2014-03-27
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 5/6 classes from Larrakeyah Primary School accompanied by Tanya Harvey and Danni Mattiazzo. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also advise of the presence in the gallery of Mr James Burke, the former member for Brennan. Welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also welcome member officers of the NT fire union. Please enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, for those of us who are students of Territory political history, we have never seen a day like today. We have never seen three members of a CLP government walk out of this Chamber in disgust after prayers. We have seen two weeks of drama and deep division in the CLP being played out publicly, with the members for Arnhem, Namatjira and Arafura saying they want the bush commitments made by the CLP – which got the CLP into government – delivered. They have had enough of the failure of leadership of the member for Braitling.
They have been putting demands to this government which the Chief Minister will not even step up and be honest about. He will not even tell Territorians what is being negotiated. That is outrageous, because what is being negotiated would surely have a budget impact. Do Territorians not have the right to know what is going on in their government?
This is a government with a deep, sickening culture of cover-up under the Chief Minister, the member for Braitling. He will hide reports, and he will deny everything that is, in fact, happening. He would not know the truth if he fell over it.
It has been unbelievable to watch this paralysis of government roll out over a fortnight of sittings, to the point where the government scrambled to ditch its own legislation to split Power and Water. They then pretended, by lying to Territorians, that they wanted to consult with them. They had not wanted to consult with Territorians leading up to yesterday. Then, all of a sudden, they said, ‘Oh, no, it is just about consultation’. They do not even have the decency to tell the truth and say, ‘Clearly we have an issue getting our legislation through. We do not want to jeopardise such important legislation, so we put it off.’
A little truth, Chief Minister, would have gone a long way in trying to get some trust in your leadership from Territorians. But, no, you reverted to type. You reverted to what you do, ably abetted by your Treasurer, David Tollner. The two of you may have a short reign ahead of you. For the sake of the Territory and Territorians, I hope so.
Labor lost the 2012 election, and we copped it. As the new Leader of the Opposition I said to Territorians, ‘We will learn lessons from this defeat. We will listen to Territorians about what you expect of us, if we are to get government again.’
What I learnt was pretty appalling. What I learnt, travelling through the remote and regional centres of the Northern Territory, was a litany of promises that had never properly surfaced. There was a litany of promises across the bush where they signed contracts to deliver billions of dollars of projects. I was the Treasurer at the time of the election; I diligently worked on Labor election commitments, costed every one of them and submitted every one of our commitments to Treasury to see whether or not they could sit within the forward estimates of the Territory budget. We got the tick and the approval from Treasury independently that, yes, they were fiscally responsible.
But, the CLP did not do that; it lied. It either lied to the people of the Territory in the remote areas about delivering those projects, or lied to the rest of us about the projects, because it pretended they did not exist. They were not on the document submitted to Treasury as the costed and funded election commitments by the CLP.
I have taught my children – my three beautiful Territorians – that it is hard to follow the path of the truth. Sometimes in life it is so hard, because people do not often want to hear the truth. They want to hear that these things can come to them, and these magical puddings will be created and delivered. It is really hard to sit in a community where you want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in that one community, improving housing, roads and schools and getting all support services people enjoy in the regional towns and urban centres. You must say to people that you are doing everything you can to deliver any improvements that can be delivered, but what they want right now is too much; it is too expensive and the Territory does not have that kind of funding.
You must tell the truth when they do not want to hear that. They want to hear, ‘Oh, yes, no worries, you will get that building over there in Borroloola. You will get that new government business centre. Yes, you will get the road to Wadeye sealed. Yes, do not worry, people of Nguiu, you will get full strength beer.’ They were lies because it has not happened. Do you intend to do it or not? If you intended to do it, why were they not in the election commitments submitted to Treasury? Why were they missing?
There is at least $2bn of unfunded, uncosted election promises in the bush under the CLP. When I was out bush, people were saying to me, ‘Sorry, we voted for the CLP because we want these things done’. I said to them, ‘No, I am sorry. Of course you are going to vote that way. You are aspirational, you want these things built. Someone came to you promising to do these things. Of course, you believed them. Why would you not?’
We saw, by the federal election, that people had stopped believing because none of it – not one – had happened. The only work occurring across regional and remote Northern Territory is projects that were signed off, funded and delivered under Labor.
I say thank God for Anthony Albanese and the $400m in additional roads funding the Territory received under him as the national Infrastructure minister. I know, because I did the arm wrestling with him as minister for Infrastructure and then Treasurer. Thank you, Anthony Albanese, for stepping up with the funds for Tiger Brennan Drive, and for the six major arterial roads across the bush that have been announced in road project funding. Thank you.
I know what it took. I know how many trips to Canberra and how many phone calls I made. ‘Yes’, I said, ‘Labor mate, we need this and it is not just about winning an election.’ I took him out bush to our rough road network and showed him the reality of regional and remote life. It hurt his back, so much so he could not sit at a particular ministerial council in Darwin, and I had to try to get that fixed. But I showed him.
We do not lie. It comes back to haunt you when you do. You created your win on a fabric of lies, either by lying to the people because they were not funded, costed and submitted election commitments, or by lying to the rest of us. Which one is it, Chief Minister? You were running around making those promises.
If you had the intention with those bush promises of scheduling them, getting them costed by Treasury, providing them to the relevant government agencies with instruction they must be delivered, why are you not proud about talking about them? Why are you not saying, ‘These are the things we are doing in each of these towns, here are the community contracts we signed’? For 18 months, Chief Minister, I have been calling on the CLP to table those community contracts that were signed. You would not do it at estimates and you have never done it in the Chamber.
In stark contrast, Labor in government had a report on our election commitments, and the Chief Minister would walk in here on an almost quarterly basis and update the Chamber on the report, and table it. There was no secrecy, no cover-up, no pretending, no lies; it was being accountable for what you promised and how you were tracking at delivering it.
I have been in government for 12 years. I get that sometimes things happen on the ground that make delivery really difficult. But be honest about it and talk to your community in an honest way about what you are doing to try to negotiate your way through any little road blockages in delivering a project. Do not pretend.
Ngukurr was a classic. Yesterday we asked a question about the Ngukurr health clinic, and the Health minister pretended it was the fault of the traditional owners. The traditional owners were on radio saying, ‘We are all agreed about the site. The site we want is serviced. The site the government wants is not serviced and would cost another $1m. The community is asking why would you waste $1m servicing a site when we are offering you a serviced site?’
Those of us on this side of the Chamber, in opposition, think, ‘Oh my God, we have heard that before. They chose an unserviced site for the Palmerston hospital when there was a fully capable, serviced site.’
You cannot keep lying to Territorians because you lose their trust completely. Chief Minister, you have lost the trust of Territorians. People simply do not believe you. They look at you like the little boy you are depicted as in Wicking cartoons. They look at your sidekick, the big, guffawing ugly Dave Tollner, and say, ‘Oh my God, is that who is really running the Territory?’ It is scary. People are saying, ‘We did not vote for this’. They say, ‘If I voted CLP, I did not vote for that bloke, and I certainly did not vote for Dave Tollner’. They voted because they had some confidence in the promises of Terry Mills.
Even he was not treated with any shred of decency by his own party. A man who, like him or not – I am not a fan, obviously, but give credit where credit is due – did years of hard yards as the Opposition Leader and travelled everywhere and met everyone. As I have said in this Chamber before, he was one of the few who would turn up to all of the functions. I know, because I was at them and he would show up. You would not see the members for Braitling or Fong Lim at those functions. They were nowhere to be seen.
The former member for Blain, the then Opposition Leader, was turning up trying to get the trust of the people to vote for them, and it worked. He became Chief Minister. He returned the CLP to government, and you treated him abysmally from day one. From the end of that party on election night onwards, the gang of four were back to their old tricks, back to undermining him. CLP history will be written that the gang of four – the member for Sanderson, Madam Speaker, and the members for Braitling and Fong Lim – brought him down. You did not stop until you brought him down. Six months was all you gave a man who dedicated the best part of six years to becoming Chief Minister. That was the most fundamental trust your party broke with the electorate.
Yes, we have presidential-style elections these days. Yes, people saw it as a contest between Paul Henderson and Terry Mills. Yes, whilst the urban capital of Darwin put its confidence in Paul Henderson, the bush said, ‘We will give you a go, mate, because we think you speak to us honestly’. What they did not know was dishonest people – the members for Braitling and Fong Lim – were sitting behind him sharpening the knives to take him down within six months.
You even lied about that, member for Braitling. You pretended you did not seek leadership. You pretended it was okay. Everyone came to you with their signatures on a list and you had no choice. Rubbish! You were caught having dinner with the member for Stuart, getting her vote. People saw you go after votes. People know, politics is a small town in the Territory. He was talking his game up to the journalists and putting himself in the Wanguri by-election advertisements. Everyone was saying, ‘Who is that bloke? The Transport minister, who is he? We have never seen him before; who is he?’ I said, ‘He is the one who wants to be Chief Minister. He is the one who is about to knife Terry Mills.’ People said, ‘No’, and I said, ‘Yes’. Unbelievable! You then lied about it. You did not even say, ‘The timing was wrong, the execution was wrong, but I make no apology for going after being Chief Minister of the Northern Territory because I am the best man for the job’. Mate, you get a bit of credit for being honest, but you were not. You said, ‘No, I was not doing that. People came to me and I had no choice.’ Rubbish!
How can you spend your career lying to people like that and expect people to believe anything you say or have any trust whatsoever in you? It does not work, Territorians are not fools.
Madam Speaker, I have always had a saying, having been born and raised in the Territory, that Territorians have a – excuse my language – bullshit radar. I withdraw it ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw it.
Mr ELFERINK: More than that, Madam Speaker. She knew she was going to say it and persevered anyhow. I believe she should be chastised for it, more than simply withdrawing it.
Ms LAWRIE: BS - it is a censure - BS radar.
Madam SPEAKER: The Opposition Leader has withdrawn the statement.
Mr ELFERINK: Whilst I appreciate that, she knew she would have to withdraw it, but she went down the path anyhow. She flagged she was going to say it. There has to be a certain decorum in this place and she has lowered the tone of this place with that approach. She should be chastised.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. Opposition Leader, refrain from using that language in the rest of your debate.
Ms LAWRIE: I will refer to it as the BS radar. Territorians have a very big BS radar, and when the members for Braitling and Fong Lim stand, it goes off the Richter scale. They cannot lie straight in bed, those two. You can see it. It is a disgrace. That is the leadership of the Northern Territory? This is what you serve us, after you take down Terry Mills? We do not want it; Territorians are over it. They are over seeing the deep divisions of your government.
You reap what you sow. You might want to ask yourselves Labor is passing up the opportunity of negotiating to become a minority government if it wins the seat of Blain by saying outright, ‘No, we will not countenance a coalition with the bush MLAs’. Stable government is crucial to the good governance of the Territory, and we have had 18 months of instability under the CLP, leading up to the knifing of the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, and following it, more manoeuvrings than you can poke a stick at. Meanwhile, the public service says there is no direction coming from the CLP government ...
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, can you please pause.
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 5/6 class from Larrakeyah Primary School, accompanied by Leisa Beynon. Welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, a picture is worth a thousand words. The only person in the Chamber I receive feedback from the public service about, for their work with agencies to try to bring good policy – or any policy – is the member for Port Darwin. You have a go, and people credit you for that. They might not agree with your policy settings. Thank God you have backed away from your foetal alcohol spectrum disorder settings. You are not always right, but no one is always right. You are in there having a go, trying to identify and move forward with policy, but for the rest it is a no-go zone. The agencies are floundering around, sending up many a ministerial, which are sent back with a change of direction. Send up another one. No, the change has happened again, and so on.
How many ministerial reshuffles in 18 months? Is it five or six? We lost count. It is embarrassing. Everyone started to lose count of the Cabinet reshuffles. We should be able to say, ‘It was five’, or ‘It was two’, but we cannot. Instability has been rank, and has been the hallmark of this CLP government. People cannot operate like that. The public service cannot operate effectively and efficiently like that. Business cannot operate effectively and efficiently in its dealings with government.
Industry organisations try to get meetings with the relevant industry ministers – no. Health organisations try to get meetings with the Health minister – no. They cannot get meetings with ministers. A conga line of organisations – whether they are business, small- or medium-size enterprises, industry organisations, non-government organisations - cannot get meetings with their relevant portfolio minister.
People who would walk in the door of a former CLP Chief Minister and a former Labor minister any day of the week because of the amount they invest in the Northern Territory, say to me, ‘I cannot get in to see this new bloke, the Chief Minister. Who is he? Is he that arrogant? Does he not understand how much I invest in the Northern Territory?’ Do you know what I say? ‘He seems to be. He seems to not step out of his own bubble and take the time to find out who is investing their hard-earnt money in the Territory and to show them some respect.’
Respect is a really important word. It has been lacking in the way this government deals with Territorians. It has failed to show the battlers any respect because it ignores their cost of living pain. It has failed to show our small businesses, which make up 80% of our business workforce, any respect because it has ignored their pain while they are struggling to pay their bills. He failed to show even large businesses, which are investing billions of dollars in the Territory, true respect, because he knifed the Chief Minister on the trade mission and then continued to play politics with their project. It is unbelievable. It would be a comedy if it was not so tragic with the consequences it has for Territorians.
I was prepared for four years in opposition. I wanted to use every day of those four years to meet as many Territorians as I could, to enjoy the privilege and honour of being the Opposition Leader, to work with the team I have around me, who are strong and capable, and to give them chances to try different portfolios. I said I would reshuffle them yearly to give them a try at different things. I am now staring down the barrel of wondering what will happen after the Blain by-election, if indeed, we pull off a miracle and win a seat we have never won. How can people in Blain have any confidence to vote CLP when they see this debacle? Three of your own members walked out of the Chamber today. How do you expect people to say, ‘I have confidence in that government delivering’, when you cannot even hold your own together?
We do not know what the future holds. No one knows what the future of politics in the Territory is. If I was a betting person, I would say the member for Braitling does not have long left as Chief Minister. Hopefully, his sidekick, the member for Fong Lim, goes as well, because he is an appalling Treasurer. He is threatening our assets on a foolish, headlong romp, ignoring expert advice.
We know he has a clear line of sight on selling generation assets at Weddell. It is a small town, people talk. We know conversations have occurred. You can deny all you like, but turn your attention to clause 53 of the legislation, the Government Owned Corporation Act amendments. They are not required for the split of Power and Water, they exist for another reason. However, that will come into the full, shining light of day through a Public Accounts Committee inquiry, one that was resisted at every step of the way until the government lost control of the numbers in parliament. I believe in democracy. I saw democracy finally coming to work in the Territory when the government lost control of the numbers, when you could not just ram through anything you liked on a strong numbers of 16, without giving any due consideration to its effects, its implications, and to what it will mean for Territorians.
Thank God that legislation has gone to a committee. Power and Water provides essential services. This government and this Treasurer want it to make a profit. They want to put profit before people. Let us pause for a moment and look at the real consequences of that. A family of five living in my electorate of Karama said to me just this week, ‘I cannot pay a $2000 quarterly bill’. Will they be another statistic of disconnection the member for Braitling laughs at? He wants to play fun with the number of disconnections. They are not a statistic; they are a family of five who cannot pay the bill.
Whether you want to hear it or not, or believe it or not, those families are right throughout our towns. I took the time to go doorknocking in the electorate of Blain …
Mr Tollner: That would not have helped your vote.
Ms LAWRIE: … and it was overwhelming. People are struggling to pay the bills. It is not just a joke to them as it is for the member for Fong Lim, it is real, it is hard, cutting off things in their family household budgets left, right, and centre – no Christmas holidays, reduce the presents for the kids. These are people who are trying to live within the household budget, but the bills are too onerous.
Families try to get their kids to sleep without air conditioning through the Wet Season. The babies do not sleep. They are little, sweaty, melting messes on you as you are trying to rock them to sleep. I know – been there, done that. These are real situations for real people going on right now, today. They see the members for Braitling and Fong Lim on TV completely dismissing it. It is not happening in their world, so it is not happening. It is happening. The cost of living has become too great a burden for Territorians, and you promised you would reduce it. You promised it; it was front and centre and core of your election commitments. Rather than reduce it, you have doubled it. You have doubled CPI. Inflation has gone from 2.1% to 4.4% under the CLP in just 18 months. That is a fact.
Housing was the other great promise you made, ‘We will have all this new affordable housing’. You came in and one of the first things you did was scrap two home loan schemes, My New Home and HOMESTART Extra. For the lower socioeconomic people, who would never have a chance to get a leg into the property ownership market, HOMESTART Extra was a good, solid, carefully constructed scheme, and you scrapped it. You scrapped the first homeowners additional concessions. Do not worry about those people trying to get into their first home; you took that out from underneath them as well.
You do not have new land releases. After 18 months, you are clinging to the land releases Labor had. Maybe in the first six months you had not identified the land yet and you were not ready. But in the first year you would expect any new government worth its salt to be able to identify new land release. After 18 months there is nothing, just the Labor land releases. You can dress them up as yours, but they are not and people know they are not. When you are busy dressing them up as yours, people know you are lying to them.
Every time you lie to them, you are reinforcing to them that you lied to them in the election. You have been lying to them since and you are going to keep hurting them and ignoring their pain. They do not want a government like that. People who have voted CLP forever are saying they will vote Labor next time, because they do not want a government like yours.
You can attack me all you want, but I am a proud Territorian. I will take my role and responsibility seriously and will speak up on behalf of Territorians. I will be a voice for them and will hold you to account, as will every one of my colleagues in this team. We stand proud and united. We are capable and competent and, yes, we are ready to govern.
Chief Minister, pretend all you like, and tell that other lie that we have no plans. We do. If you bothered to pick up 2030 and read it, there would have been a host of things that you might have wanted to put into your framework for the future. That is a core and fundamental plan. We have a raft of plans around housing, education, health and infrastructure. Pretend and lie all you like, but your failure is stark and real. It was writ large in this Chamber today when three of your own members – the members for Arnhem, Arafura and Namatjira – stood up after prayers and walked out on their own government. You have pretended this is not happening. It happened in front of our eyes this morning in the Chamber, and your Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, pretended it was not happening.
You cannot keep lying. Part of leadership is stepping up and taking responsibility for your actions, stepping up and acknowledging when you have challenges, embracing them and dealing with them. You have failed on every count, Chief Minister.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, of course, I will not be supporting a censure of the Northern Territory government. However, I remind honourable members about stability in government in the lecture we have just received from the Leader of the Opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition has a profoundly short memory when it comes to these sorts of things. The former Henderson government was a minority government for the large part of its term, which was a direct product of instability. They condescend to lecture us about instability. I believe and agree with the Leader of the Opposition that Territorians want and expect stability in government. Mind you, historically around this country, minority governments have proven to be surprisingly robust.
The Leader of the Opposition betrayed herself with this censure motion in one important respect. I will take members through it. The censure motion basically orbits around five issues. The first issue deals with an internal matter about us in this House. The second issue deals with an internal matter about us in this House. The third issue talks about issues in the bush, and I welcome that debate. The fourth issue talks about the cost of living; I welcome that debate. The fifth issue, once again, talks about us. If you look at this censure motion, the majority of issues are focused on us – we, this parliament.
I do not know how often I say it, and will say it again: we say a prayer in this parliament every day and the last line of that prayer is ‘for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory’. This censure, by its own construct, is not about the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
The majority of the points are about us. It does not look beyond the front door of this room. It does not look beyond the door of that lobby, or the door of that lobby.
I do not care about John Elferink’s reputation or anything else like that. I care about trying to get some results, as we all must. This government has clearly developed plans to pursue better outcomes for Territorians, which is why I continue. as a member of this government and a minister of the Crown, to strive for good outcomes for the people of the Northern Territory.
It is well and truly clear to me that government is not always easy. It is about making difficult choices from time to time. The members opposite know this. Of course, opposition has the capacity to be all things to all people. That is what the opposition is positioning itself to do.
They say it is unfair to raise expectations as members of parliament. I agree, it is unfair to raise expectations if you cannot meet them. Yet I have listened for the last two weeks to opposition members, one after the other, saying, ‘We should do this. We should build a new Henbury School. We should pay the teachers what they are asking for and give them effective control of all education policy. We should roll out this program, we should roll out that expensive program, and we should spend this money here.’ That is what they do from opposition. However, what they are doing in that process is setting the groundwork for the trap they accuse us of having set for ourselves.
They are arguing that on this side of the House we have set expectations for the people of the Northern Territory and now we are not meeting them. In the process, they set the bar higher for themselves. We are spiralling upwards to this nether-land of raised expectations to gain power. The Opposition Leader, for all her cuddling babies in the heat of the night, does not strike me as a person who is as interested in the argument as she is in obtaining power and relishing the division she purports to see on this side of the House.
If she was truly in the space, where she was demanding from government higher standards of performance and outcomes for Territorians, she would not be preoccupied with who was doing what to whom in this place. She would be unambiguously focused on the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. That should be our vision statement, our mission statement.
If you go into my office, it is there on every door, where it should be, front of mind. This censure motion does not have it front of mind and, for that reason alone, is unsupportable.
However, I will address a couple of issues she raised, and I will ignore all the issues about us. Regarding:
There seems to be a belief that this is somehow a race-based issue. It is not. There are disputes within our political party, as there are disputes inside the Australian Labor Party.
If last night’s exercise in the parliamentary lobby was any yardstick to go by, those disputes cut deep in the Labor Party as well, and people get hurt in those disputes inside your own party Caucus. The parliamentary wing also has challenges, no doubt about it, but it does not mean every time there is an argument the place is falling apart. If that was true, the allegation could be levelled at the members opposite, which is not what I am interested in.
Let us go back to the argument about the promises in the bush. I recall - I could not understand at the time why he was doing it - Syd Stirling went to great lengths to measure, throughout government, the amount of money being spent on Indigenous outcomes and compare it to the amount of money being spent in non-Indigenous outcomes. The report hit the table in about 2004 or 2005. It was determined at the time, and argued quite passionately by the former Treasurer, Syd Stirling, that money was being expended on Aboriginal people at a ratio of $2 for every $1 spent on non-Aboriginal people. It was a rather grim way of approaching the issue, but he needed to position himself in that argument.
I suspect very little has changed since the report hit the table in 2004, and it continues to be the case today. There is a great deal of expenditure going into remote communities. We can see this in a number of ways.
A question was asked yesterday of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding some roads and some barge landings. Those cost money and those expenditures will go ahead. We build not only the roads, but the barge landings, power houses, health clinics, police stations and, in many instances, houses. We make a number of other contributions into remote communities, yet we see very little in return when it comes to better results in education, health outcomes and law and order. Whilst we try to ramp up the quality of service as a government – which the former government attempted to do – we remain frustrated by it.
We have delivered, and will continue to deliver, on many of the promises we have made in the bush. We believe in what we are doing. As a member of the Northern Territory government and having been the member for a large bush electorate for eight years, I am excruciatingly mindful of the demands and needs which are placed on the Territory in relation to the services provided into the bush.
Alternatively, there must also be some buy-in and input from many of the people themselves. I heard the member for Barkly talking about education. He is quite right, education must be there. It is not necessarily that we must roll out PhDs, but one of the areas we need to educate people in is if you want to have control of your life, you must take control of your life. Unfortunately, so much of what we do, as a government and as a jurisdiction, does not encourage people to take control of their lives; they expect us to hand over control. Dignity cannot be given, it must be learnt and earnt to be understood for what it is, and the education process must demonstrate that.
The former government and the former Corrections minister – I see him listening intently to what we are talking about – started heading down this path when he was the Corrections minister. I have taken some of the ideas from that period – the good ones – built on them and injected them with steroids to see particularly, but not exclusively, Aboriginal people get opportunities for work they otherwise would not have had.
While I try not to take a race-based issue or approach to programs like Sentenced to a Job and some of the other things we are doing, particularly in the Nhulunbuy area – I believe that things are ticking along nicely in that area – I confess to a certain racism when it comes to the glee I feel when I see people who are clearly from very traditional backgrounds achieving things they have never achieved in their whole lives. I then see those people go back to their communities in a way in which they can then offer more services to those communities.
One of my Sentenced to a Job posters is from a tyre fitting business in Tennant Creek where there is a guy who was, I think, a local fellow from the local community who has been employed and, as far as I know, is still employed. I could stand corrected. He is there?
Mr McCarthy: Yes, there have been a number.
Mr ELFERINK: That is enormously heartening to me. That is why we are advancing and pursuing these sorts of things. That is why you can walk into a grocery store in Alice Springs and there is a small chance the person behind the counter, if they are working for IGA, will be somebody who is serving a custodial sentence. They are learning something. I cannot teach dignity; all I can do as a minister is place a person in an environment where they can learn dignity for themselves. That is what we are attempting to do.
I understand there is impatience and frustration in the bush, no doubt about it. I can well understand that people from the bush come to towns and see obvious wealth in places like Darwin and Alice Springs, but they are not making the necessary connections about how that wealth is generated. There was a belief, when the land rights process was entered into, that somehow – you can read, I think it was Ian Viner’s reassuring pamphlet from 1976, which I still have a copy of, talking about how the restoration of Aboriginal lands would set them on the road to a financial utopia where they would have lots of jobs.
I often read that pamphlet, look at the reality, and think to myself, ‘What went wrong?’ What went wrong was the simple expectation that if you threw money at a problem and restored a person’s property to them, it would ultimately follow that wealth would be there for them. We now hear the expression ‘land rich, dirt poor’ quite regularly, which is entirely right. This is because we need to be delivering an education which means something and makes sense to people.
I know that slowly, over time, more and more people have become employed in the bush. I know it can also happen far more quickly, which is why this Northern Territory government, particularly in a place like the Tiwi Islands where they have been demonstrating a really strong commercial orientation, is taking steps to ensure that commercial orientation is taken advantage of. We heard about the land leasing arrangements that have been entered into, and there is certain expenditure in infrastructure on the Tiwi Islands to support their positive attitude about building a future for themselves.
I would love to see the day where a community like Milingimbi or Yuendumu is a place where it is just a town you would recognise anywhere else. When you drove into Milingimbi there would be some blocks of units and flats, some Aboriginal people who own their homes and, living next door, maybe some retirees who decided they wanted to come to a tropical paradise and get some fishing in. It was a normalised town because there was a coffee shop, a hairdresser and those sorts of things.
For that to be achieved, the land has to generate sufficient wealth to underwrite those jobs and that type of investment. That has to happen in a couple of ways. The nature of the land tenure has to show some certainty. It needs to be tradable, but it also needs to be generating wealth. We, as government, can continue to throw money into infrastructure – which is what we do – into schools – which is what we do – and into health – which is what we do.
We throw money and effort into law and order, which is something we are doing even more aggressively than has ever been done before in the history of the Northern Territory. What we are doing in that space at the moment is assertive. This is why you are seeing an increase in the number of offences committed in these remote Aboriginal communities, because the violence has always been there, but we are saying, particularly to the women who live in those communities – not exclusively, but particularly to the women – ‘We know you are the subjects of violence and the state will now step in and protect you’. Many years ago the approach of a police officer in a remote community, or even in Darwin for that matter, was, ‘Madam, do you wish to make a complaint against your husband?’ ‘No’, the answer would invariably be. The answer from the police would be, ‘Then keep the peace’, giving the woman no comfort whatsoever.
In the late 1980s the laws were changed, and we created a civil regime. That civil regime said if the police went to a domestic violence environment they would pick up the wife beater and take them away, then get an order from a court to prevent that person from doing certain things, ostensibly beating their wife, but going back to the house and those sorts of things.
The former Labor government, to its credit, said, ‘That is not good enough. We want to see an increased attention on domestic violence.’ There were deliberate steps by the former Labor government to start imposing some criminal sanctions on wife beaters.
Since coming to government and working closely with the current Chief Minister, I have been quite strident and insistent, through the Pillars of Justice process, that the policy is ramped up, not only in Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, but everywhere, which is why you see increasing rates of criminal reported violence in remote Aboriginal communities. We have said, as a government, we want wife beaters to be taken out of circulation. We want the standards that every citizen should be able to expect in protection of the law to be extended to that person. The law is there not only to give certainty but, in many instances, to protect the weak and the vulnerable. That is entirely what we have been doing.
As I have explained to the media on a number of occasions, and to any number of other people, tomorrow I could artificially drop the assault rates, almost by half, with the stroke of a pen. It would be easy to do, simply by saying to the police, ‘You will return to the system of getting civil orders of restraint in domestic violence situations’. If I were to do so, domestic violence rates or assaults related to domestic violence would crash through the floor overnight – snap, there it is. However, you come to a point, as a minister of the Crown and as a government, that you must ask yourself what is good for the true welfare of the Northern Territory? The crime rates? My fear of crime rates is more important to them, or being protected from a snarling husband who will beat you within an inch of your life as quick as look at you? The answer, of course, is easily decided upon, and is clearly that we will protect the interests of the people of the Northern Territory despite the political damage that may cause.
I am proud of it. I am proud to know we are going to some of the remotest places in the world and saying to the people who live there, ‘We will protect you with the laws that are underpinned by some common ideals, and those ideals are basic human rights’ …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, could I interrupt for a minute.
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 3/4 classes from Jingili Primary School accompanied by Mikah Delamotte, Catherine Bradley and Kelly Trainor. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors and hope you enjoy your visit to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: I say a special hello because I went to Jingili Primary School from 1971 to 1977. It is good to see you guys. You can grow up and end up working here, or you can get a real job.
Getting back to what I was saying before, this is not about us, it is about what we need to do to protect the human rights of Territorians. We have made a clear decision on this side of the House that those human rights will take precedence over cultural rights. We have done it deliberately. It is something the Labor Party supports because human rights and the dignity, particularly of women to be not beaten by their husbands within an inch of their life, is a right that should be enjoyed universally. It is a right I am glad to be in a position to defend.
I heard the third point of this motion, which says:
I can well understand there are many people in remote communities who have expectations of government which can be met, or sometimes cannot be met. One of the things I try to glean when I am in remote communities is exactly the nature of the complaints I am hearing. Often people struggle to articulate exactly what is wrong. They know something is wrong, but they struggle to articulate exactly what they want to do. There are some fundamental issues about what expectations are in the bush, as well as managing the expectations we have built in the bush. We have to be very careful about how we proceed through that process. I heard the Leader of the Opposition’s concerns in relation to that.
The fourth point is hiking up the cost of living for all Territorians by increasing power prices. Upon coming to government we were presented with a number of challenges, not least of which was a projected debt of $5.5bn in the outer years. The Labor government did not care about debt; it was not one of its primary motivators because they did not see it as something they immediately had to deal with. They see immediate issues they have to deal with.
This was the approach used by a number of countries prior to the financial crisis. Those countries determined debt was an acceptable tool no matter what the level of debt was. The experience in those countries is, finally, somebody knocks on the door and says, ‘Pay the bill’. Those of us who own a credit card, have ever had a house loan, a car loan, or any other form of credit extended to us, know there is always somebody saying, ‘Pay the piper’.
The world is not, by the laws of nature, charitable. Charity is something you can do with excess, but the world is not inherently charitable. As a consequence, when you take from a person some offering – be it money or something else – on a condition you will return that to them, with interest as it happens – the usurers of the world unite – then that has to be paid.
When you sit in a Cabinet room and see the demands of government placed upon you, and see you have to pay $0.5m a day, or thereabouts, in interest on the debts which are currently racking up, which you have inherited, you must respond to it.
I do not want to find the debt I rack up today being the legacy I leave my daughter in 12 years’ time when she could conceivably be in the workplace paying off that debt. I would like to bequeath to my family and my daughters a future, something of value. As I accumulate wealth, in the modest way we do in our household, over time my daughters, upon my and my wife’s passing, will become the beneficiaries of something. I feel a duty and a responsibility to do so.
Equally so, when we carry the burden of government, we have to ask ourselves, ‘What is it we will leave in the future and to the children who are in schools now?’ These kids are the ones who will pay the credit card bill. They will have to get the jobs to pay for the debt we rack up today. I do not know about you, but I would like to bequeath something to them which is worth more than our credit card bill today.
Yes, we campaigned last election on the cost of living, because it was substantial, but it was something the former government struggled with. We have seen a number of ways we can put downward pressure on the cost of living, land release being at its highest levels ever.
We also understand if we continue to rack up debt, carrying the burden of a corporation which was costing us money and continues to do so, we must plan for the future as well. Rather than subsidising, underwriting and racking up debt, we took a tough, hard and brittle decision so these kids will not suffer the legacy of this debt into the future. We will, this year alone, have to see our debt situation get worse to the tune of nearly $1bn, largely because of a prison bequeathed to us by the former government for which the whole thing was racked up on tick. It is on the MasterCard. Credit cards are a trap if you do not know how to control them.
We have been looking down the barrel of an agency ratings downgrade because we are seen as a greater risk than we have been in the past. This is not what I want to bequeath to the kids who are ignoring everything I am saying in the public gallery right now, because when they grow up, they will have to carry the debt. Why should those kids be any different to the kids in my household, the ones I want to give something to, rather than take something from? I do not want to be in a government which runs around stealing their lunch money in advance.
Those are the two points I wanted to address in this censure motion, because the rest of the motion is about us. It talks about the member for Port Darwin, the member for Namatjira, Terry Mills and the member for Greatorex. It shows we are not effectively focused on what we should be.
I find myself frustrated beyond all words every time I come into this House and hear the members opposite talk about what is happening in this House, who is doing what to whom, as it has all of the quality of a melodrama or a soap opera, skulduggery and rumour mongering – all the stuff which makes so many people in this place tick. When I say this place, I am talking about inside this Chamber, outside it, on the fifth floor and fourth floor and inside the public service. Many people are consumed by who is doing what to whom and why they are doing it.
I will continue to strive for, believe in and pursue, through my own frail abilities, a belief in an ideal which is expressed in this place every time we meet. That ideal is captured by the prayer I mentioned before I started talking today. I ask all members and all staff in this building, whether you work on the fourth floor or the fifth floor, all public servants, to take it on board and remember the reason we do what we do. Whether we are in opposition, government, are ministers or backbenchers, we should serve and strive to serve for one cause only. We will fail, fall over and make mistakes, but that cause must be, and always has to be, the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, there are about seven or eight minutes on the clock so I will start with a preamble, because this is the first time I have spoken on a censure motion in this House.
Many times in this House I have said I like to learn from people, and I learn a lot from the member for Port Darwin, there is no doubt about it. One of the things the member for Port Darwin taught me is that a censure motion is the most serious motion that can be brought against a government. As a hard-working member of the government, he spoke and I questioned what his defence would be today. In the court of parliament, what will the member for Port Darwin run as a defence today? It was a little light on.
I draw the member for Port Darwin’s attention back to the legal points around this censure commencing with:
This is about the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. The member for Port Darwin would have us believe this is just about this House.
However, in opposition, he taught me well. He neglected to point to one part of this House, and that is the media gallery that report stories from this House and takes them back into the community. I was one of the young, cynical members of parliament when I arrived here, wondering why the media has so much power in this place. I soon came to realise the real power base they have from that gallery, reporting on a dysfunctional government.
This matter has become so serious we have become the laughing stock of not only the Northern Territory, but now in a national arena and, I fear – after one dot point of this, the knifing of Terry Mills – in an international arena. Major oil and gas exploration and processing companies are looking to establish themselves in the Northern Territory with incredible projects that have the potential of bringing real wealth for the interests of the people of the Northern Territory, across the regional areas, but we have become a laughing stock. Personally, I have had a gutful of it because it has labelled all politicians as backstabbers and being childlike. This continued dysfunction that is reported to our community has labelled us all.
I regularly have people coming to me now, as a local member in opposition, as whistleblowers. I did not have that in government. I had challenges, serious debate, people trying to take me out because of all sorts of devious agendas, but I never had the run of whistleblowers I have now, demanding that I stand up in this parliament and ask the difficult questions because this government operates in secrecy. There is no transparency; it is cloaked with a veil of cover-up in its decision-making and operations. That represents a government in denial.
This motion targets the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister wanted the job. He went out of his way to get the job. I will talk about how he got that job later. If you want the job, then the buck stops with you, Chief Minister. You are in charge of the Northern Territory; you are our leader. We want a statesmanlike figure on a Territory, national and international platform, as the Northern Territory is a major player on all of those platforms.
I have spoken about the dysfunction of the CLP before in an analogy around the Tennant Creek junior rugby league development project, the project I ran for eight years. I started that project and ran it for eight years before I had to leave it behind and come into this job in parliament. I still, to this day, remember those little heroes, those brave kids, the smallest in the Territory, coming from a town that was totally dominated by AFL, with a selection base of about 30 kids. We would take on the biggest and best in the Northern Territory. We travelled the Northern Territory and took on the biggest and the best.
I was the sweaty coach in the dirty shirt, shorts and sandshoes. I was not the coach up in the grandstand watching the premier teams of the Northern Territory junior rugby league perform; I was on the sideline, dirty and sweaty for one reason: every time those kids in Tennant Creek got smashed and ended up behind the goal line watching a premier rugby league team kicking a goal, I ran down there to join them. Do you know why I ran down there to join them? To stop the infighting. The first thing I had to do was get those kids’ focus back on me, to discuss what went wrong and plan the strategy about what we would do when we kicked that ball back off. That is the job of a leader.
I had a captain in those teams each time I did that, and that went on for years. Do you know what? After two years, we won Pool B in the Northern Territory. We consistently beat Alice Springs, Katherine and Darwin city, and we achieved Pool B winners in the Northern Territory, that original group of kids I had to continually coach behind the goal posts to make sure they did not start fighting amongst themselves.
That is what I expect from the Chief Minister, because we have government members who cannot be in the same room together; there is so much infighting. Everywhere I travel constituents want to talk about it. These are conservatives, the same as Labor voters, alternative voters, Green voters, whoever. They are people in the bush and in towns, saying, ‘What is going on? This team is dysfunctional, they do not like each other, they are fighting amongst themselves.’ This ain’t no game of junior rugby league at Richo Park. This is the government of the Northern Territory we are talking about.
It got to a point today where three members of the government walked out before Question Time. Question Time is the essence of democracy, where the media report back what is happening in the real sense of governance of the Northern Territory. We had three members walk out. What did that say? I do not know because I have not talked to them. However, I know, as the Leader of the Opposition said, it has not happened before. What is the Chief Minister going to do about it? I believe he is doing backroom deals while the opposition calls on accountability and transparency. What are those backroom deals? What does it mean for the Territory budget, a budget that is, no doubt, being run through the presses of Treasury now to be published for presentation to the Territory in May? We do not know. The government cannot tell us.
The members did not look happy this morning because they left via the back door. They used the back door of this Chamber when they walked out. That tells the Territory there is no confidence in the Chief Minister and his leadership. This story has gone far enough ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe this is a good time to have a break. Are you happy with that, member for Barkly?
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Debate suspended.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 26 284 petitioners relating to support for the Workers Rehabilitation And Compensation Amendment (Fire-Fighters) Bill 2013 and firefighters.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr Chris Burns, a former member and minister of this parliament. Welcome, Dr Burns.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, a censure motion, as the member for Port Darwin has told us many times in this House, is the most important motion that can be brought by an opposition to the government. I concluded with the complaint from me and the opposition that the Chief Minister, the centrepiece of this censure motion, has made a laughing stock of the Northern Territory parliament and government, and has tagged all politicians in the Northern Territory with the dysfunctional nature of the members opposite, which I take deep offence to. It is a privileged, very important position and it has been dragged down by the behaviour of a Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, who is the centrepiece of this motion due to his lack of leadership of a dysfunctional team that cannot even be in the same room together, which is being reported across the Northern Territory, our nation and internationally.
The effect it is having was very noticeable when I left this House at lunchtime to see the incredible development going on in the capital city and to understand the projects coming online in the regions. It reflects that big business is now hesitating about the future of that development ...
Mr Tollner: I doubt that.
Mr McCARTHY: … and wondering what the hell is going on with government. I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Fong Lim, ‘I doubt that’. Big business pays a lot of money to lobbyists and advisors who would be delivering the message very clearly: the Northern Territory is the place to be but the current management is out of control. They are a shocker, an embarrassment, completely dysfunctional and big business does not take that as good news for investment.
This is damaging the Territory. The members opposite have the hide to talk about creating the Territory and the Territory’s future for their children. We will not get past the next couple of weeks due to the dysfunction. You cannot even pass signature economic legislation with your plans to split and privatise Power and Water because you do not have the governing majority. You are not quite sure of the numbers. This signature piece you have prepared the Territory for is legislation the Territory is very concerned about.
This motion has opened up the can of worms. Constituents have said to me, ‘Did you ever think this could have happened?’ and I looked them straight in the face and told them honestly, ‘Yes, I did. I thought that from day one, because I saw a government built on a foundation of sand.’ I saw the most ruthless and aggressive election campaign in the bush in August 2012 that I have ever seen in my 30 years in Northern Territory politics, from behind the scenes as a supporter and a member of the Labor Party. Never before had I seen an aggressive, ruthless election campaign that made unfunded and unfounded promises. It was backed up with the razzamatazz of east coast money, with important players determined to take out Labor governments on a state and territory level. It had all the makings of great theatre, but it was based on a lousy script. The script was lies, unfunded election commitments and very shallow promises.
The Chief Minister has to answer, because his hollow and shallow rhetoric has been all that has come in its place. It is no doubt three bush members have taken heed, listened to the stories about the cake and the fair share, and doing business with Cabinet ministers to get their fair share for their electorates in the bush. I have pleaded with them to make sure Nhulunbuy and Barkly are attached to it, because we are all related in the bush. We are related specifically through our geographic isolation and our regionalisation, but also through the extensive networks of Indigenous Territorians who criss-cross this great Northern Territory with their song lines, ceremony and law. They are the ones asking the questions today.
Where is the delivery? We are not into shallow rhetoric from a flash Harry in a silver suit. After 18 months, we are moving into a new phase of shallow rhetoric, ‘We have a plan’. He is the wrecker who took out a Chief Minister on an international stage, in front of the biggest investment project the Northern Territory has ever seen, and then continued to destabilise the Northern Territory. This is a Country Liberal Party, with a dysfunctional leader, which scrapped the A Working Future policy and its parallel homelands policy. They came in with nothing to replace it but shallow rhetoric, a destructive and unintelligent approach to scrap things without anything in their place, ignoring the consultation and work which had gone on.
We do not hear much about SIHIP from this government. We do not hear much about the 27 houses being built at Ramingining, Minister for Infrastructure. We did not hear much about them when I was at Ramingining, watching the establishment of the workers’ camp and looking at the people on the ground recruiting the labour. Where has the story gone, the biggest investment in housing in the bush we have seen? There is no talk of it.
We have this shallow rhetoric, ‘We have a plan’. What is the plan? We have nothing but rhetoric. What about Building the Education Revolution, the most intensive investment in education infrastructure I have seen in 30 years in the Northern Territory? What about building off that? We built the infrastructure, so what does this mob do? They go into an economic rashness plan delivering efficiency dividends. The best way to get efficiency dividends is take out the salaries component, so they started to sack teachers. The hollow, shallow rhetoric is, ‘Oh no, we do not sack teachers, we are cancelling contracts, taking them out by natural attrition’. They also scored a big bonus with all the support workers, ancillary staff and local jobs to go with it. Suddenly the department and minister were able to show this Chief Minister their massive savings plan. We have built all of this infrastructure to support educational outcomes – I will not go into my silver bullet story, the good old CLP. We now have a government which has taken our teachers.
We had a 10-year transport plan as well as a 10-year infrastructure plan. I suggest the new minister who says, ‘We have a plan, we will show you a plan’, is rebadging those plans. However, he put the brakes on and took the Territory backwards. We have seen, from day one, a $74m cut in the infrastructure budget, which has crippled the regions. That is why three members in this House have walked out. There is nothing happening and their constituents are demanding an answer.
This minister said, ‘We have a plan’. It is all we have heard for the last two weeks. But they are ignoring all of the work their departments had done, the important consultation with the communities which was done under the previous government and the momentum which was gathering. It was the real story of how to take the regional remote areas forward, not shallow, unfunded election promises. You are now paying the price, because you have members who want some serious answers. They have had a gutful of this rhetoric from the Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, who is not in touch with the Territory.
It comes down to youth. The media has played around with all sorts of jibes and insults, but when I cut to the chase, he does not have the Territory in his blood yet; he has not been here long enough and does not know the bush. Yet, suddenly, because he is a good knife fighter, he gets to lead the pack and is in charge. This guy has a lot to answer for. You guys will have to pull him into line, because you are in big trouble. You are in desperate trouble. If you do not want to listen to what the opposition says, then just head down the mall of this town, come to downtown Tennant Creek, or wherever else you like, because people will line up to ask the same questions the opposition is talking about.
The member for Port Darwin talked about crime statistics. My answer to crime statistics under the CLP is that you parked the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. You wait for everybody to fall off that cliff, and you will then try to patch them up. How do you do that? Through minimum mandatory sentencing, and you have embarked on a campaign that is about putting people in gaol. The member for Port Darwin will not accept that the new era in Corrections – and I give him credit that he built off it – had an essential core value of keeping people out of gaol, as 82% of the gaol population in the Northern Territory is Aboriginal people, and 60% are in there for middle and low level offences, generally relating to alcohol and traffic. These people had a whole new pathway being developed, in the justice reinvestment …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask that the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, member for Johnston.
The new era in Corrections had a fundamental centrepiece, which was to keep people out of gaol. There were community corrections orders, custody orders and driver education programs. The member for Port Darwin knows that well, because he tried to take all of that out when the legislation was travelling through this place. I remember the debate well; it went for hours, and he questioned it.
As I said, I acknowledge the good work he has continued with. It is some great work in that line, but it fundamentally ignores that centrepiece of trying to keep the most vulnerable out of gaol, keep them in the community, and not take them away to an isolated place, do the work around that person and drop them back into an environment that, in many cases, will support offending behaviour, but work with that family, that group and that community. That is what the new era in Corrections was all about.
You guys changed the game plan. I am sure the three rebellious members who have walked will want to question that because I am asked that question in the Barkly. There is an enormous number of people now going to gaol. It is a one-way street and we need to be looking at alternatives. Eighty two per cent of them are Aboriginal people from the regional and remote areas. The CLP has completely ignored that, and it has crafted this story to say, ‘The crime statistics are up because we are policing better, and more criminals are going to gaol’. Once again, I say it is about justice reinvestment and about having the ambulance at the top of the cliff, not the bottom of the cliff. It is about picking up the person before they fall off, and picking up the family before that person falls off.
But that is policy. Around alcohol policy, the classic was Labor and the enormous work around Enough is Enough. A populist political move dominated by urban, conservative politicians, said, ‘You do not have to have a seven second disadvantage in your life. We will scrap it. We are not about nanny states. We are the real deal, we are the Country Liberal Party.’
I can tell you what it was like in the regions. On the Sunday 26 August the word started reverberating through from memos that went out to roadhouses saying they would not be prosecuted if they did not ask for ID, and the tap went back on. You can argue all the statistics you like; I am talking from a life point of view. I live in these places and I have lived there for a long time. I spent an inordinate amount of time travelling and workshopping remote communities in the Barkly, talking about the importance of having ID, encouraging people to go from proof of age cards to get their Territory licence and preserve it to normalise their existence, and not get into secondary supply because that trouble would follow them and they would lose their ID and right to purchase takeaway alcohol, which is 70% of the alcohol sold in the Northern Territory.
On day one, the Country Liberal Party, ironically, with a popular policy pitched to the urban folk of the capital city, scrapped it, with nothing in its place. We went into this retro tailspin and the bush got back on the grog big time; 2500 punters, game on, access to the grog with nothing in its place.
This Chief Minister who presides over the Northern Territory continues to try to play catch-up football. He continues to try to claw back credibility with the public and on community safety, on which he is failing. The crime statistics, the violent assaults, the domestic violence, the sexual assaults are going up, and not just in the big end of town, but across the bush. He is trying desperately to claw this back. He even now has police on bottle shops. Is that an effective strategy? Oh yes, that is an effective strategy. What do the publicans and the community people tell me? They tell me police should be working in community policing operations and developing good relationships with the public, not standing at bottle shops with clipboards, shuffling through papers to see if Freddie Jones has an Alcohol Protection Order. It is a joke! The police do not want to do it and the public see it as a waste of time and energy. Do you know what? In the age of technology, in what this government talks about with innovation, we can manage this stuff with an electronic database. However, the Minister for Alcohol Policy said, ‘Dead and buried, there is no way it is getting turned back on again. You all go out and make your own local plans.’
People are struggling. They are trying to make plans. They are having a crack, but they need that innovation and technology. Everybody seems to alienate the story around alcohol abuse – fundamentally the issue that is destabilising all the good things going on in the Northern Territory – with the Banned Drinker Register. Nobody wants to acknowledge the bigger policy, Enough is Enough, which related to the alcohol tribunals, the pathway that dealt with the person who ended up as the problem drinker on the BDR. That was the start of their journey. They got serious humbug and were not able to access alcohol by just walking in off the street. That tribunal process was starting to look at the education, the mandated community service and rehabilitation, and the most important one I was waiting for, the income quarantining.
I was waiting for those punters I have known for 30 years to come into my office in Tennant Creek and bellow and roar because they went to the ATM on Thursday morning and $60 spat out. They would be very irate about their money being quarantined. Then I would be able to take them aside and have a serious conversation about whether they were on the Banned Drinker Register or had fronted the alcohol tribunal. Was their family aware of the conditions placed on them because of their problem with alcohol? Were they aware of the tribunal and the tribunal’s correspondence? Had they fronted? This is what we call normalising people’s lives.
This alcohol policy the Labor Party had was scrapped on day one. This government has the mandate to do what it likes. It has shown us that time and time again. They stand there with their numbers, a very depleted number today may I say. They scrapped a huge policy across the Northern Territory, with nothing in its place.
The Chief Minister, now at half time in an electoral term, is still trying to claw back credibility with the constituency because of the setback that was created by the Country Liberal Party. These guys refuse to acknowledge there are important things which need to be focused on in delivering for the constituency. We see a government focused on within. We see infighting and a government that reports on the street, where they cannot even be in the same room together.
I was privileged to be a member of government and I cannot imagine how a government would function if the members did not get on, if the members are continually destabilising each other.
That started from day one. I tried to dismiss that. I thought the previous member for Blain would lead out and get this mob under control but, unfortunately, he was destabilised from day one. It was quite obvious. Essentially, being taken out in the most undignified of circumstances while overseas, on the world stage in front of the biggest infrastructure project to invest in the Northern Territory, was disgraceful.
The Chief Minister who took his place had no plans, and 18 months in we have a Chief Minister who suddenly has come up with the rhetoric around, ‘I have plans’. It is not good enough. It is not good enough for the Territory, and it is not good enough for the three members who have walked today.
Madam Speaker, one of the really critical parts of the CLP’s election campaign in 2012 was to scrap the shires. If we talk about the bush, we talk about jobs …
A member interjecting.
Mr McCARTHY: That is right. But, we talk about scrapping the shires. Word on the street is it is chaos. Word on the street at Wadeye and Daly is it is chaos, and everybody else wants to know when they will get their boundary changes. Essentially, that is more CLP dysfunction and chaos.
Mr TOLLNER (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, what an interesting debate this is turning out to be. It is great to see the member for Barkly on his feet having a rant. It is not often we get to see that type of enthusiasm and passion from the member for Barkly. He really had a good swing today.
The member for Barkly is still somewhat in denial. It was interesting to hear him talking about the ruthless campaign the Country Liberals ran in the bush at the last election – a ruthless campaign and he had never seen anything like it in his 35 years in the Northern Territory. They are still trying to recover from what occurred in the bush. It is the view of the Labor Party that those seats are their God-given right, and some tricky business went on at the last election where we fooled and tricked everyone in a dirty campaign. He talked about flash Harry in a silver suit turning up, referring to our Chief Minister …
Mr McCarthy: You betcha!
Mr TOLLNER: ‘You betcha’, he said. It is time to get over it, member for Barkly. I have acknowledged in the past that you are one of the few people in this House who was on this side of the parliament last time around who recognised there was something going on. There was talk that Dave Tollner was running the bush seats campaign, and everybody laughed and thought there was nothing funnier. What a great joke it was. People like Malarndirri McCarthy were laughing at us, and whatshername from Arafura, who thought it was all a joke.
I remember running into Kerry Gardiner, a good mate of mine. Kerry was working for Warren Snowdon at the time and he had a bit of a laugh. He said, ‘You guys are joking, aren’t you?’ I said, ‘Kerry, you might be surprised. We might pick up one or two.’ He said, ‘Come on, no one will ever defeat Karl. He is locked into that seat; he is cemented in.’ Goodness me, I am standing here looking at Bess Price and I do not think Karl saw Bess coming. Karl thought he owned the seat until retirement date. That was the case with Malarndirri and others in those bush seats. They were stunned. This is what the member for Barkly referred to as a ruthless campaign.
The view of the Labor Party was, ‘We own the bush, it is ours. Aborigines will never vote CLP, they are rusted on Labor people. They are communists at heart and they like everything to be done communally. We are the natural party where they all fit.’ For the life of them, they could not see it would ever be possible for the Country Liberals to win one of these bush seats. I look at the member for Barkly now and he is still smarting from it. He still cannot believe it. He is dazed …
Mr McCarthy: Three of yours just walked out the door.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: You can talk about who has walked out the door and that type of thing, but Labor did not win those seats …
Mr McCarthy: I do not see them here today. Where are they all?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly!
Mr TOLLNER: Where are all the Labor bush members? You are one of the few left standing; you are about the only one. Where has the rest of your mob gone?
Mr McCarthy: There are three missing over there.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, please pause.
Member for Barkly and opposition members, I have let it go long enough. The convention is you do not refer to people who are not in the Chamber.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Barkly, lovely bloke that he is, has a bit of a problem at the moment, 18 months after the fact. It has not sunk in: Labor lost the bush. They say oppositions do not win government, governments lose government. That is what happened: you lost government. You failed the people of the Northern Territory. That is a shameful act. Now you come in here banging on as if you know all about the bush. You are the sole standing bush member left in the Labor Party, the once great Australian Labor Party which had every seat in the bush. You are it. Good on you, you are in touch with your electorate. I paid tribute to you in the past, and I continue to do so; you are the only one who saw what was coming.
We know how ruthless campaigns can be. We know how you managed to hang on to the seat. Good on you, you fought hard. You are in touch with your electorate so you knew something was coming over the hill. The other guys were completely oblivious to it. You still cannot grasp the fact you lost the bush. You have no bush members apart from the member for Barkly. That is it.
You come in here and start talking about SIHIP as if it was some great achievement. I tell you what the achievement was; you managed to spend $1.7bn on housing in the bush, and now there are fewer rooms in the bush than when you started. That is a sad fact. You crow about it as if you achieved something. You have to be joking! You wonder why you lost the bush. You spent $1.7bn building houses in the bush, and there are now fewer rooms than when you started. What an embarrassment, coming in here and talking as if it is some achievement.
Mr McCarthy: Seven new houses at Murray Downs.
Mr TOLLNER: Seven new houses. How many less are there?
Mr TOLLNER: Goodness me! They come in here talking about the BER, Building the Education Revolution. I do not believe there are too many programs which have been ridiculed more in Australia’s history than the school halls fiasco. You come in here as if it is some great achievement. Pick up a newspaper, read what people were saying about the Building the Education Revolution program. I am stunned you did not start talking about pink batts as some wonderful achievement, although there is an inquiry going on about that. Maybe you had some decorum and decided not to comment on the pink batts fiasco, where goodness knows how many people died and how many homes were burnt to the ground in that failed little Labor spend.
Why have you not mentioned the other wonderful thing you did in trying to hand the Stella Maris to yourselves and your union mates? That is the sort of nonsense you guys were getting up to in government. Now you are on your high horse, all morally pumped up, saying, ‘The government is falling to bits’, when your government was absolutely shambolic, and you were booted out in the bush. You guys lost this area of the Territory you are so familiar with. You did not just lose, most of the seats are comfortably in CLP hands. Goodness me!
I get on to the censure. As the member for Barkly pointed out, it is pretty well aimed at the Chief Minister and his supposed failures in a range of areas. The member for Barkly referred to our Chief Minister as ‘flash Harry in a silver suit’. Every opportunity you guys get you try to sling a bit of mud and personally attack the man. But let us think about our Chief Minister. All right, he is from Central Australia. That is not a common thing, as Chief Ministers gone by are concerned. He is young, as far as Chief Ministers are concerned. He is dynamic, he has bounce in his step. He has a vision for the Territory, and guess what? He is Australia’s first Indigenous leader.
He is the first Indigenous leader in Australia, and some of us take pride in that. Here is the Territory again leading the way. You might recall it was the first CLP government in Australia that had the first Indigenous parliamentarian elected. What a great achievement. Again, it is the Country Liberals that now have the first Indigenous leader in Australia’s history. What a great achievement. Labor wants to belittle that. They call him ‘flash Harry in a silver suit’. Why? Is it because he takes care of himself, he wants to dress well, and wants to look good and show off the Territory in a good light? That is appalling. Your view is that an Aboriginal man has to be, somehow or other, down in the gutter, looking rough. What is your view of Aboriginal people, if you think of our Chief Minister as ‘flash Harry in a silver suit’ …
Most of us are proud of the fact we have Australia’s first Indigenous leader. I put it to you that he probably has more interest in the bush than any Chief Minister, Country Liberal or Labor …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51: I am trying to listen to the Deputy Chief Minister. Could you advise the member for Stuart to stop interrupting so I can listen.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, I have listened for the last 10 minutes and you have been constantly interjecting and making noise yourself. It is a misuse of standing orders. You are on a warning.
Mr TOLLNER: As I was saying, this Chief Minister has more of a focus on the bush than any previous Chief Minister, whether Country Liberal or Labor. He is focused on the bush. I have known very few Chief Ministers who took the time to get across the Territory in the way this Chief Minister does. It is not something he has just started, it is something he has been doing since day dot.
I was incredibly impressed with the effort he went to when I first met him when he was our candidate for Lingiari. We all had a bit of a laugh when his campaign slogan was, ‘No more sit-down money’. Again, that was something which showed this guy was a bloke of conviction. He was prepared to put what he thought on his campaign slogan. The idea of sit-down money is abhorrent to him, and he put it on his campaign slogan.
Maybe it was not the brightest move politically, but, courageously, it showed he was worlds ahead of anybody else we had prepared to put down their thoughts in front of people and give people a real view of the way he thought about things. Welfare reform has been one of those things he has been dogged on. I was in a meeting with him last night with Twiggy Forrest who asked, ‘How do we get Indigenous people into work?’ He said, ‘Welfare reform’. That was the first response. Then, of course, we went on and covered a range of subjects and areas where we could try to create enterprise and economic development in remote communities, trying to get jobs in the bush.
Clearly the Chief Minister is not afraid to say what he thinks, and that is admirable.
Again, the member for Port Darwin put it well. Labor is so internally focused they have forgotten what the main game is. The main game is building the Territory, driving a better future for Territorians. But every day we come in here, there is nothing – zero – about how you will build a better future for Territorians. It is all internally focused. ‘Let us see how we can attack this person or that person.’
I learnt that in opposition you cannot do too much at all. There is stuff-all you can do in opposition. You do not hold the levers of government. However, there is something you can do, and that is plot, scheme and plan what you will do when you next find yourselves in government: test policy ideas and put a few things out for discussion. What do we hear from this Labor mob we have here, this rabble that has absolutely nothing in its tool kit, except ways to create mischief in our community?
Last night I was listening to that silly debate on Nightcliff island. There is not even a proposal in yet to build Nightcliff island. But, no, they will get a couple of hundred – couple of hundred? – maybe a dozen people to protest, get a few party crashers in and create a bit of mischief, trying to attract a bit of media attention, concoct something that has not even become a proposal yet and try to get a few people scared. That is how you operate, by trying to scare people. Well, it just does not work.
This is a government that is focused on doing the job, and you guys seem to make a bit of fun with that. ‘Oh, you are trying to ignore this and you are ignoring that.’ We are not ignoring anything, what we are doing is getting on with the job. You have a Chief Minister who has come in every Question Time, refused to take your petty little baits, and talked about his vision for the Northern Territory and what plans we are putting in place, what things we are getting happening. You have a whole range of ministers and backbenchers here who are focused on building things in their electorates, trying to do things for the Territory into the future.
I look around me now and I see the minister for Lands and Planning. We have the highest residential construction rate in the history of the Territory; two people are driving that, our minister for Lands and Planning and our Minister for Housing, who are doing an fabulous job, breaking records.
These are the things that matter. We are focused on trying to deal with the Power and Water problem. It is only Labor members who bury their heads in sand and say ‘No problem here’, despite the fact the Power and Water debt went from $290m in 2004 to $1.2bn by the time Labor was kicked out. We have seen blackout after blackout but, no, Labor still wants to maintain the same system. We are now putting $150m of taxpayer subsidies into the Power and Water Corporation, and Labor still thinks that is appropriate. It is not. That money should not necessarily be going in there. That money should be going to roads, schools, hospitals, police stations and all of those things.
I was talking to the Minister for Infrastructure a minute ago. The member for Barkly said there is nothing happening in the bush. We have spent more than $413m on infrastructure, which includes $127m on roads, projects like $4.3m for the development of a new Lajamanu airstrip, $6.5m for the construction of a bridge over the Doindji River, $5m to upgrade stretches of the Tanami Road and $4m towards the Carpentaria and Buntine Highways. There is a range of things going on: improving access to Fog Bay Road and the Charlotte River Crossing, construction of multipurpose police stations at Yuendumu and Alpara, upgrades of Docker River and Utopia aerodromes, Canteen Creek remote health centre upgrade, Elliott remote health centre upgrade, new dwellings set for Robinson River, upgrade of a truck parking bay at Elliott, upgrade to Ti Tree roadhouse and truck bay, Roper Highway grading and resheeting from the end of the sealed section to the Roper Bar and the Numbulwar Road upgrade. This is one little media release from 19 March, a couple of days ago ...
Mr McCarthy: The list of Labor projects goes on, a lot of Labor projects. Thanks for that.
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go. Anything good in this world happens under a Labor government, everything bad happens under the dreadful CLP people. Labor was diddled in the bush because we ran a mean and tricky campaign and they never did anything wrong. Get real guys, get real!
The fact is, we have a Chief Minister and a government which are focused on the job and are doing what is best for the Northern Territory and making some tough decisions.
We have some problems, I will admit that. We have a $5.5bn debt to deal with, thank you very much. You did that. There is a whole range of things. This year the budget deficit is $1.2bn and there are only 230 000 of us here.
The greatest monument you built was a prison. Well, whoopee doo! We are not taking our lead from you guys. If you think we should have kept pouring money into failed programs, you are wrong. We scrapped the AMS and a whole range of other failed Labor policies, and we will continue to do so because we have a vision and a plan for the Territory that will see people prosper and grow in wealth in the future ...
Mr HIGGINS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move the minister be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, member for Daly. Madam Speaker, I have finished my comments.
The Assembly divided:
Motion negatived.
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I your attention to a clear breach of standing orders. Standing Order 118(2) requires a minister to answer a question within 30 days of receipt. Written Question 105, concerning Crown leases for which no rent, or peppercorn rent, was payable was received by the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment on 6 January 2014. Standing Order 118(2) also requires a minister, who has not answered a written question within 30 days to provide an explanation to the member asking the question.
Given almost three months has elapsed since the question was received, I ask that you direct the minister to answer the question or provide the explanation for not doing so, as required by standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Johnston. Standing Order 118(2) says the minister should respond, it does not say they must respond. I am not in a position as the Speaker to compel the minister to answer the question in that period of time. However, the Clerk’s Office can write to the minister requesting information, and I will ask the Clerk to write to the relevant minister, asking for an explanation.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order, my understanding is all questions have been answered. If they have not, I will follow that up, not a problem.
Ms Lawrie: They have not.
Mr Chandler: I will follow it up, no problems. There are no conspiracies; sorry, nothing to see here.
Ms Lawrie: You were told in Question Time last week they were not.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment has undertaken to double check why the answers have not been recorded, and has undertaken to get the information to the members of the opposition, and the Independent member if need be.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to provide a legislative basis for the new service framework, a commitment by this government announced in November 2012 to provide a new way of delivering health services in the Northern Territory.
Healthcare continues to progress at an extraordinary rate. Projections show if we continue to operate the health system the way we are now, it will eventually fail under the pressure of increased demand, as our population ages and health services become more complex and costly.
The key drivers of health costs are demographic trends, our ageing population and improved life expectancy, increase in preventable chronic health conditions, higher consumer expectations, advances in technology and workforce shortages.
The Northern Territory public health system currently consists of the Department of Health and a number of non-government organisations that are funded to provide public health services. The department provides the majority of public health services and undertakes the system manager role. The role of system manager is a requirement of the National Health Reform Agreement and entails responsibility for the overall development, management and performance of the public health system.
Health services are demand driven, and we have seen that demand continue to grow. The new service framework provides for the decentralisation of health service delivery which is consistent with national health reform requirements and contemporary practice. The framework provides for more efficient decision-making at the locations where health services are delivered, and allows for better connected and coordinated health services. The framework allows greater community ownership and engagement and will, ultimately, promote better health outcomes for patients.
To provide the legislative foundation for this new framework, the bill provides for the establishment of new entities known as Health Services. These entities will be statutory bodies that will represent the Territory, and they will be the principal providers of health services in the Northern Territory.
The Department of Health will continue to provide a small number of specialist public health services, and continue its current role of coordinating and funding non-government organisations to provide some services for the public health system, in addition to the role of system manager. The result will be a smaller department that will be refocused to provide a more traditional policy, system planning and governance role.
Each health service entity will be governed by a board of management that will be responsible for the governance and reporting to the system manager on the performance of the health service. The bill contains a list of the skills required for a person to be eligible for appointment to the membership of a health service board. On 5 July 2013, I announced the appointments to these health services boards.
A chief operating officer will administer the day-to-day operations of the health service. That person will work with the health service board and monitor the financial and administrative performance of the health service. The chief operating officer will have reporting relationships to its health service board and to the system manager to ensure the ongoing management and viability of the public health system. This type of dual reporting arrangement exists in other jurisdictions with similar arrangement for health service delivery.
Health service entities will be funded by the system manager via service delivery agreements. This is also a requirement of the National Health Reform Agreement. The service delivery agreements will entail the funding to be allocated to the health services, the types of services to be delivered and the standards and performance measures that will apply. The service delivery agreements will be negotiated with the system manager and the health service that will consult with its chief operating officer in this process.
Ultimate accountability for performance of the health system rests with the system manager. The bill establishes powers for the system manager to issue directives to a health service and conduct inquiries and audits into performance. This is to support a consistent and efficient approach in how health services are delivered in the Territory, and ensure the health service entities operate in an integrated way.
The bill also provides powers to the minister to issue directions to a health service. This is intended to provide clarity to a health service on Territory government policies and health system objectives, and to resolve urgent issues.
The new service framework will continue to operate within the Northern Territory public service. All staff will continue as employees of the Department of Health and will carry over all entitlements and conditions.
A significant planning process has been undertaken for the implementation of the new service framework. That process has included the involvement of an interagency reference group, contributions by the members of the future health service boards and management, Department of Health staff, non-government organisations and unions. I thank those stakeholders for their vital and very helpful contributions to this process.
The future for health services in the Northern Territory is bright, but we have come to a place where change must occur. The establishment of these new health services is an integral aspect of the new service framework. The reforms will provide greater control, efficiency, and responsiveness to the Northern Territory public health system, and continue this government’s agenda to provide healthcare within a strong health system, and support those who are most vulnerable in our community.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act to address issues that have been identified during the first two years of operation of the Container Deposit Scheme. These amendments have been made to ensure effect is given to the original intent of the act by improving clarity and functionality of the existing provisions, and introducing new provisions where necessary. These include achieving improved efficiencies, increasing the ability for enforcement of the act, ensuring that collection depots are open to the public and ensuring that all Container Deposit Scheme participants establish their own contractual arrangements.
In order to meet the unrealistic time frame specified by the previous Labor government, the process of establishing the Container Deposit Scheme was rushed, which resulted in a problematic scheme that is not operating as the community, industry, or the government expected. I want it noted that this is no fault of the department staff who were working hard to get the scheme off the ground by the expedited start date enforced by the Labor government. I thank the department staff for their commitment and belief in the Container Deposit Scheme, and acknowledge their tireless efforts in trying to make the scheme work for the people of the Northern Territory.
The people of the Northern Territory have shown overwhelming support for the Container Deposit Scheme, demonstrated in 121 million containers that have been redeemed at collection depots in the first two years of the scheme’s operation. As such, the Territory government is committed to fixing the scheme and making it as efficient and accessible for Territorians as possible.
After two years of operation, it is apparent that the Container Deposit Scheme is not operating as was intended by the legislation. The previous government’s legacy has seen the closure of collection depots to the public, commercial disputes between participants, the public experiencing unacceptable waiting times at depots and a declaration by the Federal Court that components of the act were inconsistent with the Mutual Recognition Act 1992.
The amendments to the act I am presenting today will assist in improving efficiencies of the scheme’s operation and administration, and strengthen enforcement potential under the act. These amendments will remedy, as far as possible, the difficulties currently being experienced by Container Deposit Scheme participants, enhance the functionality of the scheme and improve the ease of access for the new participants to become involved.
Improving efficiencies within the Container Deposit Scheme will be the key to its success in the future. This will see simplified systems developed, a reduction in handling and sorting of containers and improved waiting times at collection depots. It will reduce costs for Container Deposit Scheme participants which, in turn, will make the process of negotiating a waste
management arrangement much easier.
This was originally envisaged as the role of the Container Deposit Scheme principles. They were developed to ensure effective waste management arrangements were negotiated but, in some circumstances, this has not occurred. Some approvals were based on a unilateral waste management arrangement which only broadly addressed the requirements of those principles. The critical components of the principles to be included in a waste management arrangement have now been incorporated into the bill. This will ensure they serve their intended purpose and facilitate the development of effective waste management arrangements.
One of the biggest challenges to creating an efficient scheme has been the requirement of Container Deposit Scheme coordinators on collection depots to sort out containers into approximately 24 categories based on brand type. The bill stipulates the coordinators must now accept containers from collection depots which have been sorted according to material type only. Collection depots will be required to establish a waste management arrangement with at least one coordinator. They can deal with that one, or more, coordinator for the handling of all materials.
To enable this to occur, Container Deposit Scheme coordinators must collectively come to arrangements to facilitate the acceptance of all containers by material type on behalf of each other. They must also establish arrangements for the payment of refunds and handling fees. In order to ensure this process is facilitated efficiently, waste management arrangements will need to be settled through arbitration if resolution has not been achieved within the designated time frame.
In order for the amendments to be effective, Container Deposit Scheme coordinators must first establish a coordinator arrangement to allow for the splitting of containers by depots by material type only. Until this is achieved, sections 20, 24C and 100 will not be commenced. Once a coordinator arrangement has been approved, splits by material type will then be able to take effect. Until this point, previous arrangements will remain in place.
To achieve the intended outcomes, all Container Deposit Scheme coordinators will be authorised to enter into specified waste management arrangements, even though the arrangements may be regarded as contravening Part IV of the Competition and Consumers Act 2010 (Cth).
Section 51 of the Competition and Consumers Act 2010 (Cth) provides certain exemptions to the restrictive trade practices provisions set out in Part IV. In accordance with section 51, the Northern Territory may exclude operations in relation to any arrangements entered into by the Container Deposit Scheme participants to give effect to the legislative amendments.
For the purpose of section 51 exception, a schedule to clause 11 of the bill has been developed detailing the authorised behaviours. This includes the sharing of information such as aggregated sales data, receipts for expended transport costs, payments received from selling products to market and evidence of the agreed handling fee being paid to a depot. This will allow the coordinators to work together to achieve a more efficient and effective Container Deposit Scheme.
Only those behaviours listed in the Schedule and in clause 11(2) will be authorised for the purposes of the Competition and Consumers Act 2010 (Cth). Coordinators will be required to continue to comply with the Competition and Consumers Act 2010 (Cth) in all other respects, ensuring this bill does not result in coordinators generally entering into agreements which will reduce competition and impact on Territorians.
The exception only applies to coordinators. Manufacturers and collection depots will be required to continue to comply with the Competition and Customers Act 2010 (Cth) in full.
This government has learnt from the failures of the Labor government. It has taken the time to get this right. While we can never be assured of preventing all legal action, we have sought advice from private sector Queen’s Counsel experienced in competition and consumer law during the drafting of the relevant components of the bill to reduce the potential for successful challenges. Queen’s Counsel has advised the proposed legislative amendments are expected to meet the requirements of authorisation under section 51(1)(d) of the Commonwealth Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
Another product of the rushed Labor scheme is the way in which original approvals were granted may have resulted in some less robust approvals being in place. This has created a degree of vulnerability in the ongoing administration of the scheme and has limited the ability to take regulatory action. To address this issue, the bill contains a new provision which specifies existing approvals are valid, despite any deficiencies in the granting of the approval. This new provision will enable the enforcement authority to take action against Container Deposit Scheme participants which are in breach of their approval, and allows current participants to continue their operation whilst working towards implementation of the new provisions.
A specific area the enforcement authority needs to take action on, but until now has been unable to, is the issue of collection depot opening hours. Despite contrary requirements and approvals, there are some operators accepting beverage containers through the commercial arrangements only. This is severely limiting the public’s access to the Container Deposit Scheme. The validation of approvals will allow action to be taken against these operators to enforce them to comply with the public opening hours as stipulated in their waste management arrangements and subsequent approvals, improving access to the scheme for the community. The draft bill specifically states a collection depot must be accessible and open to the general public on a consistent and regular basis.
The use of unilateral waste management arrangements has resulted in collection depots relying on section 20 of the act. Section 20 enables an operator to claim, as a debt from the relevant Container Deposit Scheme coordinator, the refund amounts paid for approved containers and any handling fees incurred. Section 20 was intended to provide protection for collection depot operators who may have incurred costs for the handling of containers. It was not intended to exist as an alternative to the participants negotiating formal waste management arrangements, as it does not allow a collection depot operator to claim, against a coordinator, an amount in the nature of profit.
As a result, disputes have arisen regarding the amount of the handling fee payable to the depot operator by some coordinators. By requiring collection depots to have a written waste management arrangement with a Container Deposit Scheme coordinator before an approval is granted, participants will be bound by these arrangements. This allows for collection depots to negotiate as high a handling fee as the market will allow, whilst having a contractual arrangement in place to enforce these provisions.
When new section 20 commences, it will be only relevant if there is a waste management arrangement between a collection depot and a coordinator. In the event a dispute does arise, participants are directed back to the dispute resolution process stipulated in their waste management arrangement. For those existing participants who are currently operating under the legislation, transitional provisions have been made under the legislation, which will allow any current proceedings to continue. These additions to the legislation will ensure all participants are on a level playing field.
The bill also contains some more minor amendments aimed at improving the scheme. First, the definition of ‘bulk quantity’ has been amended from 500 to 1500 containers. This will reduce the burden when large quantities of containers are returned to collection depots. Declarations will now only be required for people returning over 1500 containers. This has been done in consultation with South Australia.
Second, an amendment has been made to provide that an approval can be granted for a period less than the minimum five years currently legislated. This change has been made at the request of potential operators, and will give businesses the opportunity to enter the scheme for shorter periods or on a trial basis to ensure viability before making financial and infrastructure commitments.
Third, the bill contains a range of transitional provisions required to facilitate these changes, to enable sufficient time periods for a transition from the current system to the reformed system.
Finally, the bill transfers responsibility of the act from the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment to the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority, the NT EPA.
Moving forward, the NT EPA will be responsible for the administration of this act which had previously been delegated from the Chief Executive of Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, to a delegated officer of the NT EPA. This is consistent with the government’s commitment to an NT EPA with responsibility for management of waste and pollution matters in the Northern Territory.
The Container Deposit Scheme coordinators, depot operators, supply approval holders and other industry associations were consulted on an earlier draft of the bill. I thank those participants for taking the time to review that draft bill and providing feedback to the department which allowed it to improve the bill. I also thank those participants for staying with the scheme over the last two years, despite the difficulties they have experienced. Many of the changes made by this bill are as a direct result of the willingness of participants to provide open and frank feedback on the operation of the scheme.
A fine balance has been drawn to ensure the amendments address concerns raised by participants, while retaining the nature of the Container Deposit Scheme as an industry-run scheme.
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 ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill makes amendments to the procedural provisions in the Criminal Code Act relating to joinder and severance of charges on an indictment.
Where an accused is charged on an indictment with multiple accounts of sexual offences involving multiple complainants, there are two possibilities in relation to the trial: (a) there will be separate trials in respect to each or some of the complainants; or (b) the charges relating to all complainants will be heard together in the same trial.
This bill introduces a presumption that trials for sexual offences where the accused is charged with multiple sexual offences will proceed together, even where the offences are alleged to have been committed against different persons.
Section 309 of the Criminal Code Act permits the joining of more than one charge on an indictment against an accused, if those charges are founded on the same facts or are, or form part of, a series of offences of the same or similar character.
Under section 341 of the Criminal Code Act, an accused can apply for the charges to be severed and tried separately where the accused may be prejudiced or embarrassed in their defence because they are charged with more than one offence on the same indictment, or for any other reason it is desirable for the charges to be tried separately.
Cases such as De Jesus v R (1996) 61 ALR, decided that the general rule in sexual offence cases is that where evidence of one complainant in relation to one count on an indictment is not cross-admissible, that is, it cannot be used as evidence to prove another charge on the indictment, the charges should be severed and separate trials ordered unless there are good reasons not to do so. This might arise in a case, for example, where two young girls who are friends are alleged to have been victims of a sexual assault by the same man in similar circumstances.
Cross-admissibility of evidence in multiple sexual assault cases is determined by reference to the rules relating to tendency and coincidence evidence in sections 97, 98 and 101 of the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act and similar acts in jurisdictions that have adopted the Uniform Evidence Act.
These rules determine whether evidence relating to an offence against one complainant can be used in respect of an offence against another complainant because the evidence shows a tendency of the accused to commit that type of offence, or because two or more events are similar, such as there would be no other innocent explanation for them other than the accused was guilty of the offences.
In a case involving a number of charges and more than one complainant, an accused might argue that separate trials should be ordered to prevent an injustice to the defendant because a jury might decide a case on the basis of a prejudiced view of the accused and, so, give rise to an unfair trial. There is a possibility of this where a jury hears evidence of an accused’s alleged sexual offending on more than one occasion. The trial judge may decide to disallow the evidence because, while it is probative, the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs its probative value. The result at common law would be separate trials for each of the counts of a sexual offence.
This bill reverses the common law presumption and, instead, introduces the presumption for joint trials, which is not to be rebutted only because the evidence of the complainants is not cross-admissible, nor because there is a possibility that the evidence is the result of a collusion between the complainants.
The bill arises out of a number of law reform reports. The Tasmanian Law Reform Institute 2012 report entitled Evidence Act 2001 Sections 97, 98 and 101 and Hoch’s Case: Admissibility of ‘Tendency’ and ‘Coincidence’ Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases with Multiple Complainants and the Australian Law Reform Commission 2010 report entitled Family Violence—A National Legal Response both recommended that criminal statutes should be amended to:
(a) establish a presumption that, when two or more charges for sexual offences are joined in the same indictment, those charges are to be tried together; and
a reduction in trauma to complainants (particularly children) in sexual assault cases because they will be required to give evidence and be cross-examined on fewer occasions if the charges are joined;
there may be a reduction in costs, a saving of time and a conservation of legal and judicial resources because there would be fewer trials;
in joint trials, juries will be provided with the full picture of circumstances and facts surrounding the allegations, rather than an artificial and individualised context to the alleged offending if the charges are tried separately
convictions for sexual offences are relatively difficult to obtain, and this is said to reflect the fact that sexual assaults are usually committed in private without corroborating evidence.
Of particular concern to this government is the easing of the burden on victims of sexual assault, particularly in the family violence context.
While there are provisions in the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act which are designed to make the giving of evidence for vulnerable witnesses easier, the need to testify on multiple occasions does not serve the interests of complainants, and can only serve to repeatedly traumatise them. This bill is intended to reduce the burden where possible.
A number of jurisdictions have already reversed the effect of the cases that require evidence of multiple complainants in sexual assault cases to be cross-admissible in order to join them in the same trial, including South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland. This bill is modelled on section 194 of the Victorian Criminal Procedure Act 2009 which provides that if two or more charges for sexual offences are joined in the same indictment, it is presumed they will be tried together. Section 194 also provides the presumption is not rebutted merely because the evidence is not cross-admissible.
Turning to specific provisions of the bill, clause 6 introduces the new presumption in new section 341A of the Criminal Code Act which is modelled on section 194 of the Victorian act. Like the Victorian act, new section 341A(2) states that the presumption of joint trials is not rebutted merely because evidence on one charge is not admissible on another charge. In addition, proposed new section 341A(2) provides that the presumption of joint trials is also not rebutted merely because there is a possibility that the evidence may be the result of collusion of suggestion.
The effect of new section 341A is that even if evidence in relation to one charge cannot be used in respect of another charge to show a tendency, the court can still keep the charges together in a joint trail because unfair prejudice to the defendant can be overcome by directions to the jury not to use the evidence in relation to one charge to decide whether the defendant is guilty of another charge.
Section 194 of the Victorian Criminal Procedure Act 2009 reflects the former section 372(3AA) of the now repealed Victorian Crimes Act. It has been in force in Victoria since 1997 and there is, therefore, a significant body of case law to assist in its interpretation and application in the Northern Territory.
The presumption does not indicate that all sexual offences charged on the same indictment should be heard together. The judge retains the discretion to decide whether the charges should be severed or whether adequate directions about the use of evidence for particular purposes can be given.
The Victorian cases, such as the Queen v Papamitrou (2004) 7 VR 375, have interpreted their section 194 to mean that judges must carefully consider whether severing the charges and ordering separate trials is necessary, even where a judge concluded that the evidence of two complainants is not cross-admissible, and whether adequate directions to the jury can be given. However, the cases also say that the judge should first determine whether the evidence is cross-admissible because that determination will still be a powerful influence in the exercise of the discretion to sever the charges, and the capacity to ensure a fair trial for the accused must always be the dominant consideration.
Clause 4 of the bill also amends section 309 to make it clear that, in the case of any doubt about the ability to join multi-complainant sex offence charges on indictment under section 309, that section does allow the joinder of multiple charges against an accused, even if they were committed against different persons.
Finally, it should also be noted that the issue of a presumption of joint trials and tendency and coincidence evidence is currently being considered by the National Uniform Evidence Working Group under the auspices of the now former Standing Council on Law and Justice. These issues arose out of a Tasmanian Law Reform Institute report which made a number of recommendations in relation to the law of tendency and coincidence, including that there should be a presumption along the lines of the Victorian presumption in section 194 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.
The Department of Attorney-General and Justice will continue to participate in that working group, and the government will consider the outcomes of any report when it is finalised. For now, this government is moving on the presumption of joint trials as a measure to support victims of sexual crimes.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and also table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr TOLLNER (Business): Madam Speaker, today I advise the House of the proactive work being done by the Department of Business to assist businesses in Nhulunbuy that are, or will be, affected by the curtailment of the refinery operations. This is part of the government’s overall effort to address the impact of Rio Tinto’s decision on the community.
I totally concur with the Chief Minister’s statements made to the Legislative Assembly on 11 February this year that while the decision to curtail the operation of the refinery in Nhulunbuy was not what we had planned, expected or, indeed, wanted, it was clearly a commercial decision by Rio Tinto made on the back of the myriad of adverse conditions Rio Tinto faced.
Rio Tinto has determined the refinery is no longer financially sustainable, given a range of factors, including changes to the global market for aluminium and the relatively high cost of production. We cannot change the decision, but we must work towards getting the best result for the people, community and businesses of Nhulunbuy and surrounding areas.
Yes, things will be different, everyone acknowledges that. But the question now is how we can position ourselves to create the best possible outcome under these trying circumstances.
The Chief Minister detailed in his statements last sittings the approach the government had taken in response to Rio Tinto’s decision.
The government established the Nhulunbuy Task Force to recommend ways to support the diversification of the local economy, monitor the progress of the current transition and consider long-term structural adjustment possibilities. The task force includes senior government officials, local community members and Rio Tinto, in addition to a community reference group, the Nhulunbuy Community Advisory Committee, to provide a mechanism for ongoing community engagement. These groups are vital in ensuring the government hears the views of local community members and provides a forum for Nhulunbuy locals to raise concerns and issues as the situation progresses.
The Chief Minister advised last sittings that the Territory government will continue to provide services to the region including vital health, education and police services.
One of the critical areas where the Giles government is assisting Nhulunbuy and its transition is in the area of business adjustment. As honourable members know, Nhulunbuy has a wide range of businesses delivering a suite of crucial services needed for the town, the East Arnhem region and beyond.
We have been working hard to help business, the community and others who need assistance the Department of Business can offer. When Rio Tinto’s announcement to curtail the refinery operation was made, a Darwin-based senior business liaison client manager from the department was already in Nhulunbuy. He and other officers have been on the ground ever since, working as part of the Northern Territory government response team. This has proved to be a crucial component of the government’s immediate action to respond to the curtailment of the refinery, and continues to be a critical component of our ongoing actions.
One of the first actions by the department was to enable the use of the department’s training centre to be the community’s support centre for delivery of not only government services, but Rio Tinto’s support services and for the Commonwealth government if they needed it, a central point of contact for all services to the community and businesses of Nhulunbuy. This is continuing and has proved to be a valuable form of support.
We are also working closely with and supporting the Chamber of Commerce in Nhulunbuy to ensure all businesses are aware of, and have access to, the support and programs available, including any Commonwealth government programs which may be of assistance.
I take this opportunity to announce the Territory government has provided a grant of $25 000 over two years to the Chamber of Commerce. The grant is to assist the chamber to maintain its presence in Nhulunbuy. The chamber’s cooperation and ability to be a conduit to provide advice to the department and the government is an important component of responding effectively to the challenges being faced by the business community.
The Department of Business, on behalf of the Territory government, is happy to play a role in these activities through the financial support we have provided. The Department of Business has been proactively focused on promoting and providing preferential access to its programs and any other NT government programs which could benefit Nhulunbuy businesses. This is to ensure those businesses can freely access, and benefit from, the government support being offered. We have also rotated staff from many areas of expertise from throughout the department through the township to ensure the full range of departmental services is available when needed.
We are referring to the overall assistance being provided as the Gove Business Assistance Package, as it is not only applicable to the Nhulunbuy business community but also to the surrounding region. So far, a total of 112 individual businesses in Nhulunbuy have been contacted by the department, and 31 of those businesses – which, when combined, employ some 271 people - have already signed on for business support programs valued at over $278 561. A further 33 businesses have indicated they are in the process of applying for the programs and the valuable support available, with others still considering the option. We are offering the services and businesses are taking the decision to accept the support.
The Business Growth suite of programs, as the name suggests, includes programs to enhance business operations and usually have modest but, essential, criteria that must be met before they are offered. Due to the circumstances in Nhulunbuy, we have introduced a level of flexibility in not only the criteria that must be met, but also the scope of work that can be included. Basically, an operating business in Nhulunbuy can access the Business Growth program to not only have a fresh set of eyes look at a business, as it is now, but have the option to look at feasibility scoping for future activities, including the potential for diversification and remodelling of business operations.
In addition, due to the nature and potential impact of Rio Tinto’s decision for the time being, the usual business co-contribution that would normally be applicable for Business Growth programs will be provided by Rio Tinto. This will enable Nhulunbuy-based businesses to take full advantage of the valuable support services now available, and enable the NT government to further extend the delivery of these programs and better meet business adjustment requirements.
The recent announcement by Rio Tinto to provide $50m over the next five years is a very welcome decision, and also provides a very solid base for businesses to refocus their operations in ways that were not possible before the curtailment of the refinery operations.
The Territory government will work with Rio Tinto and the Australian government to establish a new private sector entity that will manage surplus Rio Tinto housing and access a range of key company-owned commercial and industrial assets. These include Rio Tinto’s cargo wharf, warehouses and workshops. These assets will be made available for new economic activities and will help grow a robust and diverse economy for Nhulunbuy and the broader East Arnhem region.
The Territory government and the company have agreed to investigate options for establishing a new special purpose economic development entity to deliver on this. The entity’s five key functions will be:
to provide leadership that drives and coordinates new and existing economic activity in the region
to actively market and promote Nhulunbuy and the East Arnhem region to prospective residents
to attract and secure new investment for Nhulunbuy and the wider region
to facilitate the establishment of new industries and businesses and the expansion of existing business through the use of available assets, funding and advice on regulatory matters
to support Indigenous economic development; the strategy of using a business entity to pursue economic development goals is a well-established approach.
The entity will address the longer-term economic development needs of East Arnhem, equipped with a regional development fund. The fund can support private sector investment, facilitate the use of economically valuable assets and seed and foster new economic activity.
The Chief Minister recently committed $2m to the establishment of the Economic Development Entity and Regional Economic Development Fund. For example, the offer to make available surplus housing valued at $90m to attract new economic activities to the region will enable businesses to accommodate their employees in the town, and not have to stifle their growth because of the inability to secure accommodation for the skilled people they need to grow their business.
The creation of a Regional Economic Development Fund with a focus on building the capacity of Indigenous businesses, among other things, is a very welcome and positive step forward.
I have only mentioned a few of the positive steps forward this announcement has created which will help with expected business adjustments required in response to the curtailment of refinery operations by Rio Tinto, making such a deliberate commitment to making the future of Nhulunbuy, Gove and the East Arnhem area an ongoing and vibrant one.
Through the delivery of the Business Growth programs, there have been positive outcomes for some businesses already, including improvements in efficiency and reductions of costs achieved through updating management systems, and better utilisation of business resources which are already there and available.
Other businesses have identified new opportunities, both in Nhulunbuy and the surrounding area, with the potential to create a supply hub approach to servicing the needs of the East Arnhem area. As one Nhulunbuy business owner said of the value of participating in the process after going through a program:
To further assist businesses in Nhulunbuy, the department delivered an upskills workshop on 30 January this year titled ‘Position for the Transition’. The upskills program is aimed at delivering management training to business owners and managers to assist them in effectively running their businesses. The workshop had 28 people attend, with six individual businesses taking advantage of the post-workshop one-on-one coaching sessions with the consultant who delivered the workshop. The workshop addressed a wide range of business issues the businesses needed to consider, and was very well received by those who attended. It has also led to some follow-up advice and further use of our government’s programs.
Additional upskills workshops titled ‘Resilience in a Changing Environment’ and ‘Tendering Essentials’ are scheduled for March 2014, with a ‘Business Reporting and Cash Flow Management’ workshop also scheduled for April 2014. These are aimed at providing Nhulunbuy business owners and managers with more knowledge and skills to not only meet the demands of today, but continue to move forward in the future. Another workshop to assist retailers attract customers by using best practice customer service is also scheduled for April.
In addition to the Department of Business senior client manager being based in Nhulunbuy, we have had other specialised departmental business unit staff visiting the area. These include personnel specialising in community-based childcare centre business operations, tourism, Indigenous business development, licensing and workforce development.
In the case of the community-based childcare program, consultancies were approved for both the community-based childcare facility and the private sector childcare facility to assist them plan for the future. The initial round of support has been completed, and a further round of support for both centres is being planned to assist with the strategic and ongoing management of the centres to cope with the changes resulting from Rio Tinto’s curtailment action.
In the area of tourism, we have enabled the East Arnhem Tourism Association to upgrade its website and offered three businesses the kick-start digital activation program to get them online. A professional photo shoot of the region has also been conducted to assist in promoting the tourism operations and the region. In conjunction with Tourism NT, the Department of Business Indigenous Business Development Group has contributed to a new promotional campaign which has been developed under the title ‘Do Amazing – Do East Arnhem Land’, which specifically spotlights the region as another must-see destination in addition to Darwin, Darwin regional and Kakadu attractions in the Top End.
The Deputy Director of Licensing has met with representatives of incorporated associations to discuss possible pathways forward for clubs and associations in Nhulunbuy, with a view to the future and the expected outcome of the curtailment of the refinery operations. Although the incorporated associations are not businesses per se, they are an integral part of the community, and consideration of their future is a vital component of the future of the town.
A booth was also set up and manned by the Rio Tinto Community Careers Fair held in Nhulunbuy earlier this year as part of the Department of Business Workforce Development Division’s activities. As the Chief Minister advised in February, that event was attended by over 1000 people and businesses from both within Nhulunbuy, and others, including interstate companies.
Further specialised divisions set to visit Nhulunbuy include the ecoBiz NT program client manager to promote the value of improving businesses energy and environmental performance to enhance their bottom line.
As I have highlighted, the Department of Business has been very proactive in working with Nhulunbuy businesses and other entities to prepare for the future and make necessary adjustments to business models and plans now so as to make the transition to the business environment they will face as seamless as possible.
We will continue to work with the Northern Territory government response team and any Commonwealth government agencies or programs that may be applicable in Nhulunbuy to assist the business community prepare for the future. It is worth noting the Chief Minister recently advised the House that the Territory had been working closely with the Australian government on the issues raised by the Rio Tinto decision.
The Chief Minister has proposed to the Prime Minister that his government support the transition support package by making a real financial contribution. The Territory has requested $102m in funding for local roads construction to improve all-weather access. Improved access is a key enabler for economic growth in the East Arnhem region. In recognition of the importance of education, the Territory has also asked the Commonwealth for $14m in capital funding and a recurrent funding amount of $4.6m for a regional boarding facility in Nhulunbuy for Yolngu children of the East Arnhem region.
The Economic Development Entity and Regional Economic Development Fund mentioned earlier will require an Australian government contribution. We have asked the Prime Minister to commit $10m towards this work. To help kick-start the East Arnhem economy, the Chief Minister has sought an $8m contribution towards pre-competitive, pre-commercial mineral and gas geoscience research within the region. It is anticipated this investment will drive growth in future minerals and energy projects.
I take this opportunity to encourage all businesses in Nhulunbuy to examine and take advantage of the valuable services available now to assist them in facing the challenges of curtailment, and in securing a sound business future.
I fully support the Chief Minister’s statement to the Legislative Assembly and thank the Department of Business for playing an important role in assisting the transition of Nhulunbuy.
Madam Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for making the statement to the House this afternoon on what is the final sittings day of the March sittings.
What an extraordinary day it has been. It was extraordinary this morning to see, immediately after prayers as members sat down, three members of this House walk out. Three backbenchers of the CLP government, all bush members, made a clear statement that they are not happy with their side and that their side is in chaos by walking out of this House ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Digression from the topic.
Madam SPEAKER: No, there is no point of order. Member for Nhulunbuy, I warned members before about referencing people leaving the Chamber, so if you could refrain.
Ms WALKER: I daresay it will take a lot more than a few prayers for the chaotic, dysfunctional CLP government to find a solution to where they are currently. It is a debacle that we see on the other side …
Mr Tollner: What does this have to do with the Nhulunbuy business assistance package?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Ms WALKER: That debacle extends to what we see in Nhulunbuy, Minister for Business, an absolute debacle in Nhulunbuy. I would think today of all days, the last sitting day before a by-election in Blain in Palmerston, this would be the last opportunity for the CLP government to make a pitch to those voters, to spruik what only in their world they see as achievements. Instead, we got a statement about Nhulunbuy.
Do not get me wrong, I am delighted to hear a statement about Nhulunbuy and to have an opportunity to talk about Nhulunbuy and the depths of despair there, the incredible hardship the entire community is facing, thanks to the bungled efforts of this CLP government which has basically killed off the major industry there. I am very happy to be talking about Nhulunbuy.
However, the fact there is no other statement tells me a couple of things. One is the brains trust that makes up the strategy team on the fifth floor for the CLP is struggling with its strategy, and I am not surprised about that. Would that be the same group of strategists who thought it would be a good idea, at around 2 pm today, to e-mail to the entire public service a self-promoting video of the Chief Minister? Whoever thought that was a good idea has probably just been served their notice. I found it bordering on offensive, with the state of affairs of the CLP, to see a self-promoting video of the Chief Minister.
I guess we are talking about Nhulunbuy today because the government has nothing else to talk about. I cannot help but wonder, because they are so focused on themselves internally at the moment, struggling for their political survival, whether the ministers are on strike. Nobody is prepared to make a statement, but we know we can always rely on the good old member for Fong Lim. They will wheel him out every time when things are tough, because he has broad shoulders and does not care. ‘Yes, give it to me. I will do that. I will happily make a statement about Nhulunbuy’, a statement that was only circulated at 8 am this morning.
We know the CLP government is very sensitive about statements around Nhulunbuy. I had the audacity in the February sittings to circulate a statement about Nhulunbuy from the Chief Minister to a number of stakeholders, not the least of which was the Gove Community Advisory Committee. There was nothing on that statement that said, ‘Embargoed, not to be forwarded’, or ‘Confidential’. You would think if the Chief Minister wanted to deliver a statement in the House about Nhulunbuy and the great things they claim to be doing, he would be very happy to stand by that statement.
However, there was outrage that I had dared to circulate it to members of the Nhulunbuy community to ask them what their take was on the statement. We got a slap on the wrist. We did not receive any ministerial statements for the rest of those sittings until the following morning. Clearly they are not comfortable with the current statement from the Business minister about the efforts the Department of Business is making there. They were probably nervous that if they circulated it last night, that very naughty member for Nhulunbuy might have circulated it to some stakeholders.
They are not prepared to stand by what they put in their statements. They are anxious about what they are saying about Nhulunbuy because they know they are singularly responsible for the state Nhulunbuy and the wider region is in. They know that, so we get these puff pieces, these time fillers. The reality is there are no concrete plans, so they revert to these puff pieces. I find it an extraordinary state of affairs we find ourselves in today in this House, with what we witnessed this morning.
I acknowledge the hard work of the Northern Territory public servants who, despite the chaotic government they are working for, are making their very best efforts in Nhulunbuy. That is public servants from the Department of Business and Employment, Regional Development, and the Department of the Chief Minister. They are working hard, they are genuine and committed. But, they must be incredibly frustrated that things we are trying to get off the ground in Nhulunbuy too often seem to hit a brick wall.
The reality is that with so much of what the minister has talked about today, there is nothing new here. There is no new news. I wondered if there might have been a second draft of this statement because I had not read in my statement there was a $25 000 grant to the Chamber of Commerce. That is good, because the office of the Chamber of Commerce in East Arnhem has been closed for a few weeks. It is not really its fault. Their executive officer – fantastic woman that she is – is expecting her first baby. There is nobody in that office. Perhaps that assistance might have come a bit earlier. We have known for many months this lady was going on leave so there is currently no office of the Chamber of Commerce open and functioning in Nhulunbuy.
But we have the community support centre. I acknowledge government and Rio Tinto for establishing the community support centre. It is the place of many meetings. Many people who walk away from those meetings tell me how unsatisfying they are. We talk about all these great plans for businesses but, as business people tell me, if they do not have customers, there is no business consultant in the world who can come in with a fresh set of eyes, look at their business and provide advice as to how they might be doing things, or do things differently. If they do not have a customer base, then they do not have a business, and there is no consultant who can fix that.
What we need to see is the Northern Territory and the federal governments – which have been absolutely woeful – stepping up to the plate, putting in some hard yards and coughing up some cash, a bit more than we have seen to date. We know Rio Tinto has been carrying the majority of the load in what it has been prepared to do to assist the community, and I commend it for that. Is what it is offering sufficient? It depends who you ask, but it is, without a doubt, doing so much more than the Northern Territory and federal governments.
Here we are talking about the statement on business in Nhulunbuy and support for business. ‘Assistance to Nhulunbuy Businesses’ is the title of the statement. There is more than a degree of irony that we should be talking about business, because it is the CLP government and current Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, who are responsible for killing business in Nhulunbuy, when the Chief Minister reneged on the gas deal on 26 July 2013. Under Chief Minister Terry Mills, on 13 February 2013 we had a done deal. It had taken a few months, a lot of hard work, but Terry Mills had delivered gas to Gove.
The CLP was quick to capitalise on that announcement, and most of them were quick to get on a plane and come to Gove, take the slaps on the back and the congratulatory handshakes. Why would they not? Here is the front page of the Arafura Times. There is Terry Mills in the middle, there is the member for Brennan right there alongside him, thank you, and here is the member for Katherine, giving the good old thumbs up to say, ‘We have gas to Gove’. I do not think the Minister for Mines and Energy has been to Nhulunbuy since that photograph was taken, probably because he is way too embarrassed to stick his face out there. He talks up the mining and energy sector around the Northern Territory – good on him – yet he has, since that date, been silent about Nhulunbuy and the role the Northern Territory government had to play in seeing that gas deal killed off.
Rio Tinto, or Pacific Aluminium, thought it had a gas deal done. It threw a big party in March of last year, almost a year ago. It was a massive and very generously funded party. The company must have spent thousands, and it brought live entertainment to Nhulunbuy at Hindle Oval. The gods were smiling on us, as it did not rain. I swear the entire town was on our oval. The Minister for Infrastructure was there, he came to the party. He represented the Chief Minister. He was the only man in town who was wearing a tie that night, but that is okay, I am not criticising his dress sense. He represented the Chief Minister and was happy to accept the accolades and recognise a deal had been done. What happy times they were!
However, as we know, not long after that – not long at all – Chief Minister Terry Mills was on a trade mission to Japan, and while he was away somebody was doing the numbers against him. As he was on his way back from Japan, he got the word he had been rolled, knifed in the back and the member for Braitling was stepping up to the job of Chief Minister.
The member for Braitling, as the new Chief Minister, obviously had a different view of the world and whether or not gas should be supplied to Gove; it was not given away, it was a commercial deal that was done. The reality was the Northern Territory government, with its contract of gas, was the only entity in the Northern Territory or the country that was in a position to provide gas.
We went for a few months thinking that life was pretty good. We were very thankful to the CLP government. People who work there, people who have businesses, people who work for Rio Tinto, were all buoyed by the fact the future had been secured and things were looking pretty good. On the strength of that, people made significant decisions about their lives and livelihoods. The very businesses the CLP government and Rio Tinto are trying to support to help them to survive are the businesses that, with confidence delivered by the Northern Territory government’s ex-Chief Minister, reinvested in their businesses, refinanced and made a lot of decisions, only to find, on a public holiday on 26 July, that the current Chief Minister made an announcement and issued a media release to say, ‘Sorry, changed my mind. You cannot have 300 PJ of gas. I am offering you less. You can have 175 PJ of gas, and you can either find the rest of the gas yourself, or have a duel fuel option.’ That news dropped on Nhulunbuy like a bomb, and we are still recovering from that decision.
The minister said in his statement in reference to Rio Tinto that there was a myriad of adverse conditions. There certainly were! But, in February and March everything was looking fine, and in the space of a couple of months, things changed. What the CLP government has to recognise is it was very much a part of that myriad of adverse conditions, and that adversity was the announcement that was made on 26 July.
It rankled with me a bit when I read the first page of the statement where the minister said, ‘We cannot change that decision’. The CLP will not exert any pressure on Rio Tinto to change that decision, but it has to accept that decision made by Rio was entirely its responsibility. That change of decision was, without a doubt, triggered by the Chief Minister on 26 July, when he made that very adverse announcement, without the knowledge of Pacific Aluminium. I know for a fact Pacific Aluminum did not know on that day the Chief Minister would make that announcement.
That announcement has shown a government that is not in control. It is like hanging out the ‘not open for business’ sign. The impacts, as we all know now, have been incredibly significant to one of the largest regions in the Northern Territory, with the loss of 1100 jobs and $500m per annum to the Northern Territory economy. I will tell you how significant that loss is. By Treasury’s own figures, that is around 2% of gross state product in the Northern Territory. That ain’t nothing! That is a significant impost on the Territory’s economy. The figure Rio Tinto quoted in its media release when it was trying to struggle for survival and convince the CLP to support it with a gas deal was its spend, just through businesses in the Territory, is around $170m per annum, working with around 80 businesses. It is not just Nhulunbuy businesses, this is Territory businesses. The impact is not just about Nhulunbuy; the effects will be far-reaching into Darwin businesses and, as I said, bring a reduction of gross state product by 2%.
I look forward to hearing from a number of ministers opposite. I am sure they will be falling over themselves to contribute to this statement and talk about what they are doing in their area of responsibility to support Nhulunbuy to somehow survive. Nhulunbuy will survive. It will look very different; it will be a lot smaller. By our government’s own estimates, the population could reduce to as little as 1200 people – 1200 to 1800 people from a population of 4000. Apparently, the magic figure to be a viable population is 2000, with services and businesses that would support not just Nhulunbuy, but a much wider region in northeast Arnhem Land, home to around 15 000 or so people.
Will we be hearing from the Tourism minister today? He generally has quite a bit to talk about. He is the Tourism minister who, by the way, unless I am mistaken, in more than 18 months has not been to Nhulunbuy or visited the region. We welcomed the announcement a couple of months ago of $10 000 being put into tourism in northeast Arnhem Land to support packages for attracting visitors. Whilst we are grateful for any crumbs that might be thrown our way, including our little vibrant tourism sector, $10 000 is not much. $10 000 is very little.
I reckon the Chief Minister alone has spent close to double that just in charters in and out of Nhulunbuy. I do not think he travels on commercial aircraft, but I would say his charter flights would be in excess of $10 000 in and out of Nhulunbuy.
Let us not forget the $100 000 charter he jumped on to get back from Vietnam into Darwin when the Prime Minister was here, because it was not in his calendar that the Prime Minister was coming to Darwin. He would not want to miss a photo opportunity and a media conference with the Prime Minister, so we saw that shameful spend of $100 000 on a charter to get him here. I look forward to hearing from the Tourism minister about what he is doing for the region to promote tourism and help us stabilise the population and help build the economy.
I wonder if the Health minister might talk today? She might elaborate a little further on additional cuts she will be inflicting upon the region. I thought things were very fishy when things went quiet about the $13m upgrade flagged for Gove hospital. Then, I knew news was not good when the community support centre e-newsletter that comes around periodically from the Northern Territory government, spruiking what the CLP is thinking about doing, talking about doing, might be doing, or who they are writing to, to see if they will cough up a few dollars. In the detailed six pages of what they claimed to be doing and spending, nowhere was there any mention of the $13m upgrade provided by the former federal Labor government. The money was there.
Now we know, thanks to the Health minister answering a question in Question Time yesterday, they are reappraising it. They will reappraise it because she cannot justify spending that sort of money on a hospital that is 42 years old, even though there are not contemporary facilities in ED. Effectively, what she has said was they anticipate 50% of the presentations to Gove District Hospital are non-Indigenous people. The non-Indigenous people, presumably, are leaving town, and it is not worth spending $13m on upgrading the emergency department.
Not only does it not stack up, it is offensive to think the remaining population is not deserving of modern facilities. This is an acute medical facility which services the entire East Arnhem region. I have been a reasonably regular visitor to the ED - for those of us who have kids, it is where we go from time to time. I was there as recently as three weeks ago with a child with a very badly broken arm. The Chief Minister has talked up those projects like $13m for Gove Hospital. He guaranteed it on Gove FM; he not only guaranteed it, but said he would be fast-tracking it. Now, there is nothing, it is all going to one side now.
It looks like they will not be spending the $13m. No doubt, it will be redirected to one of the electorates of the three renegade bush members on that side. Is that the discussion going on upstairs on the fifth floor right now? Is it about the deals that will be done with renegade bush members? Good on them for standing up for their communities.
The CLP government is not interested in Nhulunbuy from a political perspective, because a Labor member holds the seat in this parliament and federally, so they rip out the $13m. Why not? The former Health minister already ripped $5m out of Gove hospital when he sent back to the federal government the money which had been earmarked for patient accommodation and those travelling in from the bush. He said it was not needed, because those places are only for long grassers and there is a pub in town where people can stay.
I am not feeling incredibly enamoured with the CLP government and all of its promises about what it will deliver. Perhaps the Health minister will stand up and talk about what else she will cut to save money, because they are not particularly interested in delivering and supporting Nhulunbuy services.
I wonder if the Education minister might rise to his feet. He could tell us about his visit there recently, who he spoke with and what people had to say. I thank the Education minister who, at a meeting at Nhulunbuy Primary School, said the local member for Nhulunbuy had been a strong advocate for the community during this difficult time. Thank you for the acknowledgement, minister, I am very grateful for it. Perhaps you might talk about the $40m the Chief Minister does not have, but four months into this sorry process, he wrote to the Prime Minister and requested $40m for a boarding facility. Perhaps our Education minister, when he gets to his feet to talk about this statement, might explain to us how we have a draft Indigenous education policy which has yet to go to Cabinet.
I imagine the submissions, which closed off last week, are being worked through. I hope you have seen the one from northeast Arnhem Land where people vehemently oppose the prospect of a boarding facility. I trust you take the recommendations of your own consultant who has drafted the review that these boarding facilities need to be trialled and they will only be successful where there has been extensive community consultation around them. I am a little confused. A number of my constituents are not only confused, but angry at the prospect that they are about to have the element of choice removed from their senior secondary schooling, whether they are on homelands, or perhaps in Yirrkala or Gapuwiyak, and they will have to come into Nhulunbuy to a boarding facility to complete their schooling. I do not know when this will happen. The Chief Minister has only just written to the Prime Minister, asking him for $40m on his wish list.
I hope I hear from the Housing minister in this debate. I have written to the Housing minister recently, asking what the plans are for this excess housing we will see in Nhulunbuy. One of the big problems over the years is we have had a critical shortage of housing. We will now have an excess of housing. We will have a glut of housing, with so many empty houses it will be a problem for the community. It is already on the radar of police as to how they will manage all of the vacant units of accommodation in Nhulunbuy.
While I heard the Business minister talk about the vacant houses that Rio Tinto will make available – $90m worth – to businesses so they can bring in employees and have affordable housing, I need the Business minister to explain how the adjustment will occur in our property market. There is a small private property market in Nhulunbuy, but there are many property owners who are very worried about the prospect of how they will ever sell or rent their property when Rio Tinto suddenly releases 250 houses at a rate that will obviously be cheaper. There must be this adjustment in the market. We look forward to hearing how that will roll out.
I have also made a couple of suggestions to the Housing minister. If one of the key things for the Gove Task Force in its terms of reference is to get stabilisation of population to this magic number of 2000, then we must keep as many people in town as possible, as well as attract new people into town. I have implored the Housing minister to look at our hard-working public servants who are there and now have security until the end of June, as opposed to the end of next week. You were a bit slow, minister, in coming out with that announcement, but it is better than nothing, that is for sure.
We need to revise the housing policy for public servants in the same way that Rio Tinto has built some flexibility into its housing policy, which is seeing many of its families staying until the end of the year. That is an added bonus. We need to find accommodation for those public servants – they may be AO3s or AO4s – who do not normally have an entitlement to housing. We need to keep them if we are to keep the services the government says it is keeping. However, we then see some things like our ED upgrade axed. We must keep those public servants in town. We are not short of housing. Many of these people live with family because they do not have a housing entitlement, and their families are leaving because they are Rio Tinto employees.
I would love to hear from the Housing minister what his plans are. We might have, for the first time, an opportunity for some genuinely committed seniors housing, and we might also have the opportunity, on our public housing waiting list, to …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Nhulunbuy has the longest waiting list in the whole of the Northern Territory, so I have asked the Housing minister to be flexible and look at what the opportunities are, with this excess housing now in Nhulunbuy, to provide social housing to eligible tenants. You can be waiting for 10 years on the public housing list. We know at Yirrkala and Gunyangara we have overcrowded houses. Here is a perfect opportunity to make some of those houses available to deal with that issue of having a glut of vacant houses, and to provide affordable accommodation to people who are in overcrowded settings.
I hope, in this debate, the Infrastructure minister will talk about his agency’s plans. Perhaps he might regale us with stories of the big party he went to in March of last year in Nhulunbuy, how wonderful the feeling was there among the community and the sense of relief and celebration that night. Perhaps the Infrastructure minister might share that story with us.
Perhaps he will tell us, as well, how he is progressing with the Chief Minister’s bid to get $440m to seal the Central Arnhem Road, a road that is on Aboriginal land trust; it is not a gazetted road. I trust he will acknowledge in that contribution about the Central Arnhem Road the significant spend that has been committed to and delivered upon by federal Labor, which has seen significant works, millions of dollars’ worth of works which must be in the vicinity of $25m. I see there was $6m for the Doindji crossing. These are all upgrades that were committed to and funded by Labor. They are not easy projects to deliver on Aboriginal land. There are significant consultations required with traditional owners – when you want to put a new bridge across the Mainoru River, which was done, the Goyder River, which is nearly done and then the Doindji Crossing – through their representative group, the Northern Land Council, as well as the AAPA around sacred and significant sites.
Those are the types of things members opposite talk about as being red tape. If they are genuine about ploughing through the red tape and getting things done and getting through these barriers, then I look forward to hearing from the Infrastructure minister about how he will deliver the $440m to seal the Central Arnhem Road.
I would love to hear from the Sports minister. When he is talking about Housing and Tourism, he could dip into his Sports portfolio as well. I wonder if he could, in his capacity as Sports minister and a member of Cabinet – it is not far off from budget being delivered, and he found $300 000 for the Alice Springs Golf Club – find $300 000 he could put towards the clubs and societies, not-for-profit and entirely volunteer driven organisations in Nhulunbuy. Rio Tinto, out of its $50m, flagged that $300 000 will be put to support our local clubs and societies.
The minister made a brief reference in his statement to the existence of these organisations. Whilst they are not really businesses, as he said, the reality is, most definitely, some of them are. Gove Country Golf Club is most definitely a business and one that is currently struggling. So $300 000 from Rio may sound a great deal of money, but it is not enough. We know on Groote Eylandt, BHP GEMCO contributes $400 000 a year to run that golf club. If the Sports minister can find $300 000 in his electorate for the Alice Springs Golf Club, then surely he can find that figure, not just for the Gove Country Golf Club, but all the clubs and societies in Nhulunbuy, to help them along. With a significantly reduced membership base, which is also a volunteer base, there is no doubt our vibrant clubs and organisations will struggle. Let us recognise, as well, quality of life in any community, the diversity of people’s lives and lifestyles in our townships, is reliant upon having these clubs and organisations. So, come on, Sports minister, cough up. See what you can do to match Rio Tinto’s $300 000 towards clubs and recreational organisations in the community of Nhulunbuy.
Perhaps in his wrap-up the Business minister can put on his Local Government minister’s hat and talk to us about what is happening around a pathway of normalisation in Nhulunbuy. I look forward to that. It is the word on everyone’s lips. There is a strong sense that Rio Tinto does not really want to be responsible for running a township, and if the Northern Territory and federal governments allow it to walk away from its lease obligations to produce alumina, then, heck, they will probably let it walk away from its obligations to provide services, including municipal services, for an entire township.
Rio Tinto flagged in a newsletter it issued following its media release about the $50m announcement last week that there is a number of strategies it will have in place. One of those strategies is about reviewing Nhulunbuy Corporation Ltd’s – which is the provider of municipal services – governance arrangements. That pricked up my ears, as it did a few people. I look forward to hearing from the Local Government minister about the talks he has been involved in with Rio Tinto and Nhulunbuy Corporation about ‘normalising’ Nhulunbuy and how the East Arnhem Regional Council might become the provider of municipal services.
We have Nhulunbuy Corporation because we are on a lease arrangement. This appears to be why both the Northern Territory and federal governments believe their responsibility for Nhulunbuy is not a priority and, in fact, is not their responsibility. ‘Sorry, you are on Aboriginal land. You are on a lease and, therefore, it is nothing to do with us, and let us just wipe our hands of it.’
Since the announcement on 29 November – and tomorrow marks the anniversary of four months – we have been living through this saga. For four months we have been waiting for a little more action and some business consultancies to be offered to people.
I do not accept that because we are on lease arrangements with Rio Tinto we are somehow precluded from receiving support. If we can see structural adjustment packages historically made available to regions or communities where there is a major downturn in the manufacturing sector and the major employer winds down, be it BHP’s Newcastle works in 1997 or, more recently Toyota, Ford, Holden and SPC Ardmona. At least with their announcement about closure they have three to four years, they get structural adjustment packages and they receive support from both levels of government.
We have ministers who leap on planes to get to these places and talk with the mayor or the managing director of the business. None of that has happened in Nhulunbuy. We have been abandoned, particularly by the federal government. There has been zero, zilch, nothing, not a single dollar out of the feds to date. Helpfully, they have issued phone numbers for Centrelink – how to go to Centrelink and apply for support. Following Senator Nigel Scullion’s visit a couple of weeks ago, which was really just a talkfest, an e-mail was circulated through the GCAC with information from the Australian Taxation Office for businesses. Included in that information was what you need to know if you are closing your business. That does not exactly instil confidence in the people of Nhulunbuy, least of all business owners.
One of the things talked about extensively is the need to build the population. A million ideas have come from the Gove Community Advisory Committee about how that might occur: let us move the Office of Northern Australia there, and let us deploy Defence people there. Even Nigel Scullion said maybe a call centre. Not one of those has eventuated and none will eventuate. So what is happening to stabilise the population, build a population and keep Nhulunbuy vibrant and viable?
Without a doubt, the Chief Minister needs to be doing more. ‘Giles must fight harder for Gove – Tourish’. That is from one of his own from the CLP side. It is from the minister’s handpicked business advisory council representative for Gove. He is simply not doing enough. As Mr Tourish said, he needs to show his face in Canberra. He needs to stop being a little boy, get on a plane and get to Canberra and fight for Nhulunbuy.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a report to the Legislative Assembly regarding members travel at government expense and payments for each member for satellite and mobile telephones.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table two documents from the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority, the NT EPA, that have arisen from the investigation into the Redbank copper mine located near the Northern Territory/Queensland border.
These documents have been provided to me by the Chair of the NT EPA, Dr Bill Freeland, under Part 3 of the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Act 2012. These are the first reports developed under this part by the new NT EPA, and I welcome the continuation of this important advisory function.
The first document I table is the Redbank Copper Mine – Environmental Quality Report. The report has been prepared by the NT EPA as a case study to aid understanding into the environmental impact legacy sites can cause and how legacy mining issues arise.
The Redbank copper mine commenced operation as an open cut mine in 1994. The project was considered to be short term and small scale, with limited potential for long-term environmental problems. It is now well known that the Redbank copper mine has caused, and continues to cause, significant damage to downstream waterways due to the flow of acidic metal-laden waters from the Redbank mine site.
The NT EPA has investigated the situation at the Redbank mine and its report provides a detailed insight into:
1. the history of the Redbank mine
2. the key regulatory assessments and approvals applied to the Redbank mine
3. the current environmental conditions of the areas impacted by the Redbank mine
4. the environmental, economic and regulatory causes of the current situation at the Redbank mine.
The report concludes the failure of mine operators to appropriately assess and manage environmental risks, including a failure to meet the requirements of regulatory approvals, is the primary cause of the environmental impacts downstream of the mine site.
The regulatory system in the early 1990s allowed mining to commence prior to an approved environmental management plan. Despite regulatory changes and improvements since then, the NT EPA finds regulators have not managed to hold operators to account or effectively address environmental risks. The report identified financial constraints and a lack of transparency and, therefore, accountability to the public and the market as contributing factors to the legacy issues arising from the Redbank mine.
The report has been used by the NT EPA to inform the second document I table, titled Recommendations on the Environmental Assessment and Regulation of Mine Sites. This advice from the NT EPA provides recommendations on improvements to legislation and processes, further investigations which could reduce the risk of future instances of inadequate management of mining operations and mine closure, and contributes to the appropriate management of legacy mine sites.
This government recognises the challenges posed by the significant number of legacy mines in the Northern Territory and the ongoing environmental impacts they are causing. We have taken strong action to address legacy mining issues through amendments to the Mining Management Act in 2013. Through these amendments, we have introduced a levy on mining securities to generate revenue to address legacy issues and establish a Legacy Mine Unit within the Department of Mines and Energy. If further measures could be taken to improve the management of legacy mine sites and reduce environmental risks in the future, I am very happy to consider them.
Consistent with my obligations under the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Act, I will formally respond to the NT EPA over the coming months. I welcome these documents from the NT EPA and the valuable contribution they make to discourse on a challenging and complex problem.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, this evening I put out a big shout on behalf of the Northern Territory Environment Centre for a fundraiser it is holding at the wharf on 10 April 2014. You will need to get your tickets, as the fundraiser is for a great cause. It is to support the campaign against the proposed nuclear waste management facility at Muckaty Station. I encourage all members to get their tickets and get to the fundraiser. It is a very important court case coming up. The campaign has been running for seven years and we are in court, we hope, in June; that is the proposed date. It will be an important court case with a very important definition around use of Aboriginal land.
This has been enforced on the Northern Territory by the federal Liberal Coalition. There are tenders out to design this purpose-built facility, Australia’s first, and those tenders are focusing on Muckaty Station. The court case will challenge it and get a great determination for future land use agreements with traditional owners across the Northern Territory.
It is important this matter be discussed in a Territory perspective in relation to the by-election of Blain, because we have a dysfunctional CLP government. The events of the last two weeks have continually destabilised its governance process, and with the departure of the previous member for Blain, we will now have a by-election. This is a barometer for the Northern Territory in an electorate having its say, in public, making its determination about its newly elected community member. It is important that candidates define their position. I have not heard from the Country Liberal Party candidate for Blain. He should tell the people of Blain what his position is in relation to Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste management facility that will be imposed on the Territory at Muckaty Station.
The people of Blain are connected with this debate because Australia produces its own intermediate to high-level nuclear waste which will home here. With Muckaty as the site decided by the federal Liberal Coalition government, determined to push this through, have no doubt that waste will be arriving by ship to the Darwin port. From the Darwin port, naturally it will be unloaded on to trucks that will take it to a rail head. Then it will travel through Palmerston on its journey south to Muckaty Station. The good people of Blain will be the first in the Territory to receive this intermediate to high-level nuclear waste. In the government’s plan, regular shipments of nuclear waste will go past that electorate, through the city of Palmerston, then rattle down that rail all the way to the site on Muckaty Station.
The people opposed to this are those involved in the campaign, the traditional owners, thousands of Territorians who have rallied to the cause and, dare I say, tens of thousands of Australians who we know about and possibly hundreds of thousands who are also very concerned about this course of action.
The good people of Blain can raise this bar on the debate, and they will on 12 April in that by-election. They need to put to their candidates where they stand on Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste management facility planned for Muckaty Station. It would be good to hear other CLP members in this House determine their position, because they have gone very quiet on this. No doubt there is much happening and their members have had many robust discussions. They now need to come clean on their position about this proposed nuclear waste management facility.
We know the Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, and the Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim, are very keen on this plan. They have been pushing it not only in the Territory but also in Canberra. They are great supporters. They have this bizarre attitude that this will be a great income earner for the Northern Territory. That links in with their bigger agenda to take the world’s nuclear waste to Muckaty Station.
They have focused on this as an Indigenous economic development plan to generate significant income for the Northern Territory. Therefore, this facility, which was originally talked about as a facility for low-grade hospital waste, has clarity around it now. It is definitely not just about hospital-grade waste from the east coast. This is the real deal, the big picture. The Prime Minister is involved in this debate. It has expanded to a global prospective.
The good people of Blain can have their say on 12 April. They need to clear that position with any candidate who wants to represent them. I directly challenge the CLP candidate about where he stands on this issue. Does he stand with the Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, and the Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim? Does he stand fairly and squarely between those elected members in his support for Australia’s first nuclear waste management facility to be located at Muckaty Station? Does he stand confident to tell the electorate of Blain that those trucks and trains travelling through the electorate and the city of Palmerston will be safe and that this material coming off ships will be safe to handle? Let us face it, the rail has a critical incident record that is not exactly admirable. A number of critical incidents have occurred on the Stuart Highway in relation to the transportation of dangerous goods. Let us see what that aspiring new CLP member for Blain has to say on this subject.
Do not forget, get your tickets because we need the cash. It will be a good night, I am assured. They are a great crowd of passionate Australians. This is a huge issue. I also thank MauriceBlackburn and Associates, the legal firm handling the case. Its work in Tennant Creek and the Barkly with the traditional owners opposed to this project is sensational. It is a pleasure to work with such a highly professional and organised group.
I must thank the Beyond Nuclear Initiative, the Arid Lands Environment Centre from Central Australia, the NT Environment Centre, the Friends of the Earth and the Australian Conservation Foundation. These are influential people who have taken the people of the Barkly and Tennant Creek and, to a larger extent, the people of the Northern Territory, under their wing and guided a great, realistic, pragmatic campaign which is very sensitive to the Indigenous cultural issues around this very important debate for all Australians.
The event is on 10 April at the wharf. You can get your tickets from the Environment Centre. I look forward to the support of members, members’ families, Territorians and, most importantly, Australians because, let us face it, this debate is not about prime cattle country in the middle of the Barkly; this debate is about Australia embarking on its first purpose-built nuclear waste management facility.
Madam Speaker, we need to get that debate back to the drawing board, to the best practices of scientific principle, and start reinvigorating the debate with a call for a proper and safe, best practice disposal system for nuclear waste, not a cheap fix of storage sheds above the ground in prime Walmanpa country in the middle of the Northern Territory.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I update the Chamber on the roll-out of the government’s alcohol mandatory treatment system. In phase one of our program we have already seen some positive results. Our program is working to help Territorians change their lives. It is great to see people afflicted by alcoholism getting the rehabilitation they need to become healthier, safer and happier, and having the opportunity to reconnect with their families and their communities.
In one example, a 60-year-old man acknowledged that alcohol was a major factor in the loss of handing down stories within his community and a lack of respect amongst young people for elders who drink to excess. Regaining cultural awareness through this program was a key focus for this gentleman, so much so that he became a role model and a mentor to other clients and actively sought out activities to be involved in. At the completion of his mandatory treatment order, the client agreed to continue treatment in a community residential rehabilitation centre, where he continues to work and mentor other clients. As part of his rehabilitation he has gained employment as a gardener and handyman at the community-based residential rehab facility.
In another example, one female client had lived with her husband in the long grass for years and years. During the course of her treatment the client and her husband both agreed to return to their home in a dry remote community. Without the intervention of our program, it is likely that both husband and wife would have ended up back in the long grass. The woman is now accessing outreach alcohol rehab services within her community as a part of her aftercare program.
Another example is a female client who was diagnosed with terminal cancer whilst in our program and has returned to her community with the support of a palliative care outreach team to die with dignity. This client has now reconnected with family, who are supporting her in her final stages. Program staff also facilitated a visit to the prison to reunite her with her daughter, who she had not seen for three years. Had this woman not been picked up by our program, she most probably would have died alone in the long grass without the opportunity to see out her days around family and in her home, all because she was stuck in a cycle of problem drinking.
Today there has been another important step taken forward for alcohol mandatory treatment in the Northern Territory. Expressions of interest processes to expand AMT in Darwin and Tennant Creek have been released and are now open until 30 April. The expression of interest is calling for service operators to run the treatment service for clients under phase two of the alcohol mandatory treatment program in Darwin and Tennant Creek.
In Darwin, a 90-bed facility will be available at the old low-security unit at Berrimah for assessment and treatment services. In Tennant Creek, the EOI is calling for a service provider to operate a 12-bed treatment service at the NT government-owned alcohol and other drugs facility in the town. The Department of Health will operate a four-bed assessment service in the Tennant Creek Hospital.
The secure facilities at Berrimah and Tennant Creek will help address issues surrounding absconding. As of 18 March this year, 49 clients have absconded from the interim Darwin treatment facility the alcohol mandatory treatment began in July last year. In Alice Springs, 25 people have absconded from the Central Australia alcohol mandatory treatment facility. Approximately 70% of clients who have absconded have returned to complete their treatment under alcohol mandatory treatment.
Evidence shows us that multiple interactions with an alcohol rehabilitation system are often required to help people get off the grog. The fact people are returning and completing their alcohol mandatory treatment order after absconding demonstrates it is responsive to clients’ needs.
Madam Speaker, I thank all the people who have contributed to the success of our alcohol mandatory treatment program so far, including police, nurses, hospital staff, assessment clinicians, tribunal members and the treatment service providers. I look forward to providing more positive results to this Chamber as we expand alcohol mandatory treatment throughout the Northern Territory.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, it is extraordinary that we find ourselves in the adjournment debate before 4.30 pm on the last day of sittings for the March period. It shows the CLP government does not have too much to talk about and is not really interested in governing the Territory.
This afternoon I talk about my recent experience with a child – one of my children – who suffered quite a nasty fracture to his forearm three weeks ago on 10 March. I acknowledge a number of people and those from the Health department who supported us during what was quite a traumatic time. There is nothing worse than getting a phone call to say, ‘Your child has had an accident. Could you come to school and pick him up? We suspect he might have broken his wrist.’ I was thankful I was in Nhulunbuy. As members, we often travel away from our home, so I was pleased to be there within a matter of minutes.
I acknowledge Gove District Hospital and the care we received there. We were seen fairly promptly in the emergency department and confirmed, yes, it was a very nasty and unstable fracture. I could not speak more highly of the staff in ED and in X-ray; my thanks to all of them. Such was the nature of the fracture that the doctor looking after my son, having consulted with orthopaedic surgeons at Royal Darwin Hospital, made the decision that the best course of action was to medivac him to Darwin, so CareFlight was organised to transport us out of Nhulunbuy.
The accident happened at around midday. He had been in theatre that afternoon to try to manipulate the fracture, and at about 8.30 pm we were on the CareFlight plane to Darwin. I acknowledge our wonderful pilot, John Kennedy, and our nurse Amanda, whose last name I do not know, who were both wonderful. The care we received was incredible. The flight had to stop in Jabiru to pick up a very sick woman. That was not a problem for us. We were just pleased we were able to see another sick person transported to the Royal Darwin Hospital.
I also acknowledge St John Ambulance in Nhulunbuy, which provided transport from Gove District Hospital to Gove Airport, so we could get on to the medical evacuation flight. We landed in Jabiru and, then, eventually Darwin. I thank the ambulance crew who were on the tarmac in Darwin, who picked us up and transported us to the Royal Darwin Hospital; things were a little hazy. I think it was around midnight by the time we arrived at the Royal Darwin Hospital and were escorted through to the paediatric emergency department. There Patrick was examined, and his pain, which was considerable, was well-managed.
However, due to bed block at the Royal Darwin Hospital, which is a significant issue, we spent the night in the emergency department. What was uppermost in my mind was that my son was comfortable. He had a stretcher bed and was quite comfortable. I was reasonably comfortable sitting on a chair, and grateful for the blanket that was handed to me. However, come 2 am, I simply put the blanket on the floor and lay down so I could try to get a bit of sleep, knowing young Patrick was going into theatre next morning. I was very grateful to the nurse who, around 3 am, found something like a camper stretcher and brought it to me so I was a bit more comfortable in grabbing a couple of hours sleep.
In the morning he was transferred upstairs to theatre at about 9 am, where he was prepped and ready to go in to have work done on this poor old arm of his. Following his time in theatre, we were admitted into Ward 5B, and I thank the staff on Ward 5B who gave us the best care possible. I cannot speak highly enough of the nurses, as well as the nurses and doctors in the ED department.
There is a parallel story that goes with this. On that same day we were at Gove District Hospital in the ED department, my constituent and friend, Gurruwun Yunupingu, was also in the ED department. As I found out later, she had been medivaced to Darwin with CareFlight a few hours ahead of us. I was not aware of that until I received a phone call from Gurruwun who – if people do not recall who she is – is the widow of Dr Yunupingu. She was in our parliament in November, as we had a condolence motion to acknowledge, recognise and remember the amazing life her husband led and his contributions to the Territory. I am sure Ms Yunupingu, like me, does not expect any particular treatment because of who we are or what we do.
On that Monday, as I had raced home to pack a bag in order to get back to Gove District Hospital to be able to get on the CareFlight, I had a call from her. I was a little confused, I thought she was phoning me from Gove District Hospital because I had not realised she was being medivaced out. She said to me, ‘Lynne, I am phoning you because I do not know who else to call, but they cannot get me a bed and I am here in the emergency department’. I said to her, ‘That is terrible. Surely, there is a bed for you? Gove District Hospital cannot be that busy that they cannot find you a bed’.
She must have thought I was mad in my response, and perhaps my mind was a little full of other matters as well. However, when I was in the ambulance heading out of Nhulunbuy to Gove Airport with my son, I received a text message from her daughter Rhonda to say, ‘Lynne, please, Mum is in the ED department at the Royal Darwin. She is in a lot of pain …’ – I am sure she will not mind me saying, with appendicitis – ‘… and no one has seen her and she does not have a bed.’. While I was already tied up in my own affairs, I was mindful she was a very sick woman and understood she was sitting in the ED department.
The fact we have this issue of bed block and a backlog of patients waiting to be seen in ED is symptomatic of a government that is simply not investing enough money into the health services we need to see. In desperation, all I could think to do, sitting in that ambulance, was to forward on the text message to my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, to say, ‘Is there anyone you can contact who can provide some assistance for Gurruwun Yunupingu so she might be seen as she did not know where else to turn to?’
Thanks to the Leader of the Opposition – I do not know which channels she went through – Ms Yunupingu was taken to a cubicle and at least given a comfortable stretcher to lie on and she was, indeed, seen.
The circumstances of bed block and the lack of resources we see in our hospitals is not through a lack of professional care. We can have the best doctors and nurses in the world – and I believe we do – but if we do not have the resources for them to do their job, if we do not have the Palmerston hospital, which is now more years away than it might have been, then we will never resolve these issues of bed block.
I am pleased to say that my friend, Gurruwun Yunupingu, was admitted to RAPU and a few hours after my son had had his operation on his arm, she was seen to in theatre. I was disappointed, the following day, to find they were going to discharge her. She clearly was not ready to be discharged. I was visiting her and told her about the existence of a medi-hotel that was designed for people like her and others who were not well enough to travel. She was gobsmacked to hear this facility exists. Thankfully, a decision was made to keep her in RAPU a bit longer, an extra couple of days, because she certainly was not well enough to travel.
Madam Speaker, I place this anecdote on the record first and foremost to thank the wonderful staff in the Department of Health who provided assistance to me and Ms Yunupingu, but to also condemn our government for the underspend in health and the bed block that sees poor services for people who are sick and in need of attention.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 5/6 classes from Larrakeyah Primary School accompanied by Tanya Harvey and Danni Mattiazzo. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Mr James Burke
Mr James Burke
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also advise of the presence in the gallery of Mr James Burke, the former member for Brennan. Welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also welcome member officers of the NT fire union. Please enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, for those of us who are students of Territory political history, we have never seen a day like today. We have never seen three members of a CLP government walk out of this Chamber in disgust after prayers. We have seen two weeks of drama and deep division in the CLP being played out publicly, with the members for Arnhem, Namatjira and Arafura saying they want the bush commitments made by the CLP – which got the CLP into government – delivered. They have had enough of the failure of leadership of the member for Braitling.
They have been putting demands to this government which the Chief Minister will not even step up and be honest about. He will not even tell Territorians what is being negotiated. That is outrageous, because what is being negotiated would surely have a budget impact. Do Territorians not have the right to know what is going on in their government?
This is a government with a deep, sickening culture of cover-up under the Chief Minister, the member for Braitling. He will hide reports, and he will deny everything that is, in fact, happening. He would not know the truth if he fell over it.
It has been unbelievable to watch this paralysis of government roll out over a fortnight of sittings, to the point where the government scrambled to ditch its own legislation to split Power and Water. They then pretended, by lying to Territorians, that they wanted to consult with them. They had not wanted to consult with Territorians leading up to yesterday. Then, all of a sudden, they said, ‘Oh, no, it is just about consultation’. They do not even have the decency to tell the truth and say, ‘Clearly we have an issue getting our legislation through. We do not want to jeopardise such important legislation, so we put it off.’
A little truth, Chief Minister, would have gone a long way in trying to get some trust in your leadership from Territorians. But, no, you reverted to type. You reverted to what you do, ably abetted by your Treasurer, David Tollner. The two of you may have a short reign ahead of you. For the sake of the Territory and Territorians, I hope so.
Labor lost the 2012 election, and we copped it. As the new Leader of the Opposition I said to Territorians, ‘We will learn lessons from this defeat. We will listen to Territorians about what you expect of us, if we are to get government again.’
What I learnt was pretty appalling. What I learnt, travelling through the remote and regional centres of the Northern Territory, was a litany of promises that had never properly surfaced. There was a litany of promises across the bush where they signed contracts to deliver billions of dollars of projects. I was the Treasurer at the time of the election; I diligently worked on Labor election commitments, costed every one of them and submitted every one of our commitments to Treasury to see whether or not they could sit within the forward estimates of the Territory budget. We got the tick and the approval from Treasury independently that, yes, they were fiscally responsible.
But, the CLP did not do that; it lied. It either lied to the people of the Territory in the remote areas about delivering those projects, or lied to the rest of us about the projects, because it pretended they did not exist. They were not on the document submitted to Treasury as the costed and funded election commitments by the CLP.
I have taught my children – my three beautiful Territorians – that it is hard to follow the path of the truth. Sometimes in life it is so hard, because people do not often want to hear the truth. They want to hear that these things can come to them, and these magical puddings will be created and delivered. It is really hard to sit in a community where you want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in that one community, improving housing, roads and schools and getting all support services people enjoy in the regional towns and urban centres. You must say to people that you are doing everything you can to deliver any improvements that can be delivered, but what they want right now is too much; it is too expensive and the Territory does not have that kind of funding.
You must tell the truth when they do not want to hear that. They want to hear, ‘Oh, yes, no worries, you will get that building over there in Borroloola. You will get that new government business centre. Yes, you will get the road to Wadeye sealed. Yes, do not worry, people of Nguiu, you will get full strength beer.’ They were lies because it has not happened. Do you intend to do it or not? If you intended to do it, why were they not in the election commitments submitted to Treasury? Why were they missing?
There is at least $2bn of unfunded, uncosted election promises in the bush under the CLP. When I was out bush, people were saying to me, ‘Sorry, we voted for the CLP because we want these things done’. I said to them, ‘No, I am sorry. Of course you are going to vote that way. You are aspirational, you want these things built. Someone came to you promising to do these things. Of course, you believed them. Why would you not?’
We saw, by the federal election, that people had stopped believing because none of it – not one – had happened. The only work occurring across regional and remote Northern Territory is projects that were signed off, funded and delivered under Labor.
I say thank God for Anthony Albanese and the $400m in additional roads funding the Territory received under him as the national Infrastructure minister. I know, because I did the arm wrestling with him as minister for Infrastructure and then Treasurer. Thank you, Anthony Albanese, for stepping up with the funds for Tiger Brennan Drive, and for the six major arterial roads across the bush that have been announced in road project funding. Thank you.
I know what it took. I know how many trips to Canberra and how many phone calls I made. ‘Yes’, I said, ‘Labor mate, we need this and it is not just about winning an election.’ I took him out bush to our rough road network and showed him the reality of regional and remote life. It hurt his back, so much so he could not sit at a particular ministerial council in Darwin, and I had to try to get that fixed. But I showed him.
We do not lie. It comes back to haunt you when you do. You created your win on a fabric of lies, either by lying to the people because they were not funded, costed and submitted election commitments, or by lying to the rest of us. Which one is it, Chief Minister? You were running around making those promises.
If you had the intention with those bush promises of scheduling them, getting them costed by Treasury, providing them to the relevant government agencies with instruction they must be delivered, why are you not proud about talking about them? Why are you not saying, ‘These are the things we are doing in each of these towns, here are the community contracts we signed’? For 18 months, Chief Minister, I have been calling on the CLP to table those community contracts that were signed. You would not do it at estimates and you have never done it in the Chamber.
In stark contrast, Labor in government had a report on our election commitments, and the Chief Minister would walk in here on an almost quarterly basis and update the Chamber on the report, and table it. There was no secrecy, no cover-up, no pretending, no lies; it was being accountable for what you promised and how you were tracking at delivering it.
I have been in government for 12 years. I get that sometimes things happen on the ground that make delivery really difficult. But be honest about it and talk to your community in an honest way about what you are doing to try to negotiate your way through any little road blockages in delivering a project. Do not pretend.
Ngukurr was a classic. Yesterday we asked a question about the Ngukurr health clinic, and the Health minister pretended it was the fault of the traditional owners. The traditional owners were on radio saying, ‘We are all agreed about the site. The site we want is serviced. The site the government wants is not serviced and would cost another $1m. The community is asking why would you waste $1m servicing a site when we are offering you a serviced site?’
Those of us on this side of the Chamber, in opposition, think, ‘Oh my God, we have heard that before. They chose an unserviced site for the Palmerston hospital when there was a fully capable, serviced site.’
You cannot keep lying to Territorians because you lose their trust completely. Chief Minister, you have lost the trust of Territorians. People simply do not believe you. They look at you like the little boy you are depicted as in Wicking cartoons. They look at your sidekick, the big, guffawing ugly Dave Tollner, and say, ‘Oh my God, is that who is really running the Territory?’ It is scary. People are saying, ‘We did not vote for this’. They say, ‘If I voted CLP, I did not vote for that bloke, and I certainly did not vote for Dave Tollner’. They voted because they had some confidence in the promises of Terry Mills.
Even he was not treated with any shred of decency by his own party. A man who, like him or not – I am not a fan, obviously, but give credit where credit is due – did years of hard yards as the Opposition Leader and travelled everywhere and met everyone. As I have said in this Chamber before, he was one of the few who would turn up to all of the functions. I know, because I was at them and he would show up. You would not see the members for Braitling or Fong Lim at those functions. They were nowhere to be seen.
The former member for Blain, the then Opposition Leader, was turning up trying to get the trust of the people to vote for them, and it worked. He became Chief Minister. He returned the CLP to government, and you treated him abysmally from day one. From the end of that party on election night onwards, the gang of four were back to their old tricks, back to undermining him. CLP history will be written that the gang of four – the member for Sanderson, Madam Speaker, and the members for Braitling and Fong Lim – brought him down. You did not stop until you brought him down. Six months was all you gave a man who dedicated the best part of six years to becoming Chief Minister. That was the most fundamental trust your party broke with the electorate.
Yes, we have presidential-style elections these days. Yes, people saw it as a contest between Paul Henderson and Terry Mills. Yes, whilst the urban capital of Darwin put its confidence in Paul Henderson, the bush said, ‘We will give you a go, mate, because we think you speak to us honestly’. What they did not know was dishonest people – the members for Braitling and Fong Lim – were sitting behind him sharpening the knives to take him down within six months.
You even lied about that, member for Braitling. You pretended you did not seek leadership. You pretended it was okay. Everyone came to you with their signatures on a list and you had no choice. Rubbish! You were caught having dinner with the member for Stuart, getting her vote. People saw you go after votes. People know, politics is a small town in the Territory. He was talking his game up to the journalists and putting himself in the Wanguri by-election advertisements. Everyone was saying, ‘Who is that bloke? The Transport minister, who is he? We have never seen him before; who is he?’ I said, ‘He is the one who wants to be Chief Minister. He is the one who is about to knife Terry Mills.’ People said, ‘No’, and I said, ‘Yes’. Unbelievable! You then lied about it. You did not even say, ‘The timing was wrong, the execution was wrong, but I make no apology for going after being Chief Minister of the Northern Territory because I am the best man for the job’. Mate, you get a bit of credit for being honest, but you were not. You said, ‘No, I was not doing that. People came to me and I had no choice.’ Rubbish!
How can you spend your career lying to people like that and expect people to believe anything you say or have any trust whatsoever in you? It does not work, Territorians are not fools.
Madam Speaker, I have always had a saying, having been born and raised in the Territory, that Territorians have a – excuse my language – bullshit radar. I withdraw it ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw it.
Mr ELFERINK: More than that, Madam Speaker. She knew she was going to say it and persevered anyhow. I believe she should be chastised for it, more than simply withdrawing it.
Ms LAWRIE: BS - it is a censure - BS radar.
Madam SPEAKER: The Opposition Leader has withdrawn the statement.
Mr ELFERINK: Whilst I appreciate that, she knew she would have to withdraw it, but she went down the path anyhow. She flagged she was going to say it. There has to be a certain decorum in this place and she has lowered the tone of this place with that approach. She should be chastised.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. Opposition Leader, refrain from using that language in the rest of your debate.
Ms LAWRIE: I will refer to it as the BS radar. Territorians have a very big BS radar, and when the members for Braitling and Fong Lim stand, it goes off the Richter scale. They cannot lie straight in bed, those two. You can see it. It is a disgrace. That is the leadership of the Northern Territory? This is what you serve us, after you take down Terry Mills? We do not want it; Territorians are over it. They are over seeing the deep divisions of your government.
You reap what you sow. You might want to ask yourselves Labor is passing up the opportunity of negotiating to become a minority government if it wins the seat of Blain by saying outright, ‘No, we will not countenance a coalition with the bush MLAs’. Stable government is crucial to the good governance of the Territory, and we have had 18 months of instability under the CLP, leading up to the knifing of the former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, and following it, more manoeuvrings than you can poke a stick at. Meanwhile, the public service says there is no direction coming from the CLP government ...
______________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, can you please pause.
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 5/6 class from Larrakeyah Primary School, accompanied by Leisa Beynon. Welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
______________________
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, a picture is worth a thousand words. The only person in the Chamber I receive feedback from the public service about, for their work with agencies to try to bring good policy – or any policy – is the member for Port Darwin. You have a go, and people credit you for that. They might not agree with your policy settings. Thank God you have backed away from your foetal alcohol spectrum disorder settings. You are not always right, but no one is always right. You are in there having a go, trying to identify and move forward with policy, but for the rest it is a no-go zone. The agencies are floundering around, sending up many a ministerial, which are sent back with a change of direction. Send up another one. No, the change has happened again, and so on.
How many ministerial reshuffles in 18 months? Is it five or six? We lost count. It is embarrassing. Everyone started to lose count of the Cabinet reshuffles. We should be able to say, ‘It was five’, or ‘It was two’, but we cannot. Instability has been rank, and has been the hallmark of this CLP government. People cannot operate like that. The public service cannot operate effectively and efficiently like that. Business cannot operate effectively and efficiently in its dealings with government.
Industry organisations try to get meetings with the relevant industry ministers – no. Health organisations try to get meetings with the Health minister – no. They cannot get meetings with ministers. A conga line of organisations – whether they are business, small- or medium-size enterprises, industry organisations, non-government organisations - cannot get meetings with their relevant portfolio minister.
People who would walk in the door of a former CLP Chief Minister and a former Labor minister any day of the week because of the amount they invest in the Northern Territory, say to me, ‘I cannot get in to see this new bloke, the Chief Minister. Who is he? Is he that arrogant? Does he not understand how much I invest in the Northern Territory?’ Do you know what I say? ‘He seems to be. He seems to not step out of his own bubble and take the time to find out who is investing their hard-earnt money in the Territory and to show them some respect.’
Respect is a really important word. It has been lacking in the way this government deals with Territorians. It has failed to show the battlers any respect because it ignores their cost of living pain. It has failed to show our small businesses, which make up 80% of our business workforce, any respect because it has ignored their pain while they are struggling to pay their bills. He failed to show even large businesses, which are investing billions of dollars in the Territory, true respect, because he knifed the Chief Minister on the trade mission and then continued to play politics with their project. It is unbelievable. It would be a comedy if it was not so tragic with the consequences it has for Territorians.
I was prepared for four years in opposition. I wanted to use every day of those four years to meet as many Territorians as I could, to enjoy the privilege and honour of being the Opposition Leader, to work with the team I have around me, who are strong and capable, and to give them chances to try different portfolios. I said I would reshuffle them yearly to give them a try at different things. I am now staring down the barrel of wondering what will happen after the Blain by-election, if indeed, we pull off a miracle and win a seat we have never won. How can people in Blain have any confidence to vote CLP when they see this debacle? Three of your own members walked out of the Chamber today. How do you expect people to say, ‘I have confidence in that government delivering’, when you cannot even hold your own together?
We do not know what the future holds. No one knows what the future of politics in the Territory is. If I was a betting person, I would say the member for Braitling does not have long left as Chief Minister. Hopefully, his sidekick, the member for Fong Lim, goes as well, because he is an appalling Treasurer. He is threatening our assets on a foolish, headlong romp, ignoring expert advice.
We know he has a clear line of sight on selling generation assets at Weddell. It is a small town, people talk. We know conversations have occurred. You can deny all you like, but turn your attention to clause 53 of the legislation, the Government Owned Corporation Act amendments. They are not required for the split of Power and Water, they exist for another reason. However, that will come into the full, shining light of day through a Public Accounts Committee inquiry, one that was resisted at every step of the way until the government lost control of the numbers in parliament. I believe in democracy. I saw democracy finally coming to work in the Territory when the government lost control of the numbers, when you could not just ram through anything you liked on a strong numbers of 16, without giving any due consideration to its effects, its implications, and to what it will mean for Territorians.
Thank God that legislation has gone to a committee. Power and Water provides essential services. This government and this Treasurer want it to make a profit. They want to put profit before people. Let us pause for a moment and look at the real consequences of that. A family of five living in my electorate of Karama said to me just this week, ‘I cannot pay a $2000 quarterly bill’. Will they be another statistic of disconnection the member for Braitling laughs at? He wants to play fun with the number of disconnections. They are not a statistic; they are a family of five who cannot pay the bill.
Whether you want to hear it or not, or believe it or not, those families are right throughout our towns. I took the time to go doorknocking in the electorate of Blain …
Mr Tollner: That would not have helped your vote.
Ms LAWRIE: … and it was overwhelming. People are struggling to pay the bills. It is not just a joke to them as it is for the member for Fong Lim, it is real, it is hard, cutting off things in their family household budgets left, right, and centre – no Christmas holidays, reduce the presents for the kids. These are people who are trying to live within the household budget, but the bills are too onerous.
Families try to get their kids to sleep without air conditioning through the Wet Season. The babies do not sleep. They are little, sweaty, melting messes on you as you are trying to rock them to sleep. I know – been there, done that. These are real situations for real people going on right now, today. They see the members for Braitling and Fong Lim on TV completely dismissing it. It is not happening in their world, so it is not happening. It is happening. The cost of living has become too great a burden for Territorians, and you promised you would reduce it. You promised it; it was front and centre and core of your election commitments. Rather than reduce it, you have doubled it. You have doubled CPI. Inflation has gone from 2.1% to 4.4% under the CLP in just 18 months. That is a fact.
Housing was the other great promise you made, ‘We will have all this new affordable housing’. You came in and one of the first things you did was scrap two home loan schemes, My New Home and HOMESTART Extra. For the lower socioeconomic people, who would never have a chance to get a leg into the property ownership market, HOMESTART Extra was a good, solid, carefully constructed scheme, and you scrapped it. You scrapped the first homeowners additional concessions. Do not worry about those people trying to get into their first home; you took that out from underneath them as well.
You do not have new land releases. After 18 months, you are clinging to the land releases Labor had. Maybe in the first six months you had not identified the land yet and you were not ready. But in the first year you would expect any new government worth its salt to be able to identify new land release. After 18 months there is nothing, just the Labor land releases. You can dress them up as yours, but they are not and people know they are not. When you are busy dressing them up as yours, people know you are lying to them.
Every time you lie to them, you are reinforcing to them that you lied to them in the election. You have been lying to them since and you are going to keep hurting them and ignoring their pain. They do not want a government like that. People who have voted CLP forever are saying they will vote Labor next time, because they do not want a government like yours.
You can attack me all you want, but I am a proud Territorian. I will take my role and responsibility seriously and will speak up on behalf of Territorians. I will be a voice for them and will hold you to account, as will every one of my colleagues in this team. We stand proud and united. We are capable and competent and, yes, we are ready to govern.
Chief Minister, pretend all you like, and tell that other lie that we have no plans. We do. If you bothered to pick up 2030 and read it, there would have been a host of things that you might have wanted to put into your framework for the future. That is a core and fundamental plan. We have a raft of plans around housing, education, health and infrastructure. Pretend and lie all you like, but your failure is stark and real. It was writ large in this Chamber today when three of your own members – the members for Arnhem, Arafura and Namatjira – stood up after prayers and walked out on their own government. You have pretended this is not happening. It happened in front of our eyes this morning in the Chamber, and your Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, pretended it was not happening.
You cannot keep lying. Part of leadership is stepping up and taking responsibility for your actions, stepping up and acknowledging when you have challenges, embracing them and dealing with them. You have failed on every count, Chief Minister.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, of course, I will not be supporting a censure of the Northern Territory government. However, I remind honourable members about stability in government in the lecture we have just received from the Leader of the Opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition has a profoundly short memory when it comes to these sorts of things. The former Henderson government was a minority government for the large part of its term, which was a direct product of instability. They condescend to lecture us about instability. I believe and agree with the Leader of the Opposition that Territorians want and expect stability in government. Mind you, historically around this country, minority governments have proven to be surprisingly robust.
The Leader of the Opposition betrayed herself with this censure motion in one important respect. I will take members through it. The censure motion basically orbits around five issues. The first issue deals with an internal matter about us in this House. The second issue deals with an internal matter about us in this House. The third issue talks about issues in the bush, and I welcome that debate. The fourth issue talks about the cost of living; I welcome that debate. The fifth issue, once again, talks about us. If you look at this censure motion, the majority of issues are focused on us – we, this parliament.
I do not know how often I say it, and will say it again: we say a prayer in this parliament every day and the last line of that prayer is ‘for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory’. This censure, by its own construct, is not about the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
The majority of the points are about us. It does not look beyond the front door of this room. It does not look beyond the door of that lobby, or the door of that lobby.
I do not care about John Elferink’s reputation or anything else like that. I care about trying to get some results, as we all must. This government has clearly developed plans to pursue better outcomes for Territorians, which is why I continue. as a member of this government and a minister of the Crown, to strive for good outcomes for the people of the Northern Territory.
It is well and truly clear to me that government is not always easy. It is about making difficult choices from time to time. The members opposite know this. Of course, opposition has the capacity to be all things to all people. That is what the opposition is positioning itself to do.
They say it is unfair to raise expectations as members of parliament. I agree, it is unfair to raise expectations if you cannot meet them. Yet I have listened for the last two weeks to opposition members, one after the other, saying, ‘We should do this. We should build a new Henbury School. We should pay the teachers what they are asking for and give them effective control of all education policy. We should roll out this program, we should roll out that expensive program, and we should spend this money here.’ That is what they do from opposition. However, what they are doing in that process is setting the groundwork for the trap they accuse us of having set for ourselves.
They are arguing that on this side of the House we have set expectations for the people of the Northern Territory and now we are not meeting them. In the process, they set the bar higher for themselves. We are spiralling upwards to this nether-land of raised expectations to gain power. The Opposition Leader, for all her cuddling babies in the heat of the night, does not strike me as a person who is as interested in the argument as she is in obtaining power and relishing the division she purports to see on this side of the House.
If she was truly in the space, where she was demanding from government higher standards of performance and outcomes for Territorians, she would not be preoccupied with who was doing what to whom in this place. She would be unambiguously focused on the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. That should be our vision statement, our mission statement.
If you go into my office, it is there on every door, where it should be, front of mind. This censure motion does not have it front of mind and, for that reason alone, is unsupportable.
However, I will address a couple of issues she raised, and I will ignore all the issues about us. Regarding:
- … failure to deliver on any of his bush promises and breaking the trust of Indigenous Territorians
There seems to be a belief that this is somehow a race-based issue. It is not. There are disputes within our political party, as there are disputes inside the Australian Labor Party.
If last night’s exercise in the parliamentary lobby was any yardstick to go by, those disputes cut deep in the Labor Party as well, and people get hurt in those disputes inside your own party Caucus. The parliamentary wing also has challenges, no doubt about it, but it does not mean every time there is an argument the place is falling apart. If that was true, the allegation could be levelled at the members opposite, which is not what I am interested in.
Let us go back to the argument about the promises in the bush. I recall - I could not understand at the time why he was doing it - Syd Stirling went to great lengths to measure, throughout government, the amount of money being spent on Indigenous outcomes and compare it to the amount of money being spent in non-Indigenous outcomes. The report hit the table in about 2004 or 2005. It was determined at the time, and argued quite passionately by the former Treasurer, Syd Stirling, that money was being expended on Aboriginal people at a ratio of $2 for every $1 spent on non-Aboriginal people. It was a rather grim way of approaching the issue, but he needed to position himself in that argument.
I suspect very little has changed since the report hit the table in 2004, and it continues to be the case today. There is a great deal of expenditure going into remote communities. We can see this in a number of ways.
A question was asked yesterday of the Minister for Infrastructure regarding some roads and some barge landings. Those cost money and those expenditures will go ahead. We build not only the roads, but the barge landings, power houses, health clinics, police stations and, in many instances, houses. We make a number of other contributions into remote communities, yet we see very little in return when it comes to better results in education, health outcomes and law and order. Whilst we try to ramp up the quality of service as a government – which the former government attempted to do – we remain frustrated by it.
We have delivered, and will continue to deliver, on many of the promises we have made in the bush. We believe in what we are doing. As a member of the Northern Territory government and having been the member for a large bush electorate for eight years, I am excruciatingly mindful of the demands and needs which are placed on the Territory in relation to the services provided into the bush.
Alternatively, there must also be some buy-in and input from many of the people themselves. I heard the member for Barkly talking about education. He is quite right, education must be there. It is not necessarily that we must roll out PhDs, but one of the areas we need to educate people in is if you want to have control of your life, you must take control of your life. Unfortunately, so much of what we do, as a government and as a jurisdiction, does not encourage people to take control of their lives; they expect us to hand over control. Dignity cannot be given, it must be learnt and earnt to be understood for what it is, and the education process must demonstrate that.
The former government and the former Corrections minister – I see him listening intently to what we are talking about – started heading down this path when he was the Corrections minister. I have taken some of the ideas from that period – the good ones – built on them and injected them with steroids to see particularly, but not exclusively, Aboriginal people get opportunities for work they otherwise would not have had.
While I try not to take a race-based issue or approach to programs like Sentenced to a Job and some of the other things we are doing, particularly in the Nhulunbuy area – I believe that things are ticking along nicely in that area – I confess to a certain racism when it comes to the glee I feel when I see people who are clearly from very traditional backgrounds achieving things they have never achieved in their whole lives. I then see those people go back to their communities in a way in which they can then offer more services to those communities.
One of my Sentenced to a Job posters is from a tyre fitting business in Tennant Creek where there is a guy who was, I think, a local fellow from the local community who has been employed and, as far as I know, is still employed. I could stand corrected. He is there?
Mr McCarthy: Yes, there have been a number.
Mr ELFERINK: That is enormously heartening to me. That is why we are advancing and pursuing these sorts of things. That is why you can walk into a grocery store in Alice Springs and there is a small chance the person behind the counter, if they are working for IGA, will be somebody who is serving a custodial sentence. They are learning something. I cannot teach dignity; all I can do as a minister is place a person in an environment where they can learn dignity for themselves. That is what we are attempting to do.
I understand there is impatience and frustration in the bush, no doubt about it. I can well understand that people from the bush come to towns and see obvious wealth in places like Darwin and Alice Springs, but they are not making the necessary connections about how that wealth is generated. There was a belief, when the land rights process was entered into, that somehow – you can read, I think it was Ian Viner’s reassuring pamphlet from 1976, which I still have a copy of, talking about how the restoration of Aboriginal lands would set them on the road to a financial utopia where they would have lots of jobs.
I often read that pamphlet, look at the reality, and think to myself, ‘What went wrong?’ What went wrong was the simple expectation that if you threw money at a problem and restored a person’s property to them, it would ultimately follow that wealth would be there for them. We now hear the expression ‘land rich, dirt poor’ quite regularly, which is entirely right. This is because we need to be delivering an education which means something and makes sense to people.
I know that slowly, over time, more and more people have become employed in the bush. I know it can also happen far more quickly, which is why this Northern Territory government, particularly in a place like the Tiwi Islands where they have been demonstrating a really strong commercial orientation, is taking steps to ensure that commercial orientation is taken advantage of. We heard about the land leasing arrangements that have been entered into, and there is certain expenditure in infrastructure on the Tiwi Islands to support their positive attitude about building a future for themselves.
I would love to see the day where a community like Milingimbi or Yuendumu is a place where it is just a town you would recognise anywhere else. When you drove into Milingimbi there would be some blocks of units and flats, some Aboriginal people who own their homes and, living next door, maybe some retirees who decided they wanted to come to a tropical paradise and get some fishing in. It was a normalised town because there was a coffee shop, a hairdresser and those sorts of things.
For that to be achieved, the land has to generate sufficient wealth to underwrite those jobs and that type of investment. That has to happen in a couple of ways. The nature of the land tenure has to show some certainty. It needs to be tradable, but it also needs to be generating wealth. We, as government, can continue to throw money into infrastructure – which is what we do – into schools – which is what we do – and into health – which is what we do.
We throw money and effort into law and order, which is something we are doing even more aggressively than has ever been done before in the history of the Northern Territory. What we are doing in that space at the moment is assertive. This is why you are seeing an increase in the number of offences committed in these remote Aboriginal communities, because the violence has always been there, but we are saying, particularly to the women who live in those communities – not exclusively, but particularly to the women – ‘We know you are the subjects of violence and the state will now step in and protect you’. Many years ago the approach of a police officer in a remote community, or even in Darwin for that matter, was, ‘Madam, do you wish to make a complaint against your husband?’ ‘No’, the answer would invariably be. The answer from the police would be, ‘Then keep the peace’, giving the woman no comfort whatsoever.
In the late 1980s the laws were changed, and we created a civil regime. That civil regime said if the police went to a domestic violence environment they would pick up the wife beater and take them away, then get an order from a court to prevent that person from doing certain things, ostensibly beating their wife, but going back to the house and those sorts of things.
The former Labor government, to its credit, said, ‘That is not good enough. We want to see an increased attention on domestic violence.’ There were deliberate steps by the former Labor government to start imposing some criminal sanctions on wife beaters.
Since coming to government and working closely with the current Chief Minister, I have been quite strident and insistent, through the Pillars of Justice process, that the policy is ramped up, not only in Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, but everywhere, which is why you see increasing rates of criminal reported violence in remote Aboriginal communities. We have said, as a government, we want wife beaters to be taken out of circulation. We want the standards that every citizen should be able to expect in protection of the law to be extended to that person. The law is there not only to give certainty but, in many instances, to protect the weak and the vulnerable. That is entirely what we have been doing.
As I have explained to the media on a number of occasions, and to any number of other people, tomorrow I could artificially drop the assault rates, almost by half, with the stroke of a pen. It would be easy to do, simply by saying to the police, ‘You will return to the system of getting civil orders of restraint in domestic violence situations’. If I were to do so, domestic violence rates or assaults related to domestic violence would crash through the floor overnight – snap, there it is. However, you come to a point, as a minister of the Crown and as a government, that you must ask yourself what is good for the true welfare of the Northern Territory? The crime rates? My fear of crime rates is more important to them, or being protected from a snarling husband who will beat you within an inch of your life as quick as look at you? The answer, of course, is easily decided upon, and is clearly that we will protect the interests of the people of the Northern Territory despite the political damage that may cause.
I am proud of it. I am proud to know we are going to some of the remotest places in the world and saying to the people who live there, ‘We will protect you with the laws that are underpinned by some common ideals, and those ideals are basic human rights’ …
__________________
Visitors
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, could I interrupt for a minute.
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 3/4 classes from Jingili Primary School accompanied by Mikah Delamotte, Catherine Bradley and Kelly Trainor. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors and hope you enjoy your visit to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________
Mr ELFERINK: I say a special hello because I went to Jingili Primary School from 1971 to 1977. It is good to see you guys. You can grow up and end up working here, or you can get a real job.
Getting back to what I was saying before, this is not about us, it is about what we need to do to protect the human rights of Territorians. We have made a clear decision on this side of the House that those human rights will take precedence over cultural rights. We have done it deliberately. It is something the Labor Party supports because human rights and the dignity, particularly of women to be not beaten by their husbands within an inch of their life, is a right that should be enjoyed universally. It is a right I am glad to be in a position to defend.
I heard the third point of this motion, which says:
- … failure to deliver on any of his bush promises and breaking the trust of Indigenous Territorians
I can well understand there are many people in remote communities who have expectations of government which can be met, or sometimes cannot be met. One of the things I try to glean when I am in remote communities is exactly the nature of the complaints I am hearing. Often people struggle to articulate exactly what is wrong. They know something is wrong, but they struggle to articulate exactly what they want to do. There are some fundamental issues about what expectations are in the bush, as well as managing the expectations we have built in the bush. We have to be very careful about how we proceed through that process. I heard the Leader of the Opposition’s concerns in relation to that.
The fourth point is hiking up the cost of living for all Territorians by increasing power prices. Upon coming to government we were presented with a number of challenges, not least of which was a projected debt of $5.5bn in the outer years. The Labor government did not care about debt; it was not one of its primary motivators because they did not see it as something they immediately had to deal with. They see immediate issues they have to deal with.
This was the approach used by a number of countries prior to the financial crisis. Those countries determined debt was an acceptable tool no matter what the level of debt was. The experience in those countries is, finally, somebody knocks on the door and says, ‘Pay the bill’. Those of us who own a credit card, have ever had a house loan, a car loan, or any other form of credit extended to us, know there is always somebody saying, ‘Pay the piper’.
The world is not, by the laws of nature, charitable. Charity is something you can do with excess, but the world is not inherently charitable. As a consequence, when you take from a person some offering – be it money or something else – on a condition you will return that to them, with interest as it happens – the usurers of the world unite – then that has to be paid.
When you sit in a Cabinet room and see the demands of government placed upon you, and see you have to pay $0.5m a day, or thereabouts, in interest on the debts which are currently racking up, which you have inherited, you must respond to it.
I do not want to find the debt I rack up today being the legacy I leave my daughter in 12 years’ time when she could conceivably be in the workplace paying off that debt. I would like to bequeath to my family and my daughters a future, something of value. As I accumulate wealth, in the modest way we do in our household, over time my daughters, upon my and my wife’s passing, will become the beneficiaries of something. I feel a duty and a responsibility to do so.
Equally so, when we carry the burden of government, we have to ask ourselves, ‘What is it we will leave in the future and to the children who are in schools now?’ These kids are the ones who will pay the credit card bill. They will have to get the jobs to pay for the debt we rack up today. I do not know about you, but I would like to bequeath something to them which is worth more than our credit card bill today.
Yes, we campaigned last election on the cost of living, because it was substantial, but it was something the former government struggled with. We have seen a number of ways we can put downward pressure on the cost of living, land release being at its highest levels ever.
We also understand if we continue to rack up debt, carrying the burden of a corporation which was costing us money and continues to do so, we must plan for the future as well. Rather than subsidising, underwriting and racking up debt, we took a tough, hard and brittle decision so these kids will not suffer the legacy of this debt into the future. We will, this year alone, have to see our debt situation get worse to the tune of nearly $1bn, largely because of a prison bequeathed to us by the former government for which the whole thing was racked up on tick. It is on the MasterCard. Credit cards are a trap if you do not know how to control them.
We have been looking down the barrel of an agency ratings downgrade because we are seen as a greater risk than we have been in the past. This is not what I want to bequeath to the kids who are ignoring everything I am saying in the public gallery right now, because when they grow up, they will have to carry the debt. Why should those kids be any different to the kids in my household, the ones I want to give something to, rather than take something from? I do not want to be in a government which runs around stealing their lunch money in advance.
Those are the two points I wanted to address in this censure motion, because the rest of the motion is about us. It talks about the member for Port Darwin, the member for Namatjira, Terry Mills and the member for Greatorex. It shows we are not effectively focused on what we should be.
I find myself frustrated beyond all words every time I come into this House and hear the members opposite talk about what is happening in this House, who is doing what to whom, as it has all of the quality of a melodrama or a soap opera, skulduggery and rumour mongering – all the stuff which makes so many people in this place tick. When I say this place, I am talking about inside this Chamber, outside it, on the fifth floor and fourth floor and inside the public service. Many people are consumed by who is doing what to whom and why they are doing it.
I will continue to strive for, believe in and pursue, through my own frail abilities, a belief in an ideal which is expressed in this place every time we meet. That ideal is captured by the prayer I mentioned before I started talking today. I ask all members and all staff in this building, whether you work on the fourth floor or the fifth floor, all public servants, to take it on board and remember the reason we do what we do. Whether we are in opposition, government, are ministers or backbenchers, we should serve and strive to serve for one cause only. We will fail, fall over and make mistakes, but that cause must be, and always has to be, the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, there are about seven or eight minutes on the clock so I will start with a preamble, because this is the first time I have spoken on a censure motion in this House.
Many times in this House I have said I like to learn from people, and I learn a lot from the member for Port Darwin, there is no doubt about it. One of the things the member for Port Darwin taught me is that a censure motion is the most serious motion that can be brought against a government. As a hard-working member of the government, he spoke and I questioned what his defence would be today. In the court of parliament, what will the member for Port Darwin run as a defence today? It was a little light on.
I draw the member for Port Darwin’s attention back to the legal points around this censure commencing with:
- … I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this House from censuring the Chief Minister for his dismal attempt at leadership in the Northern Territory and his failure to stand up for Territorians ...
This is about the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. The member for Port Darwin would have us believe this is just about this House.
However, in opposition, he taught me well. He neglected to point to one part of this House, and that is the media gallery that report stories from this House and takes them back into the community. I was one of the young, cynical members of parliament when I arrived here, wondering why the media has so much power in this place. I soon came to realise the real power base they have from that gallery, reporting on a dysfunctional government.
This matter has become so serious we have become the laughing stock of not only the Northern Territory, but now in a national arena and, I fear – after one dot point of this, the knifing of Terry Mills – in an international arena. Major oil and gas exploration and processing companies are looking to establish themselves in the Northern Territory with incredible projects that have the potential of bringing real wealth for the interests of the people of the Northern Territory, across the regional areas, but we have become a laughing stock. Personally, I have had a gutful of it because it has labelled all politicians as backstabbers and being childlike. This continued dysfunction that is reported to our community has labelled us all.
I regularly have people coming to me now, as a local member in opposition, as whistleblowers. I did not have that in government. I had challenges, serious debate, people trying to take me out because of all sorts of devious agendas, but I never had the run of whistleblowers I have now, demanding that I stand up in this parliament and ask the difficult questions because this government operates in secrecy. There is no transparency; it is cloaked with a veil of cover-up in its decision-making and operations. That represents a government in denial.
This motion targets the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister wanted the job. He went out of his way to get the job. I will talk about how he got that job later. If you want the job, then the buck stops with you, Chief Minister. You are in charge of the Northern Territory; you are our leader. We want a statesmanlike figure on a Territory, national and international platform, as the Northern Territory is a major player on all of those platforms.
I have spoken about the dysfunction of the CLP before in an analogy around the Tennant Creek junior rugby league development project, the project I ran for eight years. I started that project and ran it for eight years before I had to leave it behind and come into this job in parliament. I still, to this day, remember those little heroes, those brave kids, the smallest in the Territory, coming from a town that was totally dominated by AFL, with a selection base of about 30 kids. We would take on the biggest and best in the Northern Territory. We travelled the Northern Territory and took on the biggest and the best.
I was the sweaty coach in the dirty shirt, shorts and sandshoes. I was not the coach up in the grandstand watching the premier teams of the Northern Territory junior rugby league perform; I was on the sideline, dirty and sweaty for one reason: every time those kids in Tennant Creek got smashed and ended up behind the goal line watching a premier rugby league team kicking a goal, I ran down there to join them. Do you know why I ran down there to join them? To stop the infighting. The first thing I had to do was get those kids’ focus back on me, to discuss what went wrong and plan the strategy about what we would do when we kicked that ball back off. That is the job of a leader.
I had a captain in those teams each time I did that, and that went on for years. Do you know what? After two years, we won Pool B in the Northern Territory. We consistently beat Alice Springs, Katherine and Darwin city, and we achieved Pool B winners in the Northern Territory, that original group of kids I had to continually coach behind the goal posts to make sure they did not start fighting amongst themselves.
That is what I expect from the Chief Minister, because we have government members who cannot be in the same room together; there is so much infighting. Everywhere I travel constituents want to talk about it. These are conservatives, the same as Labor voters, alternative voters, Green voters, whoever. They are people in the bush and in towns, saying, ‘What is going on? This team is dysfunctional, they do not like each other, they are fighting amongst themselves.’ This ain’t no game of junior rugby league at Richo Park. This is the government of the Northern Territory we are talking about.
It got to a point today where three members of the government walked out before Question Time. Question Time is the essence of democracy, where the media report back what is happening in the real sense of governance of the Northern Territory. We had three members walk out. What did that say? I do not know because I have not talked to them. However, I know, as the Leader of the Opposition said, it has not happened before. What is the Chief Minister going to do about it? I believe he is doing backroom deals while the opposition calls on accountability and transparency. What are those backroom deals? What does it mean for the Territory budget, a budget that is, no doubt, being run through the presses of Treasury now to be published for presentation to the Territory in May? We do not know. The government cannot tell us.
The members did not look happy this morning because they left via the back door. They used the back door of this Chamber when they walked out. That tells the Territory there is no confidence in the Chief Minister and his leadership. This story has gone far enough ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe this is a good time to have a break. Are you happy with that, member for Barkly?
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Debate suspended.
PETITION
Support the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment
(Fire-Fighters) Bill (Serial 43)
Support the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment
(Fire-Fighters) Bill (Serial 43)
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 26 284 petitioners relating to support for the Workers Rehabilitation And Compensation Amendment (Fire-Fighters) Bill 2013 and firefighters.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- It is an indictment on any government that fails to protect its constituents. Firefighters have committed to being there for everyone in their darkest moments. Isn’t it our duty to ensure we are there for theirs? Support this bill, make it retrospective and don’t delay. They need this NOW.
Support the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fire-Fighters) Bill 2013 and give firefighters the support they deserve.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Dr Chris Burns
Dr Chris Burns
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr Chris Burns, a former member and minister of this parliament. Welcome, Dr Burns.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, a censure motion, as the member for Port Darwin has told us many times in this House, is the most important motion that can be brought by an opposition to the government. I concluded with the complaint from me and the opposition that the Chief Minister, the centrepiece of this censure motion, has made a laughing stock of the Northern Territory parliament and government, and has tagged all politicians in the Northern Territory with the dysfunctional nature of the members opposite, which I take deep offence to. It is a privileged, very important position and it has been dragged down by the behaviour of a Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, who is the centrepiece of this motion due to his lack of leadership of a dysfunctional team that cannot even be in the same room together, which is being reported across the Northern Territory, our nation and internationally.
The effect it is having was very noticeable when I left this House at lunchtime to see the incredible development going on in the capital city and to understand the projects coming online in the regions. It reflects that big business is now hesitating about the future of that development ...
Mr Tollner: I doubt that.
Mr McCARTHY: … and wondering what the hell is going on with government. I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Fong Lim, ‘I doubt that’. Big business pays a lot of money to lobbyists and advisors who would be delivering the message very clearly: the Northern Territory is the place to be but the current management is out of control. They are a shocker, an embarrassment, completely dysfunctional and big business does not take that as good news for investment.
This is damaging the Territory. The members opposite have the hide to talk about creating the Territory and the Territory’s future for their children. We will not get past the next couple of weeks due to the dysfunction. You cannot even pass signature economic legislation with your plans to split and privatise Power and Water because you do not have the governing majority. You are not quite sure of the numbers. This signature piece you have prepared the Territory for is legislation the Territory is very concerned about.
This motion has opened up the can of worms. Constituents have said to me, ‘Did you ever think this could have happened?’ and I looked them straight in the face and told them honestly, ‘Yes, I did. I thought that from day one, because I saw a government built on a foundation of sand.’ I saw the most ruthless and aggressive election campaign in the bush in August 2012 that I have ever seen in my 30 years in Northern Territory politics, from behind the scenes as a supporter and a member of the Labor Party. Never before had I seen an aggressive, ruthless election campaign that made unfunded and unfounded promises. It was backed up with the razzamatazz of east coast money, with important players determined to take out Labor governments on a state and territory level. It had all the makings of great theatre, but it was based on a lousy script. The script was lies, unfunded election commitments and very shallow promises.
The Chief Minister has to answer, because his hollow and shallow rhetoric has been all that has come in its place. It is no doubt three bush members have taken heed, listened to the stories about the cake and the fair share, and doing business with Cabinet ministers to get their fair share for their electorates in the bush. I have pleaded with them to make sure Nhulunbuy and Barkly are attached to it, because we are all related in the bush. We are related specifically through our geographic isolation and our regionalisation, but also through the extensive networks of Indigenous Territorians who criss-cross this great Northern Territory with their song lines, ceremony and law. They are the ones asking the questions today.
Where is the delivery? We are not into shallow rhetoric from a flash Harry in a silver suit. After 18 months, we are moving into a new phase of shallow rhetoric, ‘We have a plan’. He is the wrecker who took out a Chief Minister on an international stage, in front of the biggest investment project the Northern Territory has ever seen, and then continued to destabilise the Northern Territory. This is a Country Liberal Party, with a dysfunctional leader, which scrapped the A Working Future policy and its parallel homelands policy. They came in with nothing to replace it but shallow rhetoric, a destructive and unintelligent approach to scrap things without anything in their place, ignoring the consultation and work which had gone on.
We do not hear much about SIHIP from this government. We do not hear much about the 27 houses being built at Ramingining, Minister for Infrastructure. We did not hear much about them when I was at Ramingining, watching the establishment of the workers’ camp and looking at the people on the ground recruiting the labour. Where has the story gone, the biggest investment in housing in the bush we have seen? There is no talk of it.
We have this shallow rhetoric, ‘We have a plan’. What is the plan? We have nothing but rhetoric. What about Building the Education Revolution, the most intensive investment in education infrastructure I have seen in 30 years in the Northern Territory? What about building off that? We built the infrastructure, so what does this mob do? They go into an economic rashness plan delivering efficiency dividends. The best way to get efficiency dividends is take out the salaries component, so they started to sack teachers. The hollow, shallow rhetoric is, ‘Oh no, we do not sack teachers, we are cancelling contracts, taking them out by natural attrition’. They also scored a big bonus with all the support workers, ancillary staff and local jobs to go with it. Suddenly the department and minister were able to show this Chief Minister their massive savings plan. We have built all of this infrastructure to support educational outcomes – I will not go into my silver bullet story, the good old CLP. We now have a government which has taken our teachers.
We had a 10-year transport plan as well as a 10-year infrastructure plan. I suggest the new minister who says, ‘We have a plan, we will show you a plan’, is rebadging those plans. However, he put the brakes on and took the Territory backwards. We have seen, from day one, a $74m cut in the infrastructure budget, which has crippled the regions. That is why three members in this House have walked out. There is nothing happening and their constituents are demanding an answer.
This minister said, ‘We have a plan’. It is all we have heard for the last two weeks. But they are ignoring all of the work their departments had done, the important consultation with the communities which was done under the previous government and the momentum which was gathering. It was the real story of how to take the regional remote areas forward, not shallow, unfunded election promises. You are now paying the price, because you have members who want some serious answers. They have had a gutful of this rhetoric from the Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, who is not in touch with the Territory.
It comes down to youth. The media has played around with all sorts of jibes and insults, but when I cut to the chase, he does not have the Territory in his blood yet; he has not been here long enough and does not know the bush. Yet, suddenly, because he is a good knife fighter, he gets to lead the pack and is in charge. This guy has a lot to answer for. You guys will have to pull him into line, because you are in big trouble. You are in desperate trouble. If you do not want to listen to what the opposition says, then just head down the mall of this town, come to downtown Tennant Creek, or wherever else you like, because people will line up to ask the same questions the opposition is talking about.
The member for Port Darwin talked about crime statistics. My answer to crime statistics under the CLP is that you parked the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. You wait for everybody to fall off that cliff, and you will then try to patch them up. How do you do that? Through minimum mandatory sentencing, and you have embarked on a campaign that is about putting people in gaol. The member for Port Darwin will not accept that the new era in Corrections – and I give him credit that he built off it – had an essential core value of keeping people out of gaol, as 82% of the gaol population in the Northern Territory is Aboriginal people, and 60% are in there for middle and low level offences, generally relating to alcohol and traffic. These people had a whole new pathway being developed, in the justice reinvestment …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask that the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, member for Johnston.
The new era in Corrections had a fundamental centrepiece, which was to keep people out of gaol. There were community corrections orders, custody orders and driver education programs. The member for Port Darwin knows that well, because he tried to take all of that out when the legislation was travelling through this place. I remember the debate well; it went for hours, and he questioned it.
As I said, I acknowledge the good work he has continued with. It is some great work in that line, but it fundamentally ignores that centrepiece of trying to keep the most vulnerable out of gaol, keep them in the community, and not take them away to an isolated place, do the work around that person and drop them back into an environment that, in many cases, will support offending behaviour, but work with that family, that group and that community. That is what the new era in Corrections was all about.
You guys changed the game plan. I am sure the three rebellious members who have walked will want to question that because I am asked that question in the Barkly. There is an enormous number of people now going to gaol. It is a one-way street and we need to be looking at alternatives. Eighty two per cent of them are Aboriginal people from the regional and remote areas. The CLP has completely ignored that, and it has crafted this story to say, ‘The crime statistics are up because we are policing better, and more criminals are going to gaol’. Once again, I say it is about justice reinvestment and about having the ambulance at the top of the cliff, not the bottom of the cliff. It is about picking up the person before they fall off, and picking up the family before that person falls off.
But that is policy. Around alcohol policy, the classic was Labor and the enormous work around Enough is Enough. A populist political move dominated by urban, conservative politicians, said, ‘You do not have to have a seven second disadvantage in your life. We will scrap it. We are not about nanny states. We are the real deal, we are the Country Liberal Party.’
I can tell you what it was like in the regions. On the Sunday 26 August the word started reverberating through from memos that went out to roadhouses saying they would not be prosecuted if they did not ask for ID, and the tap went back on. You can argue all the statistics you like; I am talking from a life point of view. I live in these places and I have lived there for a long time. I spent an inordinate amount of time travelling and workshopping remote communities in the Barkly, talking about the importance of having ID, encouraging people to go from proof of age cards to get their Territory licence and preserve it to normalise their existence, and not get into secondary supply because that trouble would follow them and they would lose their ID and right to purchase takeaway alcohol, which is 70% of the alcohol sold in the Northern Territory.
On day one, the Country Liberal Party, ironically, with a popular policy pitched to the urban folk of the capital city, scrapped it, with nothing in its place. We went into this retro tailspin and the bush got back on the grog big time; 2500 punters, game on, access to the grog with nothing in its place.
This Chief Minister who presides over the Northern Territory continues to try to play catch-up football. He continues to try to claw back credibility with the public and on community safety, on which he is failing. The crime statistics, the violent assaults, the domestic violence, the sexual assaults are going up, and not just in the big end of town, but across the bush. He is trying desperately to claw this back. He even now has police on bottle shops. Is that an effective strategy? Oh yes, that is an effective strategy. What do the publicans and the community people tell me? They tell me police should be working in community policing operations and developing good relationships with the public, not standing at bottle shops with clipboards, shuffling through papers to see if Freddie Jones has an Alcohol Protection Order. It is a joke! The police do not want to do it and the public see it as a waste of time and energy. Do you know what? In the age of technology, in what this government talks about with innovation, we can manage this stuff with an electronic database. However, the Minister for Alcohol Policy said, ‘Dead and buried, there is no way it is getting turned back on again. You all go out and make your own local plans.’
People are struggling. They are trying to make plans. They are having a crack, but they need that innovation and technology. Everybody seems to alienate the story around alcohol abuse – fundamentally the issue that is destabilising all the good things going on in the Northern Territory – with the Banned Drinker Register. Nobody wants to acknowledge the bigger policy, Enough is Enough, which related to the alcohol tribunals, the pathway that dealt with the person who ended up as the problem drinker on the BDR. That was the start of their journey. They got serious humbug and were not able to access alcohol by just walking in off the street. That tribunal process was starting to look at the education, the mandated community service and rehabilitation, and the most important one I was waiting for, the income quarantining.
I was waiting for those punters I have known for 30 years to come into my office in Tennant Creek and bellow and roar because they went to the ATM on Thursday morning and $60 spat out. They would be very irate about their money being quarantined. Then I would be able to take them aside and have a serious conversation about whether they were on the Banned Drinker Register or had fronted the alcohol tribunal. Was their family aware of the conditions placed on them because of their problem with alcohol? Were they aware of the tribunal and the tribunal’s correspondence? Had they fronted? This is what we call normalising people’s lives.
This alcohol policy the Labor Party had was scrapped on day one. This government has the mandate to do what it likes. It has shown us that time and time again. They stand there with their numbers, a very depleted number today may I say. They scrapped a huge policy across the Northern Territory, with nothing in its place.
The Chief Minister, now at half time in an electoral term, is still trying to claw back credibility with the constituency because of the setback that was created by the Country Liberal Party. These guys refuse to acknowledge there are important things which need to be focused on in delivering for the constituency. We see a government focused on within. We see infighting and a government that reports on the street, where they cannot even be in the same room together.
I was privileged to be a member of government and I cannot imagine how a government would function if the members did not get on, if the members are continually destabilising each other.
That started from day one. I tried to dismiss that. I thought the previous member for Blain would lead out and get this mob under control but, unfortunately, he was destabilised from day one. It was quite obvious. Essentially, being taken out in the most undignified of circumstances while overseas, on the world stage in front of the biggest infrastructure project to invest in the Northern Territory, was disgraceful.
The Chief Minister who took his place had no plans, and 18 months in we have a Chief Minister who suddenly has come up with the rhetoric around, ‘I have plans’. It is not good enough. It is not good enough for the Territory, and it is not good enough for the three members who have walked today.
Madam Speaker, one of the really critical parts of the CLP’s election campaign in 2012 was to scrap the shires. If we talk about the bush, we talk about jobs …
A member interjecting.
Mr McCARTHY: That is right. But, we talk about scrapping the shires. Word on the street is it is chaos. Word on the street at Wadeye and Daly is it is chaos, and everybody else wants to know when they will get their boundary changes. Essentially, that is more CLP dysfunction and chaos.
Mr TOLLNER (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, what an interesting debate this is turning out to be. It is great to see the member for Barkly on his feet having a rant. It is not often we get to see that type of enthusiasm and passion from the member for Barkly. He really had a good swing today.
The member for Barkly is still somewhat in denial. It was interesting to hear him talking about the ruthless campaign the Country Liberals ran in the bush at the last election – a ruthless campaign and he had never seen anything like it in his 35 years in the Northern Territory. They are still trying to recover from what occurred in the bush. It is the view of the Labor Party that those seats are their God-given right, and some tricky business went on at the last election where we fooled and tricked everyone in a dirty campaign. He talked about flash Harry in a silver suit turning up, referring to our Chief Minister …
Mr McCarthy: You betcha!
Mr TOLLNER: ‘You betcha’, he said. It is time to get over it, member for Barkly. I have acknowledged in the past that you are one of the few people in this House who was on this side of the parliament last time around who recognised there was something going on. There was talk that Dave Tollner was running the bush seats campaign, and everybody laughed and thought there was nothing funnier. What a great joke it was. People like Malarndirri McCarthy were laughing at us, and whatshername from Arafura, who thought it was all a joke.
I remember running into Kerry Gardiner, a good mate of mine. Kerry was working for Warren Snowdon at the time and he had a bit of a laugh. He said, ‘You guys are joking, aren’t you?’ I said, ‘Kerry, you might be surprised. We might pick up one or two.’ He said, ‘Come on, no one will ever defeat Karl. He is locked into that seat; he is cemented in.’ Goodness me, I am standing here looking at Bess Price and I do not think Karl saw Bess coming. Karl thought he owned the seat until retirement date. That was the case with Malarndirri and others in those bush seats. They were stunned. This is what the member for Barkly referred to as a ruthless campaign.
The view of the Labor Party was, ‘We own the bush, it is ours. Aborigines will never vote CLP, they are rusted on Labor people. They are communists at heart and they like everything to be done communally. We are the natural party where they all fit.’ For the life of them, they could not see it would ever be possible for the Country Liberals to win one of these bush seats. I look at the member for Barkly now and he is still smarting from it. He still cannot believe it. He is dazed …
Mr McCarthy: Three of yours just walked out the door.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: You can talk about who has walked out the door and that type of thing, but Labor did not win those seats …
Mr McCarthy: I do not see them here today. Where are they all?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly!
Mr TOLLNER: Where are all the Labor bush members? You are one of the few left standing; you are about the only one. Where has the rest of your mob gone?
Mr McCarthy: There are three missing over there.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, please pause.
Member for Barkly and opposition members, I have let it go long enough. The convention is you do not refer to people who are not in the Chamber.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Barkly, lovely bloke that he is, has a bit of a problem at the moment, 18 months after the fact. It has not sunk in: Labor lost the bush. They say oppositions do not win government, governments lose government. That is what happened: you lost government. You failed the people of the Northern Territory. That is a shameful act. Now you come in here banging on as if you know all about the bush. You are the sole standing bush member left in the Labor Party, the once great Australian Labor Party which had every seat in the bush. You are it. Good on you, you are in touch with your electorate. I paid tribute to you in the past, and I continue to do so; you are the only one who saw what was coming.
We know how ruthless campaigns can be. We know how you managed to hang on to the seat. Good on you, you fought hard. You are in touch with your electorate so you knew something was coming over the hill. The other guys were completely oblivious to it. You still cannot grasp the fact you lost the bush. You have no bush members apart from the member for Barkly. That is it.
You come in here and start talking about SIHIP as if it was some great achievement. I tell you what the achievement was; you managed to spend $1.7bn on housing in the bush, and now there are fewer rooms in the bush than when you started. That is a sad fact. You crow about it as if you achieved something. You have to be joking! You wonder why you lost the bush. You spent $1.7bn building houses in the bush, and there are now fewer rooms than when you started. What an embarrassment, coming in here and talking as if it is some achievement.
Mr McCarthy: Seven new houses at Murray Downs.
Mr TOLLNER: Seven new houses. How many less are there?
Mr TOLLNER: Goodness me! They come in here talking about the BER, Building the Education Revolution. I do not believe there are too many programs which have been ridiculed more in Australia’s history than the school halls fiasco. You come in here as if it is some great achievement. Pick up a newspaper, read what people were saying about the Building the Education Revolution program. I am stunned you did not start talking about pink batts as some wonderful achievement, although there is an inquiry going on about that. Maybe you had some decorum and decided not to comment on the pink batts fiasco, where goodness knows how many people died and how many homes were burnt to the ground in that failed little Labor spend.
Why have you not mentioned the other wonderful thing you did in trying to hand the Stella Maris to yourselves and your union mates? That is the sort of nonsense you guys were getting up to in government. Now you are on your high horse, all morally pumped up, saying, ‘The government is falling to bits’, when your government was absolutely shambolic, and you were booted out in the bush. You guys lost this area of the Territory you are so familiar with. You did not just lose, most of the seats are comfortably in CLP hands. Goodness me!
I get on to the censure. As the member for Barkly pointed out, it is pretty well aimed at the Chief Minister and his supposed failures in a range of areas. The member for Barkly referred to our Chief Minister as ‘flash Harry in a silver suit’. Every opportunity you guys get you try to sling a bit of mud and personally attack the man. But let us think about our Chief Minister. All right, he is from Central Australia. That is not a common thing, as Chief Ministers gone by are concerned. He is young, as far as Chief Ministers are concerned. He is dynamic, he has bounce in his step. He has a vision for the Territory, and guess what? He is Australia’s first Indigenous leader.
He is the first Indigenous leader in Australia, and some of us take pride in that. Here is the Territory again leading the way. You might recall it was the first CLP government in Australia that had the first Indigenous parliamentarian elected. What a great achievement. Again, it is the Country Liberals that now have the first Indigenous leader in Australia’s history. What a great achievement. Labor wants to belittle that. They call him ‘flash Harry in a silver suit’. Why? Is it because he takes care of himself, he wants to dress well, and wants to look good and show off the Territory in a good light? That is appalling. Your view is that an Aboriginal man has to be, somehow or other, down in the gutter, looking rough. What is your view of Aboriginal people, if you think of our Chief Minister as ‘flash Harry in a silver suit’ …
Most of us are proud of the fact we have Australia’s first Indigenous leader. I put it to you that he probably has more interest in the bush than any Chief Minister, Country Liberal or Labor …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51: I am trying to listen to the Deputy Chief Minister. Could you advise the member for Stuart to stop interrupting so I can listen.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, I have listened for the last 10 minutes and you have been constantly interjecting and making noise yourself. It is a misuse of standing orders. You are on a warning.
Mr TOLLNER: As I was saying, this Chief Minister has more of a focus on the bush than any previous Chief Minister, whether Country Liberal or Labor. He is focused on the bush. I have known very few Chief Ministers who took the time to get across the Territory in the way this Chief Minister does. It is not something he has just started, it is something he has been doing since day dot.
I was incredibly impressed with the effort he went to when I first met him when he was our candidate for Lingiari. We all had a bit of a laugh when his campaign slogan was, ‘No more sit-down money’. Again, that was something which showed this guy was a bloke of conviction. He was prepared to put what he thought on his campaign slogan. The idea of sit-down money is abhorrent to him, and he put it on his campaign slogan.
Maybe it was not the brightest move politically, but, courageously, it showed he was worlds ahead of anybody else we had prepared to put down their thoughts in front of people and give people a real view of the way he thought about things. Welfare reform has been one of those things he has been dogged on. I was in a meeting with him last night with Twiggy Forrest who asked, ‘How do we get Indigenous people into work?’ He said, ‘Welfare reform’. That was the first response. Then, of course, we went on and covered a range of subjects and areas where we could try to create enterprise and economic development in remote communities, trying to get jobs in the bush.
Clearly the Chief Minister is not afraid to say what he thinks, and that is admirable.
Again, the member for Port Darwin put it well. Labor is so internally focused they have forgotten what the main game is. The main game is building the Territory, driving a better future for Territorians. But every day we come in here, there is nothing – zero – about how you will build a better future for Territorians. It is all internally focused. ‘Let us see how we can attack this person or that person.’
I learnt that in opposition you cannot do too much at all. There is stuff-all you can do in opposition. You do not hold the levers of government. However, there is something you can do, and that is plot, scheme and plan what you will do when you next find yourselves in government: test policy ideas and put a few things out for discussion. What do we hear from this Labor mob we have here, this rabble that has absolutely nothing in its tool kit, except ways to create mischief in our community?
Last night I was listening to that silly debate on Nightcliff island. There is not even a proposal in yet to build Nightcliff island. But, no, they will get a couple of hundred – couple of hundred? – maybe a dozen people to protest, get a few party crashers in and create a bit of mischief, trying to attract a bit of media attention, concoct something that has not even become a proposal yet and try to get a few people scared. That is how you operate, by trying to scare people. Well, it just does not work.
This is a government that is focused on doing the job, and you guys seem to make a bit of fun with that. ‘Oh, you are trying to ignore this and you are ignoring that.’ We are not ignoring anything, what we are doing is getting on with the job. You have a Chief Minister who has come in every Question Time, refused to take your petty little baits, and talked about his vision for the Northern Territory and what plans we are putting in place, what things we are getting happening. You have a whole range of ministers and backbenchers here who are focused on building things in their electorates, trying to do things for the Territory into the future.
I look around me now and I see the minister for Lands and Planning. We have the highest residential construction rate in the history of the Territory; two people are driving that, our minister for Lands and Planning and our Minister for Housing, who are doing an fabulous job, breaking records.
These are the things that matter. We are focused on trying to deal with the Power and Water problem. It is only Labor members who bury their heads in sand and say ‘No problem here’, despite the fact the Power and Water debt went from $290m in 2004 to $1.2bn by the time Labor was kicked out. We have seen blackout after blackout but, no, Labor still wants to maintain the same system. We are now putting $150m of taxpayer subsidies into the Power and Water Corporation, and Labor still thinks that is appropriate. It is not. That money should not necessarily be going in there. That money should be going to roads, schools, hospitals, police stations and all of those things.
I was talking to the Minister for Infrastructure a minute ago. The member for Barkly said there is nothing happening in the bush. We have spent more than $413m on infrastructure, which includes $127m on roads, projects like $4.3m for the development of a new Lajamanu airstrip, $6.5m for the construction of a bridge over the Doindji River, $5m to upgrade stretches of the Tanami Road and $4m towards the Carpentaria and Buntine Highways. There is a range of things going on: improving access to Fog Bay Road and the Charlotte River Crossing, construction of multipurpose police stations at Yuendumu and Alpara, upgrades of Docker River and Utopia aerodromes, Canteen Creek remote health centre upgrade, Elliott remote health centre upgrade, new dwellings set for Robinson River, upgrade of a truck parking bay at Elliott, upgrade to Ti Tree roadhouse and truck bay, Roper Highway grading and resheeting from the end of the sealed section to the Roper Bar and the Numbulwar Road upgrade. This is one little media release from 19 March, a couple of days ago ...
Mr McCarthy: The list of Labor projects goes on, a lot of Labor projects. Thanks for that.
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go. Anything good in this world happens under a Labor government, everything bad happens under the dreadful CLP people. Labor was diddled in the bush because we ran a mean and tricky campaign and they never did anything wrong. Get real guys, get real!
The fact is, we have a Chief Minister and a government which are focused on the job and are doing what is best for the Northern Territory and making some tough decisions.
We have some problems, I will admit that. We have a $5.5bn debt to deal with, thank you very much. You did that. There is a whole range of things. This year the budget deficit is $1.2bn and there are only 230 000 of us here.
The greatest monument you built was a prison. Well, whoopee doo! We are not taking our lead from you guys. If you think we should have kept pouring money into failed programs, you are wrong. We scrapped the AMS and a whole range of other failed Labor policies, and we will continue to do so because we have a vision and a plan for the Territory that will see people prosper and grow in wealth in the future ...
Mr HIGGINS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move the minister be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, member for Daly. Madam Speaker, I have finished my comments.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 8 Noes 11
Ms Fyles Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Ms Lawrie Mr Elferink
Mr McCarthy Ms Finocchiaro
Ms Manison Mr Giles
Mr Vatskalis Mr Higgins
Mr Vowles Mrs Lambley
Ms Walker Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
WRITTEN QUESTION
Response not Received
Response not Received
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I your attention to a clear breach of standing orders. Standing Order 118(2) requires a minister to answer a question within 30 days of receipt. Written Question 105, concerning Crown leases for which no rent, or peppercorn rent, was payable was received by the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment on 6 January 2014. Standing Order 118(2) also requires a minister, who has not answered a written question within 30 days to provide an explanation to the member asking the question.
Given almost three months has elapsed since the question was received, I ask that you direct the minister to answer the question or provide the explanation for not doing so, as required by standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Johnston. Standing Order 118(2) says the minister should respond, it does not say they must respond. I am not in a position as the Speaker to compel the minister to answer the question in that period of time. However, the Clerk’s Office can write to the minister requesting information, and I will ask the Clerk to write to the relevant minister, asking for an explanation.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order, my understanding is all questions have been answered. If they have not, I will follow that up, not a problem.
Ms Lawrie: They have not.
Mr Chandler: I will follow it up, no problems. There are no conspiracies; sorry, nothing to see here.
Ms Lawrie: You were told in Question Time last week they were not.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment has undertaken to double check why the answers have not been recorded, and has undertaken to get the information to the members of the opposition, and the Independent member if need be.
HEALTH SERVICES BILL
(Serial 74)
(Serial 74)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to provide a legislative basis for the new service framework, a commitment by this government announced in November 2012 to provide a new way of delivering health services in the Northern Territory.
Healthcare continues to progress at an extraordinary rate. Projections show if we continue to operate the health system the way we are now, it will eventually fail under the pressure of increased demand, as our population ages and health services become more complex and costly.
The key drivers of health costs are demographic trends, our ageing population and improved life expectancy, increase in preventable chronic health conditions, higher consumer expectations, advances in technology and workforce shortages.
The Northern Territory public health system currently consists of the Department of Health and a number of non-government organisations that are funded to provide public health services. The department provides the majority of public health services and undertakes the system manager role. The role of system manager is a requirement of the National Health Reform Agreement and entails responsibility for the overall development, management and performance of the public health system.
Health services are demand driven, and we have seen that demand continue to grow. The new service framework provides for the decentralisation of health service delivery which is consistent with national health reform requirements and contemporary practice. The framework provides for more efficient decision-making at the locations where health services are delivered, and allows for better connected and coordinated health services. The framework allows greater community ownership and engagement and will, ultimately, promote better health outcomes for patients.
To provide the legislative foundation for this new framework, the bill provides for the establishment of new entities known as Health Services. These entities will be statutory bodies that will represent the Territory, and they will be the principal providers of health services in the Northern Territory.
The Department of Health will continue to provide a small number of specialist public health services, and continue its current role of coordinating and funding non-government organisations to provide some services for the public health system, in addition to the role of system manager. The result will be a smaller department that will be refocused to provide a more traditional policy, system planning and governance role.
Each health service entity will be governed by a board of management that will be responsible for the governance and reporting to the system manager on the performance of the health service. The bill contains a list of the skills required for a person to be eligible for appointment to the membership of a health service board. On 5 July 2013, I announced the appointments to these health services boards.
A chief operating officer will administer the day-to-day operations of the health service. That person will work with the health service board and monitor the financial and administrative performance of the health service. The chief operating officer will have reporting relationships to its health service board and to the system manager to ensure the ongoing management and viability of the public health system. This type of dual reporting arrangement exists in other jurisdictions with similar arrangement for health service delivery.
Health service entities will be funded by the system manager via service delivery agreements. This is also a requirement of the National Health Reform Agreement. The service delivery agreements will entail the funding to be allocated to the health services, the types of services to be delivered and the standards and performance measures that will apply. The service delivery agreements will be negotiated with the system manager and the health service that will consult with its chief operating officer in this process.
Ultimate accountability for performance of the health system rests with the system manager. The bill establishes powers for the system manager to issue directives to a health service and conduct inquiries and audits into performance. This is to support a consistent and efficient approach in how health services are delivered in the Territory, and ensure the health service entities operate in an integrated way.
The bill also provides powers to the minister to issue directions to a health service. This is intended to provide clarity to a health service on Territory government policies and health system objectives, and to resolve urgent issues.
The new service framework will continue to operate within the Northern Territory public service. All staff will continue as employees of the Department of Health and will carry over all entitlements and conditions.
A significant planning process has been undertaken for the implementation of the new service framework. That process has included the involvement of an interagency reference group, contributions by the members of the future health service boards and management, Department of Health staff, non-government organisations and unions. I thank those stakeholders for their vital and very helpful contributions to this process.
The future for health services in the Northern Territory is bright, but we have come to a place where change must occur. The establishment of these new health services is an integral aspect of the new service framework. The reforms will provide greater control, efficiency, and responsiveness to the Northern Territory public health system, and continue this government’s agenda to provide healthcare within a strong health system, and support those who are most vulnerable in our community.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (BEVERAGE CONTAINERS AND PLASTIC BAGS)
LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 76)
LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 76)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act to address issues that have been identified during the first two years of operation of the Container Deposit Scheme. These amendments have been made to ensure effect is given to the original intent of the act by improving clarity and functionality of the existing provisions, and introducing new provisions where necessary. These include achieving improved efficiencies, increasing the ability for enforcement of the act, ensuring that collection depots are open to the public and ensuring that all Container Deposit Scheme participants establish their own contractual arrangements.
In order to meet the unrealistic time frame specified by the previous Labor government, the process of establishing the Container Deposit Scheme was rushed, which resulted in a problematic scheme that is not operating as the community, industry, or the government expected. I want it noted that this is no fault of the department staff who were working hard to get the scheme off the ground by the expedited start date enforced by the Labor government. I thank the department staff for their commitment and belief in the Container Deposit Scheme, and acknowledge their tireless efforts in trying to make the scheme work for the people of the Northern Territory.
The people of the Northern Territory have shown overwhelming support for the Container Deposit Scheme, demonstrated in 121 million containers that have been redeemed at collection depots in the first two years of the scheme’s operation. As such, the Territory government is committed to fixing the scheme and making it as efficient and accessible for Territorians as possible.
After two years of operation, it is apparent that the Container Deposit Scheme is not operating as was intended by the legislation. The previous government’s legacy has seen the closure of collection depots to the public, commercial disputes between participants, the public experiencing unacceptable waiting times at depots and a declaration by the Federal Court that components of the act were inconsistent with the Mutual Recognition Act 1992.
The amendments to the act I am presenting today will assist in improving efficiencies of the scheme’s operation and administration, and strengthen enforcement potential under the act. These amendments will remedy, as far as possible, the difficulties currently being experienced by Container Deposit Scheme participants, enhance the functionality of the scheme and improve the ease of access for the new participants to become involved.
Improving efficiencies within the Container Deposit Scheme will be the key to its success in the future. This will see simplified systems developed, a reduction in handling and sorting of containers and improved waiting times at collection depots. It will reduce costs for Container Deposit Scheme participants which, in turn, will make the process of negotiating a waste
management arrangement much easier.
This was originally envisaged as the role of the Container Deposit Scheme principles. They were developed to ensure effective waste management arrangements were negotiated but, in some circumstances, this has not occurred. Some approvals were based on a unilateral waste management arrangement which only broadly addressed the requirements of those principles. The critical components of the principles to be included in a waste management arrangement have now been incorporated into the bill. This will ensure they serve their intended purpose and facilitate the development of effective waste management arrangements.
One of the biggest challenges to creating an efficient scheme has been the requirement of Container Deposit Scheme coordinators on collection depots to sort out containers into approximately 24 categories based on brand type. The bill stipulates the coordinators must now accept containers from collection depots which have been sorted according to material type only. Collection depots will be required to establish a waste management arrangement with at least one coordinator. They can deal with that one, or more, coordinator for the handling of all materials.
To enable this to occur, Container Deposit Scheme coordinators must collectively come to arrangements to facilitate the acceptance of all containers by material type on behalf of each other. They must also establish arrangements for the payment of refunds and handling fees. In order to ensure this process is facilitated efficiently, waste management arrangements will need to be settled through arbitration if resolution has not been achieved within the designated time frame.
In order for the amendments to be effective, Container Deposit Scheme coordinators must first establish a coordinator arrangement to allow for the splitting of containers by depots by material type only. Until this is achieved, sections 20, 24C and 100 will not be commenced. Once a coordinator arrangement has been approved, splits by material type will then be able to take effect. Until this point, previous arrangements will remain in place.
To achieve the intended outcomes, all Container Deposit Scheme coordinators will be authorised to enter into specified waste management arrangements, even though the arrangements may be regarded as contravening Part IV of the Competition and Consumers Act 2010 (Cth).
Section 51 of the Competition and Consumers Act 2010 (Cth) provides certain exemptions to the restrictive trade practices provisions set out in Part IV. In accordance with section 51, the Northern Territory may exclude operations in relation to any arrangements entered into by the Container Deposit Scheme participants to give effect to the legislative amendments.
For the purpose of section 51 exception, a schedule to clause 11 of the bill has been developed detailing the authorised behaviours. This includes the sharing of information such as aggregated sales data, receipts for expended transport costs, payments received from selling products to market and evidence of the agreed handling fee being paid to a depot. This will allow the coordinators to work together to achieve a more efficient and effective Container Deposit Scheme.
Only those behaviours listed in the Schedule and in clause 11(2) will be authorised for the purposes of the Competition and Consumers Act 2010 (Cth). Coordinators will be required to continue to comply with the Competition and Consumers Act 2010 (Cth) in all other respects, ensuring this bill does not result in coordinators generally entering into agreements which will reduce competition and impact on Territorians.
The exception only applies to coordinators. Manufacturers and collection depots will be required to continue to comply with the Competition and Customers Act 2010 (Cth) in full.
This government has learnt from the failures of the Labor government. It has taken the time to get this right. While we can never be assured of preventing all legal action, we have sought advice from private sector Queen’s Counsel experienced in competition and consumer law during the drafting of the relevant components of the bill to reduce the potential for successful challenges. Queen’s Counsel has advised the proposed legislative amendments are expected to meet the requirements of authorisation under section 51(1)(d) of the Commonwealth Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
Another product of the rushed Labor scheme is the way in which original approvals were granted may have resulted in some less robust approvals being in place. This has created a degree of vulnerability in the ongoing administration of the scheme and has limited the ability to take regulatory action. To address this issue, the bill contains a new provision which specifies existing approvals are valid, despite any deficiencies in the granting of the approval. This new provision will enable the enforcement authority to take action against Container Deposit Scheme participants which are in breach of their approval, and allows current participants to continue their operation whilst working towards implementation of the new provisions.
A specific area the enforcement authority needs to take action on, but until now has been unable to, is the issue of collection depot opening hours. Despite contrary requirements and approvals, there are some operators accepting beverage containers through the commercial arrangements only. This is severely limiting the public’s access to the Container Deposit Scheme. The validation of approvals will allow action to be taken against these operators to enforce them to comply with the public opening hours as stipulated in their waste management arrangements and subsequent approvals, improving access to the scheme for the community. The draft bill specifically states a collection depot must be accessible and open to the general public on a consistent and regular basis.
The use of unilateral waste management arrangements has resulted in collection depots relying on section 20 of the act. Section 20 enables an operator to claim, as a debt from the relevant Container Deposit Scheme coordinator, the refund amounts paid for approved containers and any handling fees incurred. Section 20 was intended to provide protection for collection depot operators who may have incurred costs for the handling of containers. It was not intended to exist as an alternative to the participants negotiating formal waste management arrangements, as it does not allow a collection depot operator to claim, against a coordinator, an amount in the nature of profit.
As a result, disputes have arisen regarding the amount of the handling fee payable to the depot operator by some coordinators. By requiring collection depots to have a written waste management arrangement with a Container Deposit Scheme coordinator before an approval is granted, participants will be bound by these arrangements. This allows for collection depots to negotiate as high a handling fee as the market will allow, whilst having a contractual arrangement in place to enforce these provisions.
When new section 20 commences, it will be only relevant if there is a waste management arrangement between a collection depot and a coordinator. In the event a dispute does arise, participants are directed back to the dispute resolution process stipulated in their waste management arrangement. For those existing participants who are currently operating under the legislation, transitional provisions have been made under the legislation, which will allow any current proceedings to continue. These additions to the legislation will ensure all participants are on a level playing field.
The bill also contains some more minor amendments aimed at improving the scheme. First, the definition of ‘bulk quantity’ has been amended from 500 to 1500 containers. This will reduce the burden when large quantities of containers are returned to collection depots. Declarations will now only be required for people returning over 1500 containers. This has been done in consultation with South Australia.
Second, an amendment has been made to provide that an approval can be granted for a period less than the minimum five years currently legislated. This change has been made at the request of potential operators, and will give businesses the opportunity to enter the scheme for shorter periods or on a trial basis to ensure viability before making financial and infrastructure commitments.
Third, the bill contains a range of transitional provisions required to facilitate these changes, to enable sufficient time periods for a transition from the current system to the reformed system.
Finally, the bill transfers responsibility of the act from the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment to the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority, the NT EPA.
Moving forward, the NT EPA will be responsible for the administration of this act which had previously been delegated from the Chief Executive of Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, to a delegated officer of the NT EPA. This is consistent with the government’s commitment to an NT EPA with responsibility for management of waste and pollution matters in the Northern Territory.
The Container Deposit Scheme coordinators, depot operators, supply approval holders and other industry associations were consulted on an earlier draft of the bill. I thank those participants for taking the time to review that draft bill and providing feedback to the department which allowed it to improve the bill. I also thank those participants for staying with the scheme over the last two years, despite the difficulties they have experienced. Many of the changes made by this bill are as a direct result of the willingness of participants to provide open and frank feedback on the operation of the scheme.
A fine balance has been drawn to ensure the amendments address concerns raised by participants, while retaining the nature of the Container Deposit Scheme as an industry-run scheme.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (PRESUMPTION OF JOINT TRIALS) BILL
(Serial 75)
(Serial 75)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill makes amendments to the procedural provisions in the Criminal Code Act relating to joinder and severance of charges on an indictment.
Where an accused is charged on an indictment with multiple accounts of sexual offences involving multiple complainants, there are two possibilities in relation to the trial: (a) there will be separate trials in respect to each or some of the complainants; or (b) the charges relating to all complainants will be heard together in the same trial.
This bill introduces a presumption that trials for sexual offences where the accused is charged with multiple sexual offences will proceed together, even where the offences are alleged to have been committed against different persons.
Section 309 of the Criminal Code Act permits the joining of more than one charge on an indictment against an accused, if those charges are founded on the same facts or are, or form part of, a series of offences of the same or similar character.
Under section 341 of the Criminal Code Act, an accused can apply for the charges to be severed and tried separately where the accused may be prejudiced or embarrassed in their defence because they are charged with more than one offence on the same indictment, or for any other reason it is desirable for the charges to be tried separately.
Cases such as De Jesus v R (1996) 61 ALR, decided that the general rule in sexual offence cases is that where evidence of one complainant in relation to one count on an indictment is not cross-admissible, that is, it cannot be used as evidence to prove another charge on the indictment, the charges should be severed and separate trials ordered unless there are good reasons not to do so. This might arise in a case, for example, where two young girls who are friends are alleged to have been victims of a sexual assault by the same man in similar circumstances.
Cross-admissibility of evidence in multiple sexual assault cases is determined by reference to the rules relating to tendency and coincidence evidence in sections 97, 98 and 101 of the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act and similar acts in jurisdictions that have adopted the Uniform Evidence Act.
These rules determine whether evidence relating to an offence against one complainant can be used in respect of an offence against another complainant because the evidence shows a tendency of the accused to commit that type of offence, or because two or more events are similar, such as there would be no other innocent explanation for them other than the accused was guilty of the offences.
In a case involving a number of charges and more than one complainant, an accused might argue that separate trials should be ordered to prevent an injustice to the defendant because a jury might decide a case on the basis of a prejudiced view of the accused and, so, give rise to an unfair trial. There is a possibility of this where a jury hears evidence of an accused’s alleged sexual offending on more than one occasion. The trial judge may decide to disallow the evidence because, while it is probative, the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs its probative value. The result at common law would be separate trials for each of the counts of a sexual offence.
This bill reverses the common law presumption and, instead, introduces the presumption for joint trials, which is not to be rebutted only because the evidence of the complainants is not cross-admissible, nor because there is a possibility that the evidence is the result of a collusion between the complainants.
The bill arises out of a number of law reform reports. The Tasmanian Law Reform Institute 2012 report entitled Evidence Act 2001 Sections 97, 98 and 101 and Hoch’s Case: Admissibility of ‘Tendency’ and ‘Coincidence’ Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases with Multiple Complainants and the Australian Law Reform Commission 2010 report entitled Family Violence—A National Legal Response both recommended that criminal statutes should be amended to:
(a) establish a presumption that, when two or more charges for sexual offences are joined in the same indictment, those charges are to be tried together; and
a reduction in trauma to complainants (particularly children) in sexual assault cases because they will be required to give evidence and be cross-examined on fewer occasions if the charges are joined;
there may be a reduction in costs, a saving of time and a conservation of legal and judicial resources because there would be fewer trials;
in joint trials, juries will be provided with the full picture of circumstances and facts surrounding the allegations, rather than an artificial and individualised context to the alleged offending if the charges are tried separately
convictions for sexual offences are relatively difficult to obtain, and this is said to reflect the fact that sexual assaults are usually committed in private without corroborating evidence.
Of particular concern to this government is the easing of the burden on victims of sexual assault, particularly in the family violence context.
While there are provisions in the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act which are designed to make the giving of evidence for vulnerable witnesses easier, the need to testify on multiple occasions does not serve the interests of complainants, and can only serve to repeatedly traumatise them. This bill is intended to reduce the burden where possible.
A number of jurisdictions have already reversed the effect of the cases that require evidence of multiple complainants in sexual assault cases to be cross-admissible in order to join them in the same trial, including South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland. This bill is modelled on section 194 of the Victorian Criminal Procedure Act 2009 which provides that if two or more charges for sexual offences are joined in the same indictment, it is presumed they will be tried together. Section 194 also provides the presumption is not rebutted merely because the evidence is not cross-admissible.
Turning to specific provisions of the bill, clause 6 introduces the new presumption in new section 341A of the Criminal Code Act which is modelled on section 194 of the Victorian act. Like the Victorian act, new section 341A(2) states that the presumption of joint trials is not rebutted merely because evidence on one charge is not admissible on another charge. In addition, proposed new section 341A(2) provides that the presumption of joint trials is also not rebutted merely because there is a possibility that the evidence may be the result of collusion of suggestion.
The effect of new section 341A is that even if evidence in relation to one charge cannot be used in respect of another charge to show a tendency, the court can still keep the charges together in a joint trail because unfair prejudice to the defendant can be overcome by directions to the jury not to use the evidence in relation to one charge to decide whether the defendant is guilty of another charge.
Section 194 of the Victorian Criminal Procedure Act 2009 reflects the former section 372(3AA) of the now repealed Victorian Crimes Act. It has been in force in Victoria since 1997 and there is, therefore, a significant body of case law to assist in its interpretation and application in the Northern Territory.
The presumption does not indicate that all sexual offences charged on the same indictment should be heard together. The judge retains the discretion to decide whether the charges should be severed or whether adequate directions about the use of evidence for particular purposes can be given.
The Victorian cases, such as the Queen v Papamitrou (2004) 7 VR 375, have interpreted their section 194 to mean that judges must carefully consider whether severing the charges and ordering separate trials is necessary, even where a judge concluded that the evidence of two complainants is not cross-admissible, and whether adequate directions to the jury can be given. However, the cases also say that the judge should first determine whether the evidence is cross-admissible because that determination will still be a powerful influence in the exercise of the discretion to sever the charges, and the capacity to ensure a fair trial for the accused must always be the dominant consideration.
Clause 4 of the bill also amends section 309 to make it clear that, in the case of any doubt about the ability to join multi-complainant sex offence charges on indictment under section 309, that section does allow the joinder of multiple charges against an accused, even if they were committed against different persons.
Finally, it should also be noted that the issue of a presumption of joint trials and tendency and coincidence evidence is currently being considered by the National Uniform Evidence Working Group under the auspices of the now former Standing Council on Law and Justice. These issues arose out of a Tasmanian Law Reform Institute report which made a number of recommendations in relation to the law of tendency and coincidence, including that there should be a presumption along the lines of the Victorian presumption in section 194 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.
The Department of Attorney-General and Justice will continue to participate in that working group, and the government will consider the outcomes of any report when it is finalised. For now, this government is moving on the presumption of joint trials as a measure to support victims of sexual crimes.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and also table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Assistance for Nhulunbuy Businesses
Assistance for Nhulunbuy Businesses
Mr TOLLNER (Business): Madam Speaker, today I advise the House of the proactive work being done by the Department of Business to assist businesses in Nhulunbuy that are, or will be, affected by the curtailment of the refinery operations. This is part of the government’s overall effort to address the impact of Rio Tinto’s decision on the community.
I totally concur with the Chief Minister’s statements made to the Legislative Assembly on 11 February this year that while the decision to curtail the operation of the refinery in Nhulunbuy was not what we had planned, expected or, indeed, wanted, it was clearly a commercial decision by Rio Tinto made on the back of the myriad of adverse conditions Rio Tinto faced.
Rio Tinto has determined the refinery is no longer financially sustainable, given a range of factors, including changes to the global market for aluminium and the relatively high cost of production. We cannot change the decision, but we must work towards getting the best result for the people, community and businesses of Nhulunbuy and surrounding areas.
Yes, things will be different, everyone acknowledges that. But the question now is how we can position ourselves to create the best possible outcome under these trying circumstances.
The Chief Minister detailed in his statements last sittings the approach the government had taken in response to Rio Tinto’s decision.
The government established the Nhulunbuy Task Force to recommend ways to support the diversification of the local economy, monitor the progress of the current transition and consider long-term structural adjustment possibilities. The task force includes senior government officials, local community members and Rio Tinto, in addition to a community reference group, the Nhulunbuy Community Advisory Committee, to provide a mechanism for ongoing community engagement. These groups are vital in ensuring the government hears the views of local community members and provides a forum for Nhulunbuy locals to raise concerns and issues as the situation progresses.
The Chief Minister advised last sittings that the Territory government will continue to provide services to the region including vital health, education and police services.
One of the critical areas where the Giles government is assisting Nhulunbuy and its transition is in the area of business adjustment. As honourable members know, Nhulunbuy has a wide range of businesses delivering a suite of crucial services needed for the town, the East Arnhem region and beyond.
We have been working hard to help business, the community and others who need assistance the Department of Business can offer. When Rio Tinto’s announcement to curtail the refinery operation was made, a Darwin-based senior business liaison client manager from the department was already in Nhulunbuy. He and other officers have been on the ground ever since, working as part of the Northern Territory government response team. This has proved to be a crucial component of the government’s immediate action to respond to the curtailment of the refinery, and continues to be a critical component of our ongoing actions.
One of the first actions by the department was to enable the use of the department’s training centre to be the community’s support centre for delivery of not only government services, but Rio Tinto’s support services and for the Commonwealth government if they needed it, a central point of contact for all services to the community and businesses of Nhulunbuy. This is continuing and has proved to be a valuable form of support.
We are also working closely with and supporting the Chamber of Commerce in Nhulunbuy to ensure all businesses are aware of, and have access to, the support and programs available, including any Commonwealth government programs which may be of assistance.
I take this opportunity to announce the Territory government has provided a grant of $25 000 over two years to the Chamber of Commerce. The grant is to assist the chamber to maintain its presence in Nhulunbuy. The chamber’s cooperation and ability to be a conduit to provide advice to the department and the government is an important component of responding effectively to the challenges being faced by the business community.
The Department of Business, on behalf of the Territory government, is happy to play a role in these activities through the financial support we have provided. The Department of Business has been proactively focused on promoting and providing preferential access to its programs and any other NT government programs which could benefit Nhulunbuy businesses. This is to ensure those businesses can freely access, and benefit from, the government support being offered. We have also rotated staff from many areas of expertise from throughout the department through the township to ensure the full range of departmental services is available when needed.
We are referring to the overall assistance being provided as the Gove Business Assistance Package, as it is not only applicable to the Nhulunbuy business community but also to the surrounding region. So far, a total of 112 individual businesses in Nhulunbuy have been contacted by the department, and 31 of those businesses – which, when combined, employ some 271 people - have already signed on for business support programs valued at over $278 561. A further 33 businesses have indicated they are in the process of applying for the programs and the valuable support available, with others still considering the option. We are offering the services and businesses are taking the decision to accept the support.
The Business Growth suite of programs, as the name suggests, includes programs to enhance business operations and usually have modest but, essential, criteria that must be met before they are offered. Due to the circumstances in Nhulunbuy, we have introduced a level of flexibility in not only the criteria that must be met, but also the scope of work that can be included. Basically, an operating business in Nhulunbuy can access the Business Growth program to not only have a fresh set of eyes look at a business, as it is now, but have the option to look at feasibility scoping for future activities, including the potential for diversification and remodelling of business operations.
In addition, due to the nature and potential impact of Rio Tinto’s decision for the time being, the usual business co-contribution that would normally be applicable for Business Growth programs will be provided by Rio Tinto. This will enable Nhulunbuy-based businesses to take full advantage of the valuable support services now available, and enable the NT government to further extend the delivery of these programs and better meet business adjustment requirements.
The recent announcement by Rio Tinto to provide $50m over the next five years is a very welcome decision, and also provides a very solid base for businesses to refocus their operations in ways that were not possible before the curtailment of the refinery operations.
The Territory government will work with Rio Tinto and the Australian government to establish a new private sector entity that will manage surplus Rio Tinto housing and access a range of key company-owned commercial and industrial assets. These include Rio Tinto’s cargo wharf, warehouses and workshops. These assets will be made available for new economic activities and will help grow a robust and diverse economy for Nhulunbuy and the broader East Arnhem region.
The Territory government and the company have agreed to investigate options for establishing a new special purpose economic development entity to deliver on this. The entity’s five key functions will be:
to provide leadership that drives and coordinates new and existing economic activity in the region
to actively market and promote Nhulunbuy and the East Arnhem region to prospective residents
to attract and secure new investment for Nhulunbuy and the wider region
to facilitate the establishment of new industries and businesses and the expansion of existing business through the use of available assets, funding and advice on regulatory matters
to support Indigenous economic development; the strategy of using a business entity to pursue economic development goals is a well-established approach.
The entity will address the longer-term economic development needs of East Arnhem, equipped with a regional development fund. The fund can support private sector investment, facilitate the use of economically valuable assets and seed and foster new economic activity.
The Chief Minister recently committed $2m to the establishment of the Economic Development Entity and Regional Economic Development Fund. For example, the offer to make available surplus housing valued at $90m to attract new economic activities to the region will enable businesses to accommodate their employees in the town, and not have to stifle their growth because of the inability to secure accommodation for the skilled people they need to grow their business.
The creation of a Regional Economic Development Fund with a focus on building the capacity of Indigenous businesses, among other things, is a very welcome and positive step forward.
I have only mentioned a few of the positive steps forward this announcement has created which will help with expected business adjustments required in response to the curtailment of refinery operations by Rio Tinto, making such a deliberate commitment to making the future of Nhulunbuy, Gove and the East Arnhem area an ongoing and vibrant one.
Through the delivery of the Business Growth programs, there have been positive outcomes for some businesses already, including improvements in efficiency and reductions of costs achieved through updating management systems, and better utilisation of business resources which are already there and available.
Other businesses have identified new opportunities, both in Nhulunbuy and the surrounding area, with the potential to create a supply hub approach to servicing the needs of the East Arnhem area. As one Nhulunbuy business owner said of the value of participating in the process after going through a program:
- No one knows your business like you do, but to have fresh eyes come in without bias is really helpful.
To further assist businesses in Nhulunbuy, the department delivered an upskills workshop on 30 January this year titled ‘Position for the Transition’. The upskills program is aimed at delivering management training to business owners and managers to assist them in effectively running their businesses. The workshop had 28 people attend, with six individual businesses taking advantage of the post-workshop one-on-one coaching sessions with the consultant who delivered the workshop. The workshop addressed a wide range of business issues the businesses needed to consider, and was very well received by those who attended. It has also led to some follow-up advice and further use of our government’s programs.
Additional upskills workshops titled ‘Resilience in a Changing Environment’ and ‘Tendering Essentials’ are scheduled for March 2014, with a ‘Business Reporting and Cash Flow Management’ workshop also scheduled for April 2014. These are aimed at providing Nhulunbuy business owners and managers with more knowledge and skills to not only meet the demands of today, but continue to move forward in the future. Another workshop to assist retailers attract customers by using best practice customer service is also scheduled for April.
In addition to the Department of Business senior client manager being based in Nhulunbuy, we have had other specialised departmental business unit staff visiting the area. These include personnel specialising in community-based childcare centre business operations, tourism, Indigenous business development, licensing and workforce development.
In the case of the community-based childcare program, consultancies were approved for both the community-based childcare facility and the private sector childcare facility to assist them plan for the future. The initial round of support has been completed, and a further round of support for both centres is being planned to assist with the strategic and ongoing management of the centres to cope with the changes resulting from Rio Tinto’s curtailment action.
In the area of tourism, we have enabled the East Arnhem Tourism Association to upgrade its website and offered three businesses the kick-start digital activation program to get them online. A professional photo shoot of the region has also been conducted to assist in promoting the tourism operations and the region. In conjunction with Tourism NT, the Department of Business Indigenous Business Development Group has contributed to a new promotional campaign which has been developed under the title ‘Do Amazing – Do East Arnhem Land’, which specifically spotlights the region as another must-see destination in addition to Darwin, Darwin regional and Kakadu attractions in the Top End.
The Deputy Director of Licensing has met with representatives of incorporated associations to discuss possible pathways forward for clubs and associations in Nhulunbuy, with a view to the future and the expected outcome of the curtailment of the refinery operations. Although the incorporated associations are not businesses per se, they are an integral part of the community, and consideration of their future is a vital component of the future of the town.
A booth was also set up and manned by the Rio Tinto Community Careers Fair held in Nhulunbuy earlier this year as part of the Department of Business Workforce Development Division’s activities. As the Chief Minister advised in February, that event was attended by over 1000 people and businesses from both within Nhulunbuy, and others, including interstate companies.
Further specialised divisions set to visit Nhulunbuy include the ecoBiz NT program client manager to promote the value of improving businesses energy and environmental performance to enhance their bottom line.
As I have highlighted, the Department of Business has been very proactive in working with Nhulunbuy businesses and other entities to prepare for the future and make necessary adjustments to business models and plans now so as to make the transition to the business environment they will face as seamless as possible.
We will continue to work with the Northern Territory government response team and any Commonwealth government agencies or programs that may be applicable in Nhulunbuy to assist the business community prepare for the future. It is worth noting the Chief Minister recently advised the House that the Territory had been working closely with the Australian government on the issues raised by the Rio Tinto decision.
The Chief Minister has proposed to the Prime Minister that his government support the transition support package by making a real financial contribution. The Territory has requested $102m in funding for local roads construction to improve all-weather access. Improved access is a key enabler for economic growth in the East Arnhem region. In recognition of the importance of education, the Territory has also asked the Commonwealth for $14m in capital funding and a recurrent funding amount of $4.6m for a regional boarding facility in Nhulunbuy for Yolngu children of the East Arnhem region.
The Economic Development Entity and Regional Economic Development Fund mentioned earlier will require an Australian government contribution. We have asked the Prime Minister to commit $10m towards this work. To help kick-start the East Arnhem economy, the Chief Minister has sought an $8m contribution towards pre-competitive, pre-commercial mineral and gas geoscience research within the region. It is anticipated this investment will drive growth in future minerals and energy projects.
I take this opportunity to encourage all businesses in Nhulunbuy to examine and take advantage of the valuable services available now to assist them in facing the challenges of curtailment, and in securing a sound business future.
I fully support the Chief Minister’s statement to the Legislative Assembly and thank the Department of Business for playing an important role in assisting the transition of Nhulunbuy.
Madam Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for making the statement to the House this afternoon on what is the final sittings day of the March sittings.
What an extraordinary day it has been. It was extraordinary this morning to see, immediately after prayers as members sat down, three members of this House walk out. Three backbenchers of the CLP government, all bush members, made a clear statement that they are not happy with their side and that their side is in chaos by walking out of this House ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Digression from the topic.
Madam SPEAKER: No, there is no point of order. Member for Nhulunbuy, I warned members before about referencing people leaving the Chamber, so if you could refrain.
Ms WALKER: I daresay it will take a lot more than a few prayers for the chaotic, dysfunctional CLP government to find a solution to where they are currently. It is a debacle that we see on the other side …
Mr Tollner: What does this have to do with the Nhulunbuy business assistance package?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Ms WALKER: That debacle extends to what we see in Nhulunbuy, Minister for Business, an absolute debacle in Nhulunbuy. I would think today of all days, the last sitting day before a by-election in Blain in Palmerston, this would be the last opportunity for the CLP government to make a pitch to those voters, to spruik what only in their world they see as achievements. Instead, we got a statement about Nhulunbuy.
Do not get me wrong, I am delighted to hear a statement about Nhulunbuy and to have an opportunity to talk about Nhulunbuy and the depths of despair there, the incredible hardship the entire community is facing, thanks to the bungled efforts of this CLP government which has basically killed off the major industry there. I am very happy to be talking about Nhulunbuy.
However, the fact there is no other statement tells me a couple of things. One is the brains trust that makes up the strategy team on the fifth floor for the CLP is struggling with its strategy, and I am not surprised about that. Would that be the same group of strategists who thought it would be a good idea, at around 2 pm today, to e-mail to the entire public service a self-promoting video of the Chief Minister? Whoever thought that was a good idea has probably just been served their notice. I found it bordering on offensive, with the state of affairs of the CLP, to see a self-promoting video of the Chief Minister.
I guess we are talking about Nhulunbuy today because the government has nothing else to talk about. I cannot help but wonder, because they are so focused on themselves internally at the moment, struggling for their political survival, whether the ministers are on strike. Nobody is prepared to make a statement, but we know we can always rely on the good old member for Fong Lim. They will wheel him out every time when things are tough, because he has broad shoulders and does not care. ‘Yes, give it to me. I will do that. I will happily make a statement about Nhulunbuy’, a statement that was only circulated at 8 am this morning.
We know the CLP government is very sensitive about statements around Nhulunbuy. I had the audacity in the February sittings to circulate a statement about Nhulunbuy from the Chief Minister to a number of stakeholders, not the least of which was the Gove Community Advisory Committee. There was nothing on that statement that said, ‘Embargoed, not to be forwarded’, or ‘Confidential’. You would think if the Chief Minister wanted to deliver a statement in the House about Nhulunbuy and the great things they claim to be doing, he would be very happy to stand by that statement.
However, there was outrage that I had dared to circulate it to members of the Nhulunbuy community to ask them what their take was on the statement. We got a slap on the wrist. We did not receive any ministerial statements for the rest of those sittings until the following morning. Clearly they are not comfortable with the current statement from the Business minister about the efforts the Department of Business is making there. They were probably nervous that if they circulated it last night, that very naughty member for Nhulunbuy might have circulated it to some stakeholders.
They are not prepared to stand by what they put in their statements. They are anxious about what they are saying about Nhulunbuy because they know they are singularly responsible for the state Nhulunbuy and the wider region is in. They know that, so we get these puff pieces, these time fillers. The reality is there are no concrete plans, so they revert to these puff pieces. I find it an extraordinary state of affairs we find ourselves in today in this House, with what we witnessed this morning.
I acknowledge the hard work of the Northern Territory public servants who, despite the chaotic government they are working for, are making their very best efforts in Nhulunbuy. That is public servants from the Department of Business and Employment, Regional Development, and the Department of the Chief Minister. They are working hard, they are genuine and committed. But, they must be incredibly frustrated that things we are trying to get off the ground in Nhulunbuy too often seem to hit a brick wall.
The reality is that with so much of what the minister has talked about today, there is nothing new here. There is no new news. I wondered if there might have been a second draft of this statement because I had not read in my statement there was a $25 000 grant to the Chamber of Commerce. That is good, because the office of the Chamber of Commerce in East Arnhem has been closed for a few weeks. It is not really its fault. Their executive officer – fantastic woman that she is – is expecting her first baby. There is nobody in that office. Perhaps that assistance might have come a bit earlier. We have known for many months this lady was going on leave so there is currently no office of the Chamber of Commerce open and functioning in Nhulunbuy.
But we have the community support centre. I acknowledge government and Rio Tinto for establishing the community support centre. It is the place of many meetings. Many people who walk away from those meetings tell me how unsatisfying they are. We talk about all these great plans for businesses but, as business people tell me, if they do not have customers, there is no business consultant in the world who can come in with a fresh set of eyes, look at their business and provide advice as to how they might be doing things, or do things differently. If they do not have a customer base, then they do not have a business, and there is no consultant who can fix that.
What we need to see is the Northern Territory and the federal governments – which have been absolutely woeful – stepping up to the plate, putting in some hard yards and coughing up some cash, a bit more than we have seen to date. We know Rio Tinto has been carrying the majority of the load in what it has been prepared to do to assist the community, and I commend it for that. Is what it is offering sufficient? It depends who you ask, but it is, without a doubt, doing so much more than the Northern Territory and federal governments.
Here we are talking about the statement on business in Nhulunbuy and support for business. ‘Assistance to Nhulunbuy Businesses’ is the title of the statement. There is more than a degree of irony that we should be talking about business, because it is the CLP government and current Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, who are responsible for killing business in Nhulunbuy, when the Chief Minister reneged on the gas deal on 26 July 2013. Under Chief Minister Terry Mills, on 13 February 2013 we had a done deal. It had taken a few months, a lot of hard work, but Terry Mills had delivered gas to Gove.
The CLP was quick to capitalise on that announcement, and most of them were quick to get on a plane and come to Gove, take the slaps on the back and the congratulatory handshakes. Why would they not? Here is the front page of the Arafura Times. There is Terry Mills in the middle, there is the member for Brennan right there alongside him, thank you, and here is the member for Katherine, giving the good old thumbs up to say, ‘We have gas to Gove’. I do not think the Minister for Mines and Energy has been to Nhulunbuy since that photograph was taken, probably because he is way too embarrassed to stick his face out there. He talks up the mining and energy sector around the Northern Territory – good on him – yet he has, since that date, been silent about Nhulunbuy and the role the Northern Territory government had to play in seeing that gas deal killed off.
Rio Tinto, or Pacific Aluminium, thought it had a gas deal done. It threw a big party in March of last year, almost a year ago. It was a massive and very generously funded party. The company must have spent thousands, and it brought live entertainment to Nhulunbuy at Hindle Oval. The gods were smiling on us, as it did not rain. I swear the entire town was on our oval. The Minister for Infrastructure was there, he came to the party. He represented the Chief Minister. He was the only man in town who was wearing a tie that night, but that is okay, I am not criticising his dress sense. He represented the Chief Minister and was happy to accept the accolades and recognise a deal had been done. What happy times they were!
However, as we know, not long after that – not long at all – Chief Minister Terry Mills was on a trade mission to Japan, and while he was away somebody was doing the numbers against him. As he was on his way back from Japan, he got the word he had been rolled, knifed in the back and the member for Braitling was stepping up to the job of Chief Minister.
The member for Braitling, as the new Chief Minister, obviously had a different view of the world and whether or not gas should be supplied to Gove; it was not given away, it was a commercial deal that was done. The reality was the Northern Territory government, with its contract of gas, was the only entity in the Northern Territory or the country that was in a position to provide gas.
We went for a few months thinking that life was pretty good. We were very thankful to the CLP government. People who work there, people who have businesses, people who work for Rio Tinto, were all buoyed by the fact the future had been secured and things were looking pretty good. On the strength of that, people made significant decisions about their lives and livelihoods. The very businesses the CLP government and Rio Tinto are trying to support to help them to survive are the businesses that, with confidence delivered by the Northern Territory government’s ex-Chief Minister, reinvested in their businesses, refinanced and made a lot of decisions, only to find, on a public holiday on 26 July, that the current Chief Minister made an announcement and issued a media release to say, ‘Sorry, changed my mind. You cannot have 300 PJ of gas. I am offering you less. You can have 175 PJ of gas, and you can either find the rest of the gas yourself, or have a duel fuel option.’ That news dropped on Nhulunbuy like a bomb, and we are still recovering from that decision.
The minister said in his statement in reference to Rio Tinto that there was a myriad of adverse conditions. There certainly were! But, in February and March everything was looking fine, and in the space of a couple of months, things changed. What the CLP government has to recognise is it was very much a part of that myriad of adverse conditions, and that adversity was the announcement that was made on 26 July.
It rankled with me a bit when I read the first page of the statement where the minister said, ‘We cannot change that decision’. The CLP will not exert any pressure on Rio Tinto to change that decision, but it has to accept that decision made by Rio was entirely its responsibility. That change of decision was, without a doubt, triggered by the Chief Minister on 26 July, when he made that very adverse announcement, without the knowledge of Pacific Aluminium. I know for a fact Pacific Aluminum did not know on that day the Chief Minister would make that announcement.
That announcement has shown a government that is not in control. It is like hanging out the ‘not open for business’ sign. The impacts, as we all know now, have been incredibly significant to one of the largest regions in the Northern Territory, with the loss of 1100 jobs and $500m per annum to the Northern Territory economy. I will tell you how significant that loss is. By Treasury’s own figures, that is around 2% of gross state product in the Northern Territory. That ain’t nothing! That is a significant impost on the Territory’s economy. The figure Rio Tinto quoted in its media release when it was trying to struggle for survival and convince the CLP to support it with a gas deal was its spend, just through businesses in the Territory, is around $170m per annum, working with around 80 businesses. It is not just Nhulunbuy businesses, this is Territory businesses. The impact is not just about Nhulunbuy; the effects will be far-reaching into Darwin businesses and, as I said, bring a reduction of gross state product by 2%.
I look forward to hearing from a number of ministers opposite. I am sure they will be falling over themselves to contribute to this statement and talk about what they are doing in their area of responsibility to support Nhulunbuy to somehow survive. Nhulunbuy will survive. It will look very different; it will be a lot smaller. By our government’s own estimates, the population could reduce to as little as 1200 people – 1200 to 1800 people from a population of 4000. Apparently, the magic figure to be a viable population is 2000, with services and businesses that would support not just Nhulunbuy, but a much wider region in northeast Arnhem Land, home to around 15 000 or so people.
Will we be hearing from the Tourism minister today? He generally has quite a bit to talk about. He is the Tourism minister who, by the way, unless I am mistaken, in more than 18 months has not been to Nhulunbuy or visited the region. We welcomed the announcement a couple of months ago of $10 000 being put into tourism in northeast Arnhem Land to support packages for attracting visitors. Whilst we are grateful for any crumbs that might be thrown our way, including our little vibrant tourism sector, $10 000 is not much. $10 000 is very little.
I reckon the Chief Minister alone has spent close to double that just in charters in and out of Nhulunbuy. I do not think he travels on commercial aircraft, but I would say his charter flights would be in excess of $10 000 in and out of Nhulunbuy.
Let us not forget the $100 000 charter he jumped on to get back from Vietnam into Darwin when the Prime Minister was here, because it was not in his calendar that the Prime Minister was coming to Darwin. He would not want to miss a photo opportunity and a media conference with the Prime Minister, so we saw that shameful spend of $100 000 on a charter to get him here. I look forward to hearing from the Tourism minister about what he is doing for the region to promote tourism and help us stabilise the population and help build the economy.
I wonder if the Health minister might talk today? She might elaborate a little further on additional cuts she will be inflicting upon the region. I thought things were very fishy when things went quiet about the $13m upgrade flagged for Gove hospital. Then, I knew news was not good when the community support centre e-newsletter that comes around periodically from the Northern Territory government, spruiking what the CLP is thinking about doing, talking about doing, might be doing, or who they are writing to, to see if they will cough up a few dollars. In the detailed six pages of what they claimed to be doing and spending, nowhere was there any mention of the $13m upgrade provided by the former federal Labor government. The money was there.
Now we know, thanks to the Health minister answering a question in Question Time yesterday, they are reappraising it. They will reappraise it because she cannot justify spending that sort of money on a hospital that is 42 years old, even though there are not contemporary facilities in ED. Effectively, what she has said was they anticipate 50% of the presentations to Gove District Hospital are non-Indigenous people. The non-Indigenous people, presumably, are leaving town, and it is not worth spending $13m on upgrading the emergency department.
Not only does it not stack up, it is offensive to think the remaining population is not deserving of modern facilities. This is an acute medical facility which services the entire East Arnhem region. I have been a reasonably regular visitor to the ED - for those of us who have kids, it is where we go from time to time. I was there as recently as three weeks ago with a child with a very badly broken arm. The Chief Minister has talked up those projects like $13m for Gove Hospital. He guaranteed it on Gove FM; he not only guaranteed it, but said he would be fast-tracking it. Now, there is nothing, it is all going to one side now.
It looks like they will not be spending the $13m. No doubt, it will be redirected to one of the electorates of the three renegade bush members on that side. Is that the discussion going on upstairs on the fifth floor right now? Is it about the deals that will be done with renegade bush members? Good on them for standing up for their communities.
The CLP government is not interested in Nhulunbuy from a political perspective, because a Labor member holds the seat in this parliament and federally, so they rip out the $13m. Why not? The former Health minister already ripped $5m out of Gove hospital when he sent back to the federal government the money which had been earmarked for patient accommodation and those travelling in from the bush. He said it was not needed, because those places are only for long grassers and there is a pub in town where people can stay.
I am not feeling incredibly enamoured with the CLP government and all of its promises about what it will deliver. Perhaps the Health minister will stand up and talk about what else she will cut to save money, because they are not particularly interested in delivering and supporting Nhulunbuy services.
I wonder if the Education minister might rise to his feet. He could tell us about his visit there recently, who he spoke with and what people had to say. I thank the Education minister who, at a meeting at Nhulunbuy Primary School, said the local member for Nhulunbuy had been a strong advocate for the community during this difficult time. Thank you for the acknowledgement, minister, I am very grateful for it. Perhaps you might talk about the $40m the Chief Minister does not have, but four months into this sorry process, he wrote to the Prime Minister and requested $40m for a boarding facility. Perhaps our Education minister, when he gets to his feet to talk about this statement, might explain to us how we have a draft Indigenous education policy which has yet to go to Cabinet.
I imagine the submissions, which closed off last week, are being worked through. I hope you have seen the one from northeast Arnhem Land where people vehemently oppose the prospect of a boarding facility. I trust you take the recommendations of your own consultant who has drafted the review that these boarding facilities need to be trialled and they will only be successful where there has been extensive community consultation around them. I am a little confused. A number of my constituents are not only confused, but angry at the prospect that they are about to have the element of choice removed from their senior secondary schooling, whether they are on homelands, or perhaps in Yirrkala or Gapuwiyak, and they will have to come into Nhulunbuy to a boarding facility to complete their schooling. I do not know when this will happen. The Chief Minister has only just written to the Prime Minister, asking him for $40m on his wish list.
I hope I hear from the Housing minister in this debate. I have written to the Housing minister recently, asking what the plans are for this excess housing we will see in Nhulunbuy. One of the big problems over the years is we have had a critical shortage of housing. We will now have an excess of housing. We will have a glut of housing, with so many empty houses it will be a problem for the community. It is already on the radar of police as to how they will manage all of the vacant units of accommodation in Nhulunbuy.
While I heard the Business minister talk about the vacant houses that Rio Tinto will make available – $90m worth – to businesses so they can bring in employees and have affordable housing, I need the Business minister to explain how the adjustment will occur in our property market. There is a small private property market in Nhulunbuy, but there are many property owners who are very worried about the prospect of how they will ever sell or rent their property when Rio Tinto suddenly releases 250 houses at a rate that will obviously be cheaper. There must be this adjustment in the market. We look forward to hearing how that will roll out.
I have also made a couple of suggestions to the Housing minister. If one of the key things for the Gove Task Force in its terms of reference is to get stabilisation of population to this magic number of 2000, then we must keep as many people in town as possible, as well as attract new people into town. I have implored the Housing minister to look at our hard-working public servants who are there and now have security until the end of June, as opposed to the end of next week. You were a bit slow, minister, in coming out with that announcement, but it is better than nothing, that is for sure.
We need to revise the housing policy for public servants in the same way that Rio Tinto has built some flexibility into its housing policy, which is seeing many of its families staying until the end of the year. That is an added bonus. We need to find accommodation for those public servants – they may be AO3s or AO4s – who do not normally have an entitlement to housing. We need to keep them if we are to keep the services the government says it is keeping. However, we then see some things like our ED upgrade axed. We must keep those public servants in town. We are not short of housing. Many of these people live with family because they do not have a housing entitlement, and their families are leaving because they are Rio Tinto employees.
I would love to hear from the Housing minister what his plans are. We might have, for the first time, an opportunity for some genuinely committed seniors housing, and we might also have the opportunity, on our public housing waiting list, to …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Nhulunbuy has the longest waiting list in the whole of the Northern Territory, so I have asked the Housing minister to be flexible and look at what the opportunities are, with this excess housing now in Nhulunbuy, to provide social housing to eligible tenants. You can be waiting for 10 years on the public housing list. We know at Yirrkala and Gunyangara we have overcrowded houses. Here is a perfect opportunity to make some of those houses available to deal with that issue of having a glut of vacant houses, and to provide affordable accommodation to people who are in overcrowded settings.
I hope, in this debate, the Infrastructure minister will talk about his agency’s plans. Perhaps he might regale us with stories of the big party he went to in March of last year in Nhulunbuy, how wonderful the feeling was there among the community and the sense of relief and celebration that night. Perhaps the Infrastructure minister might share that story with us.
Perhaps he will tell us, as well, how he is progressing with the Chief Minister’s bid to get $440m to seal the Central Arnhem Road, a road that is on Aboriginal land trust; it is not a gazetted road. I trust he will acknowledge in that contribution about the Central Arnhem Road the significant spend that has been committed to and delivered upon by federal Labor, which has seen significant works, millions of dollars’ worth of works which must be in the vicinity of $25m. I see there was $6m for the Doindji crossing. These are all upgrades that were committed to and funded by Labor. They are not easy projects to deliver on Aboriginal land. There are significant consultations required with traditional owners – when you want to put a new bridge across the Mainoru River, which was done, the Goyder River, which is nearly done and then the Doindji Crossing – through their representative group, the Northern Land Council, as well as the AAPA around sacred and significant sites.
Those are the types of things members opposite talk about as being red tape. If they are genuine about ploughing through the red tape and getting things done and getting through these barriers, then I look forward to hearing from the Infrastructure minister about how he will deliver the $440m to seal the Central Arnhem Road.
I would love to hear from the Sports minister. When he is talking about Housing and Tourism, he could dip into his Sports portfolio as well. I wonder if he could, in his capacity as Sports minister and a member of Cabinet – it is not far off from budget being delivered, and he found $300 000 for the Alice Springs Golf Club – find $300 000 he could put towards the clubs and societies, not-for-profit and entirely volunteer driven organisations in Nhulunbuy. Rio Tinto, out of its $50m, flagged that $300 000 will be put to support our local clubs and societies.
The minister made a brief reference in his statement to the existence of these organisations. Whilst they are not really businesses, as he said, the reality is, most definitely, some of them are. Gove Country Golf Club is most definitely a business and one that is currently struggling. So $300 000 from Rio may sound a great deal of money, but it is not enough. We know on Groote Eylandt, BHP GEMCO contributes $400 000 a year to run that golf club. If the Sports minister can find $300 000 in his electorate for the Alice Springs Golf Club, then surely he can find that figure, not just for the Gove Country Golf Club, but all the clubs and societies in Nhulunbuy, to help them along. With a significantly reduced membership base, which is also a volunteer base, there is no doubt our vibrant clubs and organisations will struggle. Let us recognise, as well, quality of life in any community, the diversity of people’s lives and lifestyles in our townships, is reliant upon having these clubs and organisations. So, come on, Sports minister, cough up. See what you can do to match Rio Tinto’s $300 000 towards clubs and recreational organisations in the community of Nhulunbuy.
Perhaps in his wrap-up the Business minister can put on his Local Government minister’s hat and talk to us about what is happening around a pathway of normalisation in Nhulunbuy. I look forward to that. It is the word on everyone’s lips. There is a strong sense that Rio Tinto does not really want to be responsible for running a township, and if the Northern Territory and federal governments allow it to walk away from its lease obligations to produce alumina, then, heck, they will probably let it walk away from its obligations to provide services, including municipal services, for an entire township.
Rio Tinto flagged in a newsletter it issued following its media release about the $50m announcement last week that there is a number of strategies it will have in place. One of those strategies is about reviewing Nhulunbuy Corporation Ltd’s – which is the provider of municipal services – governance arrangements. That pricked up my ears, as it did a few people. I look forward to hearing from the Local Government minister about the talks he has been involved in with Rio Tinto and Nhulunbuy Corporation about ‘normalising’ Nhulunbuy and how the East Arnhem Regional Council might become the provider of municipal services.
We have Nhulunbuy Corporation because we are on a lease arrangement. This appears to be why both the Northern Territory and federal governments believe their responsibility for Nhulunbuy is not a priority and, in fact, is not their responsibility. ‘Sorry, you are on Aboriginal land. You are on a lease and, therefore, it is nothing to do with us, and let us just wipe our hands of it.’
Since the announcement on 29 November – and tomorrow marks the anniversary of four months – we have been living through this saga. For four months we have been waiting for a little more action and some business consultancies to be offered to people.
I do not accept that because we are on lease arrangements with Rio Tinto we are somehow precluded from receiving support. If we can see structural adjustment packages historically made available to regions or communities where there is a major downturn in the manufacturing sector and the major employer winds down, be it BHP’s Newcastle works in 1997 or, more recently Toyota, Ford, Holden and SPC Ardmona. At least with their announcement about closure they have three to four years, they get structural adjustment packages and they receive support from both levels of government.
We have ministers who leap on planes to get to these places and talk with the mayor or the managing director of the business. None of that has happened in Nhulunbuy. We have been abandoned, particularly by the federal government. There has been zero, zilch, nothing, not a single dollar out of the feds to date. Helpfully, they have issued phone numbers for Centrelink – how to go to Centrelink and apply for support. Following Senator Nigel Scullion’s visit a couple of weeks ago, which was really just a talkfest, an e-mail was circulated through the GCAC with information from the Australian Taxation Office for businesses. Included in that information was what you need to know if you are closing your business. That does not exactly instil confidence in the people of Nhulunbuy, least of all business owners.
One of the things talked about extensively is the need to build the population. A million ideas have come from the Gove Community Advisory Committee about how that might occur: let us move the Office of Northern Australia there, and let us deploy Defence people there. Even Nigel Scullion said maybe a call centre. Not one of those has eventuated and none will eventuate. So what is happening to stabilise the population, build a population and keep Nhulunbuy vibrant and viable?
Without a doubt, the Chief Minister needs to be doing more. ‘Giles must fight harder for Gove – Tourish’. That is from one of his own from the CLP side. It is from the minister’s handpicked business advisory council representative for Gove. He is simply not doing enough. As Mr Tourish said, he needs to show his face in Canberra. He needs to stop being a little boy, get on a plane and get to Canberra and fight for Nhulunbuy.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Legislative Assembly Report Regarding Members Travel and Payments for
Satellite and Mobile Phones
Legislative Assembly Report Regarding Members Travel and Payments for
Satellite and Mobile Phones
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a report to the Legislative Assembly regarding members travel at government expense and payments for each member for satellite and mobile telephones.
TABLED PAPERS
Northern Territory Environment
Protection Authority – Redback Copper Mine Environmental Quality Report
and
Recommendations on the Environmental Assessment and Regulation of Mine Sites
Northern Territory Environment
Protection Authority – Redback Copper Mine Environmental Quality Report
and
Recommendations on the Environmental Assessment and Regulation of Mine Sites
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table two documents from the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority, the NT EPA, that have arisen from the investigation into the Redbank copper mine located near the Northern Territory/Queensland border.
These documents have been provided to me by the Chair of the NT EPA, Dr Bill Freeland, under Part 3 of the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Act 2012. These are the first reports developed under this part by the new NT EPA, and I welcome the continuation of this important advisory function.
The first document I table is the Redbank Copper Mine – Environmental Quality Report. The report has been prepared by the NT EPA as a case study to aid understanding into the environmental impact legacy sites can cause and how legacy mining issues arise.
The Redbank copper mine commenced operation as an open cut mine in 1994. The project was considered to be short term and small scale, with limited potential for long-term environmental problems. It is now well known that the Redbank copper mine has caused, and continues to cause, significant damage to downstream waterways due to the flow of acidic metal-laden waters from the Redbank mine site.
The NT EPA has investigated the situation at the Redbank mine and its report provides a detailed insight into:
1. the history of the Redbank mine
2. the key regulatory assessments and approvals applied to the Redbank mine
3. the current environmental conditions of the areas impacted by the Redbank mine
4. the environmental, economic and regulatory causes of the current situation at the Redbank mine.
The report concludes the failure of mine operators to appropriately assess and manage environmental risks, including a failure to meet the requirements of regulatory approvals, is the primary cause of the environmental impacts downstream of the mine site.
The regulatory system in the early 1990s allowed mining to commence prior to an approved environmental management plan. Despite regulatory changes and improvements since then, the NT EPA finds regulators have not managed to hold operators to account or effectively address environmental risks. The report identified financial constraints and a lack of transparency and, therefore, accountability to the public and the market as contributing factors to the legacy issues arising from the Redbank mine.
The report has been used by the NT EPA to inform the second document I table, titled Recommendations on the Environmental Assessment and Regulation of Mine Sites. This advice from the NT EPA provides recommendations on improvements to legislation and processes, further investigations which could reduce the risk of future instances of inadequate management of mining operations and mine closure, and contributes to the appropriate management of legacy mine sites.
This government recognises the challenges posed by the significant number of legacy mines in the Northern Territory and the ongoing environmental impacts they are causing. We have taken strong action to address legacy mining issues through amendments to the Mining Management Act in 2013. Through these amendments, we have introduced a levy on mining securities to generate revenue to address legacy issues and establish a Legacy Mine Unit within the Department of Mines and Energy. If further measures could be taken to improve the management of legacy mine sites and reduce environmental risks in the future, I am very happy to consider them.
Consistent with my obligations under the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority Act, I will formally respond to the NT EPA over the coming months. I welcome these documents from the NT EPA and the valuable contribution they make to discourse on a challenging and complex problem.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, this evening I put out a big shout on behalf of the Northern Territory Environment Centre for a fundraiser it is holding at the wharf on 10 April 2014. You will need to get your tickets, as the fundraiser is for a great cause. It is to support the campaign against the proposed nuclear waste management facility at Muckaty Station. I encourage all members to get their tickets and get to the fundraiser. It is a very important court case coming up. The campaign has been running for seven years and we are in court, we hope, in June; that is the proposed date. It will be an important court case with a very important definition around use of Aboriginal land.
This has been enforced on the Northern Territory by the federal Liberal Coalition. There are tenders out to design this purpose-built facility, Australia’s first, and those tenders are focusing on Muckaty Station. The court case will challenge it and get a great determination for future land use agreements with traditional owners across the Northern Territory.
It is important this matter be discussed in a Territory perspective in relation to the by-election of Blain, because we have a dysfunctional CLP government. The events of the last two weeks have continually destabilised its governance process, and with the departure of the previous member for Blain, we will now have a by-election. This is a barometer for the Northern Territory in an electorate having its say, in public, making its determination about its newly elected community member. It is important that candidates define their position. I have not heard from the Country Liberal Party candidate for Blain. He should tell the people of Blain what his position is in relation to Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste management facility that will be imposed on the Territory at Muckaty Station.
The people of Blain are connected with this debate because Australia produces its own intermediate to high-level nuclear waste which will home here. With Muckaty as the site decided by the federal Liberal Coalition government, determined to push this through, have no doubt that waste will be arriving by ship to the Darwin port. From the Darwin port, naturally it will be unloaded on to trucks that will take it to a rail head. Then it will travel through Palmerston on its journey south to Muckaty Station. The good people of Blain will be the first in the Territory to receive this intermediate to high-level nuclear waste. In the government’s plan, regular shipments of nuclear waste will go past that electorate, through the city of Palmerston, then rattle down that rail all the way to the site on Muckaty Station.
The people opposed to this are those involved in the campaign, the traditional owners, thousands of Territorians who have rallied to the cause and, dare I say, tens of thousands of Australians who we know about and possibly hundreds of thousands who are also very concerned about this course of action.
The good people of Blain can raise this bar on the debate, and they will on 12 April in that by-election. They need to put to their candidates where they stand on Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste management facility planned for Muckaty Station. It would be good to hear other CLP members in this House determine their position, because they have gone very quiet on this. No doubt there is much happening and their members have had many robust discussions. They now need to come clean on their position about this proposed nuclear waste management facility.
We know the Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, and the Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim, are very keen on this plan. They have been pushing it not only in the Territory but also in Canberra. They are great supporters. They have this bizarre attitude that this will be a great income earner for the Northern Territory. That links in with their bigger agenda to take the world’s nuclear waste to Muckaty Station.
They have focused on this as an Indigenous economic development plan to generate significant income for the Northern Territory. Therefore, this facility, which was originally talked about as a facility for low-grade hospital waste, has clarity around it now. It is definitely not just about hospital-grade waste from the east coast. This is the real deal, the big picture. The Prime Minister is involved in this debate. It has expanded to a global prospective.
The good people of Blain can have their say on 12 April. They need to clear that position with any candidate who wants to represent them. I directly challenge the CLP candidate about where he stands on this issue. Does he stand with the Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, and the Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim? Does he stand fairly and squarely between those elected members in his support for Australia’s first nuclear waste management facility to be located at Muckaty Station? Does he stand confident to tell the electorate of Blain that those trucks and trains travelling through the electorate and the city of Palmerston will be safe and that this material coming off ships will be safe to handle? Let us face it, the rail has a critical incident record that is not exactly admirable. A number of critical incidents have occurred on the Stuart Highway in relation to the transportation of dangerous goods. Let us see what that aspiring new CLP member for Blain has to say on this subject.
Do not forget, get your tickets because we need the cash. It will be a good night, I am assured. They are a great crowd of passionate Australians. This is a huge issue. I also thank MauriceBlackburn and Associates, the legal firm handling the case. Its work in Tennant Creek and the Barkly with the traditional owners opposed to this project is sensational. It is a pleasure to work with such a highly professional and organised group.
I must thank the Beyond Nuclear Initiative, the Arid Lands Environment Centre from Central Australia, the NT Environment Centre, the Friends of the Earth and the Australian Conservation Foundation. These are influential people who have taken the people of the Barkly and Tennant Creek and, to a larger extent, the people of the Northern Territory, under their wing and guided a great, realistic, pragmatic campaign which is very sensitive to the Indigenous cultural issues around this very important debate for all Australians.
The event is on 10 April at the wharf. You can get your tickets from the Environment Centre. I look forward to the support of members, members’ families, Territorians and, most importantly, Australians because, let us face it, this debate is not about prime cattle country in the middle of the Barkly; this debate is about Australia embarking on its first purpose-built nuclear waste management facility.
Madam Speaker, we need to get that debate back to the drawing board, to the best practices of scientific principle, and start reinvigorating the debate with a call for a proper and safe, best practice disposal system for nuclear waste, not a cheap fix of storage sheds above the ground in prime Walmanpa country in the middle of the Northern Territory.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I update the Chamber on the roll-out of the government’s alcohol mandatory treatment system. In phase one of our program we have already seen some positive results. Our program is working to help Territorians change their lives. It is great to see people afflicted by alcoholism getting the rehabilitation they need to become healthier, safer and happier, and having the opportunity to reconnect with their families and their communities.
In one example, a 60-year-old man acknowledged that alcohol was a major factor in the loss of handing down stories within his community and a lack of respect amongst young people for elders who drink to excess. Regaining cultural awareness through this program was a key focus for this gentleman, so much so that he became a role model and a mentor to other clients and actively sought out activities to be involved in. At the completion of his mandatory treatment order, the client agreed to continue treatment in a community residential rehabilitation centre, where he continues to work and mentor other clients. As part of his rehabilitation he has gained employment as a gardener and handyman at the community-based residential rehab facility.
In another example, one female client had lived with her husband in the long grass for years and years. During the course of her treatment the client and her husband both agreed to return to their home in a dry remote community. Without the intervention of our program, it is likely that both husband and wife would have ended up back in the long grass. The woman is now accessing outreach alcohol rehab services within her community as a part of her aftercare program.
Another example is a female client who was diagnosed with terminal cancer whilst in our program and has returned to her community with the support of a palliative care outreach team to die with dignity. This client has now reconnected with family, who are supporting her in her final stages. Program staff also facilitated a visit to the prison to reunite her with her daughter, who she had not seen for three years. Had this woman not been picked up by our program, she most probably would have died alone in the long grass without the opportunity to see out her days around family and in her home, all because she was stuck in a cycle of problem drinking.
Today there has been another important step taken forward for alcohol mandatory treatment in the Northern Territory. Expressions of interest processes to expand AMT in Darwin and Tennant Creek have been released and are now open until 30 April. The expression of interest is calling for service operators to run the treatment service for clients under phase two of the alcohol mandatory treatment program in Darwin and Tennant Creek.
In Darwin, a 90-bed facility will be available at the old low-security unit at Berrimah for assessment and treatment services. In Tennant Creek, the EOI is calling for a service provider to operate a 12-bed treatment service at the NT government-owned alcohol and other drugs facility in the town. The Department of Health will operate a four-bed assessment service in the Tennant Creek Hospital.
The secure facilities at Berrimah and Tennant Creek will help address issues surrounding absconding. As of 18 March this year, 49 clients have absconded from the interim Darwin treatment facility the alcohol mandatory treatment began in July last year. In Alice Springs, 25 people have absconded from the Central Australia alcohol mandatory treatment facility. Approximately 70% of clients who have absconded have returned to complete their treatment under alcohol mandatory treatment.
Evidence shows us that multiple interactions with an alcohol rehabilitation system are often required to help people get off the grog. The fact people are returning and completing their alcohol mandatory treatment order after absconding demonstrates it is responsive to clients’ needs.
Madam Speaker, I thank all the people who have contributed to the success of our alcohol mandatory treatment program so far, including police, nurses, hospital staff, assessment clinicians, tribunal members and the treatment service providers. I look forward to providing more positive results to this Chamber as we expand alcohol mandatory treatment throughout the Northern Territory.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, it is extraordinary that we find ourselves in the adjournment debate before 4.30 pm on the last day of sittings for the March period. It shows the CLP government does not have too much to talk about and is not really interested in governing the Territory.
This afternoon I talk about my recent experience with a child – one of my children – who suffered quite a nasty fracture to his forearm three weeks ago on 10 March. I acknowledge a number of people and those from the Health department who supported us during what was quite a traumatic time. There is nothing worse than getting a phone call to say, ‘Your child has had an accident. Could you come to school and pick him up? We suspect he might have broken his wrist.’ I was thankful I was in Nhulunbuy. As members, we often travel away from our home, so I was pleased to be there within a matter of minutes.
I acknowledge Gove District Hospital and the care we received there. We were seen fairly promptly in the emergency department and confirmed, yes, it was a very nasty and unstable fracture. I could not speak more highly of the staff in ED and in X-ray; my thanks to all of them. Such was the nature of the fracture that the doctor looking after my son, having consulted with orthopaedic surgeons at Royal Darwin Hospital, made the decision that the best course of action was to medivac him to Darwin, so CareFlight was organised to transport us out of Nhulunbuy.
The accident happened at around midday. He had been in theatre that afternoon to try to manipulate the fracture, and at about 8.30 pm we were on the CareFlight plane to Darwin. I acknowledge our wonderful pilot, John Kennedy, and our nurse Amanda, whose last name I do not know, who were both wonderful. The care we received was incredible. The flight had to stop in Jabiru to pick up a very sick woman. That was not a problem for us. We were just pleased we were able to see another sick person transported to the Royal Darwin Hospital.
I also acknowledge St John Ambulance in Nhulunbuy, which provided transport from Gove District Hospital to Gove Airport, so we could get on to the medical evacuation flight. We landed in Jabiru and, then, eventually Darwin. I thank the ambulance crew who were on the tarmac in Darwin, who picked us up and transported us to the Royal Darwin Hospital; things were a little hazy. I think it was around midnight by the time we arrived at the Royal Darwin Hospital and were escorted through to the paediatric emergency department. There Patrick was examined, and his pain, which was considerable, was well-managed.
However, due to bed block at the Royal Darwin Hospital, which is a significant issue, we spent the night in the emergency department. What was uppermost in my mind was that my son was comfortable. He had a stretcher bed and was quite comfortable. I was reasonably comfortable sitting on a chair, and grateful for the blanket that was handed to me. However, come 2 am, I simply put the blanket on the floor and lay down so I could try to get a bit of sleep, knowing young Patrick was going into theatre next morning. I was very grateful to the nurse who, around 3 am, found something like a camper stretcher and brought it to me so I was a bit more comfortable in grabbing a couple of hours sleep.
In the morning he was transferred upstairs to theatre at about 9 am, where he was prepped and ready to go in to have work done on this poor old arm of his. Following his time in theatre, we were admitted into Ward 5B, and I thank the staff on Ward 5B who gave us the best care possible. I cannot speak highly enough of the nurses, as well as the nurses and doctors in the ED department.
There is a parallel story that goes with this. On that same day we were at Gove District Hospital in the ED department, my constituent and friend, Gurruwun Yunupingu, was also in the ED department. As I found out later, she had been medivaced to Darwin with CareFlight a few hours ahead of us. I was not aware of that until I received a phone call from Gurruwun who – if people do not recall who she is – is the widow of Dr Yunupingu. She was in our parliament in November, as we had a condolence motion to acknowledge, recognise and remember the amazing life her husband led and his contributions to the Territory. I am sure Ms Yunupingu, like me, does not expect any particular treatment because of who we are or what we do.
On that Monday, as I had raced home to pack a bag in order to get back to Gove District Hospital to be able to get on the CareFlight, I had a call from her. I was a little confused, I thought she was phoning me from Gove District Hospital because I had not realised she was being medivaced out. She said to me, ‘Lynne, I am phoning you because I do not know who else to call, but they cannot get me a bed and I am here in the emergency department’. I said to her, ‘That is terrible. Surely, there is a bed for you? Gove District Hospital cannot be that busy that they cannot find you a bed’.
She must have thought I was mad in my response, and perhaps my mind was a little full of other matters as well. However, when I was in the ambulance heading out of Nhulunbuy to Gove Airport with my son, I received a text message from her daughter Rhonda to say, ‘Lynne, please, Mum is in the ED department at the Royal Darwin. She is in a lot of pain …’ – I am sure she will not mind me saying, with appendicitis – ‘… and no one has seen her and she does not have a bed.’. While I was already tied up in my own affairs, I was mindful she was a very sick woman and understood she was sitting in the ED department.
The fact we have this issue of bed block and a backlog of patients waiting to be seen in ED is symptomatic of a government that is simply not investing enough money into the health services we need to see. In desperation, all I could think to do, sitting in that ambulance, was to forward on the text message to my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, to say, ‘Is there anyone you can contact who can provide some assistance for Gurruwun Yunupingu so she might be seen as she did not know where else to turn to?’
Thanks to the Leader of the Opposition – I do not know which channels she went through – Ms Yunupingu was taken to a cubicle and at least given a comfortable stretcher to lie on and she was, indeed, seen.
The circumstances of bed block and the lack of resources we see in our hospitals is not through a lack of professional care. We can have the best doctors and nurses in the world – and I believe we do – but if we do not have the resources for them to do their job, if we do not have the Palmerston hospital, which is now more years away than it might have been, then we will never resolve these issues of bed block.
I am pleased to say that my friend, Gurruwun Yunupingu, was admitted to RAPU and a few hours after my son had had his operation on his arm, she was seen to in theatre. I was disappointed, the following day, to find they were going to discharge her. She clearly was not ready to be discharged. I was visiting her and told her about the existence of a medi-hotel that was designed for people like her and others who were not well enough to travel. She was gobsmacked to hear this facility exists. Thankfully, a decision was made to keep her in RAPU a bit longer, an extra couple of days, because she certainly was not well enough to travel.
Madam Speaker, I place this anecdote on the record first and foremost to thank the wonderful staff in the Department of Health who provided assistance to me and Ms Yunupingu, but to also condemn our government for the underspend in health and the bed block that sees poor services for people who are sick and in need of attention.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016