding of what this was about. Even worse, a third of the speech was about an early election. I do not know whether you wrote the speech, minister, or someone else did, but whoever did it did not read the motion.
The motion clearly states, ‘but, instead, reduces the next term of local government’ – not this term – ‘to three-and-a-half years’. The idea was to take this term to four years and then have an election. The next one is for three-and-a-half years, which puts into place all the things you are talking about. You stipulated an August election for whatever reason. You do not then cut off this term; you stick with the contract which states the voters elected those people for four years. The next term will be three-and-a-half years, which will satisfy the concerns you raised.
I am not saying they are bad concerns, but my fundamental philosophy is the government does not have the right to override the wishes of the voter. The voter wants that person elected for four years. It might sound a bit airy-fairy, but I do not think it is. I do not think NTEC, the minister or LGANT have the right to get together and say this is the change they want without consulting with the voters. That is the basis on which I brought this; there is no politics in it.
Minister, I do not know who wrote the end of your speech or whether there is a CLP person up there who wants to spread rumours. I have heard the rumour recently that the only reason this has been brought up is because Gerry Wood wants to become the Mayor of Litchfield. For crying out loud, I have enough trouble in this job without taking on another one! It is silliness. Some people do not like me and want to get me out of the seat of Nelson. The people of Nelson will decide that, and I will decide whether I want to keep going. It is not for the CLP to spread false rumours about what my future is and whether I want to go back to being mayor of the council.
That spoils this debate. It does not need to move into that level, because this is not anti-government from the point of view of ‘I hate the CLP government’. I am raising this as a fundamental issue which we should debate.
The government members clearly do not agree with me. That is fine; I will not kick them in the teeth because they do not agree with me. But I raised it as there is an important philosophy that needs to be debated. I do not even mind if the Labor Party does not agree with me. One of the great things about General Business Day is you can raise and debate issues no one else supports.
I always laugh when we come in here to debate – and this is a House of debate – and there is one person from one side, one person from the other side, and that is the debate. I could not sit here for too long and not want to debate various issues. That is why this place is important. I raise that issue simply to highlight the fact that I disagree with it. If other people do not agree with it, that is okay. I believe we have not done the right thing.
The member for Barkly mentioned amalgamation. The first thing that came to my head was I just heard the member for Fong Lim, who is the new Minister for Lands and Planning, describing the rural area. Usually, if councils are being amalgamated, they are amalgamated because they are of like kind. I can tell you that Litchfield is not like Palmerston or Darwin, and it is very proud to be different. Any attempt to amalgamate Litchfield with Darwin or Palmerston would be fought vigorously by the residents. Some people might prefer no local government; that is another issue.
Neither government has been willing to tackle the issue of the non-incorporated land in the Northern Territory. It has been a difficult issue, I understand that. But who has been brave enough to tackle the issue of Marrakai, Dundee, Douglas Daly and those areas that still do not come under local government? It is not easy, I grant you that, because there is opposition from people in those areas to having local government and paying rates. But that is an issue that needs to be looked at before we start amalgamating councils. That is not to say that discussion cannot be held.
I thought, as the member for Barkly said, any amalgamation of councils was done with like-minded councils. Litchfield is certainly not like-minded with Palmerston or Darwin, simply because it is basically rural. Someone said on the radio today that people in Howard Springs are quaint. I thought that was a nice turn of phrase. I figure it reflected that we are different. We are a bit like mixed lollies. People have different reasons for living in the rural area and that is something I honestly believe is forgotten when the big planners try to change things in the rural area.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the minister’s comments. I felt that part of what she told me was based on not having an early election. Someone has misread my motion. It was based on that we keep this election for four years, and we change the next one to three-and-a-half years, thereby making sure the contract with the people who vote for them is certain, and we know for exactly what period we are voting for those councils.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Independent Local Government
Boundary Commission
Independent Local Government
Boundary Commission
Continued from 27 November 2013.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, we will clear my name out of the General Business Day agenda. This one goes back a long time, minister, long before you were the minister for Local Government. There have been a couple – the Chief Minister, the member for Fong Lim. I am trying to think who else was around in those days. This goes back to 27 November 2013. It would have been the member for Fong Lim who was the minister then.
Although it is old, it is relevant for debate. It raises a couple of other issues. I asked for this boundary commission because this was related to the breaking up of the Victoria Daly Shire. That break-up was political. It was done because the Chief Minister, the member for Daly and maybe the member for Fong Lim went out and stood under a tree at Peppimenarti and said, ‘We promise you local government’. That was a fine promise to make without looking at whether breaking up the council was viable, but onward they went.
That is why I raise this issue. If we are to raise issues about boundaries we need to make sure those boundaries are not put in place for political reasons but for the right reasons. That was the reason for this motion.
I will read the motion:
- The NT government sets up an independent local government boundary commission to inquire into:
how many local government areas there should be
what the external boundaries should be
what the internal boundaries toward should be
unincorporated areas
what affect boundary changes will have on the sustainability and viability of existing and any proposed new councils taking into account the recommendations of the Deloitte inquiry into local government.
That as part of the investigation the commission will be required to make sure:
all residents of the shire councils are informed of the inquiry
all residents have the opportunity to have their say about the future of their council.
The board should have been five and seven members made up of:
a representative of the NT Electoral Commission
a financial expert on local government in the NT
up to three persons who have long-standing knowledge and involvement in local government
the chair of the Local Government Grants Committee
one representative of the department of Local Government
a representative of the Local Government Association of the NT.
Of course, that boundaries commission would not have to be a permanent commission; it could operate when it needed to.
I am on record as saying I always believed the councils were too big, but the facts are those councils exist today and are set up with their bureaucracies, work force and structure. Before the government goes down the path of breaking up the super shires, a neutral independent needs to see if this is a good idea.
One of the issues I believe was not looked at properly in relation to the Victoria Daly Shire split was viability. I would love the government, the department or the minister to come back with a report on the viability of those two shires and how much money the government has had to put into them. We have not had a report on local government – either amalgamations or divisions – for ages.
I attended a couple of meetings, thanks to the previous minister for Local Government, the member for Fong Lim, who invited me to some of the meetings surrounding the new structure for the Victoria Daly Shire. It was good to attend them. There were issues about who would pay for new headquarters and how the assets would be split up. There was little discussion about the viability of the council. Once you cut a council up you reduce your rate income.
One of the things I hope the new minister can bring to this parliament is a statement on where the new Victoria Daly Shire is from the point of view of viability. What is the status of that shire at present, especially the new shire in relation to the headquarters, and have any issues arisen from the break-up of the shire. Has the Victoria part of the shire become less viable because the Daly part of the shire has split away? They are the matters the government needs to report to this parliament.
On top of that, a previous minister for Local Government hinted that Maningrida and Groote Eylandt might be looked at as being separate councils. Has there been any response or any report carried out by the government on the viability of those concepts. If we are to drive changes to local government by political popularity, many councils might go bung in the process.
The issue I have raised today – which is old, I admit – of having an independent local government boundary commission also came from what happened in Queensland. Queensland had a big amalgamation program, then it had a de-amalgamation program. Some councils were permitted to de-amalgamate and some did, but they had to show how it would be done and the viability of doing it. Many of those issues had to come into play.
We need to be very careful if we will split up the existing system. There are advantages of splitting up big councils into smaller councils. Obviously a smaller council becomes more local, whereas a big council becomes far more regional – as they are called now.
The government introduced new authorities which replaced the boards. Could someone give us an indication of how many people are turning up for authority meetings? It would be interesting to know. The idea of scrapping the boards and paying people to go to authority meetings was to encourage people to turn up for those meetings.
They are the things we need to know to get an idea whether the changes to local government that were brought in by this government are working. I have not heard boo about local government. I am not blaming you, minister, because you have only just started. There have been very few statements about local government for a long time, except, ‘We will change a few things in the Electoral Act’, which are not the end of the world but they seem to have a higher priority than finding out whether local governments and the authorities are working or the government has looked at de-amalgamating some of the shires. I have not heard any of those discussions.
There are issues about rating. One of the issues that has been raised is the inability to rate Aboriginal land. Where has that discussion gone? One of the big issues Deloitte raised in its report was the lack of real income these large councils can make through rating. Many of them rely on being an agency for different government departments for their income. If that fell over tomorrow because those government departments decided to run the show themselves, these councils would not have a lot of money to keep going. Where are we in relation to rating? The government obviously has control over the rating for pastoral properties, mineral leases and the rating is very limited on Aboriginal land, except where land is being leased. It would be good to find out what movements the government has in this area.
Getting back to this commission, the issue about rating is also part of what a local government boundary commission would be looking at to make sure if there were changes, as is said in this motion:
- … what effect boundary changes will have on the sustainability and viability of existing and any proposed new councils taking into account the recommendations of the Deloitte inquiry into local government.
You would expect this commission would be looking at what the future is for a council in raising more revenue, and those issues about Aboriginal land, pastoral properties and mining leases, which all have limitations. They are some of the matters I imagine this commission would look at before it gave a recommendation on whether a council should be either de-amalgamated or amalgamated.
Although I gave notice of this motion in November, I still think it has merit. It may be for the Northern Territory that the local government boundaries commission could be smaller. That is something that could be sorted out. However, it needs to be independent from the government.
With all due respect for the member for Daly – I know things are done and promises made during election campaigns – there is a fairly large element of politics in the decision to split the big Barkly shire. If we de-amalgamate or amalgamate a council, we need to have it arm’s length from the politicians and be sure, because taxpayers will pick up the bill if a council is unviable but has to be kept going simply because a poor decision was made about changing the boundaries of councils.
There are ramifications in making councils smaller which need to be clearly articulated before the government makes a decision. The best way to do that is by having an independent body, not a political promise or by thinking, ‘This will get us a few votes at the next election’, but by making sure a non-partisan, non-political body makes the recommendations so we do not have interference from politics which could lead to making a bad decision.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Sustainable Water Resources
Sustainable Water Resources
Continued from 14 May 2014.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak to this important motion before the Assembly on our precious water resources, granted it has been some time since this was last before the Chamber. I believe it was in May last year, and the member for Katherine moved an amendment to the motion.
Speaking to that amendment, originally we came into this Chamber with a motion by the member for Nhulunbuy which said:
- … that this Assembly:
recognises that the sustainable use of water resources is fundamental to the economic, social and cultural development of the Northern Territory
acknowledges that potential impact of water allocations on the Territory’s unique environment biodiversity and cultural values
reaffirms the water allocations under the Water Act should be based on sound scientific analysis following proper consultation with all water users and stakeholders
supports Indigenous economic development and understands the importance of strategic Indigenous reserves
However, during that debate the motion was amended by the member for Katherine, who is the minister for natural resources, paying particular attention to amending the last two points. The member for Katherine wanted to remove the points that the Assembly supports Indigenous economic development and understands the importance of strategic Indigenous reserves, and resolves that the Water Act be amended to incorporate the provision of strategic Indigenous reserves. He moved to strip away the references to strategic Indigenous reserves, to have it read that ‘the Assembly supports Indigenous economic development through strategic and appropriate allocation of the Territory’s resources’.
We have a few different points of view. We, on our side of parliament, have made it very clear on the record that we support strategic Indigenous reserves – the importance of water to traditional owners and the opportunity that presents to them for economic development. The idea of strategic Indigenous reserves was not pulled out of thin air. There was a great deal of strategic thinking, policy development work and consultation to come up with the strategic Indigenous reserves.
The National Water Commission also places a strong emphasis on supporting and giving Indigenous Australians access to water resources. It said in June 2012 its position with regard to Indigenous access to water resources was:
- Access to water resources for cultural and economic purposes can make a significant contribution to the aspirations and wellbeing of Indigenous Australians. Until recently this had been largely overlooked in our water planning and management decisions. The National Water Initiative … recognises Indigenous people as legitimate stakeholders in water planning and management, and acknowledges the need to identify Indigenous water values and water requirements in water plans.
Indigenous Australians have managed their lands and water sustainably for thousands of generations. Through their spiritual, cultural and customary connections to the landscape, they have acquired a deep knowledge and understanding of Australia’s water systems. Incorporating this knowledge into Australia’s water management approaches represents an opportunity for all governments to recognise Indigenous water issues and improve the sustainable management of our water systems.
- Peter Yu, Chair of North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance Limited … has supported calls for the NT Government to reinstate the Strategic Indigenous Reserve … water policy ensuring a foundation for an equitable approach to Indigenous participation in the current and developing economies of the Territory and across northern Australia.
Mr Yu said that the NT Government has the unique opportunity to be the leaders in bringing greater opportunity for development and prosperity in many marginalised Indigenous communities across the Top End.
Mr Yu said ‘the Ken Henry Asian Century White Paper prepared for the Australian Government clearly articulated the challenges of world food security and other issues, and the need for governments and industries to work with communities to consider new policy and reform measures in responding to those increasing demands’.
Mr Yu said the Strategic Indigenous Reserve is a fair and acceptable contemporary method of ensuring the equity participation of Indigenous interests in the economy now and into the future. He said ‘the reality is that while Traditional Owners have significant land interests across the north, we are cash and capital poor. To participate in mainstream economic opportunities we need to build constructive leverage. The SIR is a legitimate way for a new engagement based on developing economic independence and resilience in those communities so that they become less reliant on public sector outlays’.
The Territory government, under the CLP, scrapped all the work on strategic Indigenous reserves. On 9 October 2013, the member for Katherine, the minister for natural resources, in a ministerial statement to the House, stated with regard to water resources:
- This approach has now been reviewed by this government with strategic Indigenous reserve no longer included in water allocation plans. It is this government’s view that due to the relatively low level of use of water resources and the right that all Territorians, including Aboriginal Territorians, currently have to seek water licences, it is appropriate that strategic Indigenous reserves no longer be considered in water allocation plans. That said, this is not a government that dares to be so arrogant that it will not listen to the views of others in formulating policy.
In pursuance of maintaining open dialogue on this topic, the policy around strategic Indigenous reserves will undergo a consultation and review process over the course of the next two-and-a-half years to determine if this matter should be reconsidered. In researching that position, I acknowledge the arguments put forward by the members for Arnhem, Arafura and Stuart who lobbied hard on this matter on behalf of their constituents. The constituents of those electorates are lucky to have such hard-working and determined members representing them in this parliament.
Clearly we are debating a motion the government is moving to amend to say strategic Indigenous reserves should not be considered in water allocation licensing. The strategic Indigenous reserve policy is gone. The government made a commitment in October 2013 that it would be looking at this over the next two-and-a-half years. I am keen to hear what work has been done in that area. I am also keen to hear from the members for Stuart and Arafura on their views with regard to strategic Indigenous reserves and the value their constituents place on their water resources within the electorates.
We believe strategic Indigenous reserves should be included in the motion put before the House in May last year. It was a shame to see the strategic Indigenous reserves were completely dumped by the CLP government. They gave fair recognition to traditional owners and great opportunity for them to look at economic development opportunities on their land. This is another episode in the CLP saga with regard to water allocations and licences.
When people reflect on this CLP government, water licences will be one of the issues people remember. It has been an extremely controversial matter under this government, particularly the process of allocating licences.
There is a lot of business to get through on General Business Day, but the debate has not gone away. People have not forgotten. People remember some controversial processes and changes in the allocation of water licences in the Northern Territory. There will be much more debate on this in time to come. At a time when this government has a mantra of developing the north, it is important it does that to the best of its ability and takes all Territorians on that journey. By denying strategic Indigenous reserves it is silencing the voice of traditional owners and not giving them an opportunity to look into more economic development opportunities for their land.
We have also seen in this period that the important key environmental stakeholders and advocates have been silenced. They are struggling at the moment. We are talking about the Environment Centre of the NT, the Arid Lands Environment Centre and the Environmental Defenders Office. They have had significant cuts under the Giles government. They have also faced significant cuts to funding under the Abbott government. It is making it very hard for them to get on with business.
Clearly government will often not see eye to eye with the environmental advocates but it is very important in a democracy that you have strong independent voices holding government to account. That is what the Environment Centre of the Northern Territory and the Arid Lands Environment Centre has endeavoured to do for a very long time.
At this time, when we are seeing some significant changes in the area of water licences, it is a shame to see that voice for the environment is being silenced. They are struggling to keep their head above water, keep staff on and ensure there is strong, independent advocacy in the Northern Territory for the environment.
I will leave it at that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I support the original motion, but I do not support that we have not made an exact reference to strategic Indigenous reserves, which was in the motion before the House in May last year.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): You thought you got rid of me. We might agree on banana freckle, but we do not always agree on water, minister.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to talk on a couple of issues that need to be raised in relation to water resources.
I have not heard anything for ages about the catchments committees. I am not even sure what they do. It would be good to find out from the minister, maybe through a statement that could perhaps be delivered to all people on this side the night before – one of those statements – and a discussion about the water advisory committees.
The water advisory committees were never formally dissolved, but there was a new water advisory committee process that started with advertisements in the paper. I might have put my name down for that. I have not heard anything about those water advisory committees either. Parliament could do with a report on those committees and what they are doing.
I raise that not only because government needs to tell us about those bodies but because it is one of the issues that has been raised in the rural area is an increase in the production of water from the Howard East bore field by Power and Water.
I remember when the government was in opposition, it used to cry, ‘Yes, Labor government you have to build the Warri dam’. Lord knows how much it would have cost. Now the government is in power it realises the Warri dam is not a simple matter. It will be pretty expensive to build and has some environmental and a few other issues. So they have gone down what I regard as a more sensible path and are trying to get people to use water wisely.
In that process they have looked at other ways of increasing the amount of water into the Darwin water supply. They have been looking at the possibility of reusing Manton Dam, and would be good for the minister to say where that has gone. I had some concerns raised with me last week by recreational users of Manton Dam who thought that under the Darwin regional plan or the new water strategy that was released last year – which is an excellent strategy – there was talk about the future of the recreational use of Manton Dam. The government might want to use it to augment the Darwin water supply.
One reason I am a bit sad tonight is because the Development Consent Authority is having a night meeting at Howard Springs to discuss the future of the Darwin regional plan. I thank the Chair of the DCA for allowing me to have another time to put my submission directly to him as, unfortunately, it was difficult to get there tonight, especially as I had the first four items on the Notice Paper, even if I did stuff up on the very last one, but that is neither here nor there.
The issue I am raising is that people were concerned about the future recreational use of Manton Dam. There is a rumour – whether it is based on fact, I cannot say – on Facebook there was a call for people who use Manton Dam to turn up tonight at the DCA meeting, because they thought the government would close it.
I understand the government is looking at other ways of reducing the need to build another dam. The department – or perhaps Power and Water – has instigated a program telling people to use water wisely and turn off sprinklers. That is happening at the moment. I encourage the departments to also grow a few more native plants, not a bundle of Queensland imported swamp lilies and sweet potatoes down kilometres of median strip in the member for Port Darwin’s electorate...
Mr Elferink: Just leave my bloody swamp lilies.
Mr WOOD: Well, if I see you out at night with a pitchfork digging up potatoes, I will know the reason why they planted them in the median strip. Having grown sweet potatoes for a fair while at Bathurst Island, I know they use a lot of water. That was a dumb thing to do when you consider some other plantings around the highways, like near Howard Springs where they get no water except for during the Wet Season. The government needs to reduce the amount of water used.
The motion says:
- Reaffirms that water allocations under the Water Act should be based on sound scientific analysis following proper consultation with all water users and stakeholders.
That refers to primary producers’ allocation of water. It should also apply in relation to Power and Water. I understand Power and Water has limitations on its water licence but it is increasing the volume of water pumped out of that area. If the Howard East Water Advisory Committee still operated, we would be getting the knowledge firsthand from Power and Water to see whether that increase in water pumped out of the Howard East bore field will affect other bores or the biodiversity of the area. If you pump water for a long period of time, the water table drops and river flows stop earlier than they would normally. Water consumption in the rural area can have an effect on the biodiversity of the area.
It is controversial and there has been much discussion about who the government gave water to. One reason you gave water to those people is because they promised to grow crops. I would love a report on that person who said they needed that much water to grow a crop, and whether it has been grown. Part of the philosophy behind what the government promoted was ‘use it or lose it’ – or was that with gas?
Mr Westra van Holthe: Both.
Mr WOOD: Both, yes.
We need some indication. If we gave 10 times more water to somebody who said, ‘I will grow this crop’, who some of us believe should not have received it without proof they could grow the crop, I am interested to know if we can receive a report which gauges whether the capacity of the water licence was used. That would be an open and transparent process. We could see that people were not hoarding water and were using it for what they said they would. That undertaking would be welcomed.
The government does not support the strategic Indigenous reserves. I can understand why, but I do not think it is good. It would make more sense for the government to conserve some water for future use for Aboriginal groups in that area.
The argument is that Aboriginal people can put their name down for water just like anyone else. However, for whatever reason some of these Aboriginal places are not ready for that kind of development yet. Some of them may be. My understanding is some Aboriginal groups put their names down for water. It is not quite as simple as saying, ‘You can apply for water but you need to have a farm that is ready to use that water with the machinery and the skilled people’. Sometimes, even though you hope those type of developments could occur, those communities are not ready to move into that sort of production.
If you give all the water away, the only other option for those people later is to buy the water. That is …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Like everybody else.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I realise that. Of course, that raises an interesting discussion about whether water should be traded for dollars or handed back to the government and kept as a no-cost resource. If someone is asking for a larger amount of water than they need, and we have run out of water allocation licences because the aquifer has reached its limits, can people make money out of their water licence? To me, water is an asset that belongs to the government, is it right that it is then used to make money? Or should it retain its zero value and we have tighter controls on its use? Obviously there is some philosophy on that as well.
I am not sure that people who have been given water licences under the first allocation should be allowed to use water they do not particularly want as a commercial enterprise. It is an issue about which we have not had enough debate. Perhaps we are not at a stage where people are wanting to sell a portion of their water to someone else. I do not know. I feel if people cannot use the water, then they should hand it back to the government so government can find another person who can use it, and it is not used as a means of income. Those are my thoughts on that.
Obviously, you would hope the water advisory committees look at more specific issues. I would love to know how a water advisory committee relates to a catchment. The Howard River is a catchment. The water advisory committees can advise on big and small catchments. We talk about red tape sometimes. As much as I believe we should have water advisory committees, I hope they do not have overlapping work, because it is important work. We need to set up those committees in a useful way.
I mentioned the water strategy that has been issued. I believe it is Power and Water’s strategy. That is a good document. It would be worthwhile getting an update on where the government sees the strategy in that document going. It has a whole series of dams. One of the areas which should be looked at more closely is the off-river dam near the Adelaide River, which has potential. It would be interesting to see whether the government has done any serious work on that option to reduce the need for the government to build a dam, but still have a large reserve of water. I do not know whether the government has done any costings on that project, but it is one that caught my eye when reading that strategy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not have much more to say. I do not know whether another member of the opposition would like to speak. I raised a few points that need looking at. It would be good, minister, if you made a statement dealing with these issues I have raised today.
There comes a time when the punishment is finished. The members on this side should be given a reasonable time to read statements so we can have a good process of debate, which we did not have today in relation to one of the statements. We need to move on from that and make sure everyone has a fair chance to read what the government has to say.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, we are not accepting the amendments proposed by the member for Katherine because they basically remove any commitment the government might have to incorporating strategic Indigenous reserves through the Water Act. Clearly it is just paying lip service to this.
This government now claims to have turned over a new leaf, saying it will be listening to and consulting with people. I am interested to see how that plays out in this sphere. We know that government has successfully put offside a whole range of stakeholders, including traditional owners, the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the NT, the NT Farmers Association and environmental groups. I am interested to see how the government moves forward with this.
I thank everybody who has made a contribution to this statement. It is an important issue in the Territory and is close to the hearts of many. I genuinely hope we see a commitment to some change from this government after witnessing the unprecedented step the Environment Centre has taken in legal action against the minister with regard to his obligations under the act to fully investigate allocations.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall leave it there, but this issue will not go away. We need to see some real commitment on it from the government.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I will talk about a well-respected, well-known Territorian whose work achievements and life passion have benefited many grateful Territorians. I am talking about David Miller.
Dave retired at the end of last year after more than 50 years serving Territorians as a public servant. When he retired Dave was the drilling and bore test manager for the southern region in the Department of Land Resource Management. Dave was an icon in the Northern Territory public service in Alice Springs. In his role as a driller he has been involved in every major water project in the Northern Territory since the 1960s. Many Territorians owe him a great debt.
Dave embodies the professional spirit of the public service and his commitment to the job is an example to others. Last year he won the Chief Minister’s Public Sector Medal for outstanding leadership. Throughout his career he was often recognised for his abilities in the management of staff and drilling operations going above and beyond the call of duty and making his job a way of life.
David Miller has been a constant throughout the last 50 years, which has seen great change across the Territory. He has covered hundreds of thousands of kilometres and worked and lived in some of the harshest and most remote locations in the Territory.
Dave joined the Commonwealth Department of Territories aged just 16 years on 5 March 1964 as a junior driller in Alice Springs. At that point, I was not even a year-and-a-half old. Dave was transferred to the Northern Territory Public Sector on 1 July 1978. Except for a period of active service from 1967 to 1969 as a national serviceman during the Vietnam War, Dave has worked continuously in the water drilling section of the NT public service ever since.
Interestingly, when Dave started work in 1964 he was not interested in working as a driller. He had left school and went bush for two years for cattle work. Following this stint he returned to Alice Springs and looked for work.
A friend encouraged him to apply for a job as a driller with the NT Water Resources Division. However, as he was only 17 at the time, on the advice of his friend he fudged his paperwork and put his age as 19. Because of this, after working for 12 months he was sent service papers and in 1967 Dave was called up to serve in the Vietnam War. After serving Australia for two years in Vietnam, Dave returned to drilling. He says he never thought of doing anything else.
In a recent interview with ABC radio, Dave said the most rewarding part of his work was the appreciation he received from Aboriginal people after finding water for them. Indeed, some of his best memories were when his team would install a bore in a remote outstation and provide the residents with good, clean water. He said it was a rewarding experience.
His commitment to the job was an example to others. Territorians on the land owe Dave a great debt of gratitude. On behalf of Territorians I say thank you to Dave for your service to the Northern Territory. I wish you well in your retirement.
It was a pleasure late last year to go to Alice Springs to join Dave and many of his colleagues with the Department of Land Resource Management, and many other government departments, who attended his farewell. It was very interesting listening to some of the stories Dave told. I am sure anybody who could corner Dave and sit down with him for half-an-hour would come away much wiser. Based on some of the things he could tell you, it would be an extremely valuable experience.
After 50 years in the Northern Territory public service David Miller will no longer be drilling or testing bores throughout Central Australia. He has retired. I thank him personally, but also on behalf of the Northern Territory government, for his years of service to the Northern Territory.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, in Question Time this morning the Chief Minister was asked who made the decision to terminate the appointment of Terry Mills as the Territory’s representative in Indonesia. Typically, the Chief Minister’s response was deceptive.
The Chief Minister said that any matters about the engagement of any public employee should be put to the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment. This echoes the Chief Minister’s statement at a media conference in response to a question on the Mills’ termination:
‘I don’t get informed of people who separate or commence their engagement of employment with the Northern Territory Public Service on an everyday basis,’ he said.
‘Sometimes you hear things on the roundabout, so I’m just being informed of the situation now. I’ll take advice from the Public Service Commissioner in regards to any employment.’
Are the Chief Minister’s responses to the questions in parliament and the media conference true? The answer is no. Why? Because the Chief Minister knows he approved the appointment of Terry Mills as the NT’s representative in Jakarta and Mr Mills was engaged as a company under a contract signed by the then Chief Minister’s CEO Gary Barnes. These facts were confirmed unequivocally in an answer to a written question provided by the Chief Minister in documents discovered under FOI.
The Chief Minister must now tell the truth to the media and correct the record in this Assembly. Terry Mills has also spoken on this matter. Mr Mills said he found the Chief Minister’s comments hard to believe and added:
- ‘To be effectively politically assassinated whilst I was in Tokyo and now, in my view, politically assassinated whilst in Jakarta looks like overkill to me but it certainly plays out quite badly. The optics of this aren’t so good’.
Terry Mills is spot on. The optics are appalling, particularly for his successor Adam Giles who stabbed Terry in the back on two separate occasions while he was representing the Northern Territory overseas, once in Japan and once in Jakarta.
The optics are not good for the Chief Minister when viewed through the lens of decency, character and truth. The optics will not be lost on the Territory community because, once again, it exposes the Chief Minister as unfit to hold the high office of head of government in the Northern Territory. The optics are not good for members opposite who trailed on the coattails of Terry Mills, who led them to government two-and-a-half years ago, and stood by when he was cut down by Adam Giles while he was representing the Northern Territory in Japan.
First-time CLP MLAs who owe their careers to Terry Mills should be ashamed. They are the members for Arafura, Daly and Stuart. What have they to say about the Chief Minister’s treatment of Terry Mills? Will the members for Drysdale and Sanderson stand up for decency and speak out on the second overseas attack on Terry Mills? Will Terry Mills’ successor, the member for Blain, hang his head in shame or place his disgust about the second assassination on the public record? These questions need to be answered.
It will be instructive to see the advice on Mills’ termination request from the Commissioner for Public Employment by the Chief Minister. Will he table the document?
The last word rightfully belongs to Terry Mills. He believes his sacking will add to the turmoil created by the leadership coup. It certainly will. Will the nine members opposite finally summon up the courage to do what the community is crying out for?
Mr Deputy Speaker, the government led by Adam Giles is bereft of decency.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek support from the new Minister for Housing, the member for Stuart. In the electorate of Barkly, at the community of Ali Curung, there are three elderly couples who do not have working stoves in their Territory housing. In one case, the matter was reported in September 2014, with a new stove delivered, but never connected. The lots in Ali Curung that have no working stoves in their Territory houses are Lot 75, which was reported in September 2014, Lot 231, which was reported on 16 November 2014, and Lot 232, reported in December 2014.
The elderly residents of these Territory houses have advised me they were told the Northern Territory Housing department has no money left to effect repairs. They are asking you to please help them install the stoves to a working order and, in Lot 75, to connect the new stove which is physically sitting in the house.
This also relates to an alarming situation across the Barkly electorate, where I am witnessing Territory houses boarded up and unoccupied when we have extensive waiting lists for families that need support, which must start with an appropriate dwelling. Not only does the matter of housing relate to family safety and security, it also relates to regional economic development. With Territory housing stock sitting idle, it means contractors are idle. When we have busy contractors, we have a regional economy which is moving forward and generating income for the workers. Those workers and their families channel that income back into the regional economy.
The important work to start with is those dwellings in the community of Ali Curung. The tenants that have advised me of this intolerable situation are elderly, respected people within their community. They are tenants of government housing who are doing the best they can, but are being neglected by the CLP government. You have a perfect opportunity to address this and you will get the accolades you deserve, minister.
I hope we can work together on this, and you will come to the Barkly to witness for yourself those Territory houses standing idle and boarded up, untenanted, and meet contractors who have some important information to share, as constituents and business people, about the panel contract of operating repairs and maintenance in the housing sector. Also, you can obtain an understanding of an important electorate which is part of your jurisdiction – constituents we both represent and support.
I am very happy to talk with you about this issue; I will meet with you anytime. You are most welcome to come to the Barkly. Most importantly, I appreciate you addressing this issue immediately.
I have a letter drafted to send to the senior citizens at Ali Curung who have raised the issue. I will also follow up with a letter to you to give you the details. I am sure together, as elected members of the community, we can resolve this important issue. Then we can move on to other issues within the electorate that now come under your jurisdiction as the Minister for Housing.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, today I have a passionate concern during a premier time of focus on the military history of the Northern Territory. February every year sees deserved attention in this area – now, rightly commemorated every 19 February with a national day of recognition. Although much has to be done, there is more to remember.
This April I will travel to Gallipoli for a number of reasons. One is personal; my grandfather was an Anzac soldier. He was wounded in action and I seek to understand and commemorate his service in my journey.
I advise this House that I am undertaking travel at my own expense and I have been given a place in the commemoration, travelling with Dr Tom Lewis OAM, well-known Territory military historian who was awarded a place as a veteran of our forces, having served in the Middle East at war.
I secondly wish to travel to Gallipoli as a tribute to our own Territory men. I go there to salute around 400 men who journeyed to the Great War from all around the outback and its scattered settlements of those days – men like mechanic Gordon Cowper of the Australian Flying Corps; Sergeant James McDonald, the carpenter from Katherine who was awarded both the Distinguished Conduct Medal and a mention in despatches; Frank Brazill, a stockman from Alice Springs who became a Light Horseman; and of course Alfred O’Neill, a miner from Pine Creek who fought in the Battle of Messines, made famous in the Australian film, Beneath Hill 60.
Of course, we now realise we are the Territory of Albert Borella VC, one of the immortal 100 who has been given the highest honour of the Victoria Cross, loaned to us recently by the most generous Borella family. The cross is in our own Parliament House as I speak, in the Main Hall.
The saluting of the Anzac spirit is more than just World War I. It is about being conscious of further conflicts: World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, peace-keeping operations, and more.
In the Territory and across the Top End, bombed and at war for two years in 1942 and 1943, we have a special understanding that the rest of Australia is beginning to appreciate the unique nature of our battles. But it is more than just the 235 dead on the first day of 19 February 1942. It is also about more than 80 who lie outside our harbour in the Japanese submarine the I124. It is more than appreciating the nearly 2000 people we know died in the defence of the Top End in numerous air raids.
We have not done enough to commemorate the defenders of northern Australia. For instance, who knows Francis Emms, the Navy cook who fought so well behind a machine gun in the harbour that so many considered him worthy of a Victoria Cross? Who knows about the nursing sister, Margaret de Mestre who died on the hospital ship Manunda? Who celebrates the bravery of USA fighter pilot Major Floyd Pell who led the flight of 10 Kitty Hawks which were our aerial defence on 19 February 1942? We should know more about Wing Commander Tindal who died manning a gun at the RAAF Base. Of course, who knows about the tremendous Tasmanian, Teddy Sheehan, who put out from here on board HMAS Armidale north of Darwin in 1942 to go down fighting in a gallant defence of his ship as it was under attack?
I suggest we must do more to bring these heroes not just into the consciousness of Territorians but of all Australians. For this is the place where battles were fought on our own homeland. Where else in Australia can that be said?
I speak too of understanding the enemy dead within our shores and seas. I recently was at Pearl Harbour, standing over the wreck of the mighty warship, USS Arizona. I was struck to see so many Japanese people visiting. We do not see so many here. But we still do not know the names of all those from Japan who died here and whose bodies still lie unidentified and alone. Perhaps it is time we should.
In 1934 a Turkish commander certified that his country would take charge of those World War I Anzacs who fought and found permanent homes in Gallipoli’s ground. My grandfather was nearly one of them. He was wounded and evacuated from that campaign. So I do not have a reason to be personally grateful to the Turkish leader, but nearly 10 000 Australian families do.
Kemal Atatrk, Commander of the 19th Turkish Division and later his country’s first president, said – I have been to Gallipoli and read this at Anzac Cove:
- Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives …
You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country.
Therefore rest in peace.
There is no different between Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours …
You, the mothers, who sent their sons from far away countries wipe away your tears, your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace.
After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.
That inscription also appears on the Kemal Atatrk Memorial, Anzac Parade, Canberra.
It is time we did something about those anonymous war dead from the Japanese forces who lie in our waters and in our land. It is time for further reconciliation.
Recently I was a guest on board the Japanese destroyer Hatakaze when a ceremony was held for all maritime people who died in World War II in and around Darwin. The ship’s company paid their respects to those who died on board Neptuna, Peary, Zealander, Meigs and a number of others, as well as their own comrades still inside the submarine I124. I was struck by Captain Umezaki and his respectful drive for what he felt important. He understood our feelings about the war. He wished to be sensitive but also to step forward.
I would like us to join the captain and many others who wish to open up their hearts in the cause of maintaining freedom and becoming closer. I do not draw back from saying there are some who will find this difficult. I believe if you do the wrong thing in warfare you should be held accountable for your actions. These were military like our military – warrior against warrior. Sometimes they won, sometimes they lost.
Some time ago I saw a film called The Railway Man. It is about a British prisoner of war imprisoned by the Japanese and treated badly. Surviving the war, many years later he seeks revenge on one of his former captors. Imprisoning him, he treated him badly. In the end he releases his former captor and tells him while he cannot forget, he can forgive. He tells his former captor, ‘I would say to anyone who condemns this action that sometimes the hating has to stop’.
I hope we can open up more understanding of Australia’s military historical past. I would like to take Territorians forward to a brave new era. I hope to see you all there when we achieve that success.
Mr Deputy Speaker, tomorrow is 19 February and we commemorate the Bombing of Darwin at the Cenotaph. When I first came to Darwin 33 years ago a small crowd would gather there. Now thousands come along to what will be the 73rd commemorative event of the Bombing of Darwin tomorrow. I encourage everyone listening to this broadcast to take the time tomorrow to attend. If you are unable to attend, at least stop between 9.30 am and 10 am to reflect on those who fought and died and paid the ultimate price during World War II to maintain our freedom and democracy, those who fought in subsequent battles, the peace-keeping missions and those who today are out there somewhere protecting our freedom, democracy and our wonderful way of life. At the very least they deserve our special thanks and our admiration.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I talk about the rally which was organised on the steps of parliament at 12.30 pm yesterday. It was one of an unprecedented number of rallies held by Territorians since the CLP came to government some two-and-a-half years ago. They were rallies with strong and passionate messages from Territorians fighting for their rights and exercising their democratic right to hold peaceful, non-violent rallies about holding government to account and having their voices heard.
Whether it be nurses, teachers, firefighters, ambos, paramedics, workers from all walks of life, or women, families and kids, we have seen them all on the steps of Parliament House over the last two-and-a-half years. Sadly, the messages from these rallies too often fall on deaf ears. The opposite members of the government very rarely attend these rallies and dismiss them as gatherings not worthy of their attention.
Yesterday’s rally was organised by our hard working firefighters, along with their union United Voice. I note it was also attended by other sector workers, including some teachers, which was great to see.
The firefighters are weary. They are fed up with the CLP government that until today has done nothing to address their call for cancer legislation which we know exists in other jurisdictions. No doubt, the media release that has been issued today by the Minister for Business is a direct result of the call for action that went out from the firefighters’ rally yesterday.
I want to tell members of this House how it is that the planning for yesterday’s rally by the firefighters evolved because the Minister for Business, the member for Sanderson, came in here at Question Time today and said that it was simply a rally organised by the Labor Party, and shamefully described it as a cynical scam.
I came into Darwin just over a fortnight ago to attend briefings on the fifth floor, as well as meetings with other stakeholders associated with my shadow responsibilities. I was here throughout the whole sorry saga that was the failed coup – or the coup, coup, coup – over 2 and 3 February 2015.
Whilst some of my briefings on the fifth floor were cancelled because the place was in meltdown, I always have plenty of things to do and fill my time when I come across from Nhulunbuy, and had no difficulty filling the vacancies that came up in my calendar.
On the afternoon of Tuesday 3 February 2015, the CLP was locked up in a parliamentary wing meeting fighting over who would be the Chief Minister with, no doubt, threats being hurled about who might be taking their bats and balls and going home if they did not get to be the Chief Minister or let the member for Braitling hold on to the top job. While the government of the Northern Territory played out this brawl very publically with, bizarrely, a 1 am media conference announcing a Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister elect, it highlighted how focused the government members were on themselves.
That same afternoon, whilst the parliamentary wing of the CLP was locked up in a room somewhere in parliament having this internal brawl, I was sitting in a Darwin caf having a coffee with Jock McLeod, 70 years of age and a veteran Territory firefighter of 47 years’ service. He is also a great fighter for the rights of firefighters to be recognised with special legislation to ensure that those who have contracted cancer in the course of their work can receive adequate cover through workers compensation.
While I have only known Jock for a few months since I came into the shadow responsibility for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, anyone who knows Jock McLeod would know him to be one of the most selfless individuals, who is more about looking out for his fellow firies than for himself. That is the assessment I have arrived at of Jock McLeod and what kind of a man he is. Yes, he has also battled cancer for a couple of years and thankfully is currently in remission. That is not to say he does not still suffer a number of things associated with his cancer.
It struck me as we sat in this caf talking about the journey of the firefighters trying to have presumptive legislation put into place, that two private members’ bills had been introduced by the member for Fannie Bay when he held responsibility for this shadow portfolio. He told me about the incredibly disappointing meetings he had with the Chief Minister and the member for Fong Lim when he was the Deputy Chief Minister, and how incredibly frustrating it was that the rights of firefighters were simply being ignored by this government, which was full of talk about what it would do, but never actually did anything.
It struck me as I sat there in this caf listening to this man who was so passionate, who was not about to give up, who wanted to keep fighting, that all the while at the other end of the mall, the CLP government parliamentary wing was battling it out with one another over the jobs, loyalties or whatever rumours it was they were hooked up on. It struck me how reprehensible it was that the CLP government was in lockdown fighting for 18 hours over who would be the Chief Minister and who would be in Cabinet and who would not. All the while that was happening, Jock McLeod was one example of a Territorian doing his best to have his voice heard, representing the firefighters with this important legislation.
It was during that conversation that Jock said, ‘I really think we need to be doing more. Lynne, when is parliament sitting? What is the date, because we need to start the year with firefighters. I will get the lads together. I will get the boys and girls together and we will be there on the steps of parliament. You just let me know what the date is’, which I did. He said, ‘I will rally the troops’.
I place that on the record and hope the member for Sanderson is listening to this. He has no idea of the deep offence he caused this morning when he responded to a question I put to him in Question Time which concluded with:
- Will you now separate this legislation out from the shameful reductions in workers compensation you are flagging and introduce it on urgency next week?.
He began his response by talking about what a cynical scam the rally on the steps of Parliament House was yesterday.
I can feed straight back to the member for Sanderson that the firefighters, and Jock McLeod in particular, were outraged by that description, particularly so that a member of parliament who is a former policeman should know what it is like to be at the front line protecting Territorians day in, day out, in what can be very dangerous work.
Yesterday’s gathering was small, but the resolve amongst those gathered was strong and resolute. I thank those firefighters who gathered. Those who were at work were not given permission to step out to attend, thanks very much to the government, so numbers were slightly fewer. I thank Keith Hutton, who emceed the event. He had travelled up from Alice Springs to be present at it. Jock McLeod delivered a very powerful message to those who were gathered. I hope someone up on the fifth floor was sticking their head out of the comfort of their parliamentary suite and listening over the balcony.
I put on the record the names that Jock McLeod read out of firefighters he commemorated with the placing of firefighters’ helmets on the steps of Parliament House. I would like you to bear with me while I read through this list of some 28 or so names.
Those who have passed away: Ray Kinter, Paul Lomas, Dennis Lugg, Bob Wills, Chris Lake, Peter Luke, Adrian Creighton, Ian Orr, Brian Chong Wee, Ron Maddox, Tony Robinson, Max Schmidt, Jim Wilson, Alan Stubbs, John Pithy, Jack Myte, Bish Hyke, Des Lambshed, Martin Gentle, Bill Moore, Cecil de Masso, Don Cubillo, Ken Frost and Billy Muir.
The names of those firefighters who continue to battle, or have perhaps come through their battle and into remission: Dave Barjury, Danny McManus, Colin Snowden, Jock McLeod, Tom Lawler and Ray Tandy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an important issue for Territory firefighters. We look forward to seeing the legislation which is to be introduced next week. We hope it is comprehensive and meets the needs of firefighters.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a topic that has been kept hidden by a minister who does things after parliament sits and sometimes late on a Friday night – the lifting of the pokies cap. I have a media story from June 2014 where the Treasurer, Dave Tollner, hinted that he would like to see the number of pokies in pubs rise to 30, and in clubs up to 90. He explained why that would help make pubs a bit more friendly, and said he had the backing of the Australian Hotels Association NT.
President of the Australian Hotels Association NT, Justin Coleman said:
- … lifting the cap on pokie numbers to 30 in pubs would still put it NT among the lowest in Australia.
‘We welcome the increase in poker machines and yeah, we have been pushing this for quite a long time ...
Then at 6 pm on Friday 12 December the minister announced that the government would lift the cap on poker machines. It introduced an amendment to the Gaming Machine Act. Under that change, under Regulation 3A, they lifted the cap from 10 to 20 for pubs, and for clubs from 45 to 55. That was done after parliament had finished, late on a Friday.
I remind the minister that this was said the other day:
Under my leadership, this government will be more consultative with Territorians and engage with them before we make important and crucial decisions on the future of the Territory.
What makes it more cynical is one of the deemed papers yesterday was called Gaming Machine Amendment (Levies) Regulation 2014. This makes regulations to introduce a new levy on electronic gaming machines. The tabling note says:
- Due to the removal of the Northern Territory-wide cap on gaming machines, along with the increase to individual venue caps … it was decided that, to offset community concerns about the increase in community gaming machine numbers, a levy will be required to be paid for each gaming machine sought under a new or existing gaming machine licence. The levy will be used to improve regulatory regimes and also go towards education and problem gambling help services.
Even that did not get a mention. I am cynical of this government, knowing that throughout Australia there are concerns in the boarder community about the effects of poker machines. I go to the pokies every now and then. I am not against the pokies, but I understand they can be a major issue in the Northern Territory. You only have to go to the casinos in Darwin and Alice Springs to know that. Blind Freddy can see that.
Yet there was no discussion by this government about whether we should lift the number of pokies. I can understand that new pubs, for instance, would want to be on a level playing field and perhaps should get the same number of pokies as other pubs. That is different. This is about lifting the number of machines in pubs in my area from 10 to 20. This is about lifting the number in the clubs from 45 to 55.
Is this really about consultation? Is this really about discussing these important issues out in the open? Or is this just doing what the AAHA pays you for at election time? It gives you a donation of $150 000 and, ‘To repay that we will bump up the number of pokies’. Is there any concern or discussion about the possible effects of increasing the number of pokies in our community?
Plenty of commentators are saying increasing the number of pokies will increase the problems. Do we discuss that? No, we ignore it by issuing a media release one evening after parliament finished announcing we will raise the number of poker machines in pubs and clubs. If that is the way we run government then the government is a disgrace.
The same thing happened with the sale of the Government Printing Office and the Darwin Bus Service. Announcements were made when parliament had finished at the end of the year. There was no opportunity for anyone to debate whether it was good or bad.
This is even worse. Many people, not only in the Territory but in Australia, have concerns about poker machines having a detrimental effect on the livelihood of people who become addicted to playing them. We know people become addicted to them, use all their money and end up in debt or committing crimes to repay some of that debt.
Is there a discussion about it? What is the point of having parliament if the minister can, behind closed doors, change the regulations about poker machines without an in-depth, mature discussion about whether we need to increase the number. It is a disgrace that this government would make its friends in the AHA a priority to keep them happy. It would be more worried about …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, you are very close to making allegations of bribery in this parliament.
Mr WOOD: No, no.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I want you to be aware of how close you are sailing to the wind. Those comments you can make by way of substantive motion at any time, but please be conscious of what you are alleging.
Mr WOOD: I will repeat what the Australian Hotels Association said:
- ‘We welcome the increase in poker machines and yeah, we have been pushing this for quite a long time ...
That is what this is about. There is no doubt the hotels association has been pushing this for a long time. The alcohol industry, the gambling industry and land developers – as in New South Wales – should not be allowed to donate to political parties so there is a separation of that risk of those accusations being made.
There was no discussion about this. It is about increasing the profits in the hotels, clubs and pubs. It is probably taking advantage that we have many fly-in fly-out workers as well. I do not have any problem saying this government has been lobbied by the Australian Hotels Association to increase the number of poker machines, and has done exactly that. People can make up their minds whether those decisions have been influenced by any other factors.
Having tried to find out whether we could reduce the closing times of pubs in Mitchell Street, and knowing where that got me – both sides of this House received donations from the Australian Hotels Association during the last election. I have no doubt it is a very influential group when it comes to government policy.
The government should be a lot more open and transparent. It can do that by bringing those important matters to this House and having the guts to debate them. Also, have a discussion about whether it is appropriate that the Australian Hotels Association pushed the government for more pokies. It appears to be a one-sided debate. I am disgusted that this government has not had the gumption to come into this parliament before it raised the number of pokies in clubs and pubs without a proper discussion.
Where does that fit with the statement that ‘we have to have consultation with Territorians before we make crucial decisions in relation to the future of the Territory’? It was not done in this case.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I talk about a subject that has been hitting us all, the latest power and water tariff increases that have hit all of our bills with the 5% increase passed on as of 1 January 2015. We have also seen the latest Auditor-General’s report where he carefully looked through the financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2014 of a broad range of departments and government-owned corporations.
However, it was the Power and Water Corporation statements that reminded me of this government’s broken promise to Territorians that it would reduce the cost of living. We can see in the financial information the huge impact the CLP government is having on day-to-day lives of Territorians as they find more money to keep the lights on and the water running.
In 2012 the then CLP opposition, under the leadership of the former member for Blain, the former Chief Minister and now the former Ambassador to Indonesia, Terry Mills, promised all Territorians the CLP would reduce the cost of living. They told Territorians by voting for the CLP they were voting to reduce the cost of living. Every successful CLP candidate in this Chamber signed gigantic contracts and put their names to the commitment to reduce the cost of living. It was a key promise to Territorians which has been broken. It was smashed to pieces when the CLP put up power tariffs by 30%, water by 40% and sewerage by 25%. It cost Terry Mills his leadership of the CLP, and our current Chief Minister announced these increases would be staggered over three years but would still have the full effect of the original price increases.
It was only recently on an ABC interview after the attempted coup of the current Chief Minister’s leadership that he reminded us he temporarily lowered the massive power and water price increases. However, he failed to tell people at the time that the original 30%, 40% and 25% increases were passed on in full on 1 January 2015.
From 1 January 2013 power tariffs increased by 20%, water by 30% and sewerage by 15%. On 1 January 2014 a 5% increase was applied across all tariffs. Another 5% hike in power, water and sewerage hit family bills on 1 January 2015. We are all now feeling the full force of these cruel hikes as we receive bills which include the latest price hike that has the CLP putting profits before people.
Power, water and sewerage are essential services we all need, whether we live in the urban centres or the bush. These services directly impact the hip pocket of the family budget. The costs of power, water and sewerage that businesses have had to cope with has meant they have had to pass on those extra increases to their customers. We have also seen the impact this increase of power and water tariffs has had on rates and rents. We have even seen sporting clubs have to increase their fees and registration to pay the bills. The CLP government does not seem to care about the full flow-on impacts of the power, water and sewerage tariff increases that have hit Territorians.
From power bills alone, the government has ripped about $115m out of the pockets of Territorians with electricity tariff increases. They have stripped about $23m from water tariff increases and about $13.8m in sewerage tariff increases. That does not include the increases that took place on 1 January this year. That $151m in extra revenue taken out of family budgets due to power, water and sewerage tariff increases does not include the latest increase on 1 January 2015.
I acknowledge that some of the electricity revenue I just mentioned was received from contestable and franchise customers’ 2.8% tariff increase, but the bulk of that, the lion’s share, has been paid for by everyday Territorians.
Territory families are struggling to keep their heads above water and keep up with the bills these latest power and water price increases have delivered to them. The increases the CLP has delivered have not discriminated; they are hurting families in Darwin, Palmerston, Alice, Katherine and Tennant Creek, and families in remote communities who are chewing through their power cards at lightning speed. They have hurt families, singles, couples, seniors, low-income earners and middle-class families; they have hurt everyone. They have hurt business; everyone has been stung.
The exact cost of the flow-on effects from the higher prices for rates, rents, foods, services, fees and so on are not included in that $151m figure I mentioned before. How much extra revenue the government will receive from the latest 5% increases we will see in the next round of the annual reports and Statements of Corporate Intent.
The media is running hot with this, especially within social media networks. Many people are talking to their friends about the impact the latest increases are having on them. When power and water increases were passed on at around CPI rates, you did not feel them so much. I have to say the latest 5% increase is stinging people pretty hard because they have just gone up by so much more over the last few years.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a great concern that we have seen more power, water and sewerage tariff increases passed on to Territory families as of 1 January. Families are hurting under the cost of living. They are feeling pressures every day. It was another broken promise by the CLP government.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016