2014-10-22
DEBATES – Wednesday 22 October 2014
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to visitors to the House. On the left we have members from the Ionian Club of Darwin. Welcome to Parliament House today.
I also advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 7 class from Taminmin College. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to the Taminmin students, because I know you are the brightest and best in the Northern Territory. I also welcome the accompanying staff, Carmel LeLay, Melody Mcardle and Christine Shaw. Welcome, and I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
MOTION
Establishment of Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that:
1. this parliament appoints a select committee named the Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise the draft Fuel Price Disclosure Bill prepared by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel dated 14 October 2014
The other matter the minister raised was that:
Mr Elferink: Perhaps I can guide the honourable member; the motion was tweaked, and that is what I advised you of earlier. That is now accurate in accordance with the bill you have. It is now something for you to consider during the gazettal process.
Mr WOOD: Okay. It is something I do not know much about, but I am sure after the committee has looked at this it will know about price motivator exemptions. I gained an idea when the minister gave his explanation of what it was about. It is not hounding – if you can put it that way – retailers to the point of, ‘We make a 1c profit now you have hounded us to death’, but about giving some flexibility. It is about trying to reduce, I presume …
Mr Elferink: If you do the right thing you do not have to report.
Mr WOOD: Yes, exorbitant profit-making. That will be debated, about what is a reasonable profit and what is not. There are places in the Territory with higher costs than other parts, and that would have to be taken into consideration.
As I said before, I thank the government for bringing forward a proposal to create a committee that will scrutinise the bill. There are other bills that occasionally come to this parliament – TIO would be a classic. If the government is seriously considering introducing legislation to sell TIO, it must go to the public. One way to go to the public is through a scrutiny committee. It is a necessity, where you could put the government’s proposals to the people, travel the length and breadth of the Northern Territory and discover what people think. That is a classic example of where a scrutiny committee would be an excellent idea, if the government wants to go down a fairly radical path of selling TIO. It could put its own perspective, and it would allow the public to put theirs as well.
In relation to setting up this committee, I will talk with the Clerk of Committees to get the ball rolling as quickly as possible. When that has happened, we will notify all members of the committee. There are plenty of committees meeting this week, but I am sure we will have time to arrange the first meeting so we can get the ball rolling, receive the information we need and give members time to think about that. The sooner we get this going the better, because there will be, unfortunately, a period when we are unable to meet, mainly in December/January. It is usually very difficult for people to meet then. If we can get this ball rolling as quickly as possible we can meet the deadline, which is April, and that would be good.
I look forward to working with all members, because they all have important contributions to make in ensuring this is a good bipartisan approach to something we are all affected by, especially Territorians out bush who pay a lot more. It affects them because many people out bush are not on big wages. I keep mentioning Bulman because I went through it recently. A few people work, but food costs in the store, etcetera, all contribute to a high cost of living in those communities. If we can contribute to try to reduce prices in those communities, as well as in the urban environment, we will be doing a good thing. Let us see what comes out of the committee.
I welcome the minister’s statement. We look forward to the results of this committee in the future.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 7 classes from Taminmin College. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome and hope you enjoy your visit to Parliament House.
Mr Wood: Say something nice about Taminmin.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Taminmin is one of the schools attended by children from my electorate. It is a very good school with a very good Chair of the school council. Kids also come from the members for Nelson and Goyder’s electorates. I am sure Madam Speaker – the member for Goyder – is very disappointed to not be in the chair at the moment.
Mr Wood: They have wonderful teachers too.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, there are wonderful teachers at Taminmin as well. I am reiterating the member for Nelson. Thank you kids, and I hope you enjoy your day.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I extend my welcome to the Taminmin College visitors too, as a former student of Taminmin High School, as it was called then.
Mr Wood: Look where you can end up.
Mr VOWLES: Yes, exactly. Welcome and enjoy your trip around Parliament House. I am sure you will be well behaved, as most Taminmin College students are at all times.
I support the motion. As a representative of NT Labor on the Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee, along with my colleague the member for Nightcliff, I will work hard with the rest of the members.
Territory Labor has always said, including in the media, we will support anything that lowers the cost of living for Territorians. We will support anything that lowers cost of living pain on our working mums and dads and all families in the Territory. We will support anything that does that, and I look forward to working with the rest of the committee. There is a good bunch of people on the committee, which is always a good start.
I look forward to many discussions on this topic with the member for Blain, but it is important it is not just a talkfest and that we achieve some real outcomes. When we talk about real outcomes it means scrutinising the bill, talking and listening to experts, listening to Territorians and consulting with the right people. The ultimate outcome will be lowering cost of living pressures on Territorians.
I cannot let the opportunity to lower the cost of living go by, because it is what the CLP government promised to do in its election commitments. They said, ‘We will lower the cost of living and make it easier for Territorians to live in the Territory’. So far registration, power, water and sewerage costs are up, and they are even charging our seniors, who we should be looking after, to get on a bus. When you promise to do something Territorians expect you to do it. They voted for you, we understand that, and after over two years in opposition we have heard the message; we are working hard to win back the trust of Territorians. When you promise to do something you must do it.
Cost of living pressures affect everybody. As the member for Fannie Bay said, he has to fill his car up, as do I and most of my colleagues, so we feel that pain. I have worked in community education positions throughout the Northern Territory and, as the member for Nelson said, once you get to remote parts of the Territory it is quite alarming what you have to pay. Yes, you are in some of the remotest parts of Australia, but the exorbitant prices we are paying are extraordinary.
We will give the government some credit; there is cheaper fuel at the moment. Territorians agree something had to be done; that has been in the media many times. Territorians have seen me at the markets on Sundays to say something should be done. This government promised to lower the cost of living, and has not. The cost of fuel is a few cents lower, which is easing some of the costs.
I look forward to being part of this committee, holding it to account and making sure we achieve some outcomes, as the member for Nightcliff does as well.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been working on fuel prices for a while.
The cost of living was the number one issue during my by-election campaign. It is something this government has made promises about and it is something we are determined to deliver on.
Cost of living pressures cover a range of issues. This government has already been addressing the housing issue by releasing land, making that available and working very hard. I commend the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment for the fantastic work he is doing in this area.
The final stages of Zuccoli were released in the last few days and being the member for Blain – Zuccoli is in Blain – I am very excited about that. I am very excited that our area will be at the forefront of easing those cost pressures relating to housing.
This debate is around petrol prices. Petrol is a very interesting market. We are talking about a product that is perfectly substitutional. In economic terms, we are looking at a suite of goods in diesel, unleaded and E10, products that vary almost not at all between fuel stations.
Individual fuel stations have an elastic demand curve, which means a price leader in that market is able to effect change due to big changes in volume. On the holistic market level it is inflexible; people need fuel.
The member for Johnston has just said he has to fill up his car, as we all do; it is a very expensive proposition. We bought a KIA Grand Carnival; we get about 300 km to the tank and it costs $100. It eats into our family’s’ income and what we are able to do in our free time. Going boating is a very expensive exercise due to this.
We see it effects the lifestyles of normal people, mums and dads in the street, but for the plumbers, electricians or air-conditioning mechanics who drive to people’s houses or other places to work – all of these are small businesses that rely on fuel. It is a significant cost in their business. As we put downward pressure on these prices we hope to see those businesses doing better because we have decreased their cost of production, but we would also like to see costs passed on to consumers come down. This bill is fantastic because it provides clarity.
That clarity – I see this through the work I have been doing in this area – is what is sorely missing. If I asked five people their opinion on how something works I would receive about seven responses. This tells me nobody I spoke to has a solid understanding of exactly how mechanisms work between the terminal gate price and where fuel is sold at a bowser. This bill is fantastic because it allows us, as a committee, to pull this apart and create a scenario where we have clarity around charges.
This bill also provides clarity to others, such as people who may want to come in as independents to compete in this market. If they have clarity around where hidden costs are within this, they can be innovative and come up with ways that will cost-save in these areas. That is a fantastic initiative because it will promote competition in a way that has not been available before.
There is an old saying that if you are making money, do not say anything, be real quiet and do not tell anybody. That is very much the case in this industry; this bill opens it up so competitors can come in, see where the barriers and issues are and be innovative, change things and see improvements in this market.
I am excited about this because speaking to people who work in civil engineering, civil and construction works, etcetera, those guys use a lot of fuel.
Where I used to work at East Arm Wharf, there were cranes that would take thousands of litres of fuel at a time. The burn rate on that fuel was huge. The ongoing effect of having a more transparent understanding of what is happening with the fuel price to drive competition means everything in the supply train, even at the port with products coming off there, things coming up on the rail, things coming up to Darwin and through the regions of the Northern Territory by road, rail and seagoing vessels – all of these things now have the potential to come down in price. I would expect those prices to be passed through to consumers at the end.
The Giles government will make inroads into keeping the promise to bring down the cost of living. It is fantastic to see the petrol price today is $1.57.9, given the TPG price that exists at the moment. That is fantastic, and we are seeing it eat into certain areas of the market that were unclear.
It is not necessarily the large decrease in oil price that is reflected here. We are seeing a more competitive attitude. Sometimes the threat of competition can be just as effective as competition, and we are starting to see the beginning of that – a fairer deal for the people of the Northern Territory. I am very happy to be part of the committee that will look at this issue to bring some clarity around it so we can achieve some firm results for the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I pick up on a couple things I am a little concerned about. Members opposite are playing pure politics in regard to bringing down prices and our government’s promise to deal with the cost of living. There is no doubt the cost of living in the Northern Territory is high, and has always been so. There are a number of reasons for this. Members opposite correctly point out that we ran on a cost of living policy last election, and we also ran on things like crime reduction. Crime reduction targets have been met and surpassed, even beyond our expectations, and we take great comfort from achieving those results. I only ask members opposite to trumpet those successful results as passionately as they trumpet what they see as the government’s failures.
There is misunderstanding in relation to what reducing the cost of living means, when you consider the cost of living pressures we have. Government’s role is to put downward pressure on the increasing cost of living, and we are trying to make sure housing prices grow in a sustained fashion. If we were to depress the price of housing by the wanton release of land in such a fashion as to create a glut in the market, it would automatically eat into people’s equities. Whilst housing would be cheaper for those people who moved into the housing place, you would have exposed many other people to living in an environment where they may not have sufficient equity to cover their home debt. The art of governance is the art of balance.
We measure cost of living reductions as CPI. If CPI in the Northern Territory drops to below zero, that would put downward pressure on wages. The risk of putting downward pressure on wages is that if you have borrowings from one of the major banks and, all of a sudden, the cost of living went into negative CPI, effectively a deflation in the local economy, the cost of money would creep up. National inflation rates would suddenly reduce a person’s income and effectively increase their debt. We are proud to put downward pressure on the cost of living. We had to make some tough decisions, but we are now starting to see the fruit of those decisions in things like housing prices and more recently in what this debate is about – a reduction in fuel prices.
I remember speaking to the head of the ACCC in Sydney about 10 or 11 months ago, and going through all these issues. Whilst the ACCC and the legislation is not prepared to discover collusion in the marketplace – because there is no evidence of collusive behaviour, therefore, there is no breach of Australian consumer law – it is clear that what is occurring in the Northern Territory is what one could describe as constructive collusion, in the sense where a court, through a process of equitable examination, could discover a constructive trust; by the conduct and behaviour of the participants in that trust, you can infer that one existed.
Whilst it is not complete through the requirements of Australian consumer laws, one almost gets the sense that a single price setter only has to put the fuel price they are charging at their service station on a very large board at the front. If every other participant in that fuel marketplace uses that board as a measure to determine what the fuel price will be at their service station, whilst there has been no collusion, such a system does not require it, as by looking to take advantage of a high fuel price it has, in effect, created a system of constructive collusion. Nobody has to say anything; all you must do is look at the board of your competitor. When you realise the price is that high and you set your prices, because the price is exorbitant you know any loss of trade coming through your driveway because you are setting a better price will be more than recovered in the profit margin between the terminal gate price and the retail price.
The last time I checked the terminal gate price in Darwin – I confess it was some time ago – was about 3c per litre higher than the terminal gate price in Sydney. What that consequently means is that fuel in Sydney travelled at the terminal gate price from the wholesaler to various retail markets. Their margins would then be between the terminal gate price and the retail price, which is where the profit margin and all other costs go. That was not a substantial amount in southern states.
In the Territory, however, it was many times greater than the terminal gate price here through the Vopak terminal. Vopak is merely a shed; all it does is hold fuel. It takes fuel in from Singapore. The order comes in, it is delivered to Vopak, a person collects their order and then it is delivered into the marketplace through the retail arm. The steps in the chain from there are the costs of transport and doing business.
I find it incredible, considering the very short distance between the terminal and fuel stations in Darwin, you would then incur an increase in retail price many times over that experienced in the Sydney marketplace. Whilst the terminal price in Darwin is only 3c higher than the terminal in Sydney, the retail price is sometimes about 25c or 26c higher than the retail price there.
The effect of that is something happening between the terminal and the retail market. That looks, for all the world, to be gouging. I understand – I am not entirely sure, but I think this is the sequence of events – Australian Fuel Distributors was overtaken by Archer, which was ultimately overtaken by Puma. When Archer purchased the Australian fuel distributorship in 2011 there was a sharp increase in prices. It was the issue of concern that came out of the fuel price summit. When retailers and Puma et al were asked to explain why there was such a profound and sudden leap to a new plateau of price, they were bereft of an answer. That becomes the smoking gun, and is what this legislation has been designed to address and what this committee is looking at.
Some of the urgency in relation to this bill has now ebbed because United, in particular, is starting to look like a competitive service station. If that is the case, we are comfortable having this bill looked at by the committee. However, make no mistake, if the behaviour we have seen from fuel companies becomes manifest between now and April, we will be more than happy to bring the bill in here early. I am sure the Chair of the committee and members opposite will be more than happy to bring that bill in early and breathe life into it as a law of the Northern Territory.
We make no bones and no apologies about being firm on this. We do not like interfering in the marketplace, but the marketplace also has a duty to behave in a certain fashion to the people it seeks to sell product to. This is why we have, in this country, consumer protection legislation; this is an extension of the concept of consumer protection. In other words, play nicely, play fair and play unhindered, otherwise government will take out a big stick and assure things happen in a fashion which reflects the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to.
NOMINATION FOR FUEL PRICE DISCLOSURE BILL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition nominates the members for Nightcliff and Johnston for the Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee.
The Assembly suspended.
MOTION
Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future – Change of Membership
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Drysdale be discharged from and the member for Arafura be appointed to the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that this parliament suspends standing orders pursuant to Standing Order 306 to allow a motion which:
1. rescinds the motion of Mr Wood, the member for Nelson, on 20 August 2014 under the Inquiries Act relating to political donations
2. replaces this motion with an alternative means of independently investigating political donations.
The motion passed by the House some weeks ago has been the matter of some negotiation between the office of the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson. Unfortunately, the motion passed by this House is effectively unworkable if you consider a 20-year backward look will not achieve anything other than creating a platform for anybody to allow any hearsay, if they so desire.
Firstly, we will deal with the motion to suspend standing orders, followed by the consequential motion resulting from the suspension.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this is a dark day for any government in the Northern Territory. They have moved in – after weeks of pretending there would be an inquiry into political donations, specifically referencing an investigation into Foundation 51 – two sitting days after a by-election with what I had warned about, because they are corrupt ...
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, withdraw that, please.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw, but we all know the election campaigns of those opposite – it will come to light despite your attempt to cover up today – have been funded through the CLP slush fund Foundation 51. Here you are, gathering your numbers in parliament to rescind a motion passed during the last sittings. If you had a problem with it you could have, in genuine and honest dialogue, dealt with it. If your problem is the time frame you could keep every other element of that motion and alter the time frame, but we all know Foundation 51 has operated as a slush fund for the CLP, funnelling money into CLP election campaigns.
There are members in this Chamber who have a conflict of interest in voting on this motion because they have been the recipients of funding. Those members who had Foundation 51 funds slushed into their campaigns should not vote on this motion.
On the member for Blain’s electoral return, there is $10 000 from Graeme Lewis. That is not from his private bank account, that is from Foundation 51, slushing through into the Blain campaign, but you will not allow an inquiry into political donations to get to the truth of that.
Last week I issued a media release about the CLP’s culture of cover-up. I condemned the CLP for its culture of corruption following leaked e-mails which suggest criminality at the highest levels of the party. There was no denial from the CLP or the government about what was contained in this media release.
In that release I referred to leaked e-mails between Foundation 51 director, Graeme Lewis, and then Chief Minister, Terry Mills, in late 2012 that show at least $200 000 was funnelled into the CLP election campaign via the party’s slush fund and never declared, as required by law.
A political donations inquiry would have found $200 000 to be the tip of the iceberg. The CLP has funnelled much more than $200 000 through its Foundation 51 slush fund into election campaigns.
In that release, I said:
I then quoted the relevant sections of the Northern Territory Electoral Act – sections 194 and 215. I went on to report that ABC had obtained an e-mail written by Foundation 51 director, Graeme Lewis, and sent to then Chief Minister, Terry Mills, and five other members of the CLP executive team, eight weeks after the CLP took government in 2012. Mr Lewis said:
It goes on to say:
These latest e-mails show there is a culture of corruption and criminality which appears to have been known and tolerated at the highest levels of the CLP. If that is how they run their party, is that how they run government? There was the dodgy $1m payment to Tiwi Resources Pty Ltd; the Chief Minister is refusing to answer any basic questions about that. Where is the $1m? What purpose was it paid for? The leases do not exist. Why has it not been paid back? Is there a $2.8m bank loan guarantee? Is this how you do business, because you accept corruption and criminality at your highest level?
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, withdraw that. A suspension of standing orders does not allow you to make accusations of that nature. Withdraw ‘corruption’, etcetera.
Ms LAWRIE: That has been used before in this Chamber, so I seek advice.
Madam SPEAKER: No. Withdraw, please.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw. It is disgraceful that Chief Minister Adam Giles has been consistently denying a direct link between Foundation 51 and the CLP, when it is inconceivable he did not know of it. It is already public knowledge that Foundation 51 director, Graeme Lewis, sent a draft Foundation 51 press release to Mr Giles on 11 May 2014 for his comment.
Is Adam Giles trying to distance himself from something he knows is illegal? Today we have a suspension of standing orders so you can cover up the activities of Foundation 51. It has been donating to the election campaigns of CLP members in this parliament.
This is extraordinary. In any other jurisdiction in our nation there would be an inquiry into this level of corrupt and criminal behaviour.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She is out of control.
Madam SPEAKER: The Opposition Leader is referencing an item, not a person. Continue, Opposition Leader.
Ms LAWRIE: In any other Australian jurisdiction there would be an inquiry into this level of corrupt and criminal behaviour. Yet in the Northern Territory the CLP government uses its numbers to overturn a motion from last sittings to ensure the corrupt and criminal behaviour of Foundation 51 and the CLP remains hidden.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, I have listened to what you have said. Foundation 51 is directly linked to individuals’ names, so I ask you to withdraw those statements and not direct them towards individuals, please.
Ms LAWRIE: I am not directing them towards individuals. Foundation 51 is an entity.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be very careful with your language, Opposition Leader.
Ms LAWRIE: I am, and I note your advice. Foundation 51 is an entity.
Ms Fyles: Dave’s back.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Fong Lim is back to create the required numbers for this suspension of standing orders to pass.
Madam SPEAKER: You know there is a convention that you do not refer to people being inside or outside the Chamber.
Ms LAWRIE: I know it is a convention.
Madam SPEAKER: Continue, please.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Fong Lim, who has been shrouded in disgrace, of course has a deep interest in making sure there is no inquiry into Foundation 51 and the political slush fund that washes through the CLP. Of course he has a deep interest in making sure he is that number to get you across the line in this suspension of standing orders motion.
The real issue is that the public will not have the opportunity to ensure the law is being, and understood to be, upheld in the Territory through an inquiry into political donations. We have not been consulted on which alternative pathway the government is suggesting.
Through the lunch period, there was an attempt to negotiate an alternative with the Independent member for Nelson. He can speak for himself, but a whitewashed cover-up through the Department of the Chief Minister screams of the politicisation of our public service. How outrageous! I have been calling on you, Chief Minister, to stand down Terry Mills, who you appointed, not Gary Barnes, as your ASEAN ambassador in Jakarta. Public emails show he was undertaking a directorial role in Foundation 51, and those e-mails show $200 000 was used for CLP election campaigns.
Allegations of criminal activity exist and have not been answered, yet you are okay with Terry Mills sitting in Jakarta on a $750 000 a year taxpayer-funded junket. In any other jurisdiction in Australia someone with that degree of accusation against them would be stood down. .
Senator Sinodinos has been stood down but, oh no, Terry Mills stays in Jakarta; you cannot afford to have him talk about what he knows because it exposes the CLP. This is such a disgraceful, abhorrent act by a government that knows no depth.
We have been held up to national shame by your actions and ability, and efforts to cover up. The Australian newspaper article headline said ‘No more she’ll be right’. It said that if the Territory wants to lead it needs to raise its standards of accountability. Today, we see those standards plummet to the depths of a suspension of standing orders to cover up the actions and activities of Foundation 51 and the CLP.
The government will beat its chest about the ALP, Harold Nelson Holdings and EMILY’s List. EMILY’s List is a not-for-profit organisation that promotes women into parliament. It is declared. Harold Nelson Holdings is a property trust; any support it provides to the ALP in elections is declared.
This is about covering up the Foundation 51 slush fund, which has never been declared on electoral returns. Even when you had the opportunity to declare properly after the Blain by-election, after questions had been asked, you still could not bring yourselves to do it, could you? Graeme Lewis, the individual, declared the $10 000 donation to the member for Blain, but not Foundation 51.
The stench surrounding the CLP will not go away. Territorians know you will not appoint an integrity commissioner because you have no integrity. You are using numbers in here to try to hide from an inquiry, but if you had done nothing wrong it would absolve you of these very serious allegations. If you had done nothing wrong, if there is no direct link between Foundation 51 and the CLP or if there had been no contributions from Foundation 51 to CLP campaigns, the inquiry would be something you would surely hold to clear your names. Everyone is talking about your scandalous slush fund and how it washes money into CLP campaigns and, against the law, is never declared.
People ask me, ‘If they are business donations, why did they not declare them as that?’ That is where you get to the heart of concerns around corruption. Which donations are not declared? Why would you not declare donations? Because you do not want connections to be known; you do not want it known what favours are occurring in government for people who have donated. That is why you would want to cover up a declaration. That is why the CLP set up Foundation 51 as a slush fund. There is nothing wrong with taking donations, but it must be declared on the electoral return, and Foundation 51 has not been declared. That is why there is a stench of corruption. That is why there must be an inquiry into political donations.
You can crunch your numbers all you like; we will continue to ask questions. We will continue to hold you to account for this despicable behaviour in the Chamber today. We will fight to win government in 2016 and will hold an independent inquiry against corruption.
Graeme Lewis – who has form with Carpentaria Holdings – if prima facie evidence is proven, faces gaol because he is the Director of Foundation 51.
We will pursue investigations into this through the Australian and Northern Territory Electoral Commissions. We will continue to gather evidence and we will put that to the police because, of course, the Police minister will not. The Chief Minister will not. We will not let this go because Territorians need to know government will act with integrity and not corruptly.
Today your actions scream of covering up corrupt and criminal behaviour. It is disgusting. The Territory deserves better than this and if you have nothing to hide you would not be rescinding a motion of parliament. This is truly a dark, abhorrent day for the Territory parliament, with you crunching numbers to rescind a motion to hold an inquiry into political donations. If you had nothing to hide you would happily allow that inquiry to occur. If your only issue is the time frame, negotiate a tighter time frame. No, your issue all along is that you cannot allow an inquiry into Foundation 51 because it has been the slush fund for CLP election campaigns.
It is criminal to not declare on an electoral return. Foundation 51 has not been declared. There is prima facie evidence through e-mails already in the public domain that Terry Mills was in a directorial role when he was Chief Minister. There is evidence in e-mails that Chief Minister Adam Giles was being asked to vet draft media releases from Foundation 51. If you click on the Foundation 51 link on the website the smiling face of Adam Giles pops up.
Your hands are all over Foundation 51, Chief Minister. They are dirty, like they are with the Tiwi Islands $1m payment funnelled and signed off by Gary Barnes, Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Chief Minister and paid under instruction from John Coleman of the Land Development Corporation. Any supposed inquiry by the Department of the Chief Minister is a whitewash. It is repugnant. Let the electoral commissions do their work unhindered by the interference of the Department of the Chief Minister.
Territorians ask how on earth we can have a Chief Minister who co-owns shares in a racehorse with the CEO of his department. Territorians ask why the Chief Minister is being followed around different venues by the CEO of his department. What happened to the separation of powers? Through your actions you have tainted that critical role of separation. That is disgraceful.
The e-mail trail shows at least $200 000 was slushed through Foundation 51 into the CLP election campaign. They are the facts. You are happy to hang other people out to dry because you know if an inquiry is held into political donations and Foundation 51 your hands, Chief Minister, will be all over it. This is vile. If you had nothing to hide you would not be taking the actions you are today.
We have all been led to believe, since the motion passed last sittings, there would be an inquiry as per the established terms of reference. We sought advice, Madam Speaker, from your staff, and thank you for access to the clerks. We sought advice through you, Madam Speaker, from the Solicitor-General. The advice was very clear. The terms of reference could not be altered because they were established according to the motion of parliament.
If there was any decency, honesty or integrity within the CLP government it would have come to the opposition, the Independent member and members of the Palmer United Party and said, ‘We have a problem with the time frame. Can we shorten it?’ That did not happen. There is no decency and integrity among you. It is little wonder you do not want an integrity commissioner.
We have said all along that we are happy to be put under scrutiny because the ALP, through its election returns, acknowledges any contribution from Harold Nelson Holdings, which is a property trust, not a pretend research front which funnels donations from business into a slush fund. They are completely different entities. We are happy to be held up to scrutiny, but you could not allow Foundation 51 to be scrutinised.
The stench is strong. The stench of corruption and criminality exists, and it settles like a dark blanket across all members of the CLP in this parliament, unless one of you has the personal integrity and decency to vote against this motion to suspend standing orders.
I call you out, members for Port Darwin and Drysdale; I will not bother calling you out, member for Braitling. I call you out, members for Sanderson and Stuart. Member for Brennan, will you show any decency or integrity? Member for Araluen, member for Daly – member for Arafura, do not be a part of this. I know you had your own conversations in the corridor about whether or not $35 000 from Foundation 51 was funnelled into your Arafura campaign. Let that be cleared up by an inquiry, member for Arafura. I am calling you out to do the honest and decent thing here.
I will not bother with you, member for Greatorex. Member for Katherine, I am calling you out; this is your chance to show leadership. Member for Blain – I will not bother with you, member for Fong Lim, as your hands are all over this too.
Madam Speaker, I know you have indicated in the past that you will not support a suspension of standing orders to overturn a motion of parliament, and I hope that remains the case today.
Each of you is responsible because we will divide on this. Your names will be against this, and in the future, under a Labor government, you will be called and held to account.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I did not intend to talk about the suspension of standing orders, but I listened to the drivel that came from the Leader of the Opposition with her insinuations and accusations.
We all know Foundation 51 is a company that is separate from government. We all know the party is separate from government. We all know Harold Nelson Holdings is a fundraising organisation for the Labor Party that is called a property organisation. It is the body that was to take money out of Stella Maris and funnel it into the Labor Party. It also takes money from the unions.
We know all that. We know over the last two days and the two years preceding that you come in here with all your allegations, lies and misrepresentations …
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, withdraw ‘lies’ please.
Mr GILES: I withdraw. The member for Johnston is the classic person for making things up in this Chamber, as is the Opposition Leader. I have a challenge for you; go outside coward’s castle and make every one of those accusations in public.
Ms Lawrie: I will, again and again.
Mr GILES: I challenge you to go outside and re-read Hansard. If you do not have the guts to read Hansard outside and make those claims public, you are simply grandstanding in coward’s castle. You do not have the gumption to say it publicly because you know it is simply not true.
Allegations of this nature are easy to make in here. We can all make things up, but when you say them outside is when you start to get the ticker and are prepared to stand by your comments through legal proceedings. You will not do that. You have never done it. You are a coward, and I challenge you today.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, withdraw that please.
Ms Walker: You are the coward.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62.
Madam SPEAKER: I have asked the Chief Minister to withdraw that, please.
Mr GILES: Withdraw what?
Madam SPEAKER: Reference to the members.
Mr GILES: Will the member for Nhulunbuy withdraw too?
Madam SPEAKER: She will be withdrawing too.
Mr GILES: I withdraw, and I will say you are …
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause. Withdraw too, please, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: I withdraw.
Mr GILES: You are a person with no shame and no dignity. If you are not prepared to say any of these things outside everything will be untrue, because the only way we know you are lying is when your lips are moving. Say it outside; it is a challenge, test your leadership. Get out there and say it and do not be a coward.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, let me try to make sense of this suspension of standing orders. If the Chief Minister will not allow an inquiry, what about a blood pressure test? The member for Fong Lim is the coolest of the bunch, so he can leave the room. But let us hold a blood pressure test, because I am trying to work out what is going on here.
A motion was brought to this House by an Independent member. He sits independent of both sides; it made a lot of sense because there were serious allegations resounding in the community. They tended to resonate through the New South Wales Liberal Party, and there were smatterings in Victoria. There were all sorts of inquiries, and suddenly it emerged in the Northern Territory. An Independent member of this House brought in …
Mr Giles: Will you talk about Gerry Obeid?
Mr McCARTHY: Oh, do not worry, we will deal with you later jugga.
An Independent member of this House brought forward a motion, which was to hold an inquiry and sort this out. It was to be an inquiry into both sides, which was a good idea. I have fessed up to everything that has been asked of me since being an MLA. I created a parliamentarians’ declared register of interests. I declare any donations to my election campaigns; I do whatever is asked of me. I have been asked many difficult things and I have participated fully. I have always fessed up, so the independent motion was a great idea, and it would be good for the Northern Territory to clear up this issue.
As this progressed I noticed there was a bit of a lapse on the other side, maybe it was meals, coffee or hospitality, but there was an absence of ministers in this room. This very important motion was in progress and the debate was very interesting, but I wondered why the government was not interested. It reached the point where we had to make the decision, and it passed.
I love people I learn from, and the professor of parliamentology, the member for Port Darwin, came roaring back in through that gate with an amazing twist on parliamentary process that I had not witnessed before. The process was to shut it down, gag it and get rid of it, so, being a human being, I was suspicious. My suspicion has increased each time this issue has been raised. Constituents ask me questions, which I try to answer to the best of my knowledge. However, I have said, ‘Let us hold an inquiry’, because inquiries can deliver the results the constituency needs. The member for Port Darwin started alarm bells ringing for me, and I wondered if this learned gentleman who intimately understands these processes was worried about something.
The process continued and democracy prevailed. The motion passed; it is very clear in its terms of reference, but we are suddenly back here again, with it being knocked out. The Leader of the Opposition has summarised the debate by asking what the government has to hide. It is as simple as that. There is not much more in the debate.
Let us talk about the Chief Minister. Some in the media would call him the best performer in the Country Liberal Party, therefore he is the Chief Minister. I happen to know there is a 12-month gaol sentence attached to anybody who does not declare details to the electoral commission that are set out very clearly in the statutory authority that controls this process in the Northern Territory. You would not want to muck around with that stuff because you may go to gaol for 12 months.
This Chief Minister just gave us an example of that leadership; I can see everybody is convinced and following him. You are all following him down the path to righteousness because the Chief Minister said there is nothing to declare. ‘I have no concerns about this at all’, he said. There is a memory and a future. There is possibly another government – currently the opposition – with a policy to implement an independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory. It does not matter how far you want to go down the road, this matter will be investigated. It does not matter if you shut it down today, whether you live in Alice Springs, out bush or wherever you live; this matter will be investigated.
One of these days you will tell the story, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I would like to see the member for Braitling fess up first because he is the one telling you it is all cool and not to worry about it; he is saying it is all good. I would not be so confident. There is a chance to fess up during this parliamentary process. Do not vote for this. If you have any concerns or doubts whatsoever, then do not vote for it. It is as simple as that; the inquiry can continue.
Whatever you have been told with the semantics around ‘alternative means of independently investigating’ – what a crock! A semantic crock is being conjured up to make you guys believe you will never be discovered. That is if there is nothing to worry about. If there is something to worry about, we will do a blood pressure test in the room now and we might be able to hold a division on blood pressure. I am sure there are those opposite who are extremely concerned they may not be being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth by the Chief Minister.
I would be very concerned because, essentially, this inquiry will allow investigation into everybody. The Labor Party and I will be investigated – the Independents and the Palmer United Party, we are all in this together. Unfortunately, one side has something to hide. By coming into this House and conducting this circus of parliamentary procedure – an attack on democracy in the Northern Territory – somebody has something to hide. If you are not fully informed of what is being hidden, then you are vulnerable. You are also liable. One of these days down the track, it will come out. It will play on your mind and do your head in.
I am now trying to fathom the next chapter in this exercise, when it was perfectly logical, represented democracy and travelled through this House as part of the process. You guys were caught napping as a government that was not on the job and not, in the Chief Minister’s words, hands on. Hands were well and truly off the wheel that day. You tried to scuttle it then. The member for Port Darwin, who is a very diligent member in regard to parliamentary process, tried to scuttle it and is now appearing as the major defence lawyer. He is normally more competent in the prosecution role, but I am sure he will turn his hand to any side of legal procedures.
Do you trust your defence lawyer? Do you believe what he said? Has he said you will never be caught? Did he ever use words like that? ‘It is okay, you will never be caught.’ Did anybody say, ‘If anybody is caught the Chief Minister will go down’? What has been said? This is one time in my life I am glad I am not on your team.
Mr Chandler: Is this the only time?
Mr McCARTHY: ‘Is this the only time?’ When I want to deliver major reforms in education, lands and planning, the arts and primary industry I wish I was on your side, but I am on this side. Member for Brennan, I have a serious plan to be back on that side; as soon as I get back there I will make sure we follow through with a policy to implement an independent commission against corruption. We will then see the John Laws of the world really appear.
Your big performer over there has everybody under control. If you believe there is nothing to hide and it is all good then vote against this and let us hold the inquiry with the original terms of reference. It is as simple as that.
We are in this together, ladies and gentlemen, so let democracy preside and let us hold the inquiry into all dimensions of politics in the Northern Territory. Let us clear the air so constituents do not paint us all as that negative political figure. We cop enough criticism as politicians. You guys are now dragging everybody through the mud. There must be something so serious behind this action for the terms of reference of this inquiry to never be made public. I guarantee you, member for Braitling, I have a long memory and they will be made public one of these days.
Let us settle it now. Vote against this and let us go back to the original democratic process passed in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, naturally I do not support this motion. I wonder if I have been taken for a fool; I have been taken for a big ride by this government and Chief Minister. I trusted the Chief Minister would go down the path this House said it would and hold an inquiry. All we have today is a mention of one clause in the motion from the member for Port Darwin, which says they thought the clause about all donations to political parties and Independents in the NT over the last 20 years was impractical.
All that needed was a motion in parliament to change it slightly so we could have perhaps taken a sample of donations over the last 20 years. It was not enough, and that is what is so shallow about this. That is just a smokescreen for a government trying to hide from public scrutiny, which is what the inquiry was about.
I trusted you, Chief Minister, but I have been taken for a ride; you needed the numbers, but then the member for Arafura shifted sides. I trusted you when I sent you an e-mail two days before the by-election, asking if there was any problem with me saying, ‘The Chief Minister and I support the inquiry’ if asked by the media, and the details were still to be worked on, but it would happen. That was presuming we were talking about the inquiry passed in this Assembly. I received no answer because if people voting in the Casuarina by-election had known what we know today you would have received a flogging. You would be seen to be hiding the truth.
The truth could be there is nothing wrong with Foundation 51. I do not have the foggiest about Foundation 51; I do not have anything to do with it. The idea behind this inquiry is to have an independent person, through the Inquiries Act and at arm’s length from government, opposition Independents and PUP, tell people whether there was any form of improper behaviour by any of the parties in relation to political donations. Can anyone on the government side tell me what is wrong with that?
This now looks like a big cover-up and like there is something wrong on your side. This would not have been a difficult inquiry; this would have been a relatively straightforward investigation. It was dealing with legislation, which would not have been difficult to look at.
It would have looked at various bodies that belong to political parties to see whether they had done the right thing; you could have worked in with the AEC and NTEC. It was also to look at whether government’s policies, both Labor and CLP, were affected by political donations over a period of time. The 20-year figure was picked to be fair to both parties. If we had said 10 years that would have been all during Labor’s time in government, and the CLP would have gotten away scot-free from being looked at. That was the reason we picked 20 years.
If all donations had to be looked at, it might have been a bit over the top, and we could have changed that with a couple of words. Instead we will throw the whole thing out and replace it with a puff piece – if I might use a saying that one of the government members uses often – a featherweight motion that will be put before parliament. It will look good for some, but will not get to the bottom of what we are trying to do.
I am not the perfect person; I make mistakes in life, but I try to trust people, and I have come a cruncher many times doing that. I hope I never move away from trusting that what someone says to me will happen. I trusted you, Chief Minister; I believed we would go ahead with this. Why did you not tell me about this ages ago? Why did we have to wait until after the by-election? That is what smells; I was not worthy of your trust. I ask other members of this parliament not to support this.
Why do we not have a conscience vote on this matter? It is getting down to integrity; it is getting down to whether you believe our political system is tainted by corruption through political donations. Your silence on this, by disbanding the original motion, says you have something to hide. As I said before, I do not know if there is anything wrong with what you have done. Accusations always come from the opposition. If you were in opposition you would be going crook at the government for the same thing. Those accusations need to be tested, and the way to do that is through an inquiry under the Inquiries Act.
The government wants to hold its own inquiry and run it through the Department of the Chief Minister. As I have said before, that will not go over well with the public because they will see politicians looking at themselves. It must be at arm’s length from us if it is to have any inkling of being independent of members of parliament.
I was staggered when I received this paper at about 1.15 pm today. I did not believe the government would go down this path. I believed the government would do what I thought was the right thing; I have been led up the garden path, and that makes me wonder as to the use of me being here. A few of you might say, ‘Good, go’.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: The member for Fong Lim laughs and chuckles. I can live with that through most of my life, but this not frivolous, it is a serious matter
People will now judge your party on whether you are fair dinkum about good governance. We have many other issues to discuss, such as TIO. We have some great issues to discuss about biodiversity, the mosaic virus and banana freckle. These are important issues for the economy that must be looked at. We have issues with education, health and education in remote areas. We have issues with roads and infrastructure, the economy in the bush, etcetera, but if the government driving that is tainted by the smell of corruption …
Mr Conlan interjecting
Mr WOOD: The member for Greatorex laughs. He is laughing because he does not understand that this inquiry could clear it all up if there is no problem.
Mr Conlan: They do not want it either, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: I do not care what either side says. I, as the Independent member, put this motion forward and it was passed by the House. Whether some people were asleep on that side is irrelevant; it was passed, and here it is in black and white. By not passing this, you will be seen to be hiding something. You are turning your nose up at this Legislative Assembly, which passed something fair and square that you could not take.
When you are on this side of parliament you have to put up with a lot, because you never win. When you achieve a win, the other side jumps up and down, kicks and screams and finds a way to get around it by not telling people before a by-election that they are getting rid of it. They did not tell me I was being led up the garden path, but by getting rid of it today – the people of Casuarina did not know this was to happen, and the people of the Northern Territory will feel they have been let down by the government.
This suspension of standing orders motion is a farce. It is purely to put forward a new motion, which will not do the government any good because it will be seen as soft. A new motion will be seen as under the administration of the government, so not at arm’s length. As I said before, I have been taken for a ride. I am extremely disappointed, and the way I feel at the moment I am not sure I can be bothered staying here for the rest of this debate. I will see what comes up in the second part of the motion today.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, what a bloody disgrace this is. A motion passed, parliamentary process was followed and now, with the numbers, the government will ram a new motion through and change it. As a politician, I am sad to be part of this. The member for Nelson put the process in place, it was voted on and passed and we are all part of this. I ask every person in here, especially on that side of the House, why are you here? Are you here to represent yourselves or the people who voted you in? That is what we are supposed to be here for.
We supported this inquiry; it is also an inquiry into our political donations, which we welcome. We have been out in public and talked to the media. Almost everybody on this side has been asked questions by the media about this inquiry; we have said every time that we support this motion. We hear the calls from the member for Greatorex and the Chief Minister about us not wanting this inquiry. We do, because when we say we support something, we mean it. We support it and we want an inquiry into political donations.
You talk about Harold Nelson Holdings; we have declared every cent Harold Nelson Holdings has donated to the party. This is the core of the issue and of what you are trying to hide. Foundation 51 has declared nothing on electoral returns. We have seen, in e-mails released under the FOI Act, information about $200 000 going towards the 2012 election campaign. Is that the tip of the iceberg? Of course we all think that. Do you remember the Chief Minister saying he had nothing to do with Foundation 51? ‘It is a private company, I have no association with it, and neither do any members of the Country Liberal Party.’
There was an e-mail from Mr Lewis:
That is the Chief Minister:
Let us go to the crux of this argument and the inquiry. The electoral returns do not have anything from Foundation 51 on them. If Foundation 51 donated to campaigns, to the CLP, if it is on their return there is not a problem. That is what this is all about.
This is why the member for Nelson brought this to parliament. Let us hold an inquiry. Regardless of what happened, there were a few people asleep at the wheel over there. Madam Speaker tried her best – it passed through parliament. We welcome it 100% and, as I said, this is a disgrace. It is a disgraceful day in parliament when the process of democracy will not be followed because you can ram it through on the numbers. Yes, you have the power and the numbers to do that, but it does not mean you do it because you can. That is the idea.
You guys on that side have been given a gift by the people of the Northern Territory: to govern for them. On this side of the House, we get that. For over two years now we have been fighting for, meeting with and consulting Territorians to earn their trust back. We are fighting and working hard. Every member of our Labor Caucus is fighting and working hard to be an alternative government and to be ready in 2016. If the people of the Northern Territory give us that great gift of governing for them we are ready to be a good government.
The CLP is not a good government. You have a Chief Minister who knifed the former, elected Chief Minister while he was overseas, feathered his own nest and now has 13 portfolios. We are all waiting to see who will get those positions. For once in this Chamber we have a full crowd on that side because obviously you need an absolute majority to pass a suspension of standing orders. You need 13 votes to get it through.
You guys have been given a gift to govern for the Northern Territory by the people who voted you in. All you are doing is looking after yourselves. That is what we see. There is so much infighting on that side that you cannot govern properly. You are worried about the numbers and who will support who. The one-man wolf pack, the member for Port Darwin, wants to be leader but cannot get any other votes than his own. You have a new Deputy Chief Minister.
Every one of you on that side of the House is implicated in Foundation 51 and the motion for this inquiry to be rescinded today. It is a bloody disgrace!
For a long time we have been calling for support of this inquiry to say …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr VOWLES: You can laugh all you like, member for Fong Lim. You can contribute to this if you would like.
Mr VOWLES: We have been calling for an NT-style ICAC since information on Foundation 51 came into the public domain. We have been calling for an NT ICAC inquiry, just like your mates in New South Wales – the Eight by Five foundation, which Foundation 51 is mirrored on.
So far, ICAC in New South Wales has found $400 000 was donated to New South Wales MPs by the Eight by Five foundation. At the moment 10 New South Wales Liberal MPs have moved to the crossbenches. They have either resigned or gone to the crossbenches because of the Eight by Five political donations up to $400 000.
I say again that every single one of you on that side of the House is implicated ...
Mr Tollner: How?
Mr VOWLES: Because you will all vote. That is how, member for Fong Lim. You will all vote because you all have to vote to rescind this motion.
This is why we put our hands up. This is why we knock on people’s doors. This is why we spend hours ringing them and saying, ‘Trust us, support us. We want to be your representative. We want to represent your issues and govern for you. We want to govern for all Territorians. We want to govern for everybody who makes the Territory their home, new or old.’
You have proven today that you are governing for yourselves because your first instinct is to look after yourself and your colleagues. Looking after the people who voted you in is not on the list, it is not a priority but it must be done. That is why we are here; we represent people who vote for us.
Often in parliament I hear people say, ‘I do not believe that is correct. That is not right.’ We need to take that to the people who vote us in. That is our job. We are supposed to talk to people in our electorates, regardless of whether they voted for us or not, and give them the opportunity to voice their opinion. My Labor colleagues discuss that in Caucus. Yes, we have robust discussions in Caucus because it is great for politics. We hear there are many robust conversations on your side.
We supported this inquiry because it was to look into all political donations in the Northern Territory. When we received news this motion to rescind was to happen the first thought that came into my mind was disgust with the process.
I feel for the member for Nelson, who has been here a long time. There are a few people in the Chamber I quite like. I like many people on this side, and there are a couple on that side I like sometimes, but the member for Nelson is one of the most stand-up people you will ever meet in your life
Mr Westra van Holthe: Do not leave us in suspense. We need to know now.
Mr VOWLES: I did not say your name, Willem. What the member for Nelson says is what he will do; you rarely meet people like that. If he says, ‘I want to do this’, he will do so. If he brings a motion to parliament and it is passed through process we, as parliamentarians, should support it and adhere to the decision made in this Assembly.
You guys on that side have many questions to answer. You need to have a good, hard look at yourselves in the mirror; there is no integrity, no morals, no ethics and no idea.
The Assembly divided:
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that
1 parliament rescinds the motion of Mr Wood on 20 August 2014 under the Inquiries Act relating to political donations
2. the government establishes an investigation administered by the Department of the Chief Minister to investigate the process of political donations in the Northern Territory.
The parliament notes the Chief Minister will appoint an independent investigator who will report with particular reference to:
1. existing legislation and any other relevant legislation relating to political donations
2. other jurisdictions and their practices in relation to political donations
3. the administration of public election funding models in the other jurisdictions and their potential application in the Northern Territory.
I listened very carefully through the suspension debate to the members opposite, and they have all conveniently and, in my opinion, quite deliberately, sidestepped a very important issue in this process. The issue is that the business of donations to political parties is ultimately governed by two very discrete and separate organisations which are, as the demands from the members opposite imply, at arm’s length from government. I refer to the Australian Electoral Commission and the Northern Territory Electoral Commission; neither organisation was mentioned by members opposite.
It is all too cute to come into this place and use words like ‘corruption’ and ‘criminality’. If members opposite are aware of any corruption or criminality, there are a number of organs of government which are at arm’s length from government, and which are capable of looking at and dealing with those issues. For example there is the Australian Electoral Commission, which is at arm’s length from the Northern Territory government as it is an organ of the Commonwealth, and the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, which is at arm’s length from government by virtue of the fact it is a freestanding and independent functional entity, as well as references to the police, etcetera.
When I receive information which I believe warrants sufficient further investigation, I pass that on to the appropriate authorities. In the past I have had just cause, in relation to any number of matters, to refer issues to the police. I have done so recently. I do so because those investigative bodies exist for a very good reason; it is their job to investigate breaches of the law.
Let us turn to the two concepts around the Australian Electoral Commission and the Northern Territory Electoral Commission. Without having read the legislative organ that establishes the Australian Electoral Commission, I presume, as with all governing bodies, it has investigative powers. Those investigative powers would include the capacity to seek the issue of, and execute things like, warrants, perform investigations, ask people to give evidence, collect it, put it into briefs and then deliver it, if they choose to do so, to appropriate prosecuting authorities if they believe sufficient evidence exists. Those prosecuting authorities can then determine whether or not to lay charges, either complaints by way of complaint or information, so those matters may then be expedited though to a court, a truly independent hearing body.
I have heard many allegations from members opposite; I presume, in good conscience, they have all taken the information they believe to be corrupt and criminal in nature and forwarded it to the appropriate investigative bodies. When this debate came up on 20 August 2014, this issue was raised. I noted at the time there were investigations afoot by the Australian Electoral Commission and the Northern Territory Electoral Commission in relation to information they had received.
We are still awaiting the results of those investigations and, for all we know, they may well have already been completed, with no further action taken. That is a matter for those organisations. If, however, those investigations remain afoot, we should not be subordinating those organisations to further inquiry. As far as we are concerned, there is more than ample power granted to the Australian Electoral Commission, the Northern Territory Electoral Commission and the Northern Territory Police Force to pursue whatever investigations they see fit, if they receive information of sufficient gravity to determine whether or not an investigation should be launched.
For argument’s sake, if the police receive a complaint, they pursue that matter through their investigative process; they will assign police officers to look into the complaint. They have many powers at their disposal to do that. What you hear in this place is lots of bleating, the use of the word ‘corruption’, etcetera, and the waving around of so-called evidence; I wonder if members opposite have taken the time to refer that matter to the appropriate investigating authority.
We will allow the police to go about their business. Look at the powers the police have. If they believe, on reasonable grounds, an offence has been committed, they may go to an appropriate authority, such as a magistrate, judge or justice of the peace, to obtain warrants necessary for the purpose of searching or, ultimately, arresting people who are the subject of investigations. Those people may, with or without a warrant in the case of an arrest, be taken before a competent court to deal with those matters. That is how the process works. Those powers exist in any number of environments.
The police, as a general rule, do not investigate electoral matters because there are specialty organisations that go through the process of investigating issues that come to their attention. They are the various electoral commissions, whether the Commonwealth or Northern Territory organ. I know the Northern Territory Electoral Commission is truly at arm’s length of government and it has been since the beginning of self-government here.
The proposal members opposite would have us engage in means we would be creating an environment where an inquiry’s body could, basically, go on for an unspecified amount of time, as well as look into any allegation that might be made. Who would run that? Somebody who, in every likelihood, does not have a background in specialist investigations into these types of activities.
I recommend we leave policing to the police officers. I fully expect that if the Electoral Commissioner of the Northern Territory, or the Commissioner of Police, becomes aware of any breach of the law for the Northern Territory, they would go through all normal processes unfettered. If members opposite claim they have prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, then report it to the appropriate authorities and those investigations will be conducted in accordance with the law of the Northern Territory.
Members opposite have assiduously and carefully avoided talking about any of these processes because they know if they accept that these processes exist, then their liberal use of the words ‘corruption’ and ‘criminal’ would be limited to, ‘We allege corruption and criminality and we will wait for investigative processes to come to their natural conclusion’. That is not what they are talking about. They just want to make allegations of this nature.
It is for that reason we choose to go down this path, and it is the intent of this government to allow those processes to be gone through. However, as is always the case when this sort of noise is generated in a jurisdiction, it is worth revisiting the processes of electoral donations. We heard before that those donations are entirely proper; they just have to be properly accounted for through appropriate processes.
The allegation from members opposite is that has not occurred in relation to a company called Foundation 51. I am sure Foundation 51 will consequently be thoroughly investigated by the Australian and/or Northern Territory Electoral Commission.
Perhaps it is time to look at existing legislation and any other relevant legislation relating to political donations so we can make sure the processes for full or expected disclosure are properly covered by the statute book. In other jurisdictions there are different ways they deal with their practices in relation to political donations, both nationally and internationally. It is always worth revisiting these things to make sure the statute book reflects current thinking.
The matter of political donations will always be contentious. But in our political system, political parties need money, whether they are Labor, the Greens, the Palmer United Party or, for that matter, the Country Liberals. That means when we want to advertise, pay for corflutes, etcetera, we must have a source of income from somewhere.
EMILY’s List is an example of an organisation that donates to political parties and individual politicians. Harold Nelson Holdings, the property company and recipient of certain arrangements in relation to the Stellar Maris affair, is also an organisation which will donate to political parties but is, of course, its own free-standing legal entity. That is why Harry Nelson Holdings has Pty Ltd listed after its company name. There are also other ways political parties raise money, including the good old chook raffle. In the case of the Palmer United Party, as far as I am aware it has a single donor, Clive Palmer, who doubtlessly spends zillions of dollars keeping his political ship afloat.
There are numerous ways political campaigns are paid for, which will always be a contentious issue. The way politicians are elected will always be a contentious matter because elections tend to be contentious. It is for that reason the appointed investigator will report to the CE of the Department of the Chief Minister in 2015 with recommendations considered appropriate to improve the transparency and accountability of any matters relating to political donations in the Northern Territory. The Chief Minister will report back to this House in the first quarter of next year.
That means we will get somebody – I understand negotiations are well under way with Frank McGuiness – to look at all this material. We can ensure somebody with a good record of true independence, lauded by both sides of this House before their departure with the political equivalent of a 21-gun salute through a ministerial statement and whose integrity is unimpeachable in relation to being effective through an auditing process can find a way to make sure the statute book and our systems in the Northern Territory are as trustworthy as they can possibly be. I have faith in the Australian Electoral Commission, the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, the Northern Territory Police Force and Frank McGuiness, should he take up this role – I understand things are going well – and this will be a fulsome investigation into the donations system in the Northern Territory.
For all the noise and bleating from members opposite, I look forward to them telling us they have referred these matters to independent investigative authorities. If they have not done so and are so concerned about them, I genuinely urge them to do so.
We on this side are careful to make certain the public can trust investigative bodies currently established to do their job effectively. The Australian Electoral Commission existed prior to the Northern Territory becoming a body politic and subsequent to 1978, when the Northern Territory Electoral Commission was created. It has served under Country Liberals and Labor governments.
The Electoral Act, if it was considered to be an act containing shortcomings in its investigative roles by the former Labor government, would have been accordingly changed by the former Labor government at the time it was in power. I cannot recall off the top of my head whether Labor made amendments or not. If it did not make amendments then it logically follows that Labor was already satisfied with the length, breadth and depth that legislative instrument held. If Labor was unhappy it was up to its members to change the instrument accordingly. If they changed the instrument during their period of governance one can only presume it was up to a standard they thought acceptable, fair and at arm’s length from government, as they now demand.
They are effectively arguing they have no confidence in the Australian Electoral Commission or the Northern Territory Electoral Commission to do their job. In the case of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, if they had no confidence in its capacity to do its job why did they not change it in government?
Oppositions regularly call for all sorts of investigations and we could hear any number of investigations that oppositions may want to turn their minds to. In opposition I wanted the leaks from the fifth floor to Bob Collins to be investigated so that it could be determined who on the fifth floor made a number of telephone calls which ultimately found their way to the ears of Bob Collins, who never stood trial for the crimes he was accused of committing. Never did I hear members opposite bleating for investigations as they do now.
This is a vehicle being used by members opposite to do nothing more than cause noise and alarm based on some information they have received. My advice to them is to turn it over to the authorities and trust them to do their job.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I have heard some rubbish in my day, but that was ridiculous.
The member for Port Darwin would have us believe it is all okay. You cannot hold an inquiry because the Australian Electoral Commission and NT Electoral Commission have investigations into Foundation 51 under way and to hold an inquiry would somehow impinge upon those august institutions. What rubbish!
In New South Wales parties are also accountable to the Australian Electoral Commission and New South Wales Electoral Commission in relation to electoral matters, including the declaration of donations. That has not stopped ICAC from examining donations to and from Eight by Five, which is a slush fund for the Liberals in New South Wales with very close parallels with the CLP slush fund Foundation 51 in the Territory. It was errant rubbish coming from the mouth of the member for Port Darwin. He is the only one hung out to dry in having to try to defend this whitewash.
Foundation 51 director Graeme Lewis has form. He has appeared before the magistrates court in the Northern Territory on Carpentaria Holdings, which was the then CLP slush fund, and he was done. Why? Because he would not provide the electoral commissions with the information it requested on the operations of Carpentaria Holdings. The CLP government knows too well the history. The CLP government would know powers do not exist within electoral commissions, like they exist in an inquiry, to obtain the evidence required to lay charges of corruption.
That is why you are rescinding a motion of parliament for an inquiry into political donations. This motion might be titled ‘Inquiry into Political Donations’ but, in fact, it is not. It enquires into existing and other relevant legislation relating to donations. It looks at other jurisdictions and their practices – ‘look elsewhere, do not look here’ – in in relation to political donations. It would examine the administration of public election funding models in other jurisdictions and their potential application to the Territory. That is code for, ‘We cannot use the slush fund anymore. We have to shut it down because the heat has become too hot in the kitchen; let us make the taxpayer foot the bill for our next CLP election campaign.’
I do not know if you will be able to have Frank McGuiness as your special investigator. He is a man of great integrity. He is very capable, but do not pretend this is an inquiry into political donations that have occurred. Do not pretend in any way that this will touch Foundation 51, your CLP slush fund. This inquiry will not examine whether or not political donations have occurred in the Territory and failed to be declared on electoral returns, a breach of the law. No, it is specifically looking at existing legislation, other relevant legislation, other jurisdictions and their practices and the administration of public election funding models, code for (inaudible).
I do not know how much is sitting in Foundation 51 and I do not know how you will wind it down. Word on the street is that there is about $2m in there; how do you wind that down? How will you give that back to donors?
Mr Styles: Did she say $2m?
Ms LAWRIE: How will you find your next election campaign?
Ms Walker: You must know. How much?
Ms LAWRIE: We pick up on the member for Sanderson and his questioning of how many millions are in Foundation 51. You would know, mate. You will have your time on the stand, under oath, being questioned, when there is an independent commission against corruption. You will have your time there to explain how much has been funnelled into your election campaigns in Sanderson, whilst today you put your name towards covering it up.
Let us not pretend this is an inquiry into political donations. It is an inquiry into the legislative and regulatory environments that govern them here and elsewhere. It is not an inquiry into donations that have occurred in the Territory and whether or not they have been appropriately registered on electoral returns, as required by law. Let us not pretend Foundation 51 will provide information and evidence to the Labor Party to give to the police so they can fully investigate and undertake prosecution actions.
Mr Elferink: Have you handed the information in?
Ms LAWRIE: Rubbish, member for Port Darwin. We call you out on the rubbish you spoke in here. It is rubbish, unless you go to Graeme Lewis and come out tomorrow saying, ‘It is okay, he will disclose bank accounts. He will disclose the books of Foundation 51.’ You have entirely misrepresented what can occur. That is why you are covering this up by rescinding a motion of parliament, because you know Graeme Lewis has form. He has hidden it in the past – Carpentaria Holdings – and was found guilty. He did not disclose and still has not done so. We suspect he has not handed information over; we keep asking the commission if it has any information yet or if it is close to finishing its investigation. The commission is not having a good time trying to find information.
Mr Tollner: How would you know?
Ms LAWRIE: It is non-disclosure. Member for Fong Lim, I will pick up on that interjection; we make the calls and ask because we are very interested in this. We know you are all over it. Member for Fong Lim, you will have your time on the stand too because you are as grubby as they come. You are so disgraceful that you sit on the backbench.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, withdraw those comments, please.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw. Member for Fong Lim, you are such a disgrace that you sit on the backbench, having been ejected from Cabinet. You are told to sit there, behave and be quiet, because you will be returning to Cabinet. The member for Fong Lim is telling businesses it is okay and that he will be back as Treasurer within a few weeks. This government says one thing while it suits them, while they are under electoral scrutiny in a by-election, and then does entirely the opposite once the by-election has been held. If the CLP government had nothing to hide, its terms of reference for the inquiry would include an independent investigator looking into the donations of Foundation 51 and the CLP. By all means add Harold Nelson Holdings and EMILY’s List. We are fine; we declare, but you do not.
You have not provided information in the past about Carpentaria Holdings and we will not hold our breath waiting for you to provide it about Foundation 51. Your slush fund operates in parallel to Eight by Five; that information could only come out through an inquiry. You sit in your comfort zone and say, ‘We got out of that one today; we can keep hiding our CLP slush fund and the donations washing through our election campaigns’. But there will be a day when you can no longer hide, when we hold an independent commission against corruption, and members sitting opposite will be called to appear before it. It will be interesting to see how many of you are still in this Chamber then, because I have faith and confidence in the integrity of Territorians. Where it smells and looks like corruption and where you are doing everything you can to hide corruption, it is corruption. They will judge you at the next available opportunity at the polls.
Those who lose their seats will still be called to appear before the inquiry; those who save their skins and stay in here will still be called. Territorians deserve the best transparency, accountability and integrity of the Westminster system. Today the CLP has proven Territorians will not receive that under this government. Today the CLP Chief Minister has well and truly proven he is a man who cannot be trusted, his word cannot be trusted and he has led an Independent member of this Chamber down the garden path.
You have proven in spades that when you cannot trust the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, and you cannot trust the CLP government. Whether we agree or disagree with some of the policy ideas of the Independent member for Nelson, we all know he is a man of integrity and honour. I kept saying to him, ‘I do not know why you believe them because after the Casuarina by-election they will not allow an inquiry into Foundation 51’. He said to me, ‘I trust them, I believe them. The Chief Minister has spoken to me. Tim Baldwin has spoken to me and I trust him.’ I kept saying, ‘They have told plenty of lies on other subjects, so why would you believe them on this?’ He kept believing you.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I know, member for Fong Lim, you find that funny …
Mr Tollner: I find it funny that you …
Ms LAWRIE: I find it disgusting.
We love the Northern Territory. We will hold you to account every step of the way. I wish we had a Northern Territory government with a scintilla of decency or integrity, or any ability to trust them in anyway. We do not.
Territorians deserve far better than this. If you had nothing to hide, if your concern was about time frames, you would have included, in the terms of reference for your investigator, a referral to look into the donations of Foundation 51 to the CLP.
Mr Elferink: Have you made any form of reference or complaint about this to the electoral commission?
Ms LAWRIE: It is abhorrent to listen to the member for Port Darwin pretend that somehow this is about us not trusting the Electoral Commission or not having faith in its ability or the legislation. Rubbish! We have lived here long enough to see you do this before; Graeme Lewis and Carpentaria Holdings did not provide the information to the commissions. They took him to court and he was found guilty …
Mr Elferink: So the system works.
Ms LAWRIE: No, the system does not work; I pick up on the interjection. You have one fall guy on a misdemeanour, rather than the exposure of corrupt CLP members of parliament ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She is over-reaching …
Ms Lawrie: I said ‘rather than’.
Mr ELFERINK: No, sorry, you over-reached that time. She is making an allegation which is utterly unfounded, without any form of evidence. She must do so by substantive motion and, by the way …
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, please withdraw.
Ms LAWRIE: If the commissions can get anywhere with their investigations, Graeme Lewis will take a small rap for the CLP. Is that the play? There is no decency and no integrity because if you had nothing to hide it would be included in the terms of reference to look into the political donations of Foundation 51 to the CLP. We know you have everything to hide. The e-mails are starting to leak out; I do not know if there are any more to be leaked. I hope whoever is leaking them has something else and it comes out.
We have known for the best part of a week now that Terry Mills was in a directorial role with Foundation 51 while Chief Minister, and you will not stand him down. The current Chief Minister, Adam Giles, is pretending he did not appoint him, and that the department did. However, a media release from the Chief Minister announced the appointment of his ambassador, so he is clearly misrepresenting the situation.
During estimates it was shown that Terry Mills was a contractor, yet today in this House the Chief Minister is pretending he is employed under PSEMA; he is a contractor, not an employee. You happily misrepresent anything you can. It is unbelievable.
When a community fundamentally loses its ability to trust its government, governments fall at following elections. Trust is fundamental in government. Honesty and integrity are fundamental in government. Yes, all political parties in Australia take donations; that is not the issue. It is whether or not you declare them. The CLP has failed to declare Foundation 51, which is the issue here. It raises questions about who is contributing to Foundation 51 and what political favours they can expect in return from a CLP government.
That is the issue, and that is corruption ...
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, please be very careful with your language and withdraw ‘corruption’.
Ms LAWRIE: I was describing a system of corruption.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw the word ‘corruption’, please.
Ms LAWRIE: Can you seek advice?
Madam SPEAKER: No, just withdraw it.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw. We have Foundation 51, as a slush fund for the CLP, with business donations going into it; we know that because of e-mails provided by Graeme Lewis that have been leaked. Business donations go into Foundation 51 and are funnelled into CLP election campaigns. That is a slush fund. That raises the question in everyone’s mind as to what favours are given to donors by the CLP government. If I am not allowed to describe that as corruption so be it. I will leave that to others because it is outrageous. That is what the CLP is busy covering up in this Chamber today.
Instead of an inquiry into political donations they want to look at existing and other relevant legislation. They want to look at other jurisdictions and their practices, as well as offering the opportunity to have the taxpayer fund the next CLP election campaign by looking at public election funding models. In terms of government, it does not get much worse than what we are witnessing today under the CLP – may you be judged.
If we had access to the books of Foundation 51, member for Port Darwin, we would go straight to the police. We do not have access to the books of Foundation 51 ...
Mr Barrett: So you are speculating?
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Blain. No, we are not speculating. There is $10 000 on the electoral return for Blain donated by Graeme Lewis. We are asking the electoral commission to investigate that. There are leaked e-mails which say $200 000 in electoral donations from business went from Foundation 51 into the CLP’s 2012 election campaign, or thereafter. That is not speculation. There is further weight of evidence that people would require, and only an inquiry can truly get to the bottom of it. However, today the CLP government has made sure there will not be an inquiry.
Labor guarantees that if we win the next election there will be an inquiry. People will be held to account because we believe in justice and upholding the law of the Territory, even though today we have seen an acceptance and cover-up of criminality. It is disgraceful, and we reject this motion. It is a whitewash. It does not look into the political donations scandal and stench surrounding the CLP.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the Opposition Leader. Talk about hyped up self-righteousness; I have seen it all. If the Opposition Leader has prima facie evidence of corruption, surely the first thing she would do is report it to the police. It is not a big deal. If you are talking about a cover-up and entrenched corruption, and you have evidence of that, take it to the police. They are the first port of call, but clearly the Opposition Leader has not done that. The reason the Opposition Leader has not done that is obvious. It is because there is no evidence of corruption or a cover-up.
It has been interesting to listen to how the Opposition Leader is quite prepared to smear people, former members of this Chamber and members of the public, etcetera. She smears Graeme Lewis. It is a fait accompli in her mind that he is a criminal involved in some sort of cover-up. There is nothing criminal about Graeme Lewis.
Graeme Lewis is a rusted-on Country Liberal Party member, former president of the CLP and a long-term Treasurer as well. Graeme Lewis may have been involved with the Country Liberals since day dot. As far as Labor Party members are concerned, that in itself is a crime. I think that way about some people involved with the Labor Party. Their simple association with an organisation from the Labor Party worries me greatly. It is something I can understand the Leader of the Opposition may feel towards Graeme Lewis, but he is a man of integrity and honesty. He has never in any way benefited personally from anything that has gone on with Foundation 51, the Country Liberal Party, etcetera. He has always acted in the best interests of the Country Liberal Party and has always been very keen to make sure there is transparency and that the letter of the law is followed.
I have listened to the Opposition Leader denigrate former Chief Minister, Terry Mills. There are many negative things people can say about him, but I will not go into them. One of the very few things people cannot say about Terry Mills is that he lacks honesty. To suggest Terry Mills is involved in a criminal cover-up is staggering. It beggars belief that anybody in this place who knows anything of the former Chief Minister could start talking about his criminal activities and his involvement in cover-ups. It is highly offensive that the Leader of the Opposition talks that way about Terry Mills.
It is high time some things were put on the public record in relation to Foundation 51. Whilst I have never been a member of Foundation 51, I have been aware of its operations and how it was set up. During the last two election campaigns I played a significant role in the Country Liberal Party’s strategies and efforts to be elected. In 2008, the Country Liberal Party received a significant swing in votes. It was not a big enough swing to put us into government, but it raised our level of numbers from, I think, four to 11. It was a big thing for Terry Mills, who led the party in that election campaign, and he felt a debt of gratitude to the people who supported him and the CLP in that campaign.
The creation of Foundation 51 was Terry Mills’ idea. I had several conversations with him; I was not necessarily supportive of creating Foundation 51, but I fully understood what it was about. Terry, as I said, felt a debt of gratitude to all of those who supported the Country Liberals in the campaign, but he also felt a large debt of gratitude to those businesses and business people who supported us in 2008.
In 2008 there were 51 donors of large amounts to the Country Liberal Party, hence the creation of Foundation 51. Terry saw that as the foundation of 51 businesses and business people who could be relied upon to build and support the Country Liberal Party into the future. His efforts were to create an organisation that attempted to impart a level of valuable information to business people.
Business people joined for a number of reasons. They wanted to access information, and Foundation 51 had the ability to perform market research into a range of areas that affected business and business people in the Territory. It also had the ability, through links with the Country Liberal Party and conservatives around the country, to drag speakers to the Northern Territory who business people would find value in listening to; I can quote a number of them. I think the first speaker I heard at a Foundation 51 lunch was Mr Paul Everingham.
I put it on the record that at every Foundation 51 lunch I went to, I paid my own way. I saw it as something outside the Country Liberal Party, and if I wanted to attend lunches I would have to pay my own way. There were a number of speakers, including John Howard, Peter Costello, Bernard Salt, a very well-known economist …
Mr Giles: Clive Palmer
Mr TOLLNER: Maybe Clive Palmer. I think Gina Rinehart was one. There was a number of speakers who business people were interesting in listening to. It was about providing a service to business people, imparting information and researching issues and community sentiment, etcetera. At the same time, it was about making those business people feel good about a conservative government in the Northern Territory. The foundation had no links with the CLP and still does not.
It is interesting to think about this e-mail which the opposition seem to think is a smoking gun; it is far from it. Graeme Lewis might have been crowing a bit too loudly about the importance of Foundation 51, but having been very much involved in the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, I can say that no money changed hands between Foundation 51 and the Country Liberal Party.
There may well have been information transferred. It is probably questionable whether there was any value in that information. I have been to the Chamber of Commerce, which has let me in on internal market research into a range of things. I have been to a number of other business associations that perform market research and research on the community. They have been prepared to share that information with me. When it comes to polling, that is what Foundation 51 was doing, sharing that information with the County Liberal Party. There is nothing illegal in that.
I understand that all of the issues about Foundation 51 and the haziness of the relationship between Foundation 51 and the Country Liberal Party – it would be hazy because the main driver in its set-up was Terry Mills. He was also acutely aware there would be a serious conflict of interest if he was to be involved in the management and direction of Foundation 51 and chose, quite rightly, not to take a directorial position in it. It is quite obvious an organisation like Foundation 51 would want to maintain a relatively close relationship with Terry as the leader of the CLP, a conservative arm in the Northern Territory. I understand people see these things are a little hazy, but I know the history of Foundation 51 and why it was set up.
Labor has the unions. This must be put into context; why is the Labor Party so keen on destroying Foundation 51 and others? They are not necessarily keen on destroying Foundation 51, they are keen on destroying funding that comes from business people towards the Country Liberal Party. They would be happy for funding from business people to be completely wound up. Labor has the unions; what comes from a union is declared by a union, but they do not declare where they receive the money from.
Before this debate, I decided to Google ‘ALP and union corruption’. If you wanted to study ALP and union corruption, it would take you a lifetime. There is a Royal Commission ongoing. I found an interesting article that summed up many others; it appeared in The Australian on 15 February, written by Grace Collier, and the headline is ‘Hang on to your hat: union corruption probe will be a wild ride’:
The article goes on to talk about Julia Gillard and a range of other things. Those few paragraphs are poignant in what they point out, in that the Labor Party has its own corruption machine doing dodgy deals. The Royal Commission set up by Tony Abbott is starting to get a head of steam and there are stories coming from every state and territory in Australia. In the Northern Territory we had the Stella Maris deal, with the unions and the ALP cooking up a deal that would benefit no one but themselves.
This is all too blurry. It all must change. I was not a big supporter of Foundation 51 in the early days because I saw it as diverting funds from the Country Liberal Party. If people donated money to Foundation 51 they may have been left short in donating money to the Country Liberal Party. To me it looked like a way of splitting finances that should have been coming wholly to the Country Liberal Party.
We have, quite rightly, an ongoing Royal Commission into trade unions. We have the Australian Electoral Commission running any inquiry into political donations, as well as the Northern Territory Electoral Commission. What they will find is anybody’s guess.
The results of these inquires will plunge politics in general to new lows. It will be a pox on everyone, and that concerned the Labor Party with the Stella Maris inquiry. They said it was nothing but a political beat-up. It was obvious to everyone concerned that it was a dodgy deal. It was crooked and corrupt, but we held an inquiry to put the icing on the cake and show people how crooked and corrupt it was. It could have gone a lot further.
For too many years things have been too grey and blurry. We should not hold any inquires at all; we need to dispense with the entire dodgy system …
Ms Fyles: It is not dodgy. There is only one side that is dodgy.
Mr TOLLNER: There is only one side that is dodgy, member for Nightcliff, and we all know which one. Do you want me to read that article again – the crooked dodgy deals that go on between the unions and their wholly-owned subsidiary, the Labor Party? We know of the standover tactics of unions, the way they extort money from businesses, the way they funnel that money through their coffers into the Labor Party and the way they change public policy through those corrupt practices.
Ms Fyles: Hold the inquiry!
Mr TOLLNER: The inquiry is going on, member for Nightcliff. Have you not noticed? That is my point. This inquiry is happening now; there is not one inquiry, but three. Look around and see what is happening.
My view, that I have passed on to the Chief Minister, is that we should get rid of this inquiry, clean the system up once and for all and go to publicly-funded election campaigns for everyone. We should make political donations illegal for election campaigning. Maybe donations that exceed $1000 should be illegal and all donations under $1000 to a political party should have to be declared by those who make them. The public should fund election campaigns based on the number of votes a candidate receives. In the Northern Territory that might be as much as $10 a vote. If someone was to sweep the entire pool and gain 100% of the vote in their electorate, they may receive around $50 000.
That is the only fair and transparent way of doing this. Holding more inquiries, fuelling speculation, which is all the Labor Party is doing – it is all about running interference and deception to try to distance themselves from the Royal Commission and AEC and NTEC inquiries. They are saying, ‘All right, we are covered in mud, but so is everyone else’. That is not true. Only one party in this Chamber is covered in mud and dirt.
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member for Fong Lim.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: As I was saying, there is only one party in this place covered in dirt, mud and crookedness, and that is the Labor Party. It is very questionable where Labor gets its money from. I was going through its declared statements, and during the last election campaign more than $350 000 came from trade unions. How much of that money was illegally obtained by those unions? We know they are acting illegally and we know they use standover tactics with businesses to extort money from them. We do not know how much of that illegal money is being funnelled into the Labor Party to run election campaigns. We know, however, more than $350 000 came in during the last election campaign for the Labor Party.
Interestingly enough, the year before, the figure was $57 000. In non-election years unions are not too interested in the Labor Party, but when there is an election on they will get in and have a crack. It is interesting that the Opposition Leader tries to smear the member for Blain by suggesting he has something to answer for. It might be interesting for the Opposition Leader to look at Northern Territory electoral laws, because declarations are not yet required for the last financial year. It is 16 weeks from 30 June before a party is required to put in declarations. Let us wait and see what goes on there. My advice to all those in the Chamber is to forget this or any sort of inquiry. Stop getting down in the mud, throwing crap at each other and let us get on with the business of governing the Territory.
That is what everybody in this place should be focused on, not getting down in the mud with the Leader of the Opposition, who is one of the grubbiest politicians I have ever seen in my life.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62; that was offensive.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw that. The Opposition Leader will go to any level of depravity. She will use anything in her power to somehow tarnish decent people in our community. They do not even have to be in this place. To suggest criminality, corruption and involvement in a cover-up by Terry Mills – what nonsense!
I have highlighted what Foundation 51 was about. It was about supporting the business community and giving it a forum in which to discuss conservative ideas, listen to quality speakers and have good market research conducted. I see nothing illegal or immoral in that. It is what organisations around the country do. The Menzies Research Centre, Doc Evatt’s research centre – all these things are set up to promote ideas, encourage political discussion and have people focused on what matters in this country and the Northern Territory.
As I said, my advice to the Chief Minister and government is to dump any thought of an inquiry of any nature. Forget this nonsense, move on and let us do away with the traditional way of running campaigns. If we will hold an inquiry, let us hold an inquiry into how we might publicly fund election campaigns so they are transparent, accountable and everybody can receive a fair shake. One of the things Independents and Greens, etcetera, get so upset about is not having access to union funds. They say, ‘We do not have access to big business, we are the poor ones who really struggle in election campaigns’. Maybe making election campaigns publicly funded would give more people a greater chance of being elected. At the same time, it may give us a greater say in a democratic system, give parliament an opportunity to stop focusing on this crap and allow it to get on with business.
The Assembly divided:
Motion agreed to.
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. I move this amendment in accordance with my role as the minister with carriage of the Pillars of Justice policy.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Police Administration Act to provide for two specific amendments. The first amendment is to provide members of the Northern Territory Police Force with an alternative post-arrest option, where a person who has committed certain prescribed offences may be held by police for up to four hours and can then be released with an infringement notice, as opposed to requiring that the person be charged and have those charges be heard by a court. I will refer to the concept as ‘paperless arrest’.
The second amendment relates to Part IV of the act and sets out provisions to require members to answer questions put to them in the course of internal disciplinary investigations.
The concept of paperless arrests forms part of our Pillars of Justice law reform policy framework. The policy is to permit police officers to detain individuals for up to four hours in relation to public order-type offences, and where an infringement notice may be issued. The types of offences to be captured by this post-arrest option are offences attracting an infringement notice under the Summary Offences Regulations, the Liquor Regulations and the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Arrest for these public order offences will remain the same; however, where a person has been arrested for an infringement notice offence, that person can, if police consider it appropriate, be dealt with more expeditiously following arrest, and with much less paperwork, by the issuing of an infringement notice.
For this purpose, the bill inserts a new Division 4AA into Part VII of the act. The new division provides that where a member has arrested a person without a warrant on the grounds that the person has committed, was committing or was about to commit an infringement notice offence, as prescribed by the regulations, the member may hold the person for up to four hours and may then release the person with an infringement notice.
The bill also provides that where a person is intoxicated, the member may continue to hold the person beyond the initial four-hour period for so long as it reasonably appears to the member that the person remains intoxicated.
Requirements and protections are also put in place for people in custody in these circumstances, such as a requirement for police to establish the person’s identity, to conduct a search of the person, the registration of the person’s money and valuables and the use of reasonable force where required. These types of protection and circumstances are also reflected in the protective custody provisions set out in section 128 of the act.
The bill is not intended to limit police powers to the issuing of an infringement notice. In some circumstances, where a person is detained for an infringement notice offence and, for example, it is subsequently discovered that the same person is wanted on additional matters (or if they commit further offences while in custody), or it is considered that an infringement notice would be ineffective, police still have the power to charge a person with the original or other offences.
This alternative post-arrest option will provide further flexibility and efficiency in policing work. The option will enable police officers to return to their patrol in a more timely fashion, as opposed to being detained for long periods preparing necessary paperwork for a court to consider the charges. An additional benefit to the community is intended by the use of such an option to de-escalate social disorder situations or potential situations of public disorder before they escalate into major incidents.
The second amendment contained in this bill provides for the requirement of answers from members to questions put to them in the course of internal disciplinary investigations. These procedures are also known as ‘directed interviews’. The ability of a Commissioner of Police to discipline police officers and require answers to questions in the course of a disciplinary investigation, even where those answers might incriminate the subject members, has long been recognised as essential for maintaining the integrity of, and public confidence in, a police force. The High Court legal authority for this proposition is the case of the Police Service Board v Morris and Martin, which is reported at (1985), volume 156 of the Commonwealth Law Reports, at page 397.
In 2013, however, a single judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court determined that the New South Wales Commissioner of Police did not have powers under the New South Wales Police Act to direct a police officer to answer questions after the police officer has claimed the privilege against self-incrimination in criminal matters.
The decision is cited as Baff v New South Wales Commissioner of Police [2013], New South Wales Supreme Court judgment numbered 1205. This decision is not binding on the Northern Territory of Australia, and the High Court decision of Morris remains the binding legal authority in the Northern Territory. In addition, the decision of Morris has been applied by the Full Court of South Australia and is still relied upon by the South Australian Police Force to require officers to answer questions.
It is the position of the Northern Territory of Australia that the Commissioner of Police has the power under section 76(d) of the Police Administration Act to direct a police officer to answer questions. Despite this position, a management decision was taken following the decision in Baff not to pursue a directed interview where the member has claimed the privilege against self-incrimination. Directed interviews in these circumstances were put on hold pending this legislative provision to confirm the existence of the power, and that the power to require an answer to a question is intended to operate retrospectively. That is, the position will apply to current matters where a member is currently under internal investigation and no disciplinary outcome has been finalised.
The bill includes provisions to require a police officer to answer questions, as required, during the course of a disciplinary investigation. The disciplinary investigation can commence prior to the issuing of a notice of alleged breach of discipline under section 79 of the act, as recognised by the Northern Territory Supreme Court in the decisions of Holmes and Bulger v Commissioner of Police cited at [2011] Northern Territory Supreme Court judgment numbered 108.
The bill is intended to confirm the Commissioner of Police has the power to direct a police officer to answer questions during any time throughout disciplinary investigation for a breach of discipline or an alleged breach of discipline. An officer cannot claim the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid answering such questions.
To demonstrate the seriousness of a failure to answer a question in the context of a disciplinary investigation, the bill amends section 76 to provide that a member commits a breach of discipline where the member fails to obey a lawful direction, instruction or order given by, or caused to be issued by, the Commissioner of Police or a member or person having authority over the member, including general orders and instructions issued under section 14A(1), and directions, instructions or orders given in relation to a breach of discipline or an alleged breach of discipline. Where a member provides misleading information in the course of a disciplinary investigation is also provided for as a separate breach of discipline.
Failure to answer questions put to a member in a disciplinary investigation has the potential to seriously undermine the public confidence in a police force. For that reason, a failure to answer questions, or the provision of misleading information by a member during a disciplinary investigation, can be grounds considered by the Commissioner of Police to dismiss a member on public interest grounds under section 78 of the act. The policy basis for this position is that the Northern Territory Police Force is a body upon whose efficiency and probity is something our Territory must depend for the security of the lives and property of our community. Such a body can only operate effectively under proper discipline.
However, to put appropriate safeguards in place for police members, a direct immunity will apply to the answers provided by members, such that those answers are not admissible as evidence in any criminal or civil proceedings. The only exceptions that will apply to allow the use of these answers will be in respect of proceedings for perjury, tort claims against the Northern Territory by police officers, and proceedings from employment matters (which includes disciplinary proceedings).
The bill deliberately does not include immunity against a derivative use of the information provided in a direct interview. Such an immunity is considered too restrictive to allow police to exercise their functions, and will still permit alternative lines of inquiry to be pursued following information provided in a directed interview, such as already provided for in section 160A of the act.
Police officers are appropriately afforded special powers to exercise their duties. These powers include the authority to use force, to deprive people of their liberty and to access sensitive and confidential information.
It is crucial to have appropriate checks and balances in place to allow the Commissioner of Police to maintain the integrity of and uphold public confidence in our police force and ensure that the exercise of powers by members is held to account.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the multitude of stakeholders involved in the development of these reforms, including members and staff of the Northern Territory Police Force, members of the Pillars of Justice Steering Committee and the Northern Territory Police Association.
This bill is an example of this government’s commitment to improve police practices and community safety to provide an additional and flexible post-arrest option, and to promote integrity and public confidence in the exercise of police powers through the conduct of directed interviews with appropriate protections in place.
I commend the 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 now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to provide the Court of Criminal Appeal with the power to remit matters back to the sentencing court for re-sentence upon a successful appeal. This bill has resulted from the decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Gary Wayne Atkinson v The Queen [2013] NTCCA5 and Leo v The Queen (No 2) [2014] NTCCA 9.
In the case of Atkinson v The Queen the defendant has been sentenced in relation to a number of offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act and, approximately, 15 months later, had property forfeited under the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act.
The defendant argued, on appeal, that the forfeiture of his property should be taken into account as a substantial mitigating factor in his sentence and that, if the original sentencing judge had this information, a different and lesser sentence would have been imposed.
Section 5(4) of the Sentencing Act provides that a sentencing court can take into account the forfeiture of ‘crime-used’ property and an offender’s cooperation in relation to the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act.
As a result, had forfeiture proceedings against the appellant been finalised prior to or at the same time as his sentence, the forfeiture would have been able to be taken into account by the sentencing court.
The Court of Criminal Appeal agreed with this argument and upheld the appeal. Relevantly, the Court of Criminal Appeal indicated that a power to remit matters back to the Supreme Court for re-sentence would be desirable.
The court noted that if the court had the power to remit matters for re-sentence, any new information could be considered on its merits by the judge who imposed the original sentence.
In the matter of Leo v The Queen, the Court of Criminal Appeal again reiterated the desire to have the power to remit matters back to the original sentencing court for re-sentence when appropriate. This recommendation for remittance in Leo v Queen was, however, broader than that in Atkinson v The Queen.
While the court in Atkinson v The Queen suggested that the remittance power be used where information had come to light after the original sentence, rather than for all successful appeals, the suggestion in Leo v The Queen was that the power be available in a wider range of situations, including matters where the original sentencing judge incorrectly applied the law.
In this situation, the original sentencing judge would be able to re-sentence the offender, taking into account the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal.
In accordance with the recommendations of the Court of Criminal Appeal in both cases, this bill amends section 411(4) of the Criminal Code to provide the Court of Criminal Appeal with the power to remit matters back to the sentencing court for re-sentence upon a successful appeal.
As recommended in Leo v The Queen, the power to remit has been drafted so that the Court of Criminal Appeal has a broad discretion to remit matters back to the sentencing court for re-sentence as appropriate. Accordingly, rather than restricting the power to matters where new information has come to hand following the original sentence, the Court of Criminal Appeal will be able to remit any successful appeal if it is deemed appropriate.
The provision of the power to remit is an additional power which will not preclude the Court of Criminal Appeal from re-sentencing the appellant, if appropriate. The transitional provisions of the bill ensure that the Court of Criminal Appeal will be able to remit matters for re-sentence in all appeals heard after the commencement, even if the appellant was found guilty or filed appeal documents prior to commencement. This bill will enhance the administration of justice and ensure that the most appropriate court re-sentences the defendant following a successful appeal.
I would like to formally thank the judiciary for their ongoing assistance by raising their concerns and proposing practical amendments to the legislation. I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 90)
Continued from 21 August 2014.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, the Land Development Corporation is an important institution which has made a significant contribution to the social and economic development of the Northern Territory.
The LDC was established by the former Labor government to undertake strategic investment and development to assist industry and provide essential facilities to the wider community. Its achievements include a range of initiatives in the housing and industrial sectors championed by the previous government. Whilst not exhaustive, relevant examples include affordable housing projects in Kilgariff, Johnston and Zuccoli, and industrial land development such as the Darwin Business Park and common use area at the East Arm wharf, as well as the AustralAsia rail freight terminal. In 2013, the LDC held total assets in excess of $135m and total income in excess of $57m.
This is why the LDC requires a fully functioning advisory board with a broader charter to advise the corporation on its activities. Consistent with the Chief Minister’s total disregard for the proper standards of government, this bill is a direct attack on transparency, accountability and good governance within the Land Development Corporation. The bill emasculates accountability, transparency and good governance in the current act. It does this by a direct assault on existing provisions concerning the function, composition and operation of the LDC board.
Section 13 of the act establishes an advisory board; it states simply and directly that there is an advisory board. This section is repealed by the bill. Under the new section 13 proposed in the bill, the minister may establish an advisory board. Subject to the minister’s whim, the LDC may or may not have an advisory board; so much for transparency, accountability and good governance.
Under section 14 of the existing act the advisory board has a broad function to advise the corporation on its activities and, significantly, on the manner in which it carries them out. Under these provisions the advisory board is not constrained in the scope of its advice by the directions of the minister or the corporation. The bill before the Assembly repeals section 14 and creates new provisions which totally emasculate the role of the advisory board. Under proposed section 14 the function of the board is restricted only to matters referred to it by the minister or corporation. The advisory board is no longer empowered to advise the LDC on the manner in which it carries out its activities. Madam Speaker, I am sure you and honourable members would discern the emerging pattern of emasculation and reduced accountability inherent in this bill.
Section 17 of the act provides that the minister must appoint a Chair and deputy Chair to the board. These positions are abolished by the bill. Under section 18 of the act members of the board are appointed for three years. Under this bill board members are appointed for a period determined by the minister.
I am sure you have noted that the Chief Minister’s second reading speech contemplates the appointment of ad hoc LDC boards limited to short periods of operation. I am sure honourable members are aware that the corporation is a one-man band – a chief executive officer appointed by the minister. This is all the more reason for an adequately resourced, independent board with a mandate to advise the corporation on a broad range of issues, as opposed to only matters referred to it by the minister and the corporation.
In summary, this Assembly is being asked to pass a bill that will emasculate the LDC’s advisory board by a series of measures that will abolish the current board; reduce the scope of the board’s role in providing advice; abolish the positions of Chair and deputy Chair; subject to the minister’s whim, replace the board with a series of ad hoc boards; and reduce the terms of appointment of board members. That is not a bad day’s work if one of your primary objectives in life is to reduce accountability, transparency and good governance in the public sector you purport to lead.
Before I turn to the Chief Minister’s second reading speech, I will mention two other provisions in the bill. Clause 5 of the bill amends section 6(e) of the act in relation to the functions of the corporation. I am interested to hear from the Chief Minister as to why this amendment has been included in the bill. I also invite him to explain why clause 4 contains provisions in relation to applying the Criminal Code Act to offences under the LDC Act.
I now turn to substantial matters mentioned in the Chief Minister’s second reading speech. What is driving the intention inherent in the bill? The Chief Minister’s second reading speech provided some clues, but does not tell the whole story. One rationale for the changes, according to the Chief Minister, is the cost of operating the board. Is this reason credible in light of recent events?
Since coming to office little more than two years ago, the CLP government has appointed a plethora of former ministers, MLAs, advisers, candidates and party hacks to highly-paid positions in public service and on statutory and advisory boards. The combined salaries of these political appointments exceed $5m per annum. Disturbingly, there have been many appointments to key positions directly involved in the administration, allocation and utilisation of Northern Territory land. In the context of these appointments and related remuneration, honourable members and the wider community will draw their own conclusions about the creditability of the Chief Minister’s assertion that the cost of operating the LDC board has driven the amendments proposed in this bill.
In his second reading speech the Chief Minister asserted that avoiding conflicts of interest also underpins proposed amendments to the LDC Act. With a straight face, the Chief Minister said:
This is from a Chief Minister who appointed Graeme Lewis as Chair of the Land Development Corporation and conceded under pressure during estimates questioning that the position was not advertised. This is from the same Chief Minister who forced Graeme Lewis to resign as Chair of the LDC when the unlawful activities of the CLP’s slush fund, Foundation 51, were exposed by the media and raised in this Assembly.
I call on the Chief Minister, since he raised the issue in his second reading speech, to advise this Assembly on how many occasions in the last two years a member of the board has declared a conflict of interest and advised the relevant details.
The Chief Minister also stated in his second reading speech:
The statement is both extraordinary and disingenuous. Why? Because board members were invited to submit their resignations in anticipation of a bill that would abolish the board, not the reversal, as asserted deceptively by the Chief Minister. Why the haste? Why did the LDC draft a bill without the prerequisite prior approval of Cabinet? Why limit the scope of advice the board or boards can provide?
Recent disclosures in documents released under an FOI request concerning $1m transferred to the Tiwi Land Council, and subsequent media coverage, are directly relevant to these questions. Hundreds of documents disclosed under an FOI request were tabled in this Assembly yesterday.
I remind the Assembly of an e-mail dated 27 August 2013 from the CEO of the LDC to the Under Treasurer, the CEO of the Chief Minister’s department and the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. The e-mail is headed ‘Tiwi payment’ and states:
You will also note an e-mail from the LDC’s chief financial officer to John Coleman, which states:
The CFO’s concerns are understandable because under section 9 of the LDC Act a corporation is required to act commercially. Under section 28 of the act, the money of the corporation is only to be applied for the purposes of the corporation. The chief executive’s response to the CFO raised serious concerns about the payment of $1m to Tiwi Resources Pty Ltd and internal control processes in the LDC.
In his e-mail reply of 28 August to the CFO, John Coleman stated:
There are no assets that can be registered on the assets register for the Land Development Corporation. These matters go to the heart of the bill before the Assembly, which emasculates the function and composition of the Land Development Corporation board. Why was the $1m released by the Land Development Corporation? The answer, hidden until it was discovered in documents released under FOI legislation, is the agreement signed by Mr Gary Barnes and Mr John Hicks on 27 August 2013, one of the documents tabled yesterday.
The agreement makes provision for an up-front payment of $1m in return for 99-year leases on Tiwi land. The agreement also stipulates that if the leases are not executed within six months the up-front payment of $1m will need to be refunded. Significantly, the Land Development Corporation is not party to the agreement, and the payment of $1m may be unlawful.
You can therefore understand the apprehension inherent in the CFO’s e-mail to his boss concerning authorisation to make the payment from the Land Development Corporation, and the registration of assets in return for the $1m.
In all these circumstances the last thing the Chief Minister would want is a Land Development Corporation board capable under the act of advising the corporation on its activities and the manner in which it carries them out. That is why the Chief Minister’s bill attacks these provisions and emasculates the role of the board; that is why we do not support this bill.
There are many more questions to be answered by the Chief Minister on the transfer of $1m from Land Development Corporation funds. If any members opposite believe in transparency or accountability to the community they will also oppose this bill. It is time to stop the Chief Minister riding roughshod over proper standards of transparency, accountability and probity.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Land Development Corporation Amendment Bill. The bill will refine the act and streamline management of the Land Development Corporation.
The key features of the bill are a reduction in operational costs, simplified business functions and access to a wider scope of experience and skill sets when seeking advice on specific development projects and other corporate functions. It provides the corporation the ability to convene an advisory board as and when required.
Most, if not all, of our school councils today have an ability to call in, from time to time, an expert in a field. A school might be working on a project where it requires, or would like, the expertise of an architect, planner, engineer or someone who knows how to construct a car park. A school has the ability to call in these experts, and this is what will be able to occur under this model.
The Land Development Corporation is the Northern Territory government’s strategic land release development agency. It is highly instrumental in the development of the Northern Territory. Through the Land Development Corporation the Northern Territory government is able to deliver innovative development and management of industrial, residential and commercial land.
I take this opportunity to outline the important work the Land Development Corporation has been doing, particularly in the area of industrial development.
The Tiwi Islands has been rubbished by the opposition today. It is a sad day in parliament when the opposition rubbishes this government for trying to get on and stimulate the economy in our regions so Indigenous people can prosper.
I have heard the Chief Minister talk about how this Northern Territory has spoken long and hard about Indigenous land rights. This Chief Minister talks about Indigenous economic development and rights, and that is what we need to focus on. I struggle in my role as the Minister for Education to provide proper carrots for children to go through school in many regions, and for what? For what reason do you provide an education for a child if there is no economic base in those communities?
This Chief Minister is trying to build economies in the regions, and this is where the Land Development Corporation has been very successful.
I sign documents every day that basically allow someone an extension of time. Let us look at leases in the Finniss region; these were signed under a previous CLP government, and then re-signed under the former Labor government. Why? You could have recalled those leases, but we are trying to stimulate development, so the people who hold those leases in the Finniss were given extensions.
It is not that we want to take those leases away from people; it is that we are trying to stimulate development. We will not withdraw the lease, but work with them to try to stimulate the economy in that area. That is exactly what is happening on the Tiwi Islands.
The Tiwi Islands investment is one of the most compelling investment opportunities in the Northern Territory. The Country Liberals government is committed to supporting the island’s continued economic development, and this investment is about partnering with Tiwi people to unlock the region’s potential. It encourages new investment in the agriculture, aquaculture and tourism sectors.
The Land Development Corporation facilitates this by identifying up to 100 040 ha of land that is able to be leased on a 99-year agreement to provide security and flexibility for investors – trying to stimulate the economy, work and job opportunities for Indigenous people in the regions, but apparently that is a crime.
East Arm Logistics Precinct, one of the Territory’s fastest growing industrial precincts is a purpose-built district to assist businesses to grow and capitalise on future projects in the region. The precinct includes Darwin Business Park, a common user area for businesses wanting to lease secure hardstand areas on short to medium terms, a multi-user barge facility, the Marine Supply Base, a transport hub and the new Marine Industry Park. The Land Development Corporation has been essential in facilitating and managing this massive investment in the Northern Territory’s future.
The Marine Industry Park offers 130 ha of premium waterfront land for marine-related developments. This is an exciting project which capitalises on the unbounded potential of the Northern Territory in the areas of offshore oil and gas, onshore minerals production and defence. The Land Development Corporation has accelerated this investment.
The LDC has been instrumental in a number of residential releases in Central Australia and Palmerston. The most recent project, close to my heart, which recently commenced was Maluka Views in Palmerston. Have you seen the growth in the Darwin CBD? It is amazing for me, being from Palmerston, to see it. The growth in Palmerston is phenomenal, and when you see a crane, the first for a long time in Palmerston, it is exciting. The new hotel and investment, again facilitated by the LDC, will inspire that city to grow even more. To see the new shopping centres there, the housing developments going ahead, thinking back to the Maluka site and understanding what that will turn into – it will revitalise the city centre area and fix a design fault there. That fault is the egress to the Hub complex, which is extremely busy most nights of the week.
The Land Development Corporation has, on behalf of the Northern Territory government, delivered for Territorians by facilitating ongoing economic growth. This bill allows the LDC to act commercially whilst achieving cost savings and streamlining business functions. This is another initiative of the Country Liberals government to provide efficiencies in facilitating the development of northern Australia.
I commend the bill to the House. The Chief Minister has worked hard in this area, and the LDC is a great facilitator. It is something that can be used to get in there, work with business and ensure we capitalise on opportunities which are about to, and already have, hit the Northern Territory. You need to have an organisation like this with the right framework; this legislation provides that framework to ensure it does what it is supposed to do, which is to facilitate development in northern Australia.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, the development of this bill and the dodgy payment of $1m to Tiwi Resources have much in common. One similarity is the haste with which both were undertaken. We have read, in documents tabled in the Assembly, about the mad rush to get the $1m payment out the door, despite the serious reservations of senior public servants. This significant amount of taxpayers’ funds was transferred, even though a Cabinet decision authorising the payment had not been seen by the Land Development Corporation’s chief executive officer or chief financial officer.
We have tabled the e-mail which sets out the chief financial officer’s apprehension about making the payment without proper authorisation. The haste in developing this bill was confirmed by the Chief Minister’s second reading speech. In an extraordinary admission, he said:
We have heard Cabinet is dysfunctional. This shows that dysfunction writ large.
As the member for Johnston said in his reply to the Chief Minister’s second reading speech, this assertion is deceptive because board members were invited to resign, in the full knowledge the board would be abolished by the government. However, there are more important matters to be raised concerning the great haste in which the bill was prepared without the usual prior Cabinet approval.
What has driven the urgency to make these amendments? Is there any connection between this urgency and the payment of $1m to Tiwi Resources Pty Ltd? Will the emasculation of the board’s function and membership reduce the accountability and scrutiny of the LDC payment of $1m? This would be possible under the current act, but will not be open to the board if proposed amendments are passed.
It is crystal clear the rationale of this bill is to abolish the power of the board to advise the corporation on any aspect of the LDC payment of $1m in return for leases that have never been executed. Under proposed amendments, new ad hoc boards, if any are appointed by the minister, can only advise on matters referred by the minister or the corporation. That stands in stark contrast to the broad charter of the board under the current act to advise the LDC on any matter, including how it undertakes its activities. We know transparency and probity are not in this Chief Minister’s DNA, but the abolition of the board and its replacement with a neutered entity is a focused attack on the LDC’s accountability.
Labor has a proud history of supporting economic and social development for Indigenous Territorians, but economic development and job creation must be undertaken in accordance with proper financial accountability and in open consultation with our Indigenous communities and landowners. The emasculation of the LDC’s board function and composition will undermine both of these activities.
Yesterday we tabled in this parliament a petition from Tiwi Islands’ traditional owners who have never been consulted about proposed leases on their land and knew nothing about the payment of $1m to Tiwi Resources. Now we have a bill before the House which further undermines the prospect of proper consultation with Tiwi Islanders on what the government plans to do on their land.
The Chief Minister should withdraw this bill and strengthen the role of the LDC board, not emasculate it. This is a disgraceful day, and at the centre of this shocking disgrace is this Chief Minister.
We reject this bill.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition was talking about the way in which the Giles government has worked around this board it is looking to move aside, because the Land Development Corporation is now in a position to govern itself. I hark back to NTETA, which the opposition changed; we now have a situation where training and employment needs are so badly matched that the system is completely unworkable. This government has had to put NTETA back together so business finally has a voice again in the way employment and training operate. It has been my pleasure to play a part in this.
It is important to note that one of these organisations was not running well and the other one was. We had a situation in employment and training where some organisations were training people and putting them out at entirely the wrong time. For example, people who work in the tourism industry were being passed and graduated in time for the Wet Season, when there are not many tourists here. We were training fantastic tourism operators who then left, just as the Leader of the Opposition is now.
I will talk about the Land Development Corporation Amendment Bill, and how well the LDC is doing. The Land Development Corporation is an important string in the government’s bow, aimed at ensuring strategic land is available for the growth of the Territory, particularly as it relates to industrial sectors. The Land Development Corporation is self-supported through the land sales it makes and is not reliant on taxpayer-funded appropriations. It acts commercially and requires careful financial management. The changes put forward to the corporation’s act will free the corporation of the financial burden of carrying an advisory board at full annual remuneration rates. These savings can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The current advisory board has no governance role and existed to provide strategic project advice. Past boards’ advice enabled the corporation to grow into the highly functional business unit we see today. Their advice established financial systems, audit processes and the rigorous Estate Master analysis of projects and proposals to ensure returns on investment. Examples of recent projects in the marketplace include the Truck Central, the Marine Industry Park, Middle Arm, Fannie Bay and not forgetting the Tiwi Islands project.
Having worked in the marine and transport industry, I know how important it is to make sure we have that land available – particularly with the project work coming across the wharf – for laydown yards and areas where businesses can conduct marine supply functions. That land was not made available, and it is fantastic to see the Land Development Corporation putting these projects together in a strategic fashion to make sure things happen in conjunction with the economic development of the Northern Territory.
The changes required now will put the corporation in a position to appoint an advisory board for a specific time and purpose. This will not only save critical funding for land release purposes, but will also enable specific experience and expertise to be brought in when such advice is required. The revised act will allow the corporation to perform even more effectively and efficiently than it has since its establishment over 10 years ago.
I commend the proposed amendments to this act which see this government authority cutting unnecessary costs and red tape consistent with the national reform agenda and, at the same time, increasing its capability.
I recently represented the Minister for Business at a COAG event in Adelaide. Red tape is on the agenda all across Australia. It is fantastic to see this government taking a realistic, get-down get-in- and-do-the-work approach to cutting red tape. We are starting to target certain areas, and the Department of Business is spearheading much of that.
Areas where businesses have had trouble in the past getting through and doing the things they need to do in a timely and efficient manner – this government is committed to making sure businesses can operate and function in an appropriate way.
This is very important because we know small and medium enterprises in the Northern Territory do an awful lot of heavy lifting. They employ an awful lot of people in the Northern Territory, and it is important we support small businesses. It is great to see, through October Business Month, events that have happened. Businesses are starting to see the changes and say, ‘This is a better environment to work in’. They are starting to see the direction and vision of the Giles government gaining traction and beginning to change the way they do business, which is fantastic.
I support the passage of the Land Development Corporation Amendment Bill 2014.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I had the privilege of working with the Land Development Corporation as a previous minister for Lands and Planning. It is interesting to follow on from the member for Blain who, before reverting to the safety of his script, went out into the big wide world of parliament and said, ‘The Land Development Corporation has reached a stage where it can operate on its own and does not need a board’. That was progressive thinking from the member for Blain, but luckily he went back to the safety of his script and added a few other anecdotes as well.
Having had the privilege of working with the Land Development Corporation, acknowledging its success as a major arm of government and recognising that in 2013 it held total assets in excess of $135m and a total income in excess of $57m – that testifies to the success of this organisation and its important role for government. I remember working with the Land Development Corporation and that fierce spirit and determination to get on with the job and deliver for the Northern Territory.
The LDC was fiercely protective of its space and stood proud of its work. I remember the tours I went on as the minister and the incredible people I met, highly skilled experts in their field who were proud to show me the work that was going on. In terms of systems around that, the most integral part of having an overarching support network is an advisory board. Advisory boards have a very important function in overseeing, adding advice, reflection and assessment and valuation.
It is a very important level of accountability. This bill, essentially, wants to change that, as the member for Blain outlined, to where advisory boards will be appointed from time to time. That reflects a ‘make-it-up-as-you-go-along’ approach to a highly successful organisation. Is accountability being maintained?
The member for Johnston and the Leader of the Opposition have raised their concerns around accountability and then, in a very historic day in this parliament, linked it to some other very concerning events under this government.
The Land Development Corporation needs a fully functioning advisory board with a broad charter to advise the corporation’s activities. There is no doubt about that. I celebrate the successes of the LDC with the government and the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment – the East Arm Logistics Precinct, the Marine Supply Base, the multiuser barge facility, the marine supply business sector and the commercial hardstand area.
As the minister said, anybody who has visited that precinct is inspired by the move to create a very efficient, purpose-built and innovative industry space that will support both onshore and offshore activities relating to the development of northern Australia. It is under way and growing in front of your eyes. A very successful organisation is managing it, so I will go to an anecdote: if it ain't broke, why fix it? It does not seem to be broken; it seems to be going from strength to strength.
I was also very proud and privileged to work with the Land Development Corporation on joint venture projects to develop and release land. Those projects, which the current government is telling the story of, were monumental in terms of the development of the cities of Darwin and Palmerston, and what is the capital of northern Australia.
They were projects, once again, that were informed by an advisory board, a board that oversaw those activities and had a lot of expertise in different areas. It was a multiskilled board that provided the high level of accountability needed for a government dealing with taxpayer funds.
As part of the team formulating our position on this, when I read the material from the minister, looked at this bill and discussed it with colleagues in Caucus, I became very concerned as to why these changes were put in place.
Section 13 of the act establishes an advisory board. It states simply and directly that there is an advisory board; however, this section is repealed in the bill, and under proposed section 13 the minister may establish an advisory board. I presume that would be a hand-picked board. That tends to be logical when dealing with many millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money and high-level projects. It relates to going after experts.
I had the privilege of working with the Darwin Port Corporation and headhunting experts. I remember working with the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory and specifically headhunting experts to advise us on a board. The Land Development Corporation was the same.
Let us say that all things being equal, this change in the bill is not much to worry about. However, Chief Minister, you have certainly lost credibility during your time as the Chief Minister. It was not a good start, with the assassination of your party colleague while he was overseas conducting a very important trade mission, but the Territory then accepted you as the Chief Minister. You had the opportunity then to show your colours, but we are starting to see a pattern of avoiding accountability.
It means, as the member for Blain makes very clear, cutting red and green tape. It is desperate behaviour now to get things done your way. It is your way or no way, and it avoids all accountable systems of government.
I hear a lot of talk during my travelling in the bush, but when I come to the big end of town, it is great because many people I know and worked with still talk to me. They like to talk to and inform me. The word on the street is that the Cabinet processes of the CLP government are quite dysfunctional; future inquiries down the track will be able to trawl through those documents and bring them to the light of day. These are the serious records of the accountability of any government.
I have a reservation about the way you have worded your legislation, in regard to the minister establishing this board. It smacks of a hand-picked crew, and you can then hand-pick a crew for one job, dismiss them and hand-pick a crew for another job.
It does not resonate well with the opposition in the game we are competing in, because there have been lots of penalties from the CLP. The CLP is now starting to step up the game and, at the same time, expose itself in the constituency in regard to the level of accountability, where taxpayers’ funds are used and government operations are conducted.
The bill also repeals section 14 and creates new provisions which totally emasculate the role of an advisory board. That is of great concern to the opposition, which puts this as a challenge.
The chief executive officer is appointed by the minister; the Chief Minister has made that very clear during Question Time over the last couple of days. Hansard will reflect his words, but the theme of what he has said is, ‘I appoint the CEO’. You appoint the CEO and the CEO appoints the staff. I accept that too, and you have made that very clear. To use the Chief Minister’s terminology again, his hands are all over it. This bill says the Chief Minister will appoint the CEO. The CEO will be directly responsible to the Chief Minister. The minister will also decide who is on an advisory board.
It is pretty close quarters; it is almost like operating in a submarine. It is business conducted at close quarters, and a very radical shift away from the current systems of visibility and open and transparent accountability with an advisory board. It is a high-level board of representative experts that provides an integral role for the operation, in this case, of the Land Development Corporation, a highly successful arm of government.
Who is driving the intention inherent in this bill? The minister for Lands and Planning gave us a summation of the success of the Land Development Corporation, a synopsis of its activities, portfolio and investments, and then he mentioned the driving force being cost savings. After talking about the enormous successes of the organisation and its portfolios, he talked about the determining factor being cost savings. I do not understand that. Maybe the Chief Minister will elaborate on how much will be saved. Is it $33m? Is that how much will be saved by sacking an advisory board and appointing hand-picked boards from time to time? I am not sure, but the minister for Lands and Planning did not elaborate, other than to say the method and strategy was to deliver cost savings.
One rationale for the changes, according to the Chief Minister, is the cost of operating the board. Once again, there will be cost savings, but I daresay there is a huge risk factor here. For the cost savings that will be delivered, which the Chief Minister will inform parliament about, will they balance out the risk that will be incurred within a current system that is, obviously, highly successful? You must ask those serious questions when you are in opposition. You have to put forward the tough love and the government, hopefully, will respond in good faith.
When you look at some of the CLP’s transactions when in government, it starts to unravel. Maybe accountability is slipping and this bill is all about clouding and covering up. The big issue that has emerged is the matter of $1m to the Tiwi Islands. In a very spiteful attack, the Chief Minister tried to say Labor is against economic development on the Tiwi Islands; the constituency would judge that comment for what it is worth. It is desperate, vindictive political grandstanding from a Chief Minister who, over two days in Question Time, has refused to answer any questions about this $1m.
Having had the privilege of working with the Land Development Corporation, sitting in opposition and being the brunt of vindictive attacks from a neo-liberal politician, I have formed my own opinion that the Chief Minister has his fingers in the till at the Land Development Corporation. He has gone for a desperate cash grab. That is all I can make of this matter because the Chief Minister refuses to answer questions and be accountable to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
I know how this operation works in the Land Development Corporation. I know the integrity of that organisation and its systems of accountability. It seems to me there is something very wrong.
There is a trail of e-mails that support my conspiracy theory, Chief Minister. I want to give you credit, yet there seems to be more and more information emerging to show you have constantly and consistently stepped outside of accountable processes and protocols. Nobody is sacred, and the Land Development Corporation has also fallen victim to your style of self-centred, self-interested management.
I celebrate any investment in the Tiwi Islands. I have visited the Tiwi Islands on a number of occasions and can see its potential, but the difference between the Country Liberal Party and the Territory opposition is that we want to do it properly in an open and accountable manner. Unfortunately, this funding of Tiwi Resources Pty Ltd has taken place outside those accountable, open and transparent government processes. You had your fingers in the till and $1m of that prized and protected Land Development Corporation budget has been transferred well and truly outside of its system of accountability. I share the concerns of the Chief Financial Officer of the Land Development Corporation, who has expressed grave fears in a correspondence trail.
Chief Minister, you are compromising public servants and accountable, professional operators. Your actions are compromising the open, accountable and transparent work of diligent public servants and professional people working on behalf of the Northern Territory taxpayer, and that is very unfair.
The trail of e-mails is of great concern, not only for the lack of accountability, but because of the comprising of these officers I had the privilege of meeting and working with, and who I respect. Chief Minister, that will be one of your legacies which will continue rebounding throughout the Northern Territory public sector and the constituency.
The chief executive officer has also entered into this correspondence trail and, from reading the correspondence, has been totally compromised by a politician. That is a huge risk in terms of good governance and accountability. It is blight on the taxpayer and a disgrace that the chain of command is compromised. There are high-level contract officers who have to be compromised as well to manage the mismanagement of a politician, in this case the Chief Minister.
The Chief Minister has brought this bill to the House and is now trying to seek a legislative instrument to support his individual self-interest style in the management of taxpayer resources. We have seen an incredibly unprofessional self-interested, self-centred approach from a politician now moving it to a higher level, through this bill, that will create a legislative instrument allowing these transactions to take place under the guise of accountable government. That is the twist in this bill. That is one of the reasons the government cannot support this bill.
As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, it is perfect timing from the government. You could not have brought this into the House on a better day, after democracy has been smashed one blow after another. It has been decimated. We are now dealing with a bill that will allow a statutory authority to run its own show outside any accountable systems that have created and maintained an organisation that can stand proud of having total assets in excess of $135m and a total income in excess of $57m in 2013.
It is a successful organisation, but this government sees fit to change it. This government seems fit to attack the provisions and emasculate the role of an advisory board, which will give them extra cover. It will give them the cover they need to operate more effectively within the legislative frameworks of the Legislative Assembly.
I find this to be of great concern. Those members opposite, once again, must question the leadership and direction of the Country Liberal Party government.
I find it amazing that nobody seems to speak about why this government is open and accountable or how this government is transparent. It seems to be a closed shop. There does not seem to be much team playing going on. It is always delegated to one or the other; it is a quick scripted piece and then an exit out the back door. After what I witnessed today, be aware that at this level, as an elected community member, we are held accountable. It does not go away when you jump in your car and leave the car park. You are accountable for life, and that is what we take very seriously on this side.
I concur with the Leader of the Opposition and support our rejection of this bill. I thank the member for Johnston for his work in the Labor team and for creating a good, healthy debate. I thank the Labor Caucus for bringing forward a very strong alternative position. The government can carp and whine and twist and turn, but it must face a very strong argument, an alternative position and opposition to this legislative instrument.
Members on that side should be seriously considering their position on this after the series of attacks on democracy in the Northern Territory today. To add another outrageous cover-up to this litany of CLP, dare I say it – I had better not say it, because the Deputy Speaker will throw me out if I use the ‘c’ word.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, that was the most extraordinary contribution to a debate I have ever heard.
The guy has completely lost it. He said this is some sort of great conspiracy and there will no longer be an advisory board to advise the LDC because it is becoming too expensive. The LDC is a corporation that must run like a business, and is starting to look at the expense of running that business. It costs a lot of money at $190 000. The government’s determination, and the LDC’s advice, is to get rid of that expense. If we need advice we will probably hire a consultant to provide it, rather than keeping a board of $190 000 per year. That is a massive conspiracy, according to members opposite. That is leaving the reservation in an astonishing way. At least we are not generating headlines – ‘Labor is scum, filthy, corrupt’. That was the headline of the Northern Territory News of 28 August.
We can all use that sort of language, but we must stump up some evidence. Unfortunately, as usual, the fantasy world in which members opposite live goes from the ridiculous to the even more ridiculous with every passing breath.
I am quite convinced the LDC going to the Northern Territory government, telling it the cost of the board – $190 000 a year – and suggesting it could seek advice from other sources more cheaply is a straightforward commercial decision. To call it anything else is to gild the lily, which is the problem with members opposite. Every time they think they are on to an issue, rather than stick with it and explore it they gild the lily and start to expand to areas which are fascinating.
One of these includes the bizarre assertions we have been listening to during the last two Question Times about the LDC’s contribution to the Tiwi Islands. It is an effort to try to get something happening on the Tiwi Islands; as I understand it, a prospectus has been produced as a result of commercial decisions the LDC has taken in that space.
If that is correct, there is nothing improper. It is a case of making an allegation repeatedly until such time as something sticks. Rather than making the effort and working some yards you sit on your backsides in this place, use the ‘c’ word and determine to go down this path.
Debate suspended.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, at the request of the member for Nelson I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 153, General Business Order of the Day No 1 be postponed until the next General Business Day.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to try to accommodate members opposite, but if you make such a motion you must explain why. I have had no communication from the member for Nelson in relation to re-ordering the business of the day, and I have had no communication from members opposite.
The order of business, as it appears on the Notice Paper, is the order of business we try to work with. I will not make a big song and dance of it, but when you make such a motion you can at least say why. This is so people who need to be in the House to debate these matters can be informed they do not have to be here, or so the next matters of business can be dealt with by people who might be otherwise indisposed. A little courtesy with some warning would be useful.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Standing Order 153 does not require an explanation, so I am happy to put the motion.
Ms WALKER: The member for Nelson approached me and we took advice from the Serjeant-at-Arms. The member for Nelson is perhaps in a place at the moment where he does not feel obliged to communicate with a government that has shafted him, so if you could put the motion.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Elferink: Next time, keep your communication going, guys.
Ms Lawrie: You have been lying to him for weeks.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The use of the word ‘lying’ is entirely unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the Leader of the Opposition please withdraw?
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw. It is so accurate.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am happy to sit here, let you babble on and chew into your time, or should we start?
Continued from 20 August 2014.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. I cannot believe we are here again; it has been over 12 months since this bill was first introduced to parliament. Let us remember what this legislation is about. This is, fundamentally, a very good bill and it is right. Why is it right? Because it is a bill to support firefighters, the people on the front line protecting human lives and property in their day-to-day job, knowing very well they could be putting their lives at risk for the protection of others. Day in and day out, they do a very dangerous job, yet here we are, one year after this bill was introduced, and there has been no progress in putting it in place.
We have had to reintroduce this bill because it is right. Our firefighters deserve protection under the Workers Compensation Scheme if they get sick and develop cancer as a result of performing their job. We know, and it has been medically proven, firefighters in the line of duty are more likely to develop certain types of cancers; that is, they are more likely to suffer from cancer as a result of doing their job.
As members of parliament, should we not be doing the right thing and supporting firefighters? Should we not be passing legislation that supports our firefighters if, as a result of their careers on the front line protecting us, they one day develop cancer? What if they have gone to an incident where they have been exposed to dangerous chemicals or substances, and this has meant them developing cancer? Should we not be giving them protection and support through workers
compensation?
That is what this bill is all about. The legislation is about making sure that if a firefighter gets sick as a result of doing their job, the presumption with regard to receiving support through the workers’ compensation system is reversed and it is assumed they have developed cancer as a result of their jobs.
Four firefighters have been fighting for this, and we have been fighting, as members of the opposition, to support them. It is not only four firefighters waiting to find out whether or not they will receive some support from this parliament – particularly from this government which, so far, has pretty much ignored them – it is for firefighters in the future. It is for the people on the job now and who will be on the job tomorrow. It is to ensure we have protections in place for them when they do their jobs.
This is not new in this country. This type of legislation has been in place in many jurisdictions in the United States and Canada, and now it is here in Australia. Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania have this type of legislation, as has the federal government. We have firefighters working on the front line at the airport who are covered by this type of legislation, yet outside the airport other firefighters do not have the same protections in place, which is ridiculous.
The legislation proposed by the opposition is very thorough. The bill covers not only career firefighters, but also volunteer firefighters in the Territory. We know there are many people in the Territory who give their time to volunteer firefighting services in the Territory. In the Dry Season it is pretty tough going, and in those long, dry, hot summers in Central Australia they can be right up against it. The conditions in the Territory make it very challenging trying to protect lives and property. There are many people who work very hard as volunteer firefighters and they also deserve our support.
This bill before the House will be retrospective, meaning it will recognise those firefighters battling cancer at the moment and who deserve our support. So far I have been very disappointed with the government’s response to that, because we do not know where it stands in relation to those four firefighters.
This legislation also covers 16 different types of cancer. Through research these 16 cancers have been found to be more likely linked to people fighting fires. These are cancers they are more likely to develop as a result of their job. However, here we are, a year on, having to reintroduce this legislation.
We can all remember the events of August last year when this bill was first introduced by the member of Fannie Bay. Firefighters were in the gallery, hoping to see some support from the government so this bill could pass and they would receive the support they so wanted for their mates in the job. Instead, the bill was not passed. We were told, ‘She’ll be right, just wait and see. We are currently reviewing workers compensation in the Northern Territory; we will look at it and have something to show you, but we support the firefighters.’ It was clear the government was not ready to give a commitment. These firefighters battling cancer have had to wait over a year and they are very upset, disappointed and feel let down by the CLP government. They do not feel supported at all.
A year on, and what did we see during the last sittings? When the government knew this bill was being reintroduced we finally saw a concession; the CLP was willing to, apparently, introduce its legislation, which we still have not seen the details of, with regard to presumptive legislation recognising that firefighters who develop cancer as a result of their job should be entitled to workers compensation in the Northern Territory. There are some differences between the legislation the opposition has put up and what we anticipate the government, if it does not support this legislation today and goes down the track of introducing its own legislation – from what we information we have been able to get regarding the government’s bill, there will be some differences.
For example, it will not cover as many cancers. We do not know which cancers will not be covered compared to this bill today, but I understand the government was looking to cover about 12 different forms of cancer, not the 16 in the bill we are debating today. The other big question is around the bill being retrospective.
Last sittings, during the heat of debate on another topic, we asked the then Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim, if the four firefighters battling cancer and needing support from the government would receive it. Would the government’s bill cover them through the Workers Compensation Scheme?
If the government proceeds with its bill and fails to support this legislation today, what will happen? Will they be covered? We asked the then Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim, again and again, ‘Will they be covered, yes or no? Will the four people battling cancer be covered by this bill you are meant to be introducing?’ He would not give us a straight answer.
People still do not know. It is not certain and they want an answer. I hope today that, firstly, the government supports the firefighters and this legislation, because it is far more extensive than what we understand it will put up. If the government will not support this legislation, will it give those four firefighters the support they deserve? They have put their lives on the line for Territorians for a very long time. These are career firefighters; these four blokes have been firefighters for a very long time, protecting Territorians and property. They deserve our support. Will the government show its support for them?
Here we are again with the legislation before the House. I hope the government will support the bill today and not hold off any longer. This could have been sorted out in August last year; people could have had certainty over a year ago about what support they would receive. It would have taken a lot of stress off their minds. It would help them with their treatment and in getting on with their lives and planning. It would make them feel far more supported by this government.
I hope we start seeing some of the politics taken out of this debate. This is a clear issue to me. We know the facts with regard to firefighters, their careers and what they are exposed to as a result of doing their job. It is straightforward.
This bill was put up in August last year when we knew the facts. Nothing has changed. We still know these four firefighters are battling cancer and we know firefighters in the future will be battling it as a result of doing their job.
Today this bill is back before the government, and I call on government to do the right thing and support the legislation. Last August when this came up, firefighters were told this was being reviewed as part of the Workers Compensation Act, yet we have seen very little action from the government. We have heard about a so-called bill, but there have been very few details.
Before the government today is a perfectly good, extensive bill. It is a bill that will not only give our career firefighters the coverage they deserve and need, but also volunteer firefighters in the Territory. It is a no brainer. These firefighters deserve our support.
I hope the government stops mucking about and gets down to business in supporting this bill. Firefighters have been waiting too long. We have brought this up time and time again, but is it any surprise we are again talking about the protection of workers? In this case, it is firefighters. We have seen the way government treats other workers. We know they will not sit down and talk to, for example, ambulance officers, another group of frontline service providers saving the lives of Territorians day in, day out. Where is the government when the people who put themselves on the front line to save and protect Territorians need our support and help? Where have you been? It is time to support this legislation.
I have been very fortunate to know Jock McLeod through this process and to have had many conversations with him. He is a very good man who has fought so hard to get this legislation before parliament. He is not the only one; there is also Tommy, Snogga and Danny, who have fought hard, not for themselves, but for their colleagues in the future and against what they will be facing if they are unlucky enough to suffer cancer as a result of doing their job.
Today I hope to finally see, a year too late, the government coming on board to support the Worker’s Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. This is good legislation; it puts the Territory up there, ensuring we have extensive coverage for firefighters and that career and volunteer firefighters are covered too. It ensures 16 cancers are covered, acknowledges there must be retrospective coverage and that people fighting cancer as a result of their job need protection as well.
I look forward to hearing what the government has to say. I hope they will be supportive so we can finally give these firies the support they deserve.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of upper primary school students from Maningrida College, accompanied by Matthew Lotherington, Shannon Alexander, Jo Kilminster, Sharon Hayes, Sandy Cutler and Anton Bonson. On behalf of honourable members I extend a warm welcome to our visitors and hope you enjoy your visit to Parliament House this evening.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, g’day to everyone from Maningrida. You are working very hard tonight. It is nearly 6 pm, way past your school hours, but it is very good to see you here. We were in Maningrida two weeks ago; we took Cabinet there, and Francis, your local member to my right – give them a wave, Francis. We were there talking to everybody and seeing what we could do to help Maningrida. We looked at your school, and it is good to see you here tonight.
This is an opportunity for the member for Casuarina to learn a bit about politics, because the member for Wanguri presents debate in a sensible fashion. The member for Fannie Bay used to, but he has lost it a bit these days. He gets a bit grubby; he is learning from the Leader of the Opposition, even though he opposes her. I suggest you move to that side, because when you see debates come into this Chamber on a very important matter, and they are constructed properly by people like the member for Wanguri, that is how you start to change things in terms of politics. This is a very important and serious matter when it comes to presumptive legislation around firefighters.
This is something we have discussed many times before, and it has been shrouded in politics because of the poor way it was handled before.
Ms Fyles: By your government.
Mr GILES: Sorry, what was that, Nicole?
Ms Manison: I did not say that.
Mr GILES: Sorry, it was the person who cannot run politics properly. Member for Wanguri, I will talk to you because you have the ability to converse in political speak a lot better than some of your rude and arrogant colleagues over there, but this is a serious issue.
We said we would look at this. It is well known that the final report into the review of the Northern Territory government’s Workers Compensation Scheme has been completed. The report was put on the NT WorkSafe website on August 20 this year, and it is well known that NT WorkSafe recommended all changes be accepted in principle, but with some variations and further suggestions. We have been looking at this intently.
This is before your time, but many others, including the member for Fannie Bay – who has fallen down in his political style trying to over-politicise it – have suggested we need to do this urgently. As you said, it has been a year since it was first raised, which is a shame. You were in government for over 11 years; you were a government adviser, so why did you not do it? It may seem simplistic in a question, but if it was that important why did you not do it?
A serious question to the head of United Voice, Matthew Gardiner: why did Labor not do this when he was the head of the unions? What was it that stopped you doing it? You want to do it now you are out of government.
It is easy for you to criticise us, but you were there. You were an advisor in government, and you did not drive it through. That is a fair question to ask, but a lesson in politics – you would know this lesson because you and I used to work together when you worked for the former minister, Chris Burns. A simple telephone call to talk about these things is how issues are fixed in politics. Member for Casuarina, on this side of the Chamber talking on important policy matters is a part of doing business.
The member for Nhulunbuy has never called me about Gove …
Ms Walker: Oh, yes, I have, you liar!
Mr GILES: The member for Barkly has never called; the member for Nightcliff never rings. To the member for Wanguri …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Ms Walker: I withdraw, even though he has been most dishonest.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have less calling across the floor, please.
Mr GILES: Member for Wanguri, the way business used to be done when you were working for Chris Burns was a good way of running politics and policy, and achieving change in the Northern Territory. You do not have to be in government to achieve change; you and I know that. You have the ability to run that model. Member for Casuarina, spend a bit of time talking to the member for Wanguri and you will receive much better lessons than you will from anyone else.
In regard to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the changes you have proposed, we will not be accepting the bill because we are working on it. We are accepting recommended changes. We will come to parliament very soon with some of those changes; we have been chatting in Cabinet about some of the last minute variations in some of these areas. It will be discussed this Friday coming, hopefully for introduction next week, with some changes to support those firefighters.
At this stage we are only looking at firefighters. I have been in discussion with colleagues, most notably the members for Daly and Goyder, about how we can also encompass volunteers and auxiliaries into this frame to support them. It is a little easier said than done, but we are looking at that now. That may end up coming as an amendment later if I can get some things done and the bouncing ball follows the right process.
It is interesting you have said it a little more delicately, but your other colleagues, who are very poor at politics, have screamed loudly about why this has not been done. You said it should have been done a year ago; these things take time. If it was that simple, you would have done it when you were in government.
I have recommended to Cabinet, should any changes come forward through our proposed bill – which I anticipate may come – that it should not be backdated to the date when it was first raised as an issue in this Chamber, but taken back to 25 August 2012, when we came into government. I cannot take it any further beyond that because if it was that important you would have done it when you were in government. There is obviously a reason you did not do it. I am not sure what that was, but we will take it back to the day we came into government. That is a guarantee from me, should it pass Cabinet in that form. That is for any proposed bill we may bring in; this is not your legislation. That is a commitment and something that will be considered later this week in Cabinet.
It is an important issue. I feel for those who are in the firefighting industry, including those who are auxiliaries and volunteers. It is something that is under consideration, and we are looking at how we can make changes to this into the future. We have to understand the full complexities of it. I hope, should the bouncing ball follow the way I believe it may go, there may be some changes through an amendment. If not, we may have to look at a later date. It is definitely on our radar in regard to how we want to change that.
I do not need to say much more, but I encourage you to go back to the old model of governance, when you were in government and we were in opposition, where a simple phone call could help resolve some policy and legislative matters so things could be worked through collectively. As I said, you do not need to be in government to make change. If you are prepared to work together, you can make change for the betterment of the Territory and, in this case, firefighters.
If that approach had been taken earlier, rather than the political argy-bargy of the descending member for Fannie Bay, this may have been resolved a lot earlier. We will not be accepting this bill, but we will be working on the issue going forward. If you would like to have a briefing next week, I would be very happy to provide one to outline where government is going in this area.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is appalling that our Chief Minister gave seven minutes to this debate. We are talking about important legislation that will be life-changing for some of the most valuable members of our community.
As shadow minister for Public Employment, I wholeheartedly support this bill, not only for our firefighters of today but our firefighters of the future, some of who might be sitting in the gallery watching this debate.
Chief Minister, you have dragged this on for a year. Last year in parliament I watched the then Deputy Chief Minister jump up and down and carry on; he then chased firefighters outside, and I witnessed him tell them he would do something about it. ‘It will be okay, mate.’ He spoke to them as if he knew them. He had them believing your government cared, but you do not. If you genuinely cared you would have done something in the time you have been in government.
These people – some of who are, sadly, sick – are fighting not only their illness, but a battle with the government as well. The least you can do is pass this legislation; I do not understand why you will not support it. If you want your own legislation, you have had a year to introduce it. Pass this legislation tonight and support these people. Acknowledge the four sick gentlemen and all our firefighters and their efforts.
You have talked about your bill, draft reports and things on websites. There are concerns about this, and you suggested you may introduce some legislation next week that will still not cover volunteers.
We do not have time; we need you to support this legislation and our firefighters tonight. It is not about politics. You know what the right thing to do is. You know that by supporting this legislation, you will be supporting some of our most valuable frontline workers. These are Territorians who, every day go to work and put their lives at risk when they attend incidents. Over time they have also sadly developed cancer as a result of their jobs. The research is there, which my colleagues, the members for Wanguri and Fannie Bay, have spoken about.
We are not asking you to put something in place that has not been proven. We are not asking you to pass legislation other states and territories do not have. It is ironic that firies working on the airport site are covered by legislation protecting them, yet less than one kilometre away our Territory firefighters are not protected.
Of all the issues we could be divided on, you choose this one. You are playing politics with people our community support and respect.
This is a good bill, and I thank my colleague, the member for Fannie Bay, for his efforts. He has spent a lot of time working on this bill and talking to firefighters; he has introduced all of us to some of the gentlemen fighting their own illnesses. He has worked with the union. I think it was last year when United Voice approached him as the shadow minister responsible; I know they approached the government, but you ignored them, which was so wrong.
Our firefighters have been waiting too long for this legislation, and it would be wonderful if you could come to the Chamber tonight, acknowledge the debate and pass this bill.
I do not understand, Chief Minister, what you have against our frontline workers. Amongst our key frontline workers are our firefighters, who we are talking about in this debate. You refused to talk to ambulance officers and laughed at our emergency department nurses. I will never forget sitting here looking across the Chamber when you giggled at the figure of 72 emergency department nurses as having signed a petition.
I hope, Chief Minister, you never get sick and have to go to RDH. I have friends who are nurses, and they are waiting to talk to you about the dangerous conditions they work in day in, day out. Not only do we have double-bunking, we now have triple-bunking. We have total bed block because you shut down the medi-hotel for its intended purpose. They cannot move people through the hospital. The Health minister laughed and said you cannot take people from the ED to the medi-hotel. We were not proposing that. RDH is in chaos, but I do not understand what this government has against our frontline workers, our ambulance officers, nurses and firefighters.
We have been aware of this for a year. We have legislation, so if you can put the politics aside, do the right thing for these people and pass this legislation – I know you do not want to listen to me, particularly the Chief Minister. He does not mind the member for Wanguri, but every time something is mentioned, he picks on the member for Nightcliff, which is fine; I have broad shoulders, I can handle it.
If you do not want to listen to me, listen to Andrew McLeod and his family’s story. Andrew is a legend in the Territory, but you probably do not know that because you have not been around long enough. The open letter he sent to you and the government last year was printed in the Northern Territory News:
We need to pass this legislation so we can protect past firefighters who are, sadly, ill, and those going forward. Chief Minister, sadly, some of these firefighters do not have time for you to have a chat; they are quite ill. It would mean so much if you could pass this legislation. What does it mean to you? This legislation is something other states and territories have. We are not asking for anything unique. It is well known these men developed cancer as a result of their job. We sent them to fires without the appropriate clothing and equipment. We sent them without breathing masks to protect them. They have made the ultimate sacrifice for us; think of all those lives they have saved over the years, and we are turning our backs on them. What is most frustrating is that a year ago in this House we debated this. Legislation was not passed that night, but we thought that debate had raised enough awareness with the government about this issue.
When the member for Fong Lim followed those men outside and pretty much promised them he would look into it and do something – I am not sure of his exact words, but I am sure Jock and the others would happily share them – they genuinely thought something would happen, but no. A year later, we are still waiting. We can end that tonight by passing this legislation. Our firefighters have been waiting far too long; to Jock, Tommy, Danny, Snogga and all our firefighters, we will not stop. We will keep raising this issue and we will make sure this legislation, when it finally passes through the House, protects you.
It is appalling that the Chief Minister and government are playing games with the date. The date we introduced it, a year ago, is where you will backdate it to. The legislation introduced then would have been retrospective to cover those firefighters who are sick and those who have run out of sick leave; TIO, as I understand it, keeps mucking them around. Our legislation would encompass them, but you are playing games. Tonight, we hear it will go back to 25 August 2012. Wake up to yourselves. Pass the legislation retrospectively to help all our current and past Territory firefighters who need it.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I pick up on the comments by the Chief Minister in relation to this legislation being in the Cabinet book at the moment. Presumptive legislation is before the government for consideration and all things being equal – I cannot second guess the conversation in the Cabinet room – that legislation will, in every likelihood, be before the House in the not so distant future.
One thing I am always cautious about when we create presumptive legislation is that it talks about a legal presumption, not the presumptions some members would care to make in this place. I am sympathetic towards firefighters, police officers and any number of people who, as a matter of course in their daily jobs, go about their business and expose themselves to danger. Some of the dangers those people expose themselves to are immediate and obvious.
Police officers will take on people with knives, guns and pointed sticks, etcetera. If there is danger from a needle stick injury in nursing – there is proximity between the injury and any subsequent damage that is caused, and proximity is one of the issues. Proximity is one of the fundamental issues of the law of tort. The difficulty with these sorts of cancers is creating a proximal link between the illness and the exposure. The proximal link to which this presumptive legislation refers is essentially a statistical one.
When a type of cancer is formed, it tends to be more prevalent in people who have been exposed to different kinds of smoke. In the course of my role as a police officer and volunteer firefighter, I was, on many occasions, exposed to smoke from grass fires, chemical fires, etcetera. This also included vehicle fires, which were quite common, and I even remember jumping into Red Rooster on Bagot Road one day to hose down a fire started by an arsonist inside that shop.
I would have to show, if I was ever to develop lung cancer, by way of example, there was a proximal link between exposure to smoke as a police officer and the lung cancer I had developed. I am also a former smoker. I used to smoke lots of cigarettes so if I ever developed lung cancer, it would probably have more to do with my exposure to cigarette smoke than fire smoke incurred on the job.
Many of these people who have been firefighters may have been smokers as well. Smoking was extremely common in the 1970s. We used to sit in police cars, drive around town with the windows up, air conditioners going and smoke all day long. I imagine people in the fire service were also regularly exposed through cigarette smoking in those days. If you walked into the muster room of a police station, cigarettes and ashtrays were all over it, and people smoked inside buildings. I smoked in the communications section in the old Mitchell Street police station. We would literally sit there with the running sheet and a fag hanging out of our mouths.
I raise these issues because presumptive legislation is reversing a presumption at law. Reversing the presumption at law means you are saying where there is now a presumption, generally, against a cancer being linked with a type of exposure as the result of being a fireman, there will be, at law, a presumption for it. There seems to be an automatic assumption amongst members opposite that a presumption in favour of it – you have developed a type of cancer which is more prevalent amongst firemen than the general population – means we will presume at law that your exposure to smoke for many years was a direct result of your job. The implications of that are workers compensation insurance payments. That is what this argument is about.
I advise members opposite to not make the presumption that insurers will automatically start to say, ‘Of course we accept your claim outright because there is a presumption’. Because there are hundreds of thousands of dollars attended to these sorts of payments, insurance companies will tend to still ask the question of a person making a claim. If lung cancer is one of the types of cancer involved – of course, you can develop lung cancer having never smoked and never been exposed to toxic substances. Sometimes, you can just develop lung cancer. Insurance companies may start to look at the history of firefighters and ask questions such as, ‘How many cigarettes did you smoke? Do you still smoke cigarettes?’
Where there is a belief, magically, that insurance companies will not ask hard questions, I am not entirely sure that will always be the case. In fact, I suspect insurance companies may, if the legislation is not drafted correctly and carefully considered, use the legislation as a vehicle by which they start to stridently resist claims against their compensation funds. They will do so in an effort to test the quality of evidence. It would go to court, where all circumstances of the cancer would be examined in an attempt to test the quality of the evidence or assumptions. Presumptive legislation carries in it a capacity to rebut the presumption, and that is what it is about.
When members say this is about stopping people having to go through a painful process, it is conceivable that firefighters, particularly those who have smoked, may find themselves in even longer and more tawdry litigation in an effort to fight the insurance company trying to rebut the presumption.
For that reason and other reasons like it, government then goes through a very careful process of doing its homework and research. I do not seek to diminish efforts made by members opposite. I will presume they are not playing politics on this but genuinely want to see this change. I want that too, but I am not an expert on the law of tort. I cannot – and probably cannot be expected to – cast my mind, with all the other distractions of my job, as we all have as members of parliament, to the substantial body of law surrounding compensation claims, workers compensation claims and claims made under presumptive legislation. For that we rely, and lean very heavily, on our public servants, who are professional and experienced people who know how to bolt this stuff together.
The bill brought before this House will have been drafted by an expert drafter and, no doubt, some research will have gone into it. However, the nature of a Cabinet document, as members opposite who have sat in Cabinet will know, is that whilst it grinds along ever so slowly, it make its way through a number of checks and balances, not least of which are through legal experts with expertise in the field of tort law pertaining to workers compensation matters. Those legal experts will push it through their filter.
Once the idea has been proposed, Cabinet ratifies that a bill be created. The minister trots off, has the bill created and then brings it back to Cabinet after it has gone through every department for relative input.
For those of you who have seen Cabinet documents, these are the infamous blues that sit on the front of Cabinet documents. Each department will write a note. Treasury will make a note; no doubt Treasury will say, ‘This is very concerning because it has financial implications’.
Police, Fire and Emergency Services will make a note and discuss all issues of concern. No doubt the departments of Health, Education, Business – through WorkSafe – and a number of other departments will have input into the process of the legislation. You then have a massive body of experience looking at the bill. As a consequence of that you have a bill that will have considered all issues, we hope, that must be considered through a process like this. It still goes back to Cabinet for its final ratification; that final ratification process will occur very shortly, and you heard the Chief Minister refer to it.
The reason we cannot talk in absolutes at the moment is because neither the Chief Minister nor I, as members of Cabinet, are in a capacity to pre-empt the board’s decision. There may be a last minute glitch in the system. There may be a last minute matter of concern that prevents this matter from being finally approved by Cabinet and could possibly delay it even further. However, we hope, with the amount of work that has already been done and the fact this has been to Cabinet twice, if memory serves me, that we are finally in a position to pass a bill which has been broadly considered.
I am sure members opposite would agree it is important to make sure this bill is checked, re-checked, double checked and then checked again to make certain all relevant considerations have been made and digested by all relevant parties. This is so we have a bill which is the most workable for all people concerned, most importantly the potential claimants under the legislation.
If members opposite would like to see all of that it would be proper of them to accept defeat of the bill before the House now. This is because it has not been through all those checks and balances; they should accept that the government bill, which will hopefully be introduced next week subject to a Cabinet decision, will be the better of the two by virtue of it having travelled more broadly in the interests of those people who will be affected by its operation.
Woe betide this House if, in a fit of desperation to pass this bill and have it operational, we act in haste and get it wrong.
The bill we have before the House has not gone through that rigorous process. There were instances under the former Labor government, to their congratulations, where they took a bill – I think it was from Terry Mills – for example, a very simple amendment to the Police Administration Act relating to medals. The former government allowed that private member’s bill to go through the Assembly. However, it also went through a very rigorous process of government before it was passed by the House.
It was not a difficult bill, it was very simple. We ask, if members opposite are not playing politics with this, that they ensure this has been properly pushed through the system by the minister. I imagine they will have written a number of letters, made a number of phone calls and sent a number of e-mails to the government saying, ‘How can we ensure the bill we have brought before the House is the right one to produce?’
I have not heard that from members opposite. They brought the bill in, well intended, and let it sit on the Notice Paper. We have taken it off, looked at it and it pulls up short in a couple of areas. Should our workers compensation scheme be approved by Cabinet next week, what we will present to the House will go into a range of issues that affect workers and employers across the board, not only firefighters.
We will make it clear that rather than dealing with things in isolation, we will deal with matters more globally to ensure individuals are properly protected. The Country Liberals government review was about a scheme that looked into the welfare of all workers. I would hate to find ourselves in a situation where, in our enthusiasm to protect firefighters, noble as it is, we have overlooked other people who might be exposed to workplace injuries caused by exposure to chemicals or other products, where a presumptive scheme might work.
This legislation before the House might pull up short because it does something for professional firefighters, but it does not do it, necessarily, for volunteers or other players in the field. I urge one of two ways forward to the leader of opposition business about this. It is up to the leader of opposition business to give me some guidance in this space, but if they are genuinely concerned about this, adjourn it and let it sit on the Notice Paper. Let us move onto the next item of business and see if we introduce the bill next week. If you are not prepared to do that and will press the issue today, what you will fairly allow me to do is accuse you of playing politics with this, because you will not be prepared to act in the interests of the people you believe you represent.
It is a straightforward suggestion, because in the face of something that may come forward to the House next week after it goes through Cabinet, we cannot pass this and then look at the next bill next week. It would have to be redrafted because there would be a new law on the statute book that we would have to deal with, and it would delay the government bill. If you were to wait, bring it back during GBD, not next week, but the next sittings before Christmas – and we will see if we bring our bill into the House in the meantime. It is a straightforward suggestion and will enable us to take comfort from the motivations of members opposite.
We would like to cast a wider net; we would like to look after nurses and emergency services workers more broadly, and we would like to look at a number of things in relation to what we bring into the House. In the meantime, rather than forcing the issue today and having the question put, seek leave to adjourn this debate, leave it sitting on the Notice Paper and we can come back to it in a month. We will be in a much better position to do what is necessary to protect not only the firefighters of the Northern Territory, but any number of other workers who may be affected by a government bill.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the contributions from members this evening, who covered a broad range of topics. The member for Nelson could not contribute tonight, but he has given me permission to verbal him, so to speak, in the debate tonight. He said he supports this bill, and that he would talk to that. He had a few questions around volunteers, who are included in this bill, and the test there. He accepted that we have responded to his concerns about the first version of this bill that was voted down last year, and that he intended to vote in support of this legislation.
The member for Nelson would have been here to speak for himself and to vote, but after separate business this afternoon, he is not in parliament tonight. It is a real shame, because the debate would have benefited from the contribution of the member for Nelson. I would have appreciated his vote, but he is not here to provide it. However, he did give me permission to comment on his behalf; I have obviously not spoken as well as he would have.
Bipartisanship came up during several contributions tonight, and that was the spirit in which this came forward. When I first met with firies after I took over this shadow portfolio they said they had extended an offer to the Chief Minister and Police minister to meet them at the same time. They wanted someone to bring this bill forward; they did not mind if it was us or the government, so I honoured a promise from ex-Chief Minister Paul Henderson to meet with them and to bring this bill forward. Paul made a personal commitment to them during the 2012 general election. We have heard the CLP ask why we did not do anything about this during our 11 years in government, and it is a bit of a furphy.
The Commonwealth Senate held an inquiry in 2011, from which a report was handed down late that year. We have largely based our bill on that report, as well as on bills that now exist in most other states and at federal level. In late 2011, the Chief Minister and Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services met with firefighters; he said we were going into an election in 2012 and he guaranteed that if we won he would bring this bill forward. We did not win, but as shadow minister I promised firefighters I would continue that work. They extended the same offer to the current government, because they wanted to see this happen and did not mind who did it. There was genuine interest from firefighters and the union to get this done.
We brought a bill forward last year, and I genuinely expected support on the principle. I was surprised to see the member for Fong Lim break convention and jump, immediately after my second reading introductory comments, to say they would not support the bill. It obviously surprised firefighters too. It was at that point the member for Fong Lim introduced politics and accused firefighters of being political for bringing this forward. We were all stumped by that.
Firefighters had a genuine issue, and leading up to that point, with the media we had spoken to and the comments we had made – you are welcome to read in Hansard the way I spoke on the original version of that bill; it was in the spirit of bipartisanship and about a genuine issue. I wanted to fix this, and we were stunned the member for Fong Lim said no to the principle of presumptive legislation. He became quite aggressive in how he dealt with firefighters. I expected the member for Fong Lim, during his second reading comments and as the minister chosen to handle the issue, to say something along the lines of …
Mr Elferink: I move that the debate be adjourned…
Mr GUNNER: We expected him to say that the first time around. When he spoke a month later, we thought he would say, ‘We understand the principle, but you are in opposition and we are in government. We think we can do a better job, and we will be bringing forward our own bill.’ However, instead he jumped, on the spot and off the cuff, to say no. He then proceeded to attack firefighters, which took us all by surprise.
I expected to raise this issue, get some action happening and then the government would come forward with its own bill. That was not the case, which was a shame. The member for Nelson contributed to debate and gave us a couple of things he wanted us to work on, which we have done; I will touch upon those in a minute. We then waited a year to bring the bill back to parliament.
There are some important differences between this bill and what the CLP has advised us it will do, through Dorothy Dixers, media, debate tonight and other forums. There are some important differences between this bill and what the CLP is bringing forward, which I will go through. It is …
Mr Elferink: That is what concerns us.
Mr GUNNER: That is what concerns me. We both have concerns, but different approaches to them. Regarding timeliness, if the Chief Minister had read the earlier debate, he will have read the answer to that issue. That is why we did not do it during our term of government. It came up late in our last term. The Chief Minister made a promise to make it happen in this term. We are no longer in government, so we have done it as an opposition.
The Attorney-General spoke for quite a while about presumption and, in some respects, presumption versus assumption. I have met with the firefighters and talked this through with them. As it was a concern of mine, I did not want them to think we were making a blanket promise. They understand how presumption works. There is no assumption from them that this is an automatic free ride, for a couple of reasons. One is that you have to be suffering with cancer, which no one wants. They also understand that presumption has shifted. It does not mean you automatically receive compensation; the insurance company still has the right of rebuttal. The experience they have had to date in trying to receive cover has been extraordinarily difficult.
I will use Jock as an example of the most recent person who has gone through this. He was being asked to provide evidence of the fires he attended, when the government had no records of this. It was impossible for him to answer the question for the insurance company. Government, whether CLP or ALP, had not been keeping that data over the period of time Jock served. We were asking Jock to provide information we did not have, which proved extremely difficult.
Through that Commonwealth Senate inquiry, the federal government developed legislation. In Tasmania, the ACT, Western Australia and South Australia much work has been done. The Attorney-General asked where the medical evidence is and how this has come forward. It is all based on statistics. A significant body of work has been done regarding what should be covered and the evidence. This bill has been crafted around that.
Firefighters understand how presumption works and how we have arrived at this point in time. They know what is going on. They are finding it almost impossible and would welcome the onus changing. The CLP has accepted this point now too, because it is saying it will bring its own legislation which includes presumption.
When I first introduced this bill, the Commonwealth, the ACT and Tasmania were, from memory, the jurisdictions that had it. Since then, South Australia and Western Australia have introduced their own acts.
One of the big differences between our bill and what the CLP will present is whether volunteers and auxiliaries are included. Our bill includes them and the CLP’s bill does not. I am surprised; I will use South Australia as an example – this is from an ABC article:
It was not the first in Australia, but one of the first in the world.
It was a good news story because it covered career firefighters, but it did not cover volunteers. They have now said that was a mistake, and they are revisiting the legislation to include them:
The minister, John Rau, said in an ABC report:
They have fixed their legislation to include volunteers and acknowledge it was a mistake at the time not to include volunteer firefighters. We have included volunteer firefighters in our bill.
In Western Australia it is the same situation. They admitted they made a mistake and will include volunteer firefighters. To quote WA’s Minister for Emergency Services Joe Francis:
…
Both those jurisdictions have acknowledged it was a mistake to not include volunteers and will include them in their legislation. They are making those changes now. We have volunteers in our legislation, as they should be included. The change from the earlier bill to this version created some minimum criteria for volunteer firefighters to meet. That was at the request of the member for Nelson.
It is worth noting that SA has given its volunteer firefighters the same coverage as the career firefighters. Where we have limits around X number of fires you have to attend, they are saying, ‘No, it is the same criteria as for career firefighters’.
Career firefighters insisted on volunteer firefighters and auxiliaries being covered. They were aware they had a good case and would get coverage, but said they wanted to make sure volunteers and auxiliaries were also covered. The CLP would be making a mistake, just as SA and WA have acknowledged, if it did not include volunteers and auxiliaries in this legislation.
There are ways of including them. We have chosen a method around attending different fires. Across the nation there have been several different ways used to get there, but volunteers have been included. This riddle has not been solved. This has been done elsewhere and you can do it here, as it is not too hard. I urge the CLP to include volunteers and auxiliaries. That is one important distinction between our bill and the CLP’s. We will support the principle of the CLP’s legislation, but we would seek changes to it. The inclusion of volunteers and auxiliaries is one area which needs to change.
We are also concerned that the government says it will include 12 cancers that are covered in its bill. Our bill has 16 cancers, and they have not said which 12 cancers they have and which four miss out. Our bill includes primary site brain cancer; primary site bladder cancer; primary site kidney cancer; primary non-Hodgkin lymphoma; primary leukaemia; primary site breast cancer; primary site testicular cancer; multiple myeloma; primary site prostate cancer; primary site ureter cancer; primary site colorectal cancer; primary site oesophageal cancer; primary site liver cancer; asbestos-related diseases; skin cancer; and lung cancer. Each cancer has a different length of service with the firies attached to it in order to qualify for compensation. We know firefighters are concerned about not knowing if one of the cancers they have will or will not be included in the CLP’s bill.
I will not go into any firefighters’ personal circumstances, but they are unsure if certain cancers will be included. Our bill, based on medical evidence, offers better coverage than the proposed CLP bill. That is another concern – 16 cancers versus 12. We will be interested in which ones the CLP brings forward and which four it will not cover. That is one of the things we are looking at in the differences between the two bills.
There is also the issue of retrospectivity. The CLP first advised it would be retrospective to 28 August 2013, when I first introduced the bill in the House. The CLP is now saying it will be retrospective to the date it was elected. That is arbitrary. A former firefighter with cancer should not be covered based on the date the CLP was elected.
We have approached this with a threshold question. Has a firefighter or former firefighter in the performance of their duty for the Territory and for Territorians developed cancer on the job? We have accepted that responsibility and the CLP is accepting that responsibility too by bringing forward its bill.
We accept the medical evidence that as a firefighter you are more likely to develop cancer on the job. Done! We have a duty of care as a parliament to look after those firefighters. If a firefighter or a former firefighter has developed cancer and knew about that cancer before the CLP was elected, they have to go through the old system. We are saying nonsense to that. Once you accept the responsibility, you move on. This also goes to the cost issue, which has come up a number of times. Will this be expensive? Again, you must ask the question of yourself. Once you accept responsibility, you must deal with it.
There will not be a massive cost issue here. There are very few firefighters, thankfully, who have come forward since my last bill was introduced, and three former firefighters have passed away due to cancer. Under what circumstances they would have qualified under this bill is a different issue, but there are four who are alive that we know about and three who have passed. We are not talking about massive numbers but we are talking about people, so there is a human face to this bill. Once you have accepted responsibility do not draw an arbitrary line. Do not get into some sort of cost debate; this is something you need to deal with.
In SA’s experience, what they budgeted for has been significantly overestimated, so if that side is concerned about advice from Treasury, maybe ring around other jurisdictions. South Australia has been quite forward in saying costs did not reach what it had budgeted for, and that it was not nearly as expensive as thought.
Once you answer the threshold question about your responsibility, which we are – the CLP has asked this question because it is apparently bringing forward presumptive legislation to accept responsibility – once you accept it, deal with it. These are people who have developed or are at a greater risk of developing cancer from the performance of their duties. That is the third major difference between the two bills, why we will have issues with the CLP bill that comes forward and why this bill is superior. United Voice has written to the government to extend its hand again. I will quote from its letter, which I am happy to table:
That was sent this month. Even though the member for Fong Lim engaged in politics, and even though the CLP voted down our last attempt at this, the union and firefighters are still saying, ‘Please talk to us, we have experience in this area and would love to engage and participate. We would love to give you advice on how to make sure this bill does what it is meant to do, which is provide firefighters with cancer proper access to compensation.’
Please sit down with them. They have written to you, again, saying they are happy to talk. I seek leave to table the letter.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER: They want to talk to you, and they have good advice. The Attorney-General said this has not been voted on yet in Cabinet. They have an opportunity to make sure retrospectivity is included, volunteer auxiliaries are covered and that those cancers are covered; we took ours based on the evidence. Working with current firefighters in the Territory, we know we are covering the right cancers, so there is time for you to include those illnesses. Firefighters have extended the olive branch; they have written to the Chief Minister and asked to meet with him to help ensure this legislation does what it is intended to do.
There are ways to solve those riddles, and this bill does that. In response to the Attorney-General’s request for bipartisanship on this, we ask that the government support a bill that provides presumptive legislation and which includes retrospectivity in a way that does not exclude firefighters. It should also include the 16 cancers, not 12. The three points cover volunteers, retrospectivity and the 16 cancers.
The Attorney-General’s request is that we adjourn this until next Wednesday and see what they bring forward, but you have already told us you will not provide those three things.
Do we vote for a bill today that provides those three things? Are you saying that come next Wednesday, when you look at your bill and realise it is missing those three things, you will add them?
Mr Elferink: You do not know what is in it yet.
Mr GUNNER: You have told us, through Dorothy Dixers, in the media and in your contribution today that your bill will not include those three things.
This bill has been on the table for a very long time now, so I am obviously …
Mr Elferink: You are obviously playing politics.
Mr GUNNER: This is not about politics, member for Port Darwin. We have a bill that covers these issues. We can vote on this bill today, and it includes the coverage I thought you would have looked at.
When we were in government, any opposition bill that came forward – in fact any opposition GBD item – went through a Cabinet process; this should have gone through that. We took every opposition item through a Cabinet process to determine whether we supported them and what was missing and what was not. It is one reason we expected the member for Fong Lim, last year, to say the CLP supported the principle but they would bring forward their own bill. Instead, he said they did not support it at all.
We are happy to go to the vote today. We know we will not win the vote today, as we do not have the numbers. However, there is no reason at all why we cannot work together on the government bill. This one will be voted down. The government is bringing forward a bill, and there is no reason we cannot work out possible amendments to that legislation to take it somewhere. This debate is on today and has been flagged for a long time; I appreciate the member for Port Darwin’s last minute approach, but it was last minute.
We are happy with time. If this bill is voted down, there is still a vehicle available, through the firefighters and union’s offer, for the government bill that will come forward. They have already said they are happy to talk to you. I am happy to talk to you after today and work through that government bill. You will have your issues, and we will see what we can argue out, but we are happy to put our bill up as a model. Once you vote this one down, we are happy to work with you on your bill to make it as good as it can be.
From debate today, we can accept your bill will not be of the same standard as this one. It will be different in retrospectivity and cancer coverage, as well as in covering volunteers and auxiliaries. However, I am very happy to engage in debate on that. I do not think adjourning this bill gets us there. Let us put this one to the test; you can vote against it and then we can work together on your bill. That is where we are at, unfortunately, on that one.
If you supported this, we would have it in place, it would cover volunteers, auxiliaries, 16 cancers and would have good retrospectivity provisions ...
Ms Lawrie: It is well worth supporting.
Mr GUNNER: It is well worth supporting. A bill that comes forward without including volunteers and auxiliaries is a mistake. You are saying you will introduce a bill that does not cover volunteers and auxiliaries. That is a mistake that has been admitted by Western Australia and South Australia. Include them. It is possible to include them, which other jurisdictions have done. We have them in this bill.
We believe Territory firefighters, volunteers and auxiliaries should have the same protections and coverage as firefighters at Darwin Airport and Alice Springs Airport. That is our position. We are very happy with the principle of our position. The government has indicated it will vote this down tonight. That will happen, but I am happy to meet with the Attorney-General, whether it is tomorrow or after Cabinet next Monday or Tuesday. If he is the one taking the lead on this now, rather than the Chief Minister …
Mr Elferink: No, not me, sadly. We can organise something.
Mr GUNNER: I accept the Attorney-General’s indication that we will be able to catch up. I appreciate that; I will let the union and firefighters know.
I commend the bill to the House.
The Assembly divided:
Motion negatived.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 97)
Continued from 27 August 2014.
Mr STYLES (Multicultural Affairs): Madam Speaker, the multicultural community in Darwin is a plural one, with many different cultures living harmoniously. We have seen this on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis. I have witnessed this over the number of decades I have lived in the Northern Territory, particularly in Darwin.
We have people from different cultures who in their home countries, many years ago, were in war-torn areas. Yet in Darwin they all sit together sharing a meal at some of the community functions at the Malak Community Centre. They sit in parks at the various functions they run – government supports many of these functions – and you see them having a good time and getting on with their lives.
Government supports the multicultural community in many different ways. I recall sitting on my back veranda a number of years ago with a number of people from Asia. There were a number of people who, traditionally, had fought one another. One of these people made one of the best comments I have ever heard; we were enjoying a nice dinner, a number of curries and a couple of bottles of red wine, and one guy said, ‘I cannot understand why people at home’ – across the table were traditional enemies – ‘do not just sit down and share a bottle of red’.
That has always stuck with me because people who leave some of these countries do not bring their problems with them. They come here as people with good hearts and families and get on with living, contributing to their communities, working and enjoying life.
At that table free speech was alive and well. You can talk about those things, and it is important we do so. Free speech is an important right, one governments should rarely tamper with.
In the Northern Territory we do a great deal to support the concept of multiculturalism, including involvement with the harmony soiree, and we provide support for many multicultural groups in the community. We have Multicultural Community Facilities Grants, the Office of Multicultural Affairs, Quick Response Grants and funding for a range of activities that happen throughout the year to ensure harmony is at the forefront of everyone’s mind.
While people are free to say whatever they want, it is also people’s right to ignore them. Education and support for the concept of multiculturalism are also very important. To quote President Obama in relation to racist comments made by the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team:
Those wise words say a lot. We do not have to listen to that sort of stuff. Generally in this Chamber we hear all sorts of things; we do not have to take any offence to it, unless we wish to. There are lots of things said here and across this country, but people have the right to freedom of speech. People have the right not to listen or respond to the sort of things President Obama was saying talking about people who wish to show their ignorance saying.
Senator Brandis released an exposure draft of proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act for public consultation. The public expressed their views and the government listened; I understand the federal government received thousands of submissions. People have considered the draft and had their say. It has been in the public arena, people have written about the changes, verbally given their opinions and a debate has been held in the community.
As a result, Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced on 5 August 2014 that the federal government is shelving any plans to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Section 18C of that act makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin.
I do not know what will be said tonight, but the bill from the member for Karama came forward as a result of possible changes that may have been made to section 18C. That has passed now, so I am not sure what they will do in relation to this. The current situation is that nothing has changed. The federal legislation provides the same protections against the offensive conduct today as it did last week and from when the member for Karama was in government. I understand the Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commissioner has made a public comment concerning the member for Karama’s bill, suggesting there are gaps in legislative coverage in a number of areas.
I remind the House that the commissioner perceives a gap. She has never suggested that government make this amendment, prior to the member for Karama’s bill. Indeed, the legislation is rarely used in the Northern Territory, which is a great demonstration of our healthy and vibrant multicultural society. It is important to note that government makes policy, not statutory offices.
I have heard the member for Karama speak on many occasions in this House about how wonderful it is in the community. She said she grew up here and there were so many good people in the Territory then. Many of them are still here. Sadly, some have passed on, but a new influx of people has come to the Territory. I attend numerous multicultural functions in the community; I see a fantastic display of what you can achieve when you all choose to live in harmony with one another.
We are very lucky to live in this part of the world and that the people who have been here for many years are of the nature they are. There may be a few ignorant people, but as President Obama said:
The government has made it clear we do not think the member for Karama’s bill is required and that the Territory is sufficiently covered by federal legislation. I ask members opposite to consider that nothing has changed and it is business as usual. It is business as it was when they were in government.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I support the Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill and its provisions for protection from racial and ethno-religious vilification.
The Northern Territory is rich in multiculturalism and diversity. The passing of this bill would demonstrate our collective view that discrimination has no place in the Northern Territory community. During my maiden speech, I mentioned how deeply growing up in such a diverse community has impacted on me, how welcoming this community was to my family, and still is. I am proud of my family’s heritage.
I have been grateful over the last six weeks to attend a range of events run by our local multicultural groups in the northern suburbs and the broader Darwin community. The wonderful and deep contribution these groups make to the social and economic development of the Northern Territory is clear. At recent Eid celebrations organised by the Islamic Society, unity and peace were strong. They are important messages, particularly given some of the discussions we know are occurring nationally. The Indian Cultural Society opened its doors to the community during its Navratri celebrations, as did the Filipino Association of the NT for its 18th Barrio Fiesta, the Fiji Association for Fiji Day and the Nepalese Association during Dashain.
We are incredibly lucky, and the way in which we share and celebrate each other is a unique part of the Northern Territory. Our diversity is rightly celebrated, and our social cohesion and harmony must be respected and protected. This is an opportunity for us to strengthen that. We have an opportunity to ensure people in the Northern Territory have a basis for the protection of their right to be safe from racial and ethno-religious discrimination, without infringing on free speech, and to take a stronger stance against acts intended to incite racial hatred. This is a move we could all be proud of.
Over previous months we have seen efforts by the federal Liberal government to amend provisions under the federal Anti-Discrimination Act. If these amendments were to occur, it is possible Territorians would be left unprotected under that legislation. The changes would effectively dilute and narrow protection when it comes to their right to live their lives freely and without discrimination.
The discussion paper released prior to this bill was available to a range of cultural, religious and community groups for comment, and it is clear there is widespread support for this amendment. Based on Tasmanian legislative measures, some of the strongest in the country, this is an important move to ensure Territorians are protected. I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for introducing this bill. She has an abiding commitment to justice and social cohesion in the community; she is a strong advocate for the rights of our multicultural communities, and is widely respected by them. I support this bill.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I support the Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill presented by the Leader of the Opposition. I am very disappointed the government will not be supporting this bill tonight. There is a reason to support this legislation; we need to send a very strong message to the community that in the Territory, we embrace multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism is such a strong part of the Territory and one of our greatest strengths and beauties. We should always do everything we can to protect our harmony and multiculturalism. Instead, when we introduce a very important amendment bill to further strengthen the Territory against racial hatred and vilification, the government will not support it. It makes no sense to me.
This year, a scary concept has come forward from the Abbott government, where it thought it was sound to amend the Racial Discrimination Act. Those amendments would weaken laws against racially vilifying people in this country, which is wrong. It is not what Australia is about. I am very proud to be part of the Labor team and was proud the Leader of the Opposition introduced a bill to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act. The bill says racial and religious vilification in the Northern Territory is not acceptable. She has taken action, with the full support of the Labor Caucus, to boost protections in the Northern Territory, in the face of the Abbott government’s intended action to amend the Racial Discrimination Act. As the Leader of the Opposition said in her second reading speech for this amendment bill:
As unfortunate as it is that the Abbott government held a bizarre belief that dropping the bar on racism was okay, I feel so heartened by the response to these moves we saw across Australia. In many ways it reignited debate on what Australia is about and what we believe and stand for. In reaction to the Abbott government’s disgraceful attempts to weaken the Racial Discrimination Act, Australians sent a message to say racism is not acceptable in our great nation today. It made me very proud, but it was another stark reminder that when Canberra decides to pursue some bizarre items on its agenda, there is often little we can do to stop it.
However, here we are, with this bill to amend the Northern Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Act to strengthen our legislation, in case one day Canberra decides to go down this path again to amend the Racial Discrimination Act and weaken laws protecting people against racism. It is important we have protections in place in the Territory. We are saying racism is not acceptable.
This fight is not over. There are members in Canberra who still think, despite public outrage over the government’s attempt to remove section 18C, that changes should have progressed. They did not listen to the voice of the Australian people saying it would be outrageous to amend the Racial Discrimination Act in that way. There are still some people in Canberra who believe the bar should be lowered on racism in this country. That is a disgrace. We are here with this amendment bill to ensure whatever strange and stupid behaviour the federal government decides to pursue that would lower the bar on racism, in the Territory we have some protections in place. Territorians do not support racism. Territorians believe in multiculturalism and want to see that bar set high. They do not want to see people subjected to racism, vilification or hatred because of their race or religion.
That is why it is important this bill was brought forward. It is a shame and disgrace the government is not supporting this legislation today because we could send a very clear message to the community. We could stand together as a parliament to say racism and vilification based on religion is not on in the Territory.
The Leader of the Opposition’s amendment to the Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Act would prohibit behaviour reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of persons because of their race or religious beliefs or activities, subject to relevant exemptions. This is a good thing. Why? Because the Territory is a shining example of a vibrant, interactive, multicultural community, and we want to keep it that way.
Many places in Australia and around the world have communities made up of different cultures, but very few have the true melting pot we have here. The many different Indigenous language groups across the Territory have a long history of sharing their land with others from near and far. We have the Chinese, Greek, Italians and Afghan communities, which have a long history of living and working in the Territory. Today, we have large communities from many different backgrounds, including the Philippines, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Fiji, China, Germany, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Ireland and many African nations. I could go on and list almost any country in the world.
We are many different people with many different cultures, languages, foods and religions and, for the most part, we all get along. If anything, our differences are celebrated in the Territory, with such events as Harmony Day, the Glenti and Chinese New Year big standouts in the multicultural calendar for many Territorians. The fact we get along is no excuse to be complacent. It is important we protect this incredible community from those who might wish to incite hatred.
All in this Chamber should set an example. We are all involved with multicultural groups in our electorates and today we can show support by passing this legislation.
The Leader of the Opposition first spoke about this legislation when the Prime Minister and federal Attorney-General announced their plan to make changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. The Attorney-General famously said in defence of this move that Australians have the right to be bigots.
On the basis of human rights arguments, many may believe this to be true in as much as it follows from the freedom of expression. However, as the former Premier of New South Wales, Barry O’Farrell said:
The freedom of expression argument against the content of section 18C intentionally misrepresents this wording, claiming it has no more than a subjective test of whether someone has their feelings hurt. This interpretation misrepresents the intent of the application of the act.
The aim of the Racial Discrimination Act is not to restrict freedom of speech, but to reach a fair balance between freedom of expression and freedom not to be vilified based on race or ethnicity.
Freedom of speech is not under attack. In the Racial Discrimination Act there is a clause which exempts anything that is reasonable and in good faith in artistic expression, academic work, debate or public commentary.
The Australian Human Rights Commission contends that sections 18C and 18D maintain a balance between freedom of speech and freedom from racial vilification, and that section 18C fills an important gap in legal protections for those affected by racial hatred and vilification.
As Race Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Tim Soutphommasane asked:
It is a serious question for anyone who would oppose this legislation and support the weakening of section 18C, as the federal government sought to do.
At this stage the Prime Minister has backed down under pressure from Labor, the community and his own party room and said section 18C will remain for now. This is not because of any change of heart by the Prime Minister, but because of the hurdles in parliament, other priorities and the voice of the Australian people. Given the opportunity, he would have gladly gone ahead with the changes, and if he has another chance we might well see the Racial Discrimination Act amended.
This is where legislation to amend the Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Act, currently before us, comes in. We have an opportunity to send a message to the Prime Minister, his Attorney-General, and those who want the right to bigotry sanctioned by government. We have an opportunity to put into law our support for every Territorian’s right to live their life without suffering racial or religious vilification.
I commend the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this legislation forward. Earlier this year the Assembly supported a motion from the Leader of the Opposition concerning proposed changes to section 18C of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act and it is time to take the next step.
This bill will strengthen the Territory Anti-Discrimination Act, provide greater protections around racial and religious vilification and send a clear message to the community that we, as a parliament, stand firmly against racism and religious hatred.
Today I will be proudly supporting this legislation. As a Territorian, I have been lucky enough to spend most of my life here and have visited many of the towns and communities scattered around the Territory. One thing I value most about being a Territorian is the unique multicultural make-up of these communities and the harmonious and friendly way people interact with one another. These are great characteristics of the Territory and Territorians. We share many incredible stories and cultures, and we learn from each other. We have a society that strongly believes in and values multiculturalism.
As shadow minister for Multicultural Affairs, I am privileged to attend many fantastic events put on by Territorians from many different backgrounds. We have events celebrating the Christian, Muslin, Hindu and Buddhist faiths, just to name a few. A few weeks ago, I was lucky enough to attend, with the Leader of the Opposition and new member for Casuarina, Eid celebrations at the Darwin Islamic Centre. It was a fantastic night, with a wonderful address by the imam to a very multicultural crowd.
It was a celebration that truly reflected the Territory. The Islamic Centre opened its doors to people from all walks of life and all faiths across the community in Darwin who came together to celebrate Eid. In the current climate of fear, one only has to look at the comments on news websites or social media to see some of the current levels of vitriol. Some – thankfully not the majority – of Australians are directing insults at members of the Australian Islamic community. Fortunately, we do not tend to see these types of attacks in the Territory; it is a harmonious place. However, for those who do face these types of unreasonable attacks, it is very unfair and does not represent Australian values or the values of Territorians.
Passing this legislation today would communicate in very clear terms that attacks of this type do not represent the Territory’s values. Our multicultural and religious communities deserve protection from vilification. With this legislation we are saying the Territory is a welcoming, accepting place. We are saying racism is unacceptable and that we value and cherish contributions made to our great Territory by the many people from all over the world who have made this their home, whether it was yesterday, 150 years ago or thousands of years ago,
Freedom of speech is important, but it is not okay to incite hatred based on race or religion. If at any time in the future the federal government goes ahead with changes to the Racial Discrimination Act that would lower the bar on racism, we must have protections in place in the Territory. Racism is not simply a matter of hurt feelings; it can be very traumatic for an individual and have serious implications on a person’s mental health and life. Worst case scenarios, as we know, can lead to violence, which is not what we want to see.
With this legislation we are marking a line in the sand to say we do not condone bigoted behaviour. If the Abbott government or any future federal government decides to push ahead with changes to remove section 18C or to amend it, with this legislation, we can protect the rights of Territorians.
The Leader of the Opposition consulted far and wide with the Territory’s multicultural communities, as well as religious communities, as part of her work to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act. She also wrote to every member of the Legislative Assembly to discover our views and put the discussion paper to us. She has done a huge amount of work to ensure this bill captured the views of Territorians, and she has got it right. I wish this bill would pass tonight, but clearly that will not be the case because the government does not support strengthening the Anti-Discrimination Act to strengthen laws against racial and religious vilification. That is a shame.
I commend the Leader of the Opposition for doing this work, taking up this issue and consulting broadly with Territorians, working on a very extensive and thorough discussion paper and bringing this legislation to the House. She has taken a stand for what she and Labor believe in. She has taken a stand for what every member of this opposition believes in, and I proudly support this bill, along with my colleagues.
This is an important bill because it goes to the heart of what we value as Territorians. It is important we do everything to protect the values of Territorians. Territorians do not believe in racism or religious vilification; they do not think it is okay. This bill would provide protections. We need to protect this from any further bizarre attempts from Canberra to lower the bar on racism in this country. I commend this bill to the House, and it is a great shame the government will not be supporting this legislation that would protect more Territorians from vilification here.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, ‘You should be ashamed to call yourself an Aboriginal person’, was what the member for Nhulunbuy bellowed across the Chamber by way of interjection some months ago.
Those words were directed at the Chief Minister because he was talking about Aboriginal issues. I found those words particularly insulting, so much so that I instantly leapt to my feet and called a point of order on the grubby little racist attack fired by the member for Nhulunbuy. She flushed red and immediately sought to withdraw the comments she had made. Let us put that through the filter of the legislation proposed in the House.
‘You should be ashamed to call yourself an Aboriginal person’ was both offensive and insulting. It was a shameful moment for the member for Nhulunbuy, and to her credit she understood the insult she delivered and immediately sought to withdraw it. However, what it demonstrates is that she would have been on the wrong side of inserted section 22A in this piece of legislation.
Ms Lawrie: That is not true – your interpretation, seriously.
Mr ELFERINK: The Leader of the Opposition says that is not true. Let us pull it apart. The attack was insulting and based on the grounds of race. It therefore meets the qualifying benchmark.
I found that comment grievously offensive, so I immediately called the member for Nhulunbuy to account for her horrendous and ghastly conduct. That is what reasonable and upright people do when they see this sort of conduct in the community. I am proudly on the record as defending people subject to racial vilification, or even offensive language. I have told many a person over the years to pull their head in because their conduct was offensive. It does not even have to be on race grounds; it is just that I do not like offensive and obnoxious conduct.
There is legislative protection within the Summary Offences Act for people who use objectionable words in a public place. The N word, which I will not articulate in this House, would be considered so offensive to an Aboriginal person that I do not doubt a court would have no hesitation in convicting a person who uttered it to a person of African, African-American or Aboriginal appearance. There are any number of other epithets and titles used towards people which are offensive and based on race. Any of those words, used in a particular context, would be found to be an offence against, I imagine, the Summary Offences Act of the Northern Territory. However, this legislation is aimed specifically at the Anti-Discrimination Act of the Northern Territory.
We have the usual argument that if you do not support this, then by inference you must be racist. I am no racist and I do not believe anybody in this room is racist. I look around this room when it is full and see the kaleidoscope of our community reflected in this House across a range of political opinions and beliefs. That kaleidoscope exists in our community. The reason that kaleidoscope exists is because it grew over many years.
Darwin elected a Chinese mayor, Harry Chan – he was later a member of this Chamber – when there was still a White Australia policy. People who lived in the Darwin I grew up in during the very late 1960s and the 1970s loved, embraced and cherished this town, not necessarily because it was a racially harmonious place, but because it was free.
People could come to Darwin and the Northern Territory, spread their wings and fill their lungs with the air of freedom. You had the right to be who you were and not be judged on your race, religion, gender or sexuality. We were tolerant of homosexual behaviour in this community long before it became a fashion down south. People like Peter Morgan were out and out in the 1970s. Whilst he was a bit of a character, he was never isolated in this community, certainly not to my knowledge. People like Stanley Tipiloura, who I remember going through police training with and who was later a member of this House, were respected and regarded. Wes Lanhupuy, Jack Ah Kit and Francis Xavier are all highly-respected people in our community, all embraced by the community not because of their racial background or faith, but because of who they are.
The inference I have heard several times tonight was that if you do not support this you must be in some way bigoted and racist. If you scratch beneath the surface you will find it could not be further from the truth. The member for Wanguri, quite rightly, said she grew up in this city and is very thankful it is a harmonious place. That is true. This is a case of a proposed bill trying to follow an already established fact. The established fact is this is a harmonious community. You need not look further than Vanderlin Drive to see a mosque standing next to a Christian church to be convinced of that fact. When you point that out to most people in the community, their response is, ‘I never really noticed that’, rather than, ‘We are particularly proud of that’. I am particularly proud of it, but most people do not even notice.
If you go to the Marrara area, there is club after club dedicated to different languages and cultural backgrounds, which we celebrate. They have managed to operate up until now without any intrusion from the Northern Territory parliament’s legislative capacity. We continue to breathe the air of freedom, or at least try to.
I am often concerned when I bring legislation into this place – I know I am one of the worst offenders in terms of the volume of legislation I bring in – as to how much it will intrude into people’s freedoms and liberties. I am often concerned we try to cast the net too much.
It then comes down to the genesis of this bill, which was also discussed by the member for Wanguri. It was in reference to the conversation that happened shortly after the election of the Abbott government and some comments by George Brandis, the Attorney-General of this country, on the basis, I presume, of the treatment of Andrew Bolt – love him or hate him – and how the Racial Discrimination Act had touched him. I will not go into that debate, but we held a debate in this House at the time.
During debate, there was some agreement reached across the floor about the need or otherwise to introduce this type of legislation in the Northern Territory. I remember quite distinctly saying at the time that if the legislation did not go ahead in Canberra – I suspected it would not – there was no real need to go down this path. Nevertheless, the Opposition Leader has determined to press on regardless of the fact the federal government has stepped away from its recommended changes to section 18C of the Commonwealth’s Racial Discrimination Act.
The foretold changes did not occur; however, the Leader of the Opposition decided to press on. She has come back to the House with a bill, despite the fact her worst fears were not realised in the Commonwealth environment, to say we need this here anyhow. I would argue we do not because one of the reasons we have a federation with different jurisdictions is that different jurisdictions have different expectations and demands surrounding the people who live in them.
The jurisdiction of the Northern Territory has always been set apart, particularly from the southern and south eastern seaboard of this country. We stood alone for decades as a place that was truly free and a place truly free to grow up in.
The Leader of the Opposition now says we need to protect something that has always been. I argue that the protection of something that has always been will be upright people, such as the Leader of the Opposition, members of the Labor Party and all people in this House. When they see something wrong, whether it has the force of legislation or not, they will point it out and say it is wrong, as I did when the member for Nhulunbuy made her errant comment in this House.
I fear the Leader of the Opposition has been trying to sell puppies to the community in the sense she has spoken widely to any number of organisations to say we need this. I can well understand why those organisations would say, ‘Yes, we need this’. It is like asking them, ‘Who is against puppies?’ I am not against them. I know a legislative instrument such as these amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act has nowhere near the force of righteousness indignant Territorians have when they hear racial, sexual orientation, religious and other forms of vilification in the community.
This is a place where we still breathe free air. As far as I am concerned, the sad and pathetic few who make utterances of insult and offence to others are so rarely dispersed in our community and so quickly dealt with by upright citizens of this community that this is unnecessary legislation. This courses through the hearts and minds of the vast majority of Territorians as something that is simply right. It is now no longer a response to a concern that emanates from Canberra, because Canberra is not going down this path. I would hate to imagine that the Leader of the Opposition is pursuing this path so she can start calling people like those who support the Country Liberals racists because we do not support this legislative instrument.
I do not support this bill because I do not see it as necessary. If a word is so insulting and so offensive it is already covered under summary offences legislation which is not reflected in the Commonwealth environment. It is already covered by Commonwealth legislation, so if a person is sufficiently aggrieved they can also appeal through the appropriate Commonwealth bodies.
As far as the Northern Territory government is concerned, this legislation is designed to, unfortunately, highlight difference rather than celebrate it. Therefore, I am critical of the motivations behind it.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is incredibly disappointing that the government could not see fit to support this legislation. I listened carefully to the member for Sanderson who acknowledges, as other members in this Chamber have, that the multicultural community in the Northern Territory is harmonious. However, I was disappointed to hear him say people do not have to take offence to insults if they do not want to. He has completely missed the point of the legislative protective tool we are trying to introduce.
People take offence and are insulted. We heard members of parliament talk about how distressing the offence can be and how it can have very deep lasting issues for individuals on the receiving end. That is why this legislation is an incredibly important tool.
Member for Sanderson, you seem to have completely and utterly missed the point. You seem to think the matter is no longer an issue in Canberra, therefore it is business as usual and nothing has changed. I do not know who is informing you as the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, but you must seek better advice. There is a cross party of senators in Canberra who continue to pursue legislation to strip away section 18C. Cory Bernardi, who is a government backbencher – therefore of the same political bent as you – described section 18C as a ‘grotesque limitation on ordinary political discourse’.
You seem to be unaware, member for Sanderson, that Family First senator Bob Day is leading the push for change. He has introduced his private member’s bill into the Senate. That occurred on 2 October 2014. It has been co-sponsored by Liberal Democrat Party senator David Leyonhjelm and government backbenchers Cory Bernardi and Dean Smith.
The changes address the controversial provisions in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Senator Day’s bill seeks to remove the words ‘offend and insult’. He told the Senate those changes would be minor because it would still be illegal to humiliate and intimidate. He is saying freedom of speech and the protection against racial discrimination will be able to co-exist in the proper equilibrium. How extraordinary!
The disgraceful decision by cross-party senators to introduce a bill has this well and truly still in the domain of federal politics. You have completely missed the debate occurring in our nation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs. One wonders what advice you are receiving.
I sincerely thank the members for Casuarina and Wanguri for their support. They both recognise we need to send a clear message in the Northern Territory, in our own jurisdiction and from our own parliament through the passage of our own laws, that say racism, hatred and bigotry will not be tolerated in any way. That is part of the deep sadness in seeing and hearing the government oppose this legislation, because it is failing to stand up as members of this parliament and send the Northern Territory a clear message that racism, hatred and bigotry will not be tolerated.
It is extraordinary that the members for Port Darwin and Sanderson tried to brush it off as not being a problem because Senator Brandis was knocked down by his own Prime Minister in his push, and then completely ignored and made no reference to the bill before the Senate that attempts to strip section 18C down.
Instead we see the normal pontificating as judge and jury by the member for Port Darwin on what he deems to be his interpretation of the comments of others. He then goes on to say the Summary Offences Act is sufficient. It is not sufficient in any other Australian jurisdiction, member for Port Darwin and Attorney-General, and nor is it sufficient here. This is a shameful day. There are many reasons why I have been deeply ashamed of this parliament today, and that brings with it great sadness this evening.
You cannot bring yourselves to perform a simple act of decency in supporting legislation that has been supported across our multicultural groups, Aboriginal organisations and religious groups. Consultation has occurred. None of them said this is unnecessary; they all want to see Northern Territory legislation. They took the time to fully and properly consider the draft bill. We went to the effort of pointing out that we proposed introducing what is considered best practice legislation, modelled on the Tasmanian law, for the Northern Territory. People took the time to fully consider that and came back very supportive of this move.
The member for Port Darwin seemed to put the case that we do not need intrusion from the Northern Territory parliament, as everything is okay. That is not the situation. You have clearly not bothered to receive a briefing from the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner on this matter, because if you had you would not have made such a foolish comment that is wrong in fact.
The Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commissioner has advised that at least six cases have been brought before the Human Rights Commission concerning racial vilification in the Northern Territory. Without protections against hatred, there may well have been more reportable incidents and none would have been dealt with by the commission. Collectively, a message would have been sent to those who would incite racial hatred that it is okay. You erroneously claim there is not a problem here when six cases have already gone to the Human Rights Commission.
It is extraordinary you then diminished the importance of these protections by describing them as like selling puppies. It is disgraceful to talk in such a manner about a matter that deeply affects the lives of Territorians, particularly when racial hatred is occurring in our nation as a result of a reaction to a terrorism concern that is of such an extent it has put the country on high alert. Attending the Islamic Society function recently for Eid and the farewelling of the outgoing imam and welcoming of the new imam, I saw a community fully aware of the need for racial vilification protection laws in the Northern Territory.
Protections send a clear message that vilification, racial hatred and bigotry will not be tolerated. This was an opportunity for bipartisan support across parliament for a law that exists in every jurisdiction and for a law I have been up front with people about. We have chosen the strongest laws as our benchmark. We felt the Tasmanian model was appropriate in the Northern Territory because it includes religious hatred. That is why we consulted further with our religious fraternity. The response was supportive.
I struggle to understand the CLP of today; I grew up knowing the CLP of old. Shane Stone, who introduced the original Anti-Discrimination Act, would not kowtow to Canberra and say, ‘We will follow Canberra and do what Canberra is doing. We will rest with and be okay with Canberra.’ The CLP of old stood strong and proud of the Northern Territory, what we could do and achieve, and how we could express ourselves as Territorians through our values and what we believed in. That does not occur with this current crop of CLP members. It is little wonder I hear so consistently across our diverse community about the deep disappointment people feel in this government.
This was an opportunity to be bipartisan and send a very clear message that racial hatred, vilification and bigotry is not accepted in the Territory, and that we will stand proudly with our own law, not reliant on what Canberra is or is not doing. We could send our own message about what will or will not be tolerated in our Northern Territory, not based on what senators who have no place in the Territory with their bigotry might be doing in Canberra.
You are okay, CLP government, to lead us to their whim because you will reject this legislation. In your view, there is nothing to see here and no problem, even though the facts speak for themselves – six cases to the Human Rights Commission and there is a bill before the Senate seeking to strip down section 18C again. This is, as I said, a shameful day. It is incredibly sad there has been no statesmanship or leadership shown by the CLP.
If you are so sure we do not need this and so sure of the case you have put, which is to do nothing and not change our laws, why did you not hold your own consultations across our communities? Why did you not write to our community organisations – multicultural, Aboriginal, religious – and seek their views, pose the question as to whether we should leave it as it is or change it?
In your arrogance, you espouse your view without consultation. You are not a government that represents the views of Territorians. You are dismissive of an issue that is a very genuine and real issue in our society today. Sadly and tragically it is more of an issue today than it was when I raised it originally out of concerns about the federal government’s moves. Things have become worse since then. Things have become much worse for people of the Islamic faith.
Sending a clear message that we, through law, will rule out racist hatred, bigotry and vilification, in the midst of this debate, would have defined the Territory as the beautiful, multicultural, harmonious place we say it is. But some people living in our community do not experience that all the time.
Some people living in our community experience racial vilification. What is wrong with the Northern Territory having its own law against that to give them protection, with the checks and balances explained in my second reading speech? Given the comments from members opposite, I doubt they even bothered to read it. Many checks and balances have been provided within this legislation to have only the most heinous matters go before the courts, but you have decided we will not have this law in the Northern Territory.
I hope and pray for a time and space in this government when one of you might say to your own government, ‘Why do we not look at racial vilification laws in the Northern Territory? The opposition did it a little while ago. Why don’t we?’
I hope and pray one of you will undertake the consultation we have undertaken. I hope and pray you will listen to the community, because if you do the Northern Territory will have its own racial vilification laws enshrined in our Anti-Discrimination Act. We will ensure there is a definition of racially or religiously offensive behaviour enshrined in the act, and we will insert a new section concerning racially or religiously offensive behaviour which I hope will be modelled on the Tasmanian anti-vilification measures. I hope it will prohibit behaviour which is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of persons because of their race, religious beliefs or activity.
I hope we see fit for it to include public acts in any area of activity, not limited to the six areas mentioned in the current section of the act, namely education, work, accommodation, goods and service facilities, clubs and insurance and super. There is a need to extend it, as this legislation sought to do, to the Internet. You will not do that today, but I hope and pray someone on your side does that as soon as possible.
Exemptions are there; they exist in the amendments and are fair. They are based on the considered best practice of Tasmania’s legislation. My goodness, if Tasmania can do it! We use to be proud leaders; we can do it. I should not be surprised – but I am a little – by the government’s response tonight. We live with faith, hope and the goodness of people, yet time and time again I see that stripped away by the actions of this CLP government.
I will continue to work with and advocate for our multicultural communities and the rights of our Aboriginal community that wants this legislation. It is deeply disappointing. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for so many reasons today. You can add this one to that very long list.
I commend the bill to the House.
The Assembly divided:
Mrs Price
Ms Purick
Mr Styles
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
Continued from 12 February 2014.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, in February when I moved this motion that the Assembly should condemn the CLP for its continual attacks on Territory workers, the CLP promised that frontline workers would be safe, and then went on sacking hundreds of public servants on contracts.
The CLP is so out of touch with the spiralling cost of living, with inflation running at 4.4%, that it is offering a pay cut in real terms to teachers, firefighters and paramedics who have voted to take industrial action against their appalling treatment.
The CLP is in dispute with bus drivers who have an uncertain future because they are selling Darwin Bus Service. The CLP is in dispute with port workers over job losses and there are very real shudders of concern running through prison officers and Power and Water staff.
When firefighters spoke about their plight, the Attorney-General shamefully accused them of trading on their good name to line their own pockets. The Attorney-General should apologise immediately and move to ensure the pay offer is a fair one, not less than CPI.
Workers are not surprised the government is now trying to scrap the May Day public holiday where, internationally, workers embrace the successful campaign for the eight-hour working day.
The CLP government has done nothing but attack workers since winning government on false promises. Stop the bullying and start working with Territorians who are just trying to earn decent pay for decent effort, and support their families to live here under an increasing cost of living.
That motion was moved in February and sadly in the eight months since, not much has changed.
We continue to condemn the CLP government for its attack on our Territory workers. The CLP went to the last election promising frontline workers their jobs would be safe. We even had the member for Port Darwin handing out pamphlets on Mitchell Street. How very wrong they were.
Since then, hundreds of public servants on contracts have been sacked, and they are so out of touch with the spiralling cost of living, with inflation running at 4.4%, that they are offering a pay cut in real terms. The increases to power and water tariffs are making it hard for Territorians to live here. Territorians are struggling, and we have a government that laughs at our frontline workers.
When firefighters spoke about their plight, the member for Port Darwin shamefully accused them of trading on their good name to line their own pockets. He should apologise. The government is now trying to scrap the May Day public holiday, an international day that recognises workers and their rights. I have said it before and I will say it again: the CLP does not respect our workers.
Adam Giles, as the Chief Minister, will be remembered for laughing at nurses, turning his back on our firies injured at work, sacking teachers and forcing public servants into industrial action, privatising public assets and creating uncertainty for public servants in Nhulunbuy and the East Arnhem region.
Our Minister for Education refers to teachers as lazy. Our parents, teachers and students are devastated by the cuts we have seen; 125 teachers have gone, along with 60 support workers. You do not get more frontline than our classrooms, but staff have been sacked and he is still in denial about it. There has been $125m ripped from the Education budget since the CLP came to government. The Chief Minister and Minister for Education will not listen to teachers. Teachers have been telling the CLP this pay dispute is a desperate bid to stop harsh resources cuts, but they will not listen. They are not supporting education in the Territory; we are seeing larger class sizes, less support, less special education support and less individual attention for our students.
The CLP is still in denial about teacher cuts. During estimates the Minister for Education said:
The real number, tabled in documents, is 125. We have gone from 2596 to 2471. I will say it again, there are 125 fewer teachers. One-hundred-and-twenty five frontline staff have gone from the Territory public service. The bush has been hit particularly hard by these cuts; schools have lost up to seven positions, when the minister assured us no school would lose more than five. The Arnhem region alone has lost 47 teaching positions. You do not achieve better education outcomes by cutting 47 teachers from a region.
Compounding the teacher losses we have seen, 60 support positions have also been cut from our schools. This means there is more pressure on our teachers and they have less support in our classrooms. This goes on. Under the CLP government we have seen average class sizes in the Territory increase. Averages for Years 7 to 10 have jumped from 15.5 to 19 and the average for Years 11 and 12 has jumped from 14 to 18.
The CLP government has its priorities wrong. It is not supporting our frontline education workers. Teachers have made it clear their EBA dispute is over concerns about their conditions and the detrimental changes this government is making to our education system. The CLP government even spent $26 000 on advertising, trying to convince teachers to vote for the EBA, but it failed.
At the same time this government is not supporting those working on the front line, it has given jobs to CLP mates and candidates. I think we have lost count, but the last number showed 14 former CLP politicians and candidates who have been given jobs, including Terry Mills, who is now on a $750 000 package. The other night I was watching television and a former CLP party president appeared representing the government – another person with another job. Jobs for mates is all you are interested in.
People are leaving the Territory and our great lifestyle, whether in the Top End or Central Australia. They cannot afford the high cost of living, power and water tariff increases, registration increases, cuts to schemes to support our pensioners, and they have reduced job security as well. Employees offered wage and salary increases less than CPI are cutting back on discretionary spending. Small and medium businesses around town tell us they are suffering. We have been told this since February when I introduced this motion, and it has gotten worse. Business have closed down and left town.
This government will be remembered for decimating Nhulunbuy and the East Arnhem region. What has happened with the lack of support is appalling. Chief Minister, when was the last time you went to Nhulunbuy? You lack leadership skills. People accept things happen, but you have not faced up to this. You have been critical and not shown leadership. Previous Chief Ministers would have regularly visited that region and its community members to listen to them. I have been there to listen to them. They are upset because they feel forgotten.
You have played games with positions in schools, promising jobs that were not there. Your leadership has been disappointing for our frontline workers.
The member for Port Darwin talked about an average firefighter’s income being just shy of $90 000, and having a second job somehow meaning they should not receive a wage increase. It is about the job they do and the role they play in a community. They deserve a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.
My colleague, the member for Fannie Bay, said he has met with our firefighters and held long conversations with them. There are concerns about attrition levels within the firefighting service of the Northern Territory. Firefighters are concerned; if you spoke to them about their issues and tried to work with them on what they are genuinely concerned about, treated them with some respect and valued their opinion you might make progress. Instead, we see them denigrated and accused of being political when they try to advance legislation which will protect firefighters with cancer. As a government, you need to start listening.
You have privatised our bus service. I understand the last EBA of more than 50 Darwin Bus Service employees was changed to say that if the bus provider was changed they could not go across to employment within the Territory government. The conditions of these long-term public servants changed before the service was privatised. The protection of many long-serving public servants under Territory government employment agreements has gone. They were not even given the option to transfer to another position within the NTG; that was taken away from them.
Child protection is in crisis. We have seen so many frontline staff sacked. In frontline child protection we have seen caseload ratios go up. My colleague, the member for Wanguri, spoke about the concerns paramedics have and issues in the workplace that are putting them under more pressure and potentially impacting on their ability to do their job to the highest professional standard.
Power and Water workers’ morale is at an all-time low. You say it is a basket case and are busy dividing it up ready for sale with no certainty for workers, the same workers we call upon – we saw this recently with the power blackout – to keep our power and water running. We call on them any time of the day or night to provide that support and those essential services, yet the respect is not there, and their morale is suffering for it.
The truly scary thing about all these cuts and this arrogance to date is that it is the tip of the iceberg. The government promised no frontline workers would be sacked – I have listed examples. What else are we in for? We have a government with a Minister for Education who calls teachers lazy and cuts education funding by $125m. We have a Chief Minister who laughs at our nurses – highly-trained and dedicated frontline staff, and you simply laugh at them ...
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member referred to me calling teachers lazy. I would like to see where in Hansard she could ever find that. They make it up.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Ms FYLES: While we are talking about Territory workers, let us acknowledge the huge numbers of Defence personnel we have based in the Territory and the appalling pay offer from the federal Liberal government – 1.5% at the same time you are calling on them to take a huge extra workload. That is below CPI. Where is your government in standing up for these workers in our Defence Force?
I have looked, as we all do, on Facebook and am amazed at the posts and comments on social media – and in mainstream media – with friends and families talking about it. There are some professions that should be respected and our Defence Force, along with other frontline positions, should be. That 1.5% pay rise offer from the federal Liberal government is appalling; I call on the government to act on that and speak to its federal colleagues to let them know it is not acceptable.
All the member for Port Darwin did during his reply to this motion was give a great grammar lesson, criticising the wording of my motion. If only he could spend that much energy and time on our Territory workers. If his government could take the time and make the effort to listen to our workers, maybe he would learn something from them. They are struggling to live under your government’s cost of living increases. They are struggling with not knowing their positions are secure. They are struggling, they are scared. Public servants were once proud of their positions and role and felt free to speak. That is not happening now.
I commend the motion to the House.
The Assembly divided:
Continued from 19 February 2014.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased we get to wrap this motion after holding the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee. It screams loud and clear as to why we were seeking to refer the government’s move to separate Power and Water into three corporations to a parliamentary review committee to consider the policy decision before reporting back to parliament on its considerations. The work of the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee is every reason the legislation should have gone for review.
It is extraordinary that Jacana Energy and Territory Generation were unable to provide comprehensive Statements of Corporate Intent. They had to confess they did not have the data, so the creation of two corporations was carried out without the rigorous attention to information data and detail you would normally require. Extraordinary admissions occurred during the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee hearing.
We still do not know how much this hideously expensive exercise will ultimately cost taxpayers because the government do not know themselves. They are still trying to work it out. Essentially, the government has rushed to split the corporation into three separate corporate entities without truly doing the work first.
Normally to undertake something of this significance you would do all of the work first so each company knew exactly what its corporate fiscal situation was. They would have their billing systems and corporate structures in place, but that has not been done. We have a situation where two corporations are essentially flying blind, to use a colloquial term, making it up as they go along because they do not have the data. Power and Water is like a host body those two corporations have to feed off because it is still undertaking corporate systems work, such as on the billing system, that, ultimately, it will not be able to.
There are perverse consequences occurring across our community. People do not know what the feed-in tariff will be with solar because that corporation is nowhere near ready to determine that. Customers who have been paying their Power and Water utilities bills by direct debit are receiving a rude shock. Hefty power bills are coming in. They ring Power and Water and say, ‘How come I have a power bill for $800 or $1000?’ Power and Water says, ‘That is not us that is Jacana’, but the customer then says, ‘Yes, but I have been paying Power and Water for my power’. There is then a complex system they have to try to navigate to have some of that credited against Jacana.
The government did not explain any of that when it was going down the path we were debating, and we suggested putting it to a review committee. They are the sorts of things government was intent on hiding, which is why it will not refer it to a review committee. It will refer the fuel price consideration legislation to a review committee, but would not refer splitting our most important utility for review to make sure it could be done well and ensure all hidden costs in doing it were understood. They are still not known.
The Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee showed many costs are not known. I suspect we will not know for another one to two years, but there are some things we do know. Jacana Energy has 12 employees, six of who are on executive contracts. Half of their workforce is on nice big executive contracts; how will that end up? They are not that sure they will stay based in the Northern Territory because it might end up being a business run from Queensland. It is little wonder the government would not send that to a review committee to understand the considerations of our utilities heading interstate.
Net profit after tax, in the SCI provided by Power and Water, was $260m. The Chief Minister then said that was just paper profit. No, it is not. Operating revenue was $106.6m; that is not a paper profit. That is the money they are reaming in as a result of tariff hikes by the CLP. That is coming directly from the pockets of families and businesses in the Territory. It is little wonder people are struggling to pay their bills when you hear of a $106m profit in one year. From memory, the projected forecast profit was to be about $6m – $100m additional profit form forecast profit. It is bonanza time there. To set up a utility for privatisation you ratchet up tariffs, hike profits, fatten the pig and take it to the market for sale. That is exactly what this government is doing with our assets.
Our assets sitting in Territory Generation – the word around town is that General Electric must have a good deal going on to be constructing a plant alongside the Weddell station. What is it paying for gas? The supplier of the gas, Power and Water networks with its gas contract – how much gas will it take? The Chief Minister and the government seem to think the excess gas we supply from Power and Water will go to the Chief Minister’s gas pipeline. If they sell it to General Electric they will not have the gas supply required for the eastern seaboard; do they know what is going on?
I suspect this government is starting to make things up as it goes along. Its members say conflicting things in the public domain, and they assume people are not listening to them so they can say whatever they want and not be caught out. It is a bizarre situation, but it is scary that we are talking about billions of dollars of assets that belong to the Territory. These are public assets being risked by the cowboy CLP mentality. ‘Let us shed some assets and get some quick cash, so we can pork barrel through our next election.’
It is consumers – the small consumers, the mum and dad consumers and the small businesses – who will pay the ultimate price of that decision. Privatisation in other jurisdictions has led to escalating tariffs; that is not guess work, as it has happened. When you are standing outside a shopping centre with a petition against the sale of Power and Water assets, anyone from South Australia walks up and says, ‘How quickly can I sign? Do not let them sell it. I know what happened to my power bill in South Australia.’
We can kiss reliability goodbye. How has reliability been since the split of Power and Water? How has it been since the government made that grand policy decision we wanted to send to a review committee first to test its rigour? We have had catastrophic blackouts and single points of failure across the system.
There is now a mad rush to fix system control. When the member for Fong Lim was Treasurer, one of the first things he did with efficiency dividends was put a halt on work being done to fix systems control. But that is okay, because under this government you will only hear them complain about Labor. They will never take an ounce of responsibility for their foolish actions we are bearing the consequences of. You bear the consequences in price and reduced reliability when jurisdictions go down this foolish path.
Anyone who understands our market will understand we are too small to be the big, muscled-up competitors in this beautiful, deregulated environment – ‘come on GE, come in and compete against Territory Generation’. Who will they sell to? They are commercial competitors; they will be selling to the major users, such as new mines coming online. That is where Power and Water needs to make a profit from. Territory Generation will end up with the consumer market and need to ratchet up price. The flow-on affect will be disastrous.
This government will hope, and pace its asset sale and competitive marketplace to a point where the big slugs will probably hit us just after the 2016 election. We have been slugged a lot; we have another 5% coming our way in electricity tariffs in January. For families already paying an extra $8000 a year, which was evidenced during the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee hearing, another 5% on top of that is the difference between many hanging on grimly and staying here or simply giving up and having to pack up and go.
The CLP like to think we are making this up because we are the opposition and surely anything we say cannot be right. They must not get out of their office very often if they think that is the case. In moving around the community, I cannot count the number of people who have come to me and said, ‘Delia, we are going. I do not want to go; I have lived here for 25 years. But I cannot afford to keep living here.’
The government says, ‘If we can shave a few cents off a litre of fuel that will save us $100 per year’. That is great and we are supportive of that. But what about the $8000 a year, CLP, you have imposed on Territorians through your foolish decisions and the massive costs we will be hit with as a result of the structural separation of Power and Water?
A catastrophe will hit in a few years to come as a result of the major users who pay commercial rates no longer being the core customers of retailers like Jacana Energy. They have already lost a few of their contestable customers. Each time you lose a contestable customer, you look at your figures and start to do some recalculations. Where does that leave you? Anyone who understands that model will know where that will leave us as consumers in the small market reliant on Jacana Energy as our retailer. Our prices will go up.
The CLP has hand-picked the people to go on the boards. You have hand-picked the people to run the corporations. You will keep a lid on it to an extent, as best you can, until after the 2016 election. That is when it will start to get real scary because of the disaster you have created here.
These are genuinely the issues we would have unpacked, picked through and tried to find out about through a review committee, which is why we wanted a review. Living in our nation, it is great we have the ability to look at what has happened elsewhere and see whether or not it has been a good thing or a bad thing.
In Western Australia, a Liberal government is spending a fortune putting its utilities back together because its market is too small to sustain it. We are even smaller, and you are sending us in the wrong direction. As the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee discovered the other day, you did so without understanding any of the detail you needed to understand to make that decision. They have been unable to compile Statements of Corporate Intent with Jacana and Territory Generation. That is extraordinary.
Jacana is still looking at working with a private company. That is a clear flag they will move into a privatisation mode. Almost 80 of its customers are responsible for 34% of its revenue. The other 90 000 customers are us, the small businesses and households. Those 80 contestable customers are the attractive asset. People will not be in the market going after us, the small households and small businesses. They will be cherry-picking the contestable customers, but we will, ultimately, bear the brunt of that in our retail costs.
Territory Generation admits it is still assessing its asset base. It does not know its finances or its asset base. Can you believe it? A corporation established that does not know its asset base or finances. That could only occur under the CLP. However, Territory Generation knows it has far more generation than peak demand requires. It has two new power stations, and we know Weddell and Owen Springs are very attractive assets.
I have concerns for the future of Channel Island under Territory Generation and the model. I will be watching and listening intently. I have learned, time in and time out, that the CLP cannot be trusted. You cannot believe what they say because what they say and do are very different things.
It is incredibly concerning that the Chief Minister, who holds 13 portfolios, is currently the shareholding minister as Treasurer. I do not know if he has a clue about what is going on across those portfolios. It is all about Adam anyway. When will the reshuffle happen? When will we know who we are dealing with as Treasurer? The uncertainty pervading the business sector of the Northern Territory is huge. This government has been in chaos for so long that chaos seems to be part of the way it functions. That is extraordinarily scary because investors will think twice.
What is one of the major costs of setting up a small- or medium-sized business in the Territory? Your utilities. It was no surprise to me – I watched the data intently during the fuel summit – that there was a point in late 2012 where prices skyrocketed and stayed high. When one of the companies put up their breakdown for their commercial business, you saw what a significant component their utility bill was. That 30% hike in power in August 2012, accompanied by the 25% hike in water – guess what service stations need – had a big impact.
We will never get to the bottom of this data because the government would never want the truth to come out, but that had a huge influence on that spike at the time, and it stayed high. One of the real issues AANT prosecuted is that instead of coming down again and being a volatile price, it stayed high. It was 16c per litre higher on average. You will want to blame that on someone else because that is what you do.
Mr Elferink: It happened on your watch.
Ms LAWRIE: The 16c per litre increase happened under the CLP …
Mr Elferink: No, it was your watch – 2011.
Ms LAWRIE: … from August 2012 because the spike in 2011 came down. It was $1.57.
Mr Elferink: No, it did not. You are not telling the truth now.
Ms LAWRIE: You do not want to know the facts because you did not bother to find out about splitting Power and Water, our large utility – raising power prices without any facts. We were advised at the time that you took a guess on the state average for tariff increases. It is appalling. I wish we had the chance to have this review committee because we could have averted chaos.
The Assembly divided:
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Nightcliff Island
Continued from 26 March 2014.
Mr Giles: How long ago was that? 12 months?
Ms Fyles: Maybe you could update us, Adam. You are on your feet.
Mr Giles: I will give you a hint. There is no island off Nightcliff.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, picking up on the interjections, it is great the Chief Minister is so vocal. Maybe he could come into the House and update us.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The convention in relation to reference to the presence or absence of members should be observed.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not refer to members when they are not in the House.
Ms FYLES: In March this year I moved that this House condemn the government and the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment for:
granting a five-year Crown lease for 98 ha of Darwin Harbour without …
Our community does not want this island to go ahead and will fight it to the end. It causes continual anxiety in our community, and your government’s handling of the issue has been appalling. You have taken shortcuts with the planning process and given us no explanation. You talk about it being a method of providing housing. It will not provide affordable housing for Territorians.
Local residents have continually approached me this year at the markets; around the community, they are still asking questions. I have been doorknocking a lot recently, and people are still asking about this proposal. They are concerned that government has not kept them informed and still has not provided any information to date on what this proposed project entails.
The local community wants information. We have had a briefing and we were still unable to receive the answers our community requires. It is time for your government to come clean and let the community know what you have agreed to.
Will there be an approval this Christmas for the island to be built? Last Christmas, in the middle of the school holidays, a lease was issued for 98 ha of our pristine harbour. There was no consultation, just a tiny ad in the NT News. This year will we see some trucks roll up and building start? Our community is frustrated you will not provide any information.
When speaking on this motion, the minister said he has faith in the process. That can be thrown out the door. He told us in another speech he admits making planning decisions in the last 12 to 18 months he would not normally have made.
The minister said an island would be no danger to mangroves. He has been on a boat within those mangroves with one of our leading environmentalists, who has recently left town thanks to your government cutting funding for the Environment Centre.
A member interjecting.
Ms FYLES: The minister heard firsthand about how important those mangroves are. The mangroves will die if you build an island because they will not benefit from tidal flows. I can see the people on the other side laughing, but that is fine.
When you are spending millions of dollars re-establishing the mangroves, like we have seen in north Queensland, then you might start to listen. This is not my opinion. An environmental expert and world leader in mangroves took the shadow Environment minister and I for a walk through those mangroves, and they are beautiful. They play an important role in our harbour. They protect against erosion, and if those mangroves go we will see changes to the coastal wave patterns and wind-related erosion.
Last Wet Season there was a huge amount of erosion along the Nightcliff foreshore. We had sand and coral on Casuarina Drive. The waves pushed the beach that high; if we build this island we will see huge changes to our coastal patterns. We will see water channel to areas it has not reached before. Where will you be for liability?
Members interjecting.
Ms FYLES: You can keep laughing, but it will cost millions to fix the mangroves and pay people who are flooded because they are suddenly in a flood area, when they were not previously.
We still do not know much about this proposal, and our community is still concerned about it. We have had a petition going in our community for many months now. It is still collecting signatures. It is a difficult, concerning issue. In our community people have told me they will physically protest. What can they do? It is a hard one because you have issued a five-year lease nobody knows much about. It came out at a quiet time. We do not want to cause angst in the community ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr Giles: We hid it in a newspaper.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A bit of order, please.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have a bit of order, please.
Ms FYLES: Instead of laughing at me and making comments, it would be great if you could give us an update in the House.
We still do not know much, but we know the government has issued a 98 ha lease off Darwin Harbour near Coconut Grove for the purpose of a residential island. The government must rule this project out and show some leadership. It was clear the community did not want this protest. We had people in this gallery; there is no one here this evening, but they were here that night to listen to that debate because they were concerned. They wanted to hear what the minister said. I should forward some of the responses I received to the minister so he might wake up and realise he should be ashamed. They were appalled at his speech. I received a comment to say they noted that the only government members in here at the time were on their phones and computers.
The community needs to know what the process is for this ...
Members interjecting.
Ms FYLES: They think it is a comedy show; it is appalling. We are talking about a residential island for 3000 people being built off our community with no consultation or social impact plans. Have you looked at Nightcliff Primary School? It is full with 550 students. Your own government just spent $50 000 on a traffic survey for our community because it is already struggling with densification. There will be areas where single dwellings move to multiple dwellings. We have accepted that and we would very much like a plan for it. I thought the minister would agree to that, but so far we have seen no action. We do not need a man-made island off our foreshore. This is something that will affect Darwin as a city. It will change the shape of our city.
It is not on your Darwin area land use plan, yet you signed a lease in the middle of January. Is this a case of your government cutting red and green tape and cutting corners …
Mr Elferink: Work in January?
Mr Giles: This is Labor. They will not work over Christmas.
Ms FYLES: It is a shame you were not so talkative when I delivered the speech. The questions I brought to the House in February still stand. Residents have many questions surrounding the proposed development, because your government is keeping us in the dark. We want to know how this proposed development will affect us, where it is at and what the status of the lease is. The area flagged for development is a popular space for locals and residents from across Darwin and Palmerston. I go to the foreshore in the evenings, particularly on weekends, and there are people there from all over the Top End. They go there to enjoy the amenity. Do not think this will not come back and hurt you in your electorates. Residents want to know what type of lease was granted and what the process is from here …
Minister, you questioned me mentioning Nightcliff a lot. I proudly represent the people of Nightcliff, Coconut Grove and Rapid Creek, and you are proposing to build an island in our community. It should be expected that I will talk about Nightcliff a lot. You have totally missed the point. We are not against development; we are against a man-made island in our harbour.
You said that if you went through the mangroves with an environmentalist, you would agree to their point, but if you went with a developer you would have a different opinion. You need to show some leadership. You need to know what is right for a harbour, and a man-made island is not.
You have admitted you can do more to consult with the rural area. Why do you not consult with our community? Interestingly, during the debate in August you said:
Our community is concerned. We will not stop at this; we will not accept a man-made island in our harbour, and they will hold you accountable.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 8 Noes 12
Motion negatived.
LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 90)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr GILES (Economic Development and Major Projects): Madam Speaker, I thank everybody who contributed to the debate. A lot of politicking occurred today; the Leader of the Opposition attacked public service workers throughout the debate and the member for Johnston attacked the Tiwi Islands and Tiwi Islanders. There were scurrilous accusations and imputations, and innuendo, from those opposite. However, fundamentally, this is a bill about removing the advisory board, which only pays lip service, to a certain degree, to the CEO.
In regard to the separation of the LDC from the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, it should be noted the Country Liberals moved the LDC out of Lands and Planning, where Labor had it. We now have two separate ministers for the LDC, one being me, and Lands and Planning being the member for Brennan, the Deputy Chief Minister.
I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr GILES (Economic Development and Major Projects)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, the Territory has rich and unique flora and fauna, with much of the Territory’s plant and animal species found nowhere else in the world.
Today I provide the Assembly with an update and an outlook on the state of our biodiversity, and highlight the hard work undertaken by many public servants to ensure the long-term survival of our plants and animals in an environment that is safe and healthy and allows these species to flourish.
Altogether, the Territory is host to around 4200 native plant species, 700 fish species, 50 frog species, 30 reptile species, 420 bird species, 150 mammal species and a very large number of invertebrate species.
The diversity of reptiles in tropical and desert areas of the Territory is amongst the highest in the world. Our freshwater fish fauna is very rich. There can be more native fish species in a single pool of one of our large tropical rivers than in the whole of the Murray-Darling system. It is also possible we have the richest ant fauna in the world. A single 1 ha patch of eucalyptus forest in the Top End can contain at least 100 ant species.
Our range of ecosystems is extensive, ranging from the arid centre of Australia to the tropical monsoonal Top End. This huge climate gradient underlies the diversity of ecosystems and habitats that support the rich flora and fauna and, in total, make up our biodiversity.
The western Arnhem Land plateau is a notable national hotspot for endemic species, with about 200 plant species and 20 vertebrate species, such as the Oenpelli python, found only there. We have sandy spinifex deserts and the extensive mulga woodlands of the arid southern Northern Territory. Rugged Central Australian ranges such as the MacDonnells, with mountain tops, gorges and waterholes, provide unique habitats and refuges for relict species such as the cabbage palms in Finke Gorge that could not survive elsewhere in the desert.
There are the extensive grasslands of the Barkly Tableland and Victoria River districts which, in addition to their importance to the pastoral industry, support a distinct assemblage of native plants and animals.
A variety of eucalypt woodland savannah covers most of the Top End, and rugged rocky ranges and plateaus in the Gulf, Arnhem Land and eastern edge of the Kimberley.
There is a mosaic of small patches of monsoon rainforest dotted amongst the eucalypt savannah. Although small in extent it makes an important contribution to our biodiversity.
Many species depend on the swamps, creeks, springs and rivers and their associated riparian vegetation, with large coastal floodplains supporting huge aggregations of wildlife, including iconic species such as magpie geese and our crocodiles.
Along with our coastlines and beaches we have approximately 1000 islands that are home to diverse marine environments, including large estuaries and bays, seagrass beds and coral reefs. The Territory is characterised by extensive natural landscapes. Relative to all other states, only a very small proportion has been cleared for intensive development.
My Department of Land Resource Management has a key function in providing advice and support to government, landowners, industry and other stakeholders in conserving the Territory’s flora and fauna. This is particularly through the work of biodiversity experts within the flora and fauna division, but also flows from the department’s role in the assessment and allocation of the Territory’s water, soil and vegetation resources, and in supporting the management of major threats to our natural environment from weeds, feral animals and bushfires.
Scientific staff within the flora and fauna division have combined professional work experience relating to biodiversity in the Northern Territory of around 450 years. This includes 16 staff with PHDs. The current work program of the department in relation to biodiversity management is founded on a long history of systematic research, assessment and monitoring of the Territory’s flora and fauna so that, for a jurisdiction with a relatively tiny science community, we have a surprisingly good understanding of the basic makeup of our biodiversity, the distribution of species and the effects of various land use regimes on them. However, there are still significant knowledge gaps, and new priorities and challenges are constantly emerging.
A crucial aspect of protecting our native flora and fauna is understanding it, knowing what species there are, where they occur and what their conservation significance is. We have opportunities to conserve our native flora and fauna that are almost unique to the Territory when compared to other parts of Australia or elsewhere in the world. Compared to other Australian states and most other countries, the Territory’s rivers and wetlands are in very good condition. Similarly, compared to most areas of the world, our coastline and seas are largely pristine, with abundant marine life.
While we have some serious weed issues, the proportion of exotic plant species found in the Territory is much lower than in other Australian states.
In general, we are in a position to carefully manage and protect our natural ecosystems and biodiversity, rather than the far more expensive and less successful option of the restoration of badly degraded environments.
Islands are recognised as particularly important conservation assets. The Territory coastline has more than 1000 islands and it is generally not realised that this includes Australia’s second largest after Tasmania, as well as its fourth and fifth largest islands. Three Territory islands in particular have outstanding biodiversity values: Melville and Bathurst Islands, which have unusually high rainfall, tall forests, jungle patches and a number of endemic species and varieties; and Groote Eylandt, a refuge where threats of feral animals and deleterious fire regimes are low.
The Territory’s natural environment and makeup of plants and animals have been shaped by Aboriginal management over thousands of years, such as through the manipulation of fire regimes. Indeed, many Territory plant and animal species have cultural significance and are a resource value to Aboriginal communities. Indigenous elders hold detailed knowledge of the plants, animals and ecology of their country. Preserving and continuing this knowledge is another important aspect of managing biodiversity.
My Department of Land Resource Management is a key source of authoritative information about the Territory’s flora and fauna through the NT Herbarium and the Fauna and Flora Atlas databases. The Darwin and Alice Springs Herbaria are part of a national and international network of formal libraries of preserved plant specimens, which form the basis for the description and naming of plant species.
The NT Herbarium contains a total of 204 000 individual plant specimens, which includes a representative example of nearly all plant species occurring in the Northern Territory. The herbarium provides an important plant identification service for other agencies, including industry, land managers and the public, as well as providing authoritative advice on the distribution and conservation status of plants throughout the Territory.
The herbarium is currently working on making these information resources more accessible to users and the public via the web, including online resources for plant identification, local and regional plant species lists, species distribution maps and fact sheets about Territory plant species.
Another key biodiversity information resource is the Flora and Fauna Atlas databases maintained by the department. These have been painstakingly compiled to be a comprehensive account of the known distribution records of all native plants and terrestrial vertebrates in the Territory. There is a wide variety of sources for this information including museum and herbarium specimens, wildlife surveys, scientific literature and reports, citizen science datasets, environmental impact assessments and permit returns. The databases are continually updated as new data becomes available.
These databases currently contain just over one million local records for Territory fauna and 700 000 location records for plants. They are a crucial information source for biodiversity issues for both government and external stakeholders, with the department handling around 2500 biodiversity information requests each year.
My department is working on web services to make this and other natural resource management data easily accessible to the public. The flora and fauna data is widely sought after and used by land management organisations and industry to assist in planning sustainable development and environmental impact assessments.
Despite this large number of records there are still significant gaps in our knowledge of the Territory’s biodiversity. Department botanists and zoologists undertake targeted surveys to fill these gaps, particularly where there are requests from landowners for information, or to address emergency development or management priorities, such as the proposed agricultural developments on the Tiwi Islands. Such surveys also regularly turn up new species, either entirely new to science or species previously unrecorded in the Territory.
One important aspect of conserving the Territory’s flora and fauna is the management of threatened species. These are the species most vulnerable to decline and even extinction due to both natural processes and threats such as feral pests and habitat degradation. There are also particular legislative requirements under Territory and Australian law for the management of these species, and they require special consideration during environmental impact processes.
My Department of Land Resource Management also has responsibility, under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, for developing the list of threatened species within the Northern Territory. This is periodically reviewed and updated by a panel of internal and external experts, as well as by public submission.
Currently, 209 species in the Territory are listed as threatened. In order to ensure that investment in threatened species management is most effectively directed, the department is currently undertaking a systematic prioritisation review of the Territory’s threatened species. This uses a set of objective criteria to evaluate which species are of the greatest significance and are also most likely to be amenable to recovery. A set of action plans will be developed for these high priority species. It also provides a priority for research effort for species that are too poorly known to develop management programs.
As well as guiding the department’s efforts, these action plans will be an important resource for land management organisations, industry and concerned land managers.
One focus for department scientists in Alice Springs has been to work with parks and community organisations to further involve the public in threatened species conservation through the Biodiversity Matters program. This has included volunteer public involvement in surveys for the endangered Central brushtail possum in the MacDonnell Ranges, monitoring the population of the endangered waddywood in MacClark Conservation Reserve and reducing grass fuel loads around stands of red cabbage palm in the Finke Gorge.
Recent wildlife surveys by department staff in the MacDonnell Ranges have been successful in locating additional populations of mountaintop refuges of the extremely rare Central rock-rat, and a priority for future work is assessing the status of the black-footed rock wallaby in Watarrka National Park.
The department’s threatened species invertebrate expert, Dr Michael Braby, has been working with Greening Australia, community organisations and interested members of the public to promote the conservation of the spectacular but endangered Atlas moth. A population of this extremely rare giant moth was recently discovered in the Dundee Beach area, and it has become a figurehead species for the protection of rainforest habitat in that area, as well as the re-establishment of suitable food trees in revegetation areas around Darwin.
I have previously outlined to this parliament concerns about the widespread decline of many native small mammal species in the Top End of the Territory, as well as northern Australia more generally. Evidence from long-term fauna monitoring programs undertaken by the department in Kakadu and Litchfield National Parks shows that over the past 15 years the average number of mammal species recorded per site has declined by 65% and the average number of individual animals recorded declined by 75%.
Information from a range of sources supports this as a widespread phenomenon affecting at least half the 37 native small mammal species found in the Top End. The department is currently engaged in a major research program to better understand the causes of these declines and develop management methods to address and reverse them.
The available evidence suggests these mammal declines are caused by harmful fire regimes and predators, particularly the feral cat. Research by the department is particularly focused on understanding the role of feral cats, and this work has included the construction of two large cat-proof exclosure sites within Kakadu National Park. The research has also investigated disease and pathogens in native mammals, as there is very little data on this potential contributor to mammal decline.
Another significant aspect of the mammal decline work is the collaboration with Indigenous ranger groups and communities, including in Djelk and Warddeken Indigenous Protected Areas in Arnhem Land, and recently on Groote Eylandt.
The work with the Warddeken to manage feral cats has been particularly productive, including broad engagement with the community and the application of Indigenous bush skills in tracking and monitoring feral cats. This has been combined with high-tech science and cat detector dogs used to hunt down and capture cats, which are then released with a GPS collar that reports their movements and habitat over several months.
The ultimate goal is to work with Indigenous land managers to implement techniques to strategically reduce cat numbers in areas of high biodiversity value, including on island refuges such as Groote Eylandt and the biodiversity hot spot of the western Arnhem plateau.
The release of the national mammal action plan in June 2014 has further focused attention on these issues. The action plan identifies that northern Australia is now the area where vertebrate biodiversity is most rapidly being lost in Australia. It identifies predation by feral cats as the most serious threat to Australian mammals.
One aspect of the wildlife monitoring work undertaken by the department has been the development of new techniques based on the use of motion-sensing remote cameras. Camera traps can be deployed and then left for extended periods. They are particularly suited to species that are difficult to trap, such as cats, and occur very sparsely, such as many of our native mammal species.
Another feral pest that has been a major focus for the department is feral camels in Central Australia. From 2009 until the end of 2013 the Territory was a partner in the Australian feral camel management program, receiving $2.3m in funding. The Territory government committed $3.3m over four years to support the program, and this funding allowed camel culls to continue until June 2014. In 2008, it was estimated there were 250 000 feral camels in the Territory. These feral animals cause serious land degradation and damage to arid wetlands, pastoral infrastructure and community water supplies. During the program, the department took part in 26 aerial culling operations, which were successful in greatly reducing camel densities.
One important component of the feral camel management program was the monitoring of the condition of arid zone waterholes, many of which were being seriously impacted by high densities of camels, as well as high densities of wild horses in some areas. These waterholes are some of the jewels of Central Australia, with very high biodiversity values as well as great Aboriginal cultural significance. The waterhole monitoring program was successful in engaging local Indigenous communities, and demonstrated that the condition of these wetlands could recover when large feral animals were reduced or excluded.
Systematic aerial surveys, an area of specialised expertise within the department, are used to assess wildlife populations – both native and feral – and have also been applied to assess feral buffalo populations in Arnhem Land.
The aerial survey in June 2014 involved flying a total of 7700 km of transect, encompassing the entire extent of Arnhem Land at a spacing of 11 km. Analysis of this data has yet to be completed, but rough calculations indicate a population of up to 200 000 buffalo. The buffalo density maps and population models derived from this data will be vital baseline data that will allow all stakeholders to develop a strategic regional buffalo management plan, which may include commercial harvest and culling to reduce environmental damage.
Within the context of protecting our native wildlife, the Territory government supports the commercial use of native plants and animals where this can provide economic opportunities for landowners and sustainability can be demonstrated.
The outstanding example of sustainable wildlife use in the Territory is the crocodile industry, which is based on the annual harvest of up to 60 000 eggs and 500 adult saltwater crocodiles from the wild. It is estimated that the Territory crocodile industry is worth $25m per annum, and there has been recent significant investment by the industry to increase this.
The majority of wild harvest is from Aboriginal land, and an estimated $1m per annum is paid in royalties to Indigenous landowners. Long-term systematic annual monitoring of crocodile populations in the Territory demonstrates that the current wild harvest of crocodile eggs and animals is sustainable. Population and compliance monitoring by the department also ensures the saltwater crocodile management program satisfies Australian government requirements for the international export of crocodile products.
Another aspect of the Territory’s biodiversity is the marine environment, which is highly valued and used by many Territorians. The Department of Land Resource Management has responsibility for a group of species known as marine mega fauna, and this includes marine mammals such as dugong, dolphins and whales, and marine reptiles such as sea turtles, sea snakes and saltwater crocodiles.
While undertaking dolphin surveys in March 2014 off the Cobourg Peninsula, department scientists were able to embed satellite tracking devices in four false killer whales travelling with a pod of about 50 animals. This large super-dolphin is generally found in deep oceanic waters, but pods have occasionally been reported in shallow Territory seas.
The tags have reported the daily position of the super-dolphins for up to four months, and show them rapidly covering a huge swathe of Territory seas between the Tiwi and the Wessel Islands as they hunt for jewfish and other large fish.
The department has also, over many years, been working with Aboriginal elders and custodians to preserve Aboriginal biocultural knowledge of the Territory’s flora and fauna. Glenn Wightman has made a particularly notable contribution in this area over the past 30 years. Recognising that much of their detailed knowledge of local plants and animals was not being passed on to younger generations and was in danger of being lost, elders and custodians have sought assistance in recording and documenting this knowledge.
Over the past three decades Glenn has worked with elders and community members from many language groups across the Top End and Kimberley, and this has resulted in the publication of 26 books and reports documenting this knowledge. The most recent book was Ngan’gi Plants and Animals, which describes names and uses of plants and animals around the Peppimenarti area. I had the pleasure of launching this book at this year’s Merrepen Arts Festival.
Under Framing the Future, this government’s blueprint for the development of the Northern Territory, our balanced environment vision ensures the preservation and protection of our natural environment. The Country Liberals government is committed to an environment that is supported through research, information, knowledge and sound land management. Taking care of our natural environment and conserving our biodiversity is scientifically, culturally, spiritually and ethically responsible and the right thing to do, but it is so much more than that. It is about preserving the Territory way of life. It is about ensuring future generations can enjoy the unique, bizarre, unusual and important plants and animals that make the Northern Territory the unique, bizarre, unusual and, most importantly, best place in the world to live, work, play and raise a family.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement before the House. I join him in recognising the critical importance of biodiversity, conserving the Territory’s unique native flora and fauna, and maintaining, protecting and enhancing the biodiversity of native species, as well as landscapes, water resources and coastal marine environments.
I also acknowledge the good deal of hard work and professionalism of those public servants who work in the Department of Land Resource Management, as well as those in the environment section and Parks and Wildlife.
During my travels around the Territory, and more recently on the mid-year show circuit, I enjoyed the often interactive and informative displays these departments staged for the benefit of the public, showcasing the work they do. I enjoyed and found informative the conversations I had with officers manning these displays, for the most part outside of their normal work hours.
As we know, it is not only the public sector that has a vested interest in biodiversity. We have any number of organisations and stakeholders in the Northern Territory, from our traditional owner ranger groups across the Top End through Central Australia, as well as a number of environmental organisations, through to our schools, where we have children actively involved in programs and education processes – often in a very hands-on way – regarding the importance of biodiversity. That is very positive.
The minister is right that the Northern Territory has an invaluable asset in our pristine environments, but we must put in the effort to make sure it stays that way. We often hear – it was at the closure of the minister’s statement – about the great Territory lifestyle that comes with living in this unique part of our country. So much of our sense of what it means to be a Territorian relates to the wonderful environment we live in. I am blessed to live in a very unique and pristine part of the world in northeast Arnhem Land – a unique environment with a strong Indigenous and cultural overlay we can all feel proud of.
We can and should all share in an obligation to ensure the wise use of resources and the protection of our environment for future generations. We enjoy an environment that is relatively intact. We have the opportunity in the Territory to avoid mistakes made in other places.
A large geographic area makes up the Northern Territory, with a relatively small population of only 240 000 people. Most of those people are in our regional centres, and the population is scattered across the rest of the Northern Territory to our very remote parts as well. They are places where so much time, money and energy now goes into the restoration of degraded landscapes, particularly rivers, streams and wetlands. It makes much more sense to make wise and precautionary decisions, ensuring the long-term wellbeing of our environment and, of course, reducing future cleanup costs on the long-suffering taxpayer.
This is a critical time for our environment, with pressures from climate change and development. We need to ensure we are putting in the resources and standing up to protect our natural and cultural assets in the Territory.
This statement from the minister focuses on the important work on threatened species conservation, including the management of feral animals and invasive weeds. This is critical work, which members on this side recognise.
When we talk about biodiversity conservation, we are not only talking about individual species, we are also talking about landscapes. We must always remain focused on our stewardship role and our responsibilities to ensure the environment we enjoy is, as I said earlier, passed on to successive generations of Territorians in the best condition possible.
Amongst my Yolngu constituents, it is very much a part of the way they live their lives, especially so on their traditional clan estates and homelands, in teaching young ones the importance of caring for land and sea country so it can be passed on to the next generation. It is not only about land or seawater resources; it is about their entire lives and history. There is an expectation that they protect the land they are on for the benefit of future generations.
A heritage that sustains us in so many ways, including underpinning our tourism industry, is central to the Territory economy and jobs for Territorians. It is our pristine landscape, and with it the cultural heritage values, that attracts so many visitors to the Northern Territory every year. We need to be careful how we manage those visitor numbers. The Tourism minister would always want to see higher visitor numbers because it is such an important industry and employer, but we have to manage our natural resources carefully.
Territory Labor is very proud of its record in government in promoting good biodiversity conservation practice, which is informed by solid science but built on a good understanding of industry needs, for example, the pastoral industry and biodiversity issues in our rangelands. Community engagement and a combination of work by all levels of government, the community and industry supports the work.
Our hard-working public servants in Parks and Wildlife, and Land Resource Management simply cannot meet our biodiversity conservation objectives alone. Success will only be realised with whole-of-community concern and effort and a commitment to playing a role – everyone living in the Territory being part of protecting our resources and that biodiversity story.
Landholders, whether they are pastoralists, Aboriginal communities, homeowners, etcetera – we all need to be supported to look after places that are critical to maintaining biodiversity. Our 2005 Northern Territory Parks and Conservation Masterplan Summary Paper was a standout piece of work. It is a relatively slim document, but that overview of an enormous body of work mapping and understanding the significance of our biodiversity and the nature of threats to it – signing off on that master plan in 2004 was a much younger looking Marion Scrymgour, who at that time was the Minister for Natural Resources, the Environment and Heritage. For all the portfolios she held she tells me that one was perhaps closest to her heart. She did a top job in that role.
I very much enjoyed seeing Dr Scrymgour deliver the H C Coombs Lecture at Charles Darwin University a couple of weeks ago, which took a before and after look at the Northern Territory intervention. It was a fascinating lecture for those of us able to attend.
As for this master plan, it was important, groundbreaking work carried out by some of the best scientific minds in the country. It proudly underpinned the Territory as a leader in this area of work but, sadly, if a member of the public was to look for that work on Northern Territory government websites they will see a very sad response that says, ‘page not found’, even though the Northern Territory government website index still refers to the plan.
I urge the minister to reconsider opening the link; let people find this document. There is nothing political about it; it is an important body of work.
Mr Westra van Holthe: What is it called?
Ms WALKER: It is the Northern Territory Parks & Conservation Masterplan Summary Paper from September 2005. It would be great if people had access to these historical documents that have all built upon the body of knowledge that takes us to, hopefully, where we are today.
It is disappointing it is not readily accessible, but if the minister could get that back on the website and make it accessible that would be very positive.
Mr Westra van Holthe: I will look at it.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, minister.
The statement also makes no mention of the effect commercialisation of our parks and the added infrastructure it brings would have on the Territory’s biodiversity, or how it will potentially benefit our biodiversity conservation objectives. Such commercialisation would surely create an added need for quarantine measures as you would see increased levels of traffic, construction and human impact that would introduce or spread organisms and material that would irrevocably alter local biodiversity.
We are not anti-development. We say that continuously on this side of the House, but development and growth must be managed in a way that protects biodiversity and ensures, particularly in our parks, cultural and heritage values.
You cannot sit back and expect biodiversity conservation will be looked after by government. It requires much greater involvement in that we need a whole-of-community effort informed by good science and knowledge. That includes, importantly, Indigenous knowledge that has often been overlooked and even devalued in the past.
Turning to some of the specific elements of the statement, it was remarkable he did not think it worthwhile to mention cane toads when we are talking about biodiversity. That is because the government is ignoring that side of the debate and some funding cuts there. Cane toads are not only a threat to biodiversity but a stand-out example of how threats to biodiversity emerge and are best managed or not managed.
Recently, the ABC reported some new and very concerning evidence of the threatening impact cane toads have on ghost bat colonies in the Northern Territory. There was an ABC online article dated 14 October 2014 titled ‘Ghost bat autopsy finds cane toad bones, explains population’s fall in NT, Queensland’. The article opens with:
This is worrying. Cane toads are an introduced species that are wreaking havoc across Queensland and the Northern Territory. I will quote another line from that ABC article:
It is one example of a potentially significant threat to one of our unique animals. The minister talked in his statement about islands; I think he made reference to Groote Eylandt. Groote Eylandt has had a very strict policy in place for a number of years and some quarantine checks around cane toads such that there are no cane toads on Groote Eylandt. Let us hope it stays that way. It will only remain that way with sustained efforts to ensure boat, barge and aircraft transport is checked, if people on Groote Eylandt are constantly vigilant to the threat of cane toads and, should they see them and know what it is they are looking at, alert someone or even perhaps catch it themselves, if they dare.
I remember the invasion of cane toads when they came to Nhulunbuy a number of years ago. I remember seeing the first cane toads in our garden; the locals were horrified at these awful, ugly creatures. Numbers have grown, and as the numbers of cane toads have grown around Nhulunbuy and northeast Arnhem Land, parallel to it has been a reduction in the number of native animals.
Goannas, of considerable size, and sand monitors were a regular sight in and around gardens in Nhulunbuy pre-cane toads. It is rare to see them around Nhulunbuy and Yirrkala these days. Our traditional owners talk to me about that and about how they used to hunt, in particular, goannas, but you do not see them anymore because cane toads are impacting on their numbers, which is disastrous.
We still have the very unhappy situation of a government that is unwilling to provide reasonable and continuing support for grassroots community action to better understand and mitigate the impacts of cane toads. I am talking about funding for Frogwatch.
Following the change of government in 2012, the CLP took a knife to the budget and there were cuts, along with the slashing of jobs – a piddling $200 000 a year for Frogwatch was wiped under the most bizarre guise that they apparently decided not to take up their funding. That was not the case, and that was a pathetic response from the government. Let us be very clear about it: funding for Frogwatch was axed by the CLP government. That is somewhat at odds with this statement about the importance of biodiversity, given the government has slashed all funding to Frogwatch, and no minister will outline any kind of replacement plans regarding how much priority is being placed on the Territory’s 209 threatened species.
The Leader of the Opposition, when she was a member of the government, was on the environment committee. She was Chair at the time the committee produced a fantastic report on the threat of cane toads and how to deal with their onslaught. It was a report that had much input in terms of submissions and contributions at public hearings. It was a good body of work; things like Frogwatch were supported from that work, and yet the chapter on cane toads – it seems to be a case of, ‘We have done that and we will direct our funding elsewhere’. It is incredibly short-sighted because cane toads are the biggest biological threat to the Territory’s biodiversity, and the government seems to be doing nothing to stop them. It is rolling over and saying it is all too hard. The minister’s statement even said some mammal numbers have dropped by 75%. The failure to recognise that cane toads have a role in the destruction of native fauna is a sign of having the blinkers on.
We must work with all landholders and users to value and protect biodiversity, particularly that which is at risk. That was the road we were on, and it was so disappointing the CLP, as one of its first actions, dropped support for the Eco-Link initiative established by our government. After my maiden speech in 2008, I think the first debate I participated in was about Eco-Link, which had been set up at that time. The member for Namatjira was the Environment minister and had launched Eco-Link.
The shadow minister for the Environment at that time was the member for Brennan, who is now the minister. In opposition days he did not support the Eco-Link initiative any more than he probably supports the ban on plastic bags. Having just re-read his Hansard contribution from the last sittings – as well the plastic bags review – I am alarmed. Even though he says not, the Environment minister does not appear interested in making the plastic bag ban work. Reading reviews across other jurisdictions where they have these plastic bag bans, the community, the retail sector and government have all embraced them. If there are things that need to be done in the Northern Territory, particularly around educating consumers about the importance of bringing their own recyclable bags when shopping – I will be watching with great interest to see what the Environment minister does with the plastic bag ban.
I will briefly mention Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2020, which identifies the following as the main threats to Australia’s biodiversity. The main threats to Australia’s biodiversity are habitat loss; degradation and fragmentation; invasive species; unsustainable use and management of natural resources; changes to the aquatic environment and water flows – a very important one in the Territory; changing fire regimes; and the sixth one is climate change.
What is the CLP government doing about these six key threats to Australia’s biodiversity, particularly about those areas of aquatic environment and water flows and climate change in an environment where we know conservative governments are climate change deniers? Prime Minister Abbott has axed the office of climate change and the science ministry, so this is concerning.
The potential for more habitat loss in land clearing and fragmentation of different ecosystems as the Territory continues to develop is concerning. We need to ensure the wise use of our resources and well-informed and transparent resource allocation decisions, including approvals for the clearing of land and vegetation for broadacre land development. What new work is being proposed in managing the broad-scale effects of fire regimes that might go wrong?
What is the government doing to support more work like that of the Wardekken rangers and the West Arnhem fire abatement project? Government, industry and community ranger groups do important work to reduce the broad-scale impacts of hot, damaging fires, and fine tune fire management for conservation in our fire-prone landscapes.
We talk about a program that was launched around asbestos removal in communities as a brand-new avenue for training and employment. I am not sure about career development in asbestos removal. It is important, but that is where the member for Stuart was focusing her energy on Indigenous employment and training. Managing land and sea country and things like these fire abatement programs that have been successful in West Arnhem is a perfect fit for our ranger groups in our remote areas. These guys get fire abatement projects. It keeps people on country, it is productive work and gains carbon credits as well.
Around 3.5% of our estate is managed by Parks and Wildlife, but our wonderful Parks and Wildlife rangers struggle with unrealistic operational budgets to address fire management and invasive weeds in our parks, out bush and in our key urban parks like the Casuarina Coastal Reserve. There needs to be realistic investment into not only jobs, but protecting and managing the biodiversity in these areas.
Where is the long-awaited Cabinet decision on the tourism and recreation master plan? When will we be able to see the CLP’s plans for our parks estate? I have seen the draft that was made available more than a year ago. It was one of the first things I looked at after a shadow Cabinet reshuffle when I picked up Parks and Wildlife. At the time I was advised that, ‘We cannot tell you anything about that because it is before Cabinet’. Some months later, I did receive a briefing about it. There is interest in commercial opportunities in our parks. There is nothing wrong with getting more visitors into our parks, but it is about understanding how sustainable it is in protecting biodiversity and cultural and heritage values.
There is a good deal of community uncertainty about this government’s commitment to biodiversity conservation. What is the government doing to arrest the loss of some of our best and brightest conservation talent underpinning our work in this area? What is it doing about cuts to the budgets of important organisations like Charles Darwin University that contribute so importantly to our understanding of biodiversity conservation issues and best practice in conservation management? How many of those professionals might we have lost in the Northern Territory through cost of living increases that mean they and their families choose to go somewhere else, not to mention cuts to higher education.
What of the CLP’s bloody-minded cuts to the budgets of grassroots environment groups that put their future at risk and limit their activities? We have already talked about Frogwatch. What about the Arid Lands Environment Centre in Alice Springs and the Environment Centre NT – important groups that help engender community interest and action in relation to conservation issues?
I am sure the Environment minister will stand up during this debate to read out a list of all the grants recently allocated. For organisations that have to apply six-monthly or 12-monthly for grants, with fingers crossed in the hope they get one, it does nothing to allow them to sustain the jobs of people who work with them nor sustain the important programs they run. They need greater certainty than that, but unfortunately the CLP government is not interested in the views of these organisations and sees them as a bit of a nuisance.
This government should be supporting, not slashing, community groups and organisations that have the interest, expertise and runs on the board when it comes to protecting our biodiversity.
When I was in Alice Springs in the middle of the year I caught up with Jimmy Cocking, director of the Arid Lands Environment Centre. They are involved in some critical programs and projects that have, at their core, protecting our biodiversity and taking practical steps in conservation issues.
Government has a great responsibility to ensure appropriate management and allocation.
The Arid Lands Environment Centre runs some terrific community-based programs that get Central Australians involved in land management and biodiversity conservation initiatives. I visited the Frances Smith Memorial Park community garden in Alice Springs, a beautiful community garden with different pockets set out for different users growing different things. At each plot there is a letterbox so plot holders can communicate with one another by sending messages on slips of paper. They are like little garden ornaments. It is a terrific place and well patronised by individuals and families in Alice Springs.
The Arid Lands Environment Centre Biodiversity Matters program includes information sessions and very popular hands-on field trips where participants learn about important local biodiversity issues and take part in conservation activities.
Biodiversity Matters has been running for more than two years and has involved more than 100 people in collaborative approaches to conservation, which has to be a good thing. In fact, you would want even more people involved if you could. Some of their activities include weed monitoring in Finke Gorge National Park, monitoring activities at Conlon’s Lagoon, discovering an area of national botanical significance on the outskirts of Alice Springs, and the examples go on. Many of them support the work of park rangers and assist the aims of Parks and Wildlife. Obviously these people are volunteers in the work they do and their contribution cannot be underestimated.
Biodiversity Matters was the Territory winner of the partnerships with Landcare award for its innovative and collaborative approach to volunteer-based conservation. Why a government would make access to funding for organisations like the Arid Lands Environment Centre beggars belief.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Government has a great responsibility to ensure the appropriate management and allocation of our precious resource, fresh water, including groundwater. Our community understands the importance of water, whether that be in our rivers and streams or our precious groundwater resources. The CLP has been riddled with scandal over the allocation of vast amounts of our precious water resources.
Our community is concerned when it reads of EPA concerns about the impact of iron ore dust at Bing Bong port, first brought to public attention not by government but by local traditional owners and the about to be de-funded Environment Centre NT.
We have seen strident community concern about the impact of legacy mines on streams and waterways, whether that be outflow from the Mount Todd or Redback mines or any of the many legacy mines across the Northern Territory. I have no doubt my colleague the member for Barkly, as shadow minister for Primary Industry and Mines, will be talking more about biodiversity in that sphere.
We will continue to pursue this government about its deeply troubling approach to water allocations. The Northern Territory government is being taken to the Supreme Court, where the minister will be made to answer for his failure as the minister for Resources in the reckless allocation of water resources, as well as his failure to respond to community concerns with any review process that would give people comfort about these allocations.
This is a scandal about the allocation of groundwater resources to CLP mates, and it is well known both here and nationally.
Most recently, there has been very deep concern about the over-allocation of groundwater resources from the Oolloo aquifer in the Daly River catchment area. A public notice went out – I think it was dated 24 September – stating that the water controller was advising of upholding decisions to allocate additional extraction licences. In making that decision, an annual extraction of 67 945 ML has now been approved. This exceeds the annual limit of 60 000 ML set out in the draft water allocation plan. This is outrageous.
There has been an outcry from numerous sectors ever since the water rush started with the very controversial massive water allocation to Tina MacFarlane from Stylo Station – the CLP candidate in the federal election. There was a massive water allocation to her, and following on from that there has been a number of water allocation licences issued. Some of them have been quite controversial, and it is not only members on this side of the House who have endeavoured to call out the government on this process, which lacks transparency, the support of science and consultation.
We have had the Northern Land Council, AFANT -representing amateur fisherman – the Farmer’s Association and traditional owners, and even the member for Stuart, in her early days of being a member of this House, saying they do not agree with the government’s water allocation and have concerns about the axing of the Strategic Indigenous Reserve.
Three members of the CLP actually walked out on the CLP for a number of reasons, claiming not only was the government and its colleagues racist, but the way they were treating Indigenous communities and resources such as water was simply wrong.
Mrs Price: Think about biodiversity. We can talk about wildlife.
Ms WALKER: Three members walked out, and now one of them has gone back. I look forward to the member for Arafura perhaps contributing to this debate.
Mrs Price: Why not? It was his choice.
Ms WALKER: He can explain to us why it is that his views have changed so dramatically about how his colleagues have treated him. I am sure he will speak in this important debate.
I am sure the member for Stuart, who has plenty to say, might tell us why she axed funding to Frogwatch, $200 000 a year, and why, initially, she was concerned about the Strategic Indigenous Reserve, but now thinks it is okay that traditional owners get no say in the allocation of these water resources.
We have been calling for an inquiry into water allocations since mid-May. There is a growing case that calls for an inquiry into the allocation of water resources, but members opposite are not interested in inquiries. Should they be asleep at the wheel and we manage to get a motion up that says there will be an inquiry into the allocation of water resources, you can bet your bottom dollar they would be back here during the next sittings putting up a motion to rescind any sort of inquiry. They do not like any sort of transparency.
They always have something to hide. I wish the Environment Centre NT well with its bid, the first time it has ever taken legal action. It is at cost to their members, potentially, but surely they would not be taking these steps if they did not think there was a case to answer. I am sure all stakeholders will be watching the outcome of that court case very closely. It is a debacle for the CLP government. There is an incredibly flawed process around water allocation, and there is much to be answered.
Scrapping the Strategic Indigenous Reserve was an inconsistent decision with the national water plan. We need nothing less than a full and independent inquiry to give Territorians the comfort they deserve. They should know the precious natural assets that belong to all of them are awarded without political interference and in a manner which supports principles of sustainability, as well as acknowledging the legitimate interests of all stakeholders, including traditional owners.
We have a government consumed with turning land in production, cutting through long-standing planning and community engagement protocols. The statement says it is about a balanced environment policy. It is not that at all – far from it. It is a useful contribution to the debate about the need for biodiversity conservation and the conservation of threatened species. There is nothing new in this statement, and it is not a statement about a balanced environment policy. It says little to us about climate change and what the impact of that is on biodiversity conservation.
We have yet to see a balanced environment policy from the CLP, and I fear it will be a long time coming. Earlier today I revisited the Framing the Future policy in this flimsy little document. There is a section called Balanced Environment, where there are three objectives with a few dot points – no targets, dates or measures. This flimsy little document that is Framing the Future has not been consulted on and it is not noted who the authors are.
In contrast to Framing the Future, the Territory 2030 document was put out by the Henderson Labor government in about 2009 or 2010. You only have to look at them to see which one carries a little more weight. Quite literally, it is Territory 2030, a blueprint for the future, which was highly consulted on around the Northern Territory. An eminent group of Territorians which was a subcommittee of Cabinet – Vicki O’Halloran, Bill Moss, Michael Berto, Jan Ferguson, Ted Egan AO, Jonathan Carapetis, Steve Margetic and Dennis Mackenzie were the authors of this report. Alongside Framing the Future, it is like comparing chalk and cheese. Territory 2030 was a document that was highly consulted on.
That pretty much says it; the jury is still out. Despite the well-intentioned statesmen we have today, we simply cannot afford to continue an ad hoc approach to protecting our biodiversity, especially in this era of developing the north. The biggest threat to biodiversity is the CLP government, with its determination to push ahead with development at any cost, and without accepting its responsibility to consult and properly balance development with the interests of Territorians and our natural assets at heart.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I hope people heard that last comment made by the member for Nhulunbuy. She said ‘developing the north’ like it is a crime and something you would not aim to do.
This is a lady trying to encourage this government to do what it can to help her town of Nhulunbuy. You think if there was a member who wanted to develop the north it would be the member for Nhulunbuy. You would think the member for Nhulunbuy would welcome any development of northern Australia, particularly in her electorate and for those people who live in Nhulunbuy. If the constituents of Nhulunbuy were listening and heard the tone of the member for Nhulunbuy when talking about developing the north, what would they think? That was horrendous. To think the member for Nhulunbuy is in that frame of mind, thinking of her constituents of Nhulunbuy at the moment. …
Ms Lawrie: Spin machine. It is about how much you spin
Ms Walker interjecting
Mr CHANDLER: Come in, spinner! That is the whole mindset of a Labor government. That is the whole rationale and thinking behind the member for Nhulunbuy and the Labor way of thinking when it comes to development. They are quite happy to trade in Indigenous misery, but are not about building our communities and the north.
I support the statement by the minister. As the minister for the Environment, I have a bit of skin in the game here. The Northern Territory has a sensationally unique environment. As the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries said:
It is a unique environment. It is a big part of our lifestyle and an even bigger part of our economy through tourism and agriculture. I remember coming to the Northern Territory in 1985; I was not born here, but I have lived the majority of my life in the Northern Territory. I always say to people that you cannot be blamed for where you were born because you have no say in that, but you can be blamed for where you live, because that is a choice. I have chosen to live in the Northern Territory for the majority of my life.
I remember coming here in 1985. I enjoyed fishing; I had a little 3.7 m tinnie with a 25 HP Mercury on the back. I used to love nothing more than getting down to places like Shady Camp, the Mary River system, to do a little fishing. I would marvel, as I trawled up some of the beautiful billabongs we have in the Territory, at dawn when the water was flat as a tack and it was quiet. As the sun came up and the mosquitoes went to bed it was a remarkable place.
Shady Camp is the only place I have ever camped where quite a few times during the night I would wake up thinking it was drizzling because of the pitter-patter on the tent. But it was not rain at all; it was just mosquitoes hitting the tent. I used to tell my father down south, ‘Dad, you could rub your hand on the inside of the tent and bend the beaks of a lot of mosquitoes that have their beaks well entrenched in the tent’. They were savage, and I had never seen anything like it. It is part of the unique diversity we have in the Northern Territory.
The dawn raids on the barramundi in those billabongs were unique. It was quite an enjoyable time with many of my friends in the Air Force, as we would sometimes open a tinnie as the sun came up …
Mr McCarthy: As the sun came up?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, as the sun came up, preparing for a big day ahead. It was so beautiful to see the sun come up through the trees, the reeds and the billabongs. If you caught a fish, that was a bonus. We used to do pretty well. There were many times you would go there and not catch a fish – to see the difference between the upper side of Shady Camp to what I call the lower side out to the ocean.
In recent times, I have shared some time with the member for Katherine along the Mary River system. We had the unique opportunity of flying over that area in a helicopter. That was unique, because I had been there many times over the years and fished both the upper and lower sides of Shady Camp, but I had never once seen it from the air. It was spectacular to see wild pigs, buffalo and the devastation of ..
Mr Elferink: Mimosa.
Mr CHANDLER: Mimosa. It is unbelievable to see what that can do to the countryside. To see cattle, crocodiles and so many diverse things in that area – I remember times we spent there with my parents, nearly killing them in the process. They were wonderful stories as it turned out, because if you survive that it is a good story; if you are there it is pretty scary sometimes. This is just an example of our unique biodiversity in the Northern Territory.
When people go back to Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide or other areas in the country and you visit, all they want to do is talk about when they were in the Northern Territory. It is the best advertising you could ever get. You can be down south at Christmas or another time, perhaps sitting around a fire barrel, and people will say, ‘Peter, I remember when we were in the Territory, we did this, we visited that’. They had seen Uluru at sunset or dawn. You will see the sparkle in their eyes.
There is something unique about the Northern Territory. As custodians of the Territory, as members of the Legislative Assembly, we have a responsibility to do what we can to protect this place. That is why I was thrilled that the member for Katherine brought this statement on tonight.
We have a diverse environment, ranging from tropical in the Top End to the arid lands of Central Australia. In the last few years I have seen remarkable change in Alice Springs. I recall seeing the Todd River flow three times in one year. There was a wet year in 2011 or 2012. I am not sure of the dates, but there was an extremely wet year in Central Australia, particularly around Alice Springs; it might have been the year I was bogged, which was 2010 or 2011. The area had turned green like I had never seen before. It was as if this green moss had crept up over the ranges; it was unique.
I tell people they cannot go to Alice Springs once in their life because whenever you go there – it is the same with the Barkly – you have a beautiful experience. Going back, it will be different every time you drive on that highway. Every 100 km you drive, look out the window and the landscape changes tremendously. If it is the Wet Season or Dry Season, whenever you drive up and down the track – the member for Barkly would know this, as he has driven the track many times. It is a unique environment to look at and something worth protecting. We must do what we can as Territorians to protect that uniqueness, whilst at the same time knowing this place will develop. There will always be a place we need to protect because it is different to wherever you go in this country.
We have some beautiful places in Australia. I have had the opportunity to go to Tasmania a couple of times. What a spectacular state Tasmania is. Wherever you drive it is picturesque; it is a lovely place. I would not want to live there as it is too cold, but it is very unique. Again, the north of the Territory has something different from the south of the Territory. The arid lands and desert country are beautiful, as well as the tablelands through the Barkly, and then you come north to Mataranka and Katherine. You then get into the sub-tropical areas around the Top End. It is all very different. We have to do what we can to protect that environment.
I was proud the Country Liberals government established the independent EPA to make sure we have that entity at arm’s length from government. Dr Bill Freeland does an amazing job with the EPA, and he is at arm’s length from government. I cannot tell him what to do. He comes in every week and tells me what he has been up to. If people understood the relationship I, as minister for the Environment, have with the EPA they would soon realise they have an entity that stays at arm’s length from the Northern Territory government.
The EPA is there to ensure environmental oversight if a new mine or subdivision has been approved, and that everything goes through and the checks and balances are maintained, EIS processes are put in place and terms of reference are robust enough to ensure we protect the environment.
Bill is not afraid to tell me where he thinks we might be going off the rails or where we might need to change direction in our thinking because something will damage our environment. If it can be done a different way he will encourage us to do that. That is what we appreciate about the EPA and what it is set up to do, right down to having a pollution hotline the average punter can ring. Action will be taken and the appropriate people will get hold of that.
The pollution hotline is managed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It receives around 700 calls a year where genuine people have concerns. They have seen something in the environment that concerns them or they might be out in their boat and see something that concerns them. They will ring the hotline and action is taken, because it is important we protect our environment.
Luckily, most of those calls we receive are low level; many big things do not happen in the Territory. We have big things that impact the environment here, but they happen less frequently than in some of the bigger states. In that we are very lucky.
We are a big territory, and whilst we know mining and the energy sector is growing, it is still an emerging industry in the Northern Territory. When you put all our mines in the Northern Territory together in one area and then put that up against the rest of the space we have here, it is such a small area we are talking about.
It is also important we have other things to back up the rhetoric we put together. We had many concerns with the original legislation for the Container Deposit Scheme that was put up by the previous government, but this government went into bat for it. We had some battles because there were some mistakes made. Some things could have been done better when it was first set up. As a government, did we walk away from it? Did we say it was a Labor initiative that was set up incorrectly, therefore we would not go back to it? No, because it is something Territorians got behind and because the intent was right.
The framework could have been set up better. If the legislation had been created better – we could have that argument all day, but the intent of the legislation was right. That is why Territorians got behind it and why the Country Liberals came into government, backed it and took on the big players like Coca Cola. They thought they were bigger than this government, and they were going to shake, rattle and roll. Guess what? We might have lost the first round with them, but the former government, this government or Territorians would not have accepted giving up the fight on this one.
Bigger companies will sometimes have the money behind them and could bankrupt a government the size of the Northern Territory’s very easily. We had right on our side in that battle, and it was right to spend the $4m this Cabinet approved to keep the scheme going to ensure it did not stop until it was sorted out and started again. It was an investment in our environment to keep the system going while the ship was being righted.
In regard to plastic bags, which are another part of that same legislation, again, the intent was right, but I am yet to be convinced we are having a positive effect on our environment when you see the amount of heavy-type plastic bags being purchased today. I think it is next week when I will table the report in regard to cash for cans and the plastic bag legislation.
Whilst it has been a good experiment to change people’s habits, we still need to perform some deeper analysis to see whether or not it is making a difference to our environment. It has changed people’s habits, which is a good thing. However, if the intent of the legislation was to ensure we ended up with less plastic going into landfill, which the minister at the time, Karl Hampton, talked about in his second reading speech, we need to perform some deeper analysis on whether or not it is meeting its intent. Again, the idea was a sound one. Is there something we can do to strengthen that legislation to ensure it is meeting its intent, with less plastic going into our landfill? We need to see if we can come up with some improvements in that area.
We all want less plastic to end up in landfill. We want more of our things recycled today, because when things are recycled it benefits our environment.
When I went on a planning study tour, I was taken to a place in the UK which had just completed the cycle. It was a recycling plant, basically, picking up waste in bins from the side of the road, like you see in Australia, and from there it went into a sorting place where things like aluminium cans, bottles, plastics, cardboard and paper were all separated, whilst all wet waste went to another area. The recycling had already started for the easy products like aluminium, glass, cardboard, which was all going to a recycling plant.
I was amazed that the wet waste – what we traditionally send to landfill in most places in Australia – was transferred to a huge furnace that burned all of it at such a high temperature that what was left at the bottom was bits and pieces of steel, from springs from old mattresses to wheel axles. Anything steel came out, and it was then a commodity because it had been burned at such a high temperature the steel …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: The steel had become a commodity because it had been burned at such a high temperature that all impurities had been removed from it, so it could be melted down and reused for steel products. Meanwhile, the furnace was boiling water which was turning a steam turbine, making electricity that went back into the electricity grid. The rest of the hot water was being circulated around the immediate suburbs, providing heating for homes. That was a complete waste stream, creating energy and heating homes.
I am not sure how many homes we want heated in the Northern Territory – maybe a few in Alice Springs – but it demonstrated that the waste stream could be completely recycled. Aluminium, glasses, cardboard, right through to what we call wet waste that goes to landfill was turning into hot water to heat suburbs and make electricity. Wow! I saw a complete recycling program.
If we really want to help biodiversity in the Northern Territory, we must head down that road in the future, where we might want to combine the waste of City of Darwin council, City of Palmerston council, as well as Litchfield Council for the north. It gets a bit more problematic in the south in the smaller jurisdictions, but smaller plants have been set up to deal with smaller areas. We are a lot closer today by turning 100% of waste like that and recycling it.
There are so many more things we could do for our environment. I commend this statement to the House. There is so much more we can do in the Northern Territory to protect our unique environment.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing what is a very interesting narrative to the House. It is a pity it happened so late in the day, because I was hoping the galleries would be full with school students to hear this narrative.
I will input some positive elements to this narrative. I start with where the minister said:
My first input is from the townsfolk and good regional community of the Borroloola Gulf area. An important issue has arisen in Borroloola, with the community concerned about heavy metal contamination issues at McArthur River Mine and the management plan for the waste rock fires, which have the potential to produce acid and metalliferous drainage during the Wet Season into the river and out to the Sir Edward Pellew Group of Islands.
Borroloola clan groups and elders are deeply concerned about potential health impacts from the bio-accumulation of heavy metals in edible fish species, the risk of acidic run-off from the mine and the lack of consultation from McArthur River Mining about these issues. Monitoring of metals by McArthur Riving Mining has only been occurring in small non-edible fish species, but independent water sampling indicates high levels of lead, zinc and cadmium which may be building up in barramundi and other pelagic species, and not being reported.
The independent mine monitor’s report will be presented to the community, detailing nearly two years’ worth of monitoring data from the mine. Elders from the four clan groups with responsibility for the McArthur River have held a protest rally and plan to deliver a letter calling on the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy, the Environment Protection Authority and the Health department regulatory agencies to halt production at the mine until these problems can be resolved. They are also calling for clan group representatives to be added to the independent mine monitor’s group so the community can stay informed about monitoring practices at the mine and improve regulation and communication about these issues.
Elders requested I attend the rally as their local member, if possible, and meet with them to discuss their concerns in Borroloola when I am next available. That will be on 17 November. It is a very positive, proactive community. I will revisit this issue in adjournment; I will table a copy of the letter that you will find interesting. It is rather challenging, but presents a good way forward in collaboration with the people.
Minister, I will also talk about a letter I have written to you about this issue on behalf of constituents. The residents of that area, the traditional owners and community people, are calling on relevant federal and Territory regulatory agencies to act. They are asking for intervention in health monitoring, a health monitoring program that could be run by the Health department and the very pragmatic establishment of a mine monitor’s program made up of representatives from the four different clan groups, so they can be involved. That is a real positive to send to McArthur River Mining.
McArthur River Mining has not been totally absent in this space. There has been a lot of work going on. In my last few visits, I have noticed some real achievement in putting out those tailings dumps fires. A lot of work has been done on the tailings dams, but now people want to work in partnership. They are a great mob down there; they are very proactive, and will stand up and fight. Minister, this is essential in supporting your narrative and Northern Territory biodiversity in the area. I will revisit that in greater detail during adjournment.
As I go through the statement, there are a couple of different areas I would like to comment on. One is feral animals. The minister said in the narrative that the department is particularly focused on understanding the role of feral cats, and that this work has included the construction of two large cat-proof exclosure sites within Kakadu National Park.
Minister, I draw your attention to the Barkly Tablelands and the feral cat populations concentrated around turkey’s nests. Anybody familiar with cattle producing areas in Central Australia will know the turkey’s nest is the water storage area that feeds troughs into paddocks, and this manages paddock grazing. The cats are attracted to the water and food source, which is the wildlife attracted to the water. It has become an intensive area, and I encourage the minister to discuss with the department the possibility of going into these areas with some intensive feral cat eradication programs. Many Aboriginal communities in these areas would be involved and probably want to be involved.
It is great to have the member for Stuart at the Cabinet table, who could lobby for these communities to be involved. It would be good to see the pastoral community, the Indigenous community, the government and agencies working together; we could have a serious impact on these feral cat populations in a large part of the Northern Territory, particularly around this time of the year when it is very dry. These turkey’s nests provide that small ecosystem with the reptiles and small mammals, the birds and these feral cats. If anyone has had an experience with them, they will know they turn into mini-tigers. They are large, quite ferocious and need to be eradicated.
It is good the minister spoke about other feral cat management programs and the ultimate goal of working with Indigenous land managers to implement techniques to strategically reduce cat numbers. That is the important point. It is about working strategically with Indigenous people. There are so many opportunities. I will talk about the fire abatement program later.
In regard to feral animal control, I acknowledge the Minister for Parks and Wildlife, who responded to one of my letters regarding feral animal control in the Elsey National Park. I took a trip there recently to look at the feral animal issue in what is a very small park. The park has realistic potential for management and is surrounded by Aboriginal communities. I asked the minister a series of questions, she responded and I thank her for that.
I talked about livestock in the park and the neighbouring properties being able to access those areas and muster stock out of the park. Pastoralists are very concerned about getting their animals back and not losing that value and production opportunity.
The minister mentioned shooting in that area. I was not talking about shooting at all, and with the surrounding Aboriginal communities there are many opportunities for labour intensive work around tracking, mustering, trapping and removal. Many Aboriginal people live around Elsey National Park, and it would be great to see some innovative programs working together there.
The minister wrote an interesting paragraph – the Mangarrayi Indigenous ranger group was disbanded due to lack of funding. That was a real pity, and I hope that can be addressed because ranger groups would definitely be an innovative way of working in the future.
The report also neglects, as the member for Nhulunbuy talked about, the wildlife corridors. Like the member for Nhulunbuy, I was very inspired when I came into this place, as a new member of parliament working with government, and saw that national policy development. It was about creating these wildlife corridors; it fits with much of the Indigenous mythology I have learned over the years and the song lines relating to the passage of mythological creatures, ancient spirit forms and ancestors travelling through various sectors and covering the continent. There was no such thing as South Australia, the Northern Territory or Queensland.
These song lines tell fascinating stories, and I immediately interpreted these eco-corridors as not only celebrating Aboriginal mythology but picking up on the scientific side of that as well. When I look through the Barkly, I see those links between the savannah woodlands, the tablelands, the arid zone areas to the south and then into more of the desert areas of Central Australia and the linkage with the APY lands in South Australia. It seemed logical, where landholders, land users, Indigenous groups and government could put a lot of emphasis on how to manage ecology and biodiversity through making sure the flora and fauna had access to that traditional movement, which would help preserve and sustain populations.
Pastoralists, towns and small communities can be involved in this. Indigenous people being involved in that would be the cream on the cake. It is a pity that has dropped out of the narrative because that was not only pursued by the previous Northern Territory government. There were also cross-border negotiations with Queensland and South Australia; they were willing to participate in the allocation of resources in that development, acknowledgement and celebration of our biodiversity across these borders.
That was the Eco-Link policy, and the minister mentions a concept of that. In his statement, he said, ‘We must work with all landholders and users to value and protect biodiversity, particularly that which is at risk’.
This is the road we were on, and it is disappointing the government has dropped the ball on that. It would be well worth revisiting, and, minister, you would find many people in the department with a lot of knowledge about that.
The initiative that understood the importance of wildlife corridors and connecting landscapes for wildlife conservation was a relatively low-cost activity that was enjoying growing support and was likely to realise some great outcomes.
Ranger programs: carbon trading is big picture stuff and a big political, ideological divide. As the CLP tries to articulate when it talks about the pressure on budgets, the dollars we should be going after are in big business. It is the big end of town, and we have already seen some great examples of that. The minister mentioned a little about this in the biodiversity narrative with regard to fire abatement programs. The West Arnhem project was an excellent example – the Warddeken Rangers and West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement project that sees government, industry and community ranger groups doing important work to reduce broad-scale impacts of hot damaging fires.
The money for that comes from industry; it is effectively a carbon trading scheme. If we can get rid of the ideology, be Territorians and work together for Indigenous economic development, then let us go after the money at the big end of town. ConocoPhillips and INPEX are immediately participants in this space; ConocoPhillips has set the ground rules for this, as a great example.
You will also discover, if you want to start that dialogue together, the issue of our own public utilities and the credits we have to buy because of the emissions we create. If you are with two Cabinet ministers, ask them where we buy those credits. How much are they? I am sure the Minister for Parks and Wildlife, who gets that privileged seat in Cabinet, will be asking this question immediately to find out where these cash streams flow. They can be re-directed back into vary important Indigenous ranger programs.
Minister, if you are interested, and for anybody looking for a gig – these are the Waanyi Garawa Rangers – 12 500 km2 of the Nicholson River land trust is critical to manage, because the wildfires that come out of the Nicholson – it is a beautiful place where I lived for four years – can wipe out the best cattle producing area in the world.
I have seen fires that started from the Nicholson burn on great cattle producing areas for three months, starting in kerosene grass. That is an example.
Those people are alive and well; they regularly lobby me for opportunities, and I would love to have some support to link them with these fire abatement initiatives at the big end of town. It means work on country.
I am very disappointed with Senator Nigel Scullion and his comments that ranger programs equate to green welfare. I find that very destructive; I ask the neo-liberals over there who hang out with our good Senator Scullion to challenge him on that. You give it to him at the next barbecue and say you want to talk about ranger programs on country. If we are to do a lot of work with youth and re-engage in opportunities around culture, ceremony and law, employment infused into that, with real wages, is the way to go. Give it to old Senator Scullion and get him back to the table, because I was very disappointed to hear a fellow who knocks around the bush talking like that. He is now a gentleman with a lot of power, a huge budget – short of $500m cut by the boss – but he has serious access to resources.
The other matter is water issues, and the minister has been challenged by the member for Nhulunbuy. Anybody who wants to talk about biodiversity in this House would want to start with Mother Nature’s essence, which is water. The minister has got himself in a bit of bother; it is important I raise it today because it relates to what I will define as the day of CLP accountability, or lack thereof. However, this is another issue. During exchanges across the House when we get a little spiteful, I have no hesitation in pointing at the Minister for Land Resource Management to say, in terms of an inquiry and getting to the bottom of these issues raised by the community, ‘You are next, mate’.
I see three big inquiries coming on. Community stakeholders have beaten us to the blocks on this one, and the minister will be answering very shortly in the Supreme Court. We will see whether this can influence the real alternative to policy in this water allocation area, that being the strategic Indigenous reserve. The strategic Indigenous reserve has been debated in this House from the Liberal side under pure economic rationalism. It is about the water being there and dishing it out to their mates, because they will grow …
Mr HIGGINS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: The issue about the strategic Indigenous reserve will now be at the forefront. I will quote from the ABC home page from an article by Katherine Gregory on 7 October 2014. It is titled ‘Green groups launch court challenge over groundwater extraction licences decision in NT’:
Let us hope this court case will reignite the debate in the Liberal Caucus. Essentially, I see that strategic Indigenous reserve as having two very important outcomes. The first is that it represents the fundamentals to develop economic opportunities. It is water, but it is also a very powerful recognition of the cultural association to water. Having said that, it represents the safeguard to preserve biodiversity.
As I debated that policy within the Labor Caucus, I came to the opinion we will preserve 20% of the 80%; 20% is immediately quarantined, and that is the safeguard. There are massive swings within weather and climate cycles. In my brief 35 years in the Northern Territory, I can talk about flood, fire and drought. That is a very brief cycle over 35 years. When you talk about the longer cycles, we are not quite sure what is happening.
Member for Arafura, it is sad that I struggle to find rainmakers performing rainmaker ceremonies now. I challenge the kids all the time. I was very fortunate to see rainmaking ceremonies; the Indigenous mob had better start that discussion, because we need the mythology as well as the science. With the Indigenous strategic reserve, we have that water preserved. It is a safeguard in case something goes wrong.
All the scientists tell their stories. The economists over there want to hand it out, and you see examples already of where some of these water licences have not facilitated agriculture; they have facilitated subdivisions and property being put up for sale. That has already happened. I find that very disturbing in any debate waged from the other side when it is all about saying, ‘We will grow things to eat and create agriculture. All you need is dirt and water. We have mates who will do it’, and off it goes. Now, in bush country, I am hearing about subdivisions. We could have told them that would happen. I hope the debate around the strategic Indigenous reserve is revisited.
If we are talking about biodiversity, let us talk about the Roper River and, essentially, the macro-geography where you have many agriculture producers and mining projects – currently in limbo, but which I daresay will come back online – as well as a major Aboriginal-populated town at the end of the line. If you look at the basic ecology through that system, having that 20% in reserve is a good thing. It is a good, important thing in a biodiversity debate.
When the people who can claim a cultural association to water – something we celebrate in the Northern Territory that is completely different from any rhetoric that comes from an economic rationalist on the other side – say, ‘By the way, we are going to use this in a western sense and start to create agriculture, agribusiness, etcetera’, we have an opportunity. That was a good policy and still is. I encourage the other side to revisit that.
I have a note saying, ‘Media release court action’. I have dealt with that, and having been involved with a Supreme Court action in regard to the Muckaty case – do not flip the wig, member for Port Darwin. It is too late in the night to talk about nuclear waste dumps, but I can talk about the price of bread and nuclear waste in the same sentence.
I found that the case fleshed out accountability. In the Muckaty case it forced the decision-makers over this nuclear waste dump to the wall, where the question was finally too difficult to answer and they walked away.
Instead of being accountable, opening the filing cupboard and looking at the traditional clan groups and genealogies of the people who had engaged in that case, the other side – what is the lawyer’s term for the other side, John?
Mr Elferink: You are either the plaintiff or the respondent.
Mr McCARTHY: The respondent chose to call it quits. ‘We will walk away.’ It was a good decision. The Supreme Court has this amazing opportunity to bring out the truth. It is a good thing these groups – they are doing it tough. The Environmental Defenders Office was de-funded, the environment centre was de-funded. By who? You mob. They have the bit between their teeth and have taken on government. They will flesh out the truth of these water allocations.
The material that comes out of the court action will come in very handy when a future Labor government implements an independent commission against corruption. It might be in 2016, 2020 or 2025, but on the electoral roll – the summons will arrive in the mail. I got one, and I have been down this road. It will arrive in the mail; it will find you, no matter where you are. If you have a mail bag it will find you, and then everything comes back to the table. It is all laid out in amazing folios with serial numbers and tildes, going through all sorts of amazing procedures. We look forward to that court action. In the meantime, I hope it reignites the debate about the strategic Indigenous reserve.
I will revisit, for the minister, the McArthur River Mining issue. We can put the groups together and do something very innovative and positive in this space which represents the Liberal ethos of having economic activity and being able to support the environment, something the minister talked about in the biodiversity statement.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory is blessed with rich and unique flora and fauna, with many plants and animal species found nowhere else in the world. Our range of ecosystems is extensive, ranging from the arid Centre to the tropical, monsoonal Top End. A great example of this uniqueness can be found in my electorate.
The plateau of west Arnhem Land is the most significant region in the Northern Territory for biodiversity. It contains far more endemic species to the Northern Territory than anywhere else. About 200 plant and 20 vertebrate species, such as the Oenpelli python, are found only there. There are many other plants, animals and outstanding scientific interests, and at least 32 threatened species can be found on the plateau. I am fortunate enough to not only have the West Arnhem plateau in my electorate, but the Tiwi Islands as well.
The Tiwi Islands are truly magnificent. They provide a safe haven for many plant and animal species, some of which cannot be found anywhere else, including 19 animal species listed as threatened. When we talk about biodiversity in the Northern Territory, the isolation of the Tiwi Islands from the mainland plays a significant role in protecting the biodiversity found there. Unfortunately, this is not bulletproof. As mentioned yesterday, the banana freckle disease has found its way to Milikapiti on Melville Island, requiring the destruction of banana plants within identified eradication zones.
There are many plants and animal species of significant cultural value to Indigenous people. Indigenous people have vast knowledge of the plants, animals and ecology of their country. Indigenous people must play a significant role to continue to protect the biodiversity of the Northern Territory.
The Tiwi Land Council does a great job of protecting the biodiversity of the island. This can be seen in the work of programs like the Olive Ridley turtle research project and a number of other programs. Preserving our biodiversity is about ensuring future generations can enjoy the plants and animals that make the Northern Territory the best place in the world to live, work, play and raise family. Taking care of natural environments and conserving our biodiversity is significantly, culturally, spiritually and ethically responsible, and the right thing to do. I commend ministers of the Country Liberal government for their commitment to the Northern Territory’s environment.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement on. It gives me an opportunity to speak about something close to my heart.
As people know I have lived at the Daly for about 16 years, and only recently have we sold our property there. We have moved into town but, again, on an acreage. I have been the Chair of the Wangamaty Landcare group for about 14 years, and I have been asked to continue in that position. That experience has been a real eye opener. I was born on the land and have always had some sort of link to it; many people pick on farmers and say we rape and pillage, but we do not. We have some affinity with the land, but living in the Daly area opened my eyes in many ways.
With regard to my wife of 40 years, she has an affinity with plants and animals to the point where if we have a spider in the house, my four sons and I leave because we know Rhonda will ask us to catch the spider in a glass and take it outside, which none of us are keen to do. She will not kill spiders, she will not have fly spray in the house, but by no means would you call her a greenie.
In the position of Chair of Landcare, I looked at biodiversity from a different angle. That group looked at weeds, so rather than investigating what existed, you examined what was destroying things. Some of the things in the area included neems, poincianas, gamba grass, mimosa and the bellyache bush. They were things the Landcare people were trying to control; when you get involved with these people you start to see the land and how they – these are Indigenous people – relate to it.
The previous government also introduced its land clearing guidelines. I became involved in that, sitting on the Daly River Management Advisory Committee; I was on the original community reference group. When that group was first set up, I said the issue was not land clearing, but water.
I was glad to hear the member for Barkly mention water, because it is the basis for everything. Some interesting things come out of water, and if you look at how it is measured – how much water would you need for the environmental flow of the Daly? The way it was measured goes back to a study performed – I cannot remember the name of the scientist who carried out the study – into pig-nosed turtles, and they found them to be an endangered species.
If you had less than 12 m3 water flowing down the river at any time the male turtles could not go from hole to hole in the river to find females. They needed water to move around, which meant if you had less than 12 m3 breeding was impacted. This study highlighted how critical things can be; you could ask why the pig-nosed turtle would become extinct. It relates to climate change, irrigation, etcetera, but it is a tiny measure.
When I was on the Daly River management group, I thought about the pig-nosed turtle and the 12 m3; I asked why we had looked at rare, threatened species, but not species that were not under threat, like the barramundi. I wanted to know how much water would need to flow down the Daly for barramundi to survive.
Another study was set up with people from Charles Darwin University, as well as from the national university and South Australia. They studied the fish and found there were more species in the Daly than any other river in the world. That was never highlighted until this study, but they also found species that could be threatened if we had a flow less than 12 m.
When you start to fiddle with the biodiversity of the environment you must be very careful. That highlighted to me that someone was looking at species that can become extinct, rather than ones that were not yet threatened. They could have been threatened through taking too much water out of the Daly. People are aware of my views on water in the Daly and the strategic Indigenous reserve, so I will not go down that path at the moment.
We have had problems in Australia with prickly pear, (inaudible), tussock grass and cane toads. The member for Goyder is quite aware no species have become extinct because of the cane toad. I found this out at the Daly, where a huge number of quolls lived in the mango trees. When cane toads arrived those quolls were wiped out. A large number of the quolls were moved to some of the islands off the coast because people made a big hoo-hah about them becoming extinct, which was fair enough.
The quolls are back. I drove along Dorat Road between Adelaide River and the Daly, and there was a dead quoll on the road. This was about eight months ago. If the quoll had been wiped out it would not have been there. We have also seen quolls at the mango farm. This is five or six years after the arrival of cane toads. When I made inquiries about that, I found that no species has become extinct because of the cane toad.
We think of all these species that were brought in, such as the cane toad, prickly pear, sparrows, etcetera. I talked about my wife and the spiders; I do not know of any spiders or snakes that have been brought into Australia. It is interesting. Are people scared to bring spiders or snakes into Australia? I noticed the redback spider has made an impression in Japan.
In regard to biodiversity in Australia, I am very worried about the feral pig population. I am very much against many of the pig hunters just going anywhere on Indigenous land; it is a major problem west of the Daly. People are gung-ho thinking they can go wherever they like, they do not need permits and can just shoot up the countryside.
Pigs are a problem, but one of the worries we have with them is that if you had a disease in this country like foot and mouth, how would you ever control it? It would devastate a number of industries. AQIS came to our place at least once every two years, if not every year, with a couple of choppers; they shoot a few pigs and take blood samples for testing to see whether there are diseases. It is constantly monitored. Many people do not realise there is that potential. Fishermen go to islands, fish and come back; they bring diseases in, and it is a constant worry.
I look at much of the bird life that flies in. The geese, etcetera arrive at this time of year, and you wonder if they bring anything in. Do they bring seeds in? Do their droppings go everywhere? They are worries I have and things Landcare opened my eyes to.
On the radio in the last week, a fellow was talking about people on country. He made the point that one of the problems we have in north Australia at the moment is there are not enough people on country. When the member for Barkly was talking about the rangers, I thought about this. The guy was making the point – I am sorry I did not hear the beginning of interview, so I do not know who he was, but he seemed very knowledgeable – that the more people you have in some of these places the more protected it is, because they see things happen day-by-day. I can vouch for that.
If you live in a place like the Daly for 10 years you notice change, but you have to be there from season to season. If we do not have people on country and do not encourage these people to look after the land, we will have bigger problems. They will not come back and report to us that certain things are happening, and they will not report to us that quolls have been spotted again, the dingo population has increased or there are wild dogs coming into the area. It is very important we increase the population in north Australia, especially in the bush.
I learned over the years at the Daly – something I did not think I would learn – what you can discover from Indigenous people in regard to the relationship between plants and animals. They are some of the simple things.
Many people, if they fish for barramundi, would know of the spot on the Daly called the Golden Mile. For the last couple of years I have asked people why it is called the Golden Mile. None of the fishermen – most of the experts – know. It is called the Golden Mile because the best time to fish in that spot is when all the yellow wattle falls into the river. You can imagine a golden area, and there used to be many wattles there – flooding has taken many of them out – but that was the best time to catch barra in that spot. The local Indigenous people knew that, and that is how it was named the Golden Mile. It is interesting the Europeans did not know any of that.
For years, I also noticed, and never bothered to ask about, the cars at the Daly River crossing at night, a bit like Hunter Street in Newcastle; you do your laps after work. They would go there every night, do a circle across the sand and then leave. I could not work out what these people were doing, but after a couple of years someone told me. They were looking for mullet. At night, the mullet would come upstream and jump out of the water. When the mullet came upstream they would start fishing for barramundi around the crossing. I know that was fish to fish, but all these things point to the knowledge these people have gathered over many hundreds of years about our biodiversity. This is an area we need to tap into.
There was also a rare bird at the Daly called the emerald dove. Everyone has seen the doves that fly around in the Territory, and I think some people call them bush quails. There are ordinary grey doves and the emerald dove. The emerald dove would go to the mango farm every year. It would land under the 100-year old mango trees, usually three to four weeks before the rain started. Every year three or four of these doves would come in and stay for a couple of weeks, but they were always there three or four weeks before the rain started. There is that relationship with nature.
I knew when it rained and had all the records written down, having done the weather there for 15 years. When I first started doing the weather we did it at 3 am, 6 am, 9 am, 12 pm, 3 pm and 6 pm, so you became attached to it. It was worse than a baby. You link many of these things after 15 years walking the 0.5 km out to the weather station and back and the wildlife that is around.
I also learned about fish. One day, a fellow said to me, ‘No, that fish is no good’. I asked what was wrong with it, and he told me it was slippery. I told him most fish were slippery, but he said, ‘No, that one is too slippery; you cannot hold it in your hand. If you cannot hold a fish in your hand and it jumps back into the water you have not lost much.’ I asked him how he worked that out, and he said, ‘If a fish is in fast flowing water it will not gather slime on the outside, but if it is in still water it will’. If it is in still water it will be muddy. That was it. They are the little things I learned from some of these people.
I used to think the pigs that go down onto the river bank every year must be smart because they know we will not go down there and shoot them. They are on the bank and you can never get them. It was only when someone said, ‘No, this is when we get the bamboo shoots, as long as we have beaten the pigs to it’ – I was amazed. I had been there for 15 years thinking the pigs were going down there to hide from me, and this person told me that was when I should get the bamboo shoots. That was an interesting one I only learned in the last 12 months.
The bad side of all this is when you live at a place like the Daly and get to the end of the season, the rain starts and the river comes up for the first time. You think, ‘I will get a holiday, no tourists can get in to see me so I will be able to work 12 hours a day instead of 20’. When that river comes up for the first time the amount of rubbish you see coming down – I always said it was people from Katherine because the Katherine River feeds into the Daly, but that was mean. I was amazed by the amount of rubbish that came down the river from people who had fished, pulled up on the bank and camped. It was unbelievable; if they could be there to see that, they would start to pick up their rubbish.
I have seen fishermen there, and one day I spoke to one who was parked on the bank chopping up spider wire into little bits and throwing them into the river. I asked what he was doing; he said, ‘I am chopping them up so they do not tangle on people’. I asked, ‘Why even throw it into the river?’ He thought it was good enough if he chopped it into little bits, but he was still going to throw it into the river. Needless to say, I told him that was not a good idea in some nice ways.
The rubbish is not just in the water. When people around Darwin get bales of hay, they leave the bale twine. We would often see bale twine wrapped around the legs of birds that gathered at the Daly. When you are on a quarter acre block, you do not see that. You open the back door and the bird takes off, so you do not see it, but if you are on a larger property or out bush you see those things. People need to remember that.
Tourists’ concept of some things is amazing. They want to travel around and see all this biodiversity. One of the things people do not think about is when they have driven up from down south, they have done many kilometres, they need to do oil changes, etcetera, on their vehicles, so we allow them to use…
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member ben given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HIGGINS: We found these tourists would spill oil all over drums; they thought we would get rid of it for them. I said they could not do it unless they took their oil away, and then they would throw it into the garbage bin. Eventually we just said no. We got to the position where I was driving out one day, and there was a big Winnebago parked on a windrow on the side of the road; I wondered what he was doing, so I stopped and asked. He replied, ‘I am changing my oil’. He was dumping his oil on the ground; people are just unbelievable. He was a resident at the park and said, ‘Where else am I going to do it? You would not let me do it at your park.’ That was my involvement with tourists.
In his speech the minister mentioned access to information released by his department that is available on the Internet and in brochures. There is an application that will run on an iPhone, as well as others. It is put out by NT Museums and is called the Field Guide to NT Fauna. I do not know whether people have seen that, but I have it on my phone, and it goes through terrestrial invertebrates, vertebrates, freshwater invertebrates and marine invertebrates. For anyone who wants anything to do with things that live in water or spiders, ants, etcetera, that is a very good application to have on your phone.
Last weekend I went to the Territory Wildlife Park for its 25th birthday celebrations. When I arrived I was surprised by the number of people, and you could not get a car park anywhere; luckily I had a four-wheel drive so I found one. There were 2500 people there that day, which was fantastic. The Territory Wildlife Park is a good place for people to visit.
In the last 12 months I have attended the opening of the sustainable garden area, so it is not just about animals. There is a bit more of the biodiversity-type stuff. There are sustainable gardens there, and they are doing a lot with kids. They have a joint program with Berry Springs School, and it would be good if that expanded even more into education, minister. We started to teach these kids about biodiversity; they are trying to expand, and they have camp groups which stay there overnight. I encourage that work.
The only thing missing there – I have not raised this with the Minister for Parks and Wildlife, but it is something that was there years ago and has been chopped – is feral animals. They always had buffalo, pigs and banteng. These are important because kids must be shown, for example, a pig. A lot of townies do not know what a pig looks like, or a buffalo, and they must be shown these things. I would like to see that reintroduced to the wildlife park. It is not a zoo, it is an educational facility, and that is how we should look at it.
The celebration was fantastic, but the cake was not big enough; we had to chop the pieces into tiny bits, and I only got a freckle. Those kids ate huge amounts. It was free for everyone to go, and it was a good day. The staff there must be commended for their efforts; I have not spoken to the minister about that, but I hope she passes on to staff what a terrific job they all do, not just on that day, but all the time, and they are all very dedicated to what they do.
I thank the minister for bringing this statement on so I could prattle on for a while about something I am passionate about.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House. It is a good statement, not dissimilar in quality to the Minister for Health’s statement on health practitioners. Yes, there are many things you could have put in it; you could have read a whole statement on cane toads, weeds or the herbarium, but it encapsulates many things going on in the Territory.
The Territory has an abundance of flora and fauna, even up to our urban or rural back doors, with birds, bugs, lizards, ants, spiders, frogs and other wizardo weirdo things. If it bites, stings or irritates, we have it in the Territory. We have snakes, bees, ants, box jellyfish, hairy caterpillars, centipedes, scorpions and crocodiles, to name a few of our friendly residents. There are others as well.
Birdlife anywhere in the Northern Territory is extraordinary. Birds are everywhere. I have had an ornithologist stay on my block, and she counted over 50 species of birds there, from freeloading cockies to the lorikeets, rainbirds, curlews, doves, butcher birds and pee wees, just to name a few.
Denise Goodfellow is a renowned person in regard to ornithology. There is also Darryel Binns, who I have spoken about in one of these speeches before. I think he has sighted 800 birds, one of only five people to do so in Australia. Much of that has been done in the Northern Territory. We have a vast array of birdlife everywhere.
The vastness and diverse landscape of the Territory lends itself to a myriad of flora and fauna. There is desert, mulga woodlands, coastal, mountain tops, valleys, semi-arid and, of course, the riparian vegetation, just to name a few. There are also many other types of landscape and environment across our Territory.
We have a vast land mass, plus the islands, beaches, bog holes, swamps, old rivers, and by the nature of our history and development, relatively small levels have been cleared and developed compared to other states.
I have no doubt department people are experienced; they are professional, open, dedicated, passionate and they love their work. Having grown up and lived here since late 1959, I have seen changes across the Territory, mostly good, but not all. Generally, people try to do the right thing by the environment, but not always. That is why we have regulations and laws.
Having worked in and around the exploration and mining industry, I learned a lot about many areas, one being the requirements and work performed in regard to the environment. Contrary to what some small sectors of the community have tried to suggest, many mining industry people work hard to protect, preserve and manage the environment. It is through this work that many new species have been discovered in the Northern Territory and elsewhere; I will give you an example I know about.
In the Pilbara, which is a hotspot for unique flora and fauna, the minerals industry was instrumental in discovering 12 new acacia species in 2008, two new geckos in 2012 and the number of stygofauna has increased from 40 species in 2002 to over 350 species in 2012. For those who are not familiar with stygofauna, they are the little bugs, etcetera that live in waterways, caves and at the sides of creeks. The industry has not exclusively found those items, but they have worked in association with environmental groups and government agencies.
In the Territory, work done at the Ranger Mine discovered a new bird species; this is going back about 10 or 15 years. Knowing these kinds of examples as we do, I was a bit concerned when government contractors cut a swathe through the bush to start the rural Litchfield hospital. The bush may have been seen as a boring patch of ground to town people, but those who know the bush know there could have been species of note there. Why is it that industries have to go through rigorous environmental baseline studies and government does not? Why do industries have to preserve cycads and government does not? Why do industries have to report against KPIs and government does not? It is something we should think about.
The statement, albeit not in great detail, talked about the serious problems we have with weeds in the Territory. About 27 500 introduced plant species have made their way into Australia, compared to our 24 000 species of native plants. About 10% of the invaders have become established, meaning they now grow by themselves and thrive in wild and urban settings. Sadly, humans tend to spread them around, thinking they look pretty in their gardens or ponds. They then get bored and chuck them in the river somewhere, and off they go.
The Territory knows all about our weeds. We have gamba grass, the mission grass, calopo, rubber vine, the bellyache bush, horehound, sida, Berrimah weed, coffee bush, mimosa and pond apple, to name a few of the baddies. Of course, there are many more. Half of my garden apparently contains weeds, but they still look pretty. They were all introduced for a variety of reasons, mostly for pasture for cattle or for decorative reasons. When they get out of control, they go wild and become very invasive.
There are plans and good programs in regard to weed management. I am pleased to hear the government is continuing to supply the spray units and glyphosate; people can go to Freds Pass, collect the spray unit and get the glyphosate to try to keep on top of and get rid of the gamba grass that is quite a menace. It is good for stock, especially when it is young, but if it gets out of control on your block, government land and road reserves, it becomes a serious problem, particularly at this time of year when we have had a late Dry Season. The fuel load is very dangerous. Most people who have lived in the bush say it is one year seeding and seven years weeding.
The minister also talked about the herbarium – I have done some research on this, and I know some people, including volunteers, who have worked there – and the terrific work they do. More people should go to the herbarium, whether in Darwin or Alice Springs.
The word ‘herbarium’ comes from the Latin herba which is plant or shrub, and orium, which is a storage house. It is not somewhere they store herbs, which is a query they often receive. A library in Roman times was known as a scriptorium, not a library.
Our herbarium stores all records of the occurrence of plants in a state or territory. Ours is linked, via a national alliance known as the Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria, ensuring species’ names are used concurrently across the nation. There is a spread of information regarding weeds and threatened plants, which is very interesting. We have a problem with banana freckle and disease in the melon and cucumber family.
The herbaria in Darwin and Alice Springs have plants in their collections that are of historical importance and cultural and national significance in conservation and agricultural values.
The Alice Springs herbarium was established in 1954, which I do not think people are aware of, to determine which plants were toxic to cattle. Our knowledge base has grown from there. Two of the baddies with cattle and any animals are the cycads and ironwood trees.
The main service these herbaria provide is free identification. You can take your leaf or tree there, and they will tell you what it is. It is also used by other government agencies, the university, naturalist groups and various consultants who perhaps work for industry, developers or planners. They also have a relationship with the ABC gardening show, which is good.
They monitor the spread of weed taxa, and with their records it is possible to determine the distribution patterns of poorly understood species or those of conservation value. They enumerate all species of the Territory.
They currently know – I know this from my research – about 95% of the species of the arid zone, but only about 70% of the Top End. Their biggest black hole is in the McArthur River/Roper region and the Sturt plateau, which I think is in your area, member for Barkly.
There are also patches in Arnhem Land likely to hold a new, rare species we do not know about yet. There is nothing to suggest there are not species of flora and fauna out there; we just have to look around.
The historical aspect is also an interesting one. The older herbarium houses collections made by explorers such as Burke and Wills, Cook and many other people who ran expeditions around our country.
The biggest problem, I understand, is still not knowing all species of the Territory or having knowledge of the 800 to 1000 species considered rare or poorly known. This contrasts with the 40 species of small mammals or the 200 total species of birds.
I have asked what other functions they could perform. Yes, they have staff and volunteers, but they need to continue to do the work they do to benefit not only government agencies and private industry, but also the community.
Within the collection there is an original plant specimen collected by Sir Joseph Banks. Kew Gardens have returned most of the Australian specimens collected on those early voyages, and now they are distributed to all Australian herbaria, including two in the Northern Territory. That is good news.
I want to place on the record some of the people I know who work there. I have a vested interest in this, and you will see why. I compliment the chief botanist, Ian Cowie; Glenn Wightman; Deborah Bisa; Dr Donna Lewis, who works part-time; Nick Cuff; Charmaine Tynan, who is one of my constituents at Elizabeth Valley; and Mireille Beaupellet. Volunteers are Dr Mike Michie, an ex-science teacher I know from my Minerals Council days, who works two-and-a-half days there per week; Marj King; Cassandra Wadrop; Plaxy Purich, well-known volunteer; and they also have workplace students. Cheryl Owens’ – she works in the Speaker’s office – daughter who went to Taminmin was one of the workplace students and had a wonderful time. They are volunteers, and volunteers also work in Alice Springs.
I do not know much about how they are supported by government through funding, but it is one of those essential services government should ensure is adequately funded with paid professionals, as well as encourage people to volunteer.
As a result of work with the herbarium, I receive many inquiries at my electorate office – I do not know if the member for Daly does. People bring in their piece of weed, leaf or flower and want us to identify it. Sometimes we can, but generally we refer them to the herbarium, and they are usually grateful for that. The herbarium deals with a lot of those enquiries. Sometimes it is a positive plant and sometimes it might be a funny plant, but we do not want to know about that.
One of the major threats to our environment has been the introduction of wildlife, particularly large animals such as camels, buffalo, pigs and feral cats. With these animals comes degradation, erosion and feed competition, so keeping control of feral animals will always be a challenge, whether in the Top End, on the floodplains or in Central Australia with the camels.
Minister, I compliment you on your statement. We could talk about a lot more, perhaps weeds, the herbarium and where we are going with our work to discover and document more species of flora and fauna, but that could be a statement for another time.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of travelling to Central Australia – Central Mount Stuart to be precise – to remember a Territory pioneer who made an enormous contribution to the Central Australian horticultural industry and the birth of the local table grape industry.
The story of our table grape industry is the story of Ian Dahlenburg’s hard work and progressive thinking. Ian Dahlenburg first entered the table grape growing business in Robinvale, Victoria, where he established his first successful vineyard on the banks of the Murray River in the 1950s. In 1971, Ian relocated his family to Alice Springs, where he established grapevine cuttings and citrus on a small allotment near where the casino stands today.
Working with the late Frank McAllister, an agronomist well known in Central Australia, Ian organised a supply of grapevine root stock to come from Mildura. These root stocks were used for the first trial planting of grape vines at the animal industry branch now known as AZRI, where Ian was also working at the time.
It did not take Ian long to identify that grape production in Central Australia was commercially achievable. The fruit quality was excellent and the region could produce early grapes, which Ian knew was a distinct market advantage. Ian’s association with the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries dates back to the time he worked at AZRI as a technician. He was a mentor for many new staff, offering his knowledge and advice on topics such as horticulture, politics and religion.
Ian also helped establish the planting of grape vines and a small orchard of stone fruit at the Santa Teresa mission in the early 1970s. He also helped local legend Dennis Hornsby establish the Northern Territory’s first ever winery in Alice Springs. Ian spent a lot of time at Chateau Hornsby teaching Dennis how to care for and maintain the varieties of cabernet sauvignon, Rhine riesling and shiraz wine vines.
In the cooler months Ian could often been seen pruning vines and fruit trees around Alice Springs, which he offered as a free service for residents. During these years in the early 1970s Ian also spent a lot of time traveling around the Northern Territory, particularly the Central Australian region, hoping to find an area with a suitable water supply on which to grow grapes. Ian’s efforts where often laughed at, as Central Australia was then firmly considered as nothing but cattle country. However, on 1 September 1975, Ian was able to acquire one square mile of what was then a densely covered plot of mulga scrub. This was to later become known as Ti Tree Farm.
Testament to his tenacity and will to succeed, Ian cleared this land by hand with pick and shovel. His first homestead on Ti Tree Farm consisted of four star pickets holding up a sheet of corrugated iron over a folding camp bed. Ian’s first crop of grapes was harvested in December 1978, between two and five weeks ahead of other grapes in Australia. The first shipment was sold within hours of arriving at Sydney markets.
Ian and his family not only pioneered table grapes in the area, but also a vast range of other crops. He grew and marketed the first rockmelons, watermelons, zucchinis, figs, peaches, nectarines, asparagus and citrus fruits. In 1998, the Dahlenburg family sold Ti Tree Farm and moved back to Alice Springs, where Ian judged horticultural entries at the Alice Springs Show for many years.
Sadly, Ian passed away on 13 October 2011, having celebrated his 88th birthday and 65th wedding anniversary earlier the same month. The success of the table grape industry in Central Australia has waned in recent years, a reflection of the tyranny of distance Territorians endure, as competitors in regions such as Queensland do not have the same costs to bear and hurdles to overcome. However, it is good news that a number of old plantings at Ti Tree have recently been replaced with new root stocks. This, in conjunction with the future release of properties at Pine Hill, could well be the beginning of the rejuvenation of the horticultural sector at Ti Tree.
It has been 39 years since Ian Dahlenburg forged a new era in horticulture in the Northern Territory. Without a doubt, the Central Australian horticulture industry and table grape sector will forever remember the efforts of this industry pioneer.
As the Northern Territory Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, I acknowledge the legacy left behind by Ian Dahlenburg. When in Central Australia, it was a privilege to unveil a plaque at a Central Mount Stuart highway truck stop that will forever tell the story of Ian Dahlenburg. It was gratifying for me to be there among so many of Ian’s family and friends. There were family members and people who had known Ian who had travelled from interstate. There were also local Aboriginal people there from the region who had known and worked with Ian during his life at Ti Tree. It was a moving experience and real pleasure to be among those people who had been so instrumental in Ian Dahlenburg’s life, including his family, friends, co-workers and the Indigenous friends he made there.
In a very moving moment – it did not happen while I was there, but a day or so before – Ian’s ashes were spread across the landscape by his family during a service, near where we were at Central Mount Stuart. For all Ian put into and took from the ground, he has returned to it in that region.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, an important issue has arisen in Borroloola. The community is concerned about heavy metal contamination issues at the McArthur River Mine, and the management plan for the waste rock fires that have the potential to produce acid and metalliferous drainage into the river and out to the Sir Edward Pellew Group of Islands during the Wet Season.
Borroloola clan groups and elders are deeply concerned about potential health impacts from the bio-accumulation of heavy metals in edible fish species, the risk of acidic-run off from the mine and the lack of consultation from McArthur River Mining over these issues.
Monitoring of metals by McArthur River Mining has only been occurring in smaller non-edible fish species, but independent water sampling indicates high levels of lead, zinc and cadmium which may be building up in barramundi and other pelagic species and not being reported. The independent mine monitor’s report will be presented to the community, detailing nearly two years’ worth of monitoring data from the mine.
Elders from the four clan groups with responsibility for the McArthur River have held a protest rally. They also plan to deliver a letter calling on the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy, the Environmental Protection Authority and Health department regulatory agencies to halt production at the mine until these problems can be resolved. I seek leave to table a copy of that letter.
Leave granted.
Mr McCARTHY: Elders have also called for representatives of the clan groups to be added to the independent mine monitor’s group so the community can stay informed about monitoring practices at the mine and improve regulation and communication about these issues.
Elders requested I attend the rally as their local member, if possible, and meet with them in Borroloola to discuss their concerns when I am next available. That will be on 17 November. I will also read onto the record a copy of the letter I have written on behalf of constituents of the Borroloola-Gulf region to the Honourable Willem Westra van Holthe, Minister for Mines and Energy, Parliament House, PO Box 3146, Darwin NT 0801:
I am still looking forward to a reply from the minister. I acknowledge this opportunity to provide some details around this important submission from residents of the Borroloola-Gulf area.
The Borroloola town and regional community are a tough mob. They are a good mob and definitely a mob that does not shy away from a fight. They have some very pragmatic recommendations that can bring together government, the community and the McArthur River Mine. They are calling on the relevant federal and Northern Territory regulatory agencies to act.
In the tabled letter, the minister will see that their demands represent real concerns. A number of demands will directly challenge the McArthur River Mine, which has been in the area for a long time and works with the community. Together, I am sure we can work through these issues.
There are two points in the letter I would like to stress for the minister. One is about establishing a community health monitoring program for all residents to detect any impacts on human health that could be attributed to the mine. That relates to the Health department, and I urge the Minister for Health to take note of that very pragmatic recommendation. It is not unlike the public health campaign in Mount Isa, where there are proactive initiatives to monitor lead levels and provide that very important education and awareness for residents living in an environment around lead.
The second dot point I will emphasise from the letter is their request to:
That is a very pragmatic initiative. Our government, the department, the traditional owners, the residents and the mine can work together on that. It represents an initiative to bring people together. Glencore would be able to appreciate that education and awareness are key to traditional owners, residents and the mining operation continuing together.
It is a good opportunity, on behalf of concerned traditional owners and residents, to put this information onto the public record and provide very good policy initiatives for the government to consider. The Borroloola groups represent pragmatic initiatives, in good faith, that are about working together, education and awareness of activities that relate to mining, the impact on the ecosystem and biodiversity, and how we can all work to achieve sustainability for the traditional people and culture, the ecosystem, the biodiversity and the economic opportunities the McArthur River Mine brings.
I have visited the area on a number of occasions, and will be back on 17 November. I have witnessed a lot of work being done on the tailing dumps by Glencore. I am aware of a lot of work that has gone on in previous years on the tailings dams. There are concerns about the port of Bing Bong; once again, I stress the mine, the government and the departments, including the Department of Health and public health, can work together on these initiatives. It certainly represents the Borroloola mob I have known for a long time. They do not shy from a fight, but when they talk they give real, honest and pragmatic advice, which this represents.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will talk about the achievements of some of my constituent families. In the past, I have spoken about young girls and boys who have been involved with the Girl Guides, Scouts and Venturer-type activities, which are very popular in the rural area. They are very good activities because they teach young people so many life skills, and they have lovely experiences.
The first registered Guide company in Australia was supposedly in Hawthorn, Victoria. Some states claim the Peace Guides were established earlier. For many years, Girl Guides NT functioned under the care of Girl Guides South Australia. From memory, there were Girl Guides and Brownies in Darwin; I was involved as a little girl in the 1960s and possibly earlier in the 1950s. In 1987 Girl Guides Northern Territory became a guiding state in its own right under the guidance of Mrs Lynne Mounsey as the state commissioner, Mrs Norma Simmonds and Mrs Carrol Lynch as her able assistant.
The Humpty Doo Brumby Guides have been in operation for 10 years now under the excellent leadership of Mrs Michelle Leach and Miss Becky Myers.
There are two Taminmin students whose achievements I would like to highlight. The first is Natasha Bond, a keen and dedicated Girl Guide who has given 10 years’ service to this youth organisation. In this time, Natasha has achieved her junior BP and BP awards. Natasha then challenged herself and completed the Queen’s Guide Award with a focus on science and technology, arts and leadership, and a junior leader award. Each of these awards was completed to an extremely high standard, the highest for her peer level.
Natasha also completed her Commonwealth Award. This award has only been achieved twice before in Australia; Natasha had the privilege of achieving this last year, along with two others. They were the first Guides in the Territory to be recognised with this award. Natasha also received the Black Cockatoo Award at this year’s peak achievement awards night for her dedication and service to Girl Guides and her local community. Natasha has also completed her bronze and silver Duke of Edinburgh Award, as well as gaining the Black Cockatoo Award for her wholehearted commitment to Girl Guides. She was recognised for her 10-year commitment to Girl Guides, her volunteering and high standards in achieving her goals in guiding.
Natasha received two focus badges this year, one being in leadership, requiring a great deal of responsibility initiative and personal development. She was also, and is, a role model to younger Girl Guides.
Her science and technology focus required a high degree of initiative, development of scientific skills and knowledge and personal development in the area. Natasha attended a school holiday science camp and participated in extra-curricular science competitions and activities to achieve this badge. Last year, Natasha achieved her arts focus badge, involving many hours of dance and practice. Girl Guides can only achieve three focus badges, which Natasha has now done. Congratulations to her on that achievement.
Natasha completed her Queen’s Guide Award last year, and was one of the first Territorian Girl Guides to achieve the Commonwealth Award. That is a real achievement. All this required many hours of hard work, with written and verbal presentations.
Her family is immensely proud of Natasha, who has managed to juggle her Girl Guide achievements and responsibilities whilst remaining a straight-A student at Taminmin College.
Natasha was the dux of Year 10 at the school last year, along with achieving academic, scientific and community awards, both last year and in previous years. Last weekend, Natasha attended the national finals for the Royal Australian Chemical Institute Titration Competition. Her team consisted of three Year 11 Taminmin students competing against 14 other Territory teams from various high schools. Natasha and her teammates all achieved gold medals, winning the Territory competition.
Natasha is focused on science and would like to continue studies in this area – possibly in the medical field – after Year 12. Her Girl Guide experience has given her more confidence to pursue her interests and tackle challenging situations. She has developed leadership and organisational skills that have made her an independent and ambitious young woman. With that kind of background in Girl Guiding, the extracurricular activities and college and school activities, she will do very well in whatever she puts her mind to.
Kate Ferguson is the other Girl Guide who has done really well. Kate has been a youth member of the Humpty Doo Girl Guides for nine-and-a-half years. Over this time, Kate has achieved her Junior BP and BP Award before challenging herself and gaining her Queen’s Guide Award with an arts focus. This year, Kate completed her Commonwealth Award and received the Black Cockatoo Award for her dedication and commitment to guiding in her local community. Kate has also achieved her bronze Duke of Edinburgh Award. She has been a Girl Guide for nearly 10 years as well.
Both of these girls have been very lucky to have a motivated and fantastic leader in Michelle Leach, who has encouraged them to challenge themselves and aim high in whatever they set their minds to. These girls have been on many camps and hikes where they have had to organise their own equipment, including first aid and survival items – food, water, compasses and things of that nature you need on a bush trek.
They have been to many remote areas in the Territory, where they have camped under the stars with no toilets, showers, etcetera. They have faced their fears of crocodiles, stingers, cockroaches, snakes and the dark together, supporting others along the way as well. One of the highlights was a hiking and canoe trip at Katherine Gorge.
They have also managed to find the time to volunteer many hours in the community, helping with church groups, dance groups, Scout and Girl Guide groups and at community events.
I compliment and congratulate these two young students for their interest in and contribution to the rural community, and the support and encouragement they give to other people in their extracurricular activities and at Taminmin College.
Congratulations to Natasha and Kate. It is commendable; I am sure your families are very proud of you. Well done.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
5183
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to visitors to the House. On the left we have members from the Ionian Club of Darwin. Welcome to Parliament House today.
I also advise of the presence in the gallery of a Year 7 class from Taminmin College. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to the Taminmin students, because I know you are the brightest and best in the Northern Territory. I also welcome the accompanying staff, Carmel LeLay, Melody Mcardle and Christine Shaw. Welcome, and I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
MOTION
Establishment of Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that:
1. this parliament appoints a select committee named the Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise the draft Fuel Price Disclosure Bill prepared by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel dated 14 October 2014
2. the committee will inquire into the effect of the bill in meeting its aims of better informing motorists of the price structure of fuel and promoting price competition
3. the committee will inquire into mechanisms for setting the price motivator exemption to be gazetted under the bill
4. the committee’s membership shall comprise of three government members, who shall be the members for Daly, Blain and Arafura, two opposition members and the member for Nelson, who shall be the Chair
5. the committee may elect a Deputy Chair of the committee, who may act as Chair when the Chair is absent from the meeting or there is no Chair of the committee
6. a quorum of the committee shall be three members of the committee
7. the committee is to report by the April 2015 parliamentary sittings
8. the provisions of this resolution have effect notwithstanding anything else contained in the standing orders.
The purpose of the consultation bill referred to the committee is to ensure transparency in the Northern Territory’s automotive fuel retail market and to make automotive fuel retailers more accountable to consumers. The bill referred to the committee will allow for the making of gazettal orders requiring automotive retailers and those who supply them to provide details and a full breakdown of their retail and profit margins. It further empowers the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs to publish information on the retail fuel market.
Historically, the Northern Territory and other regional areas in Australia have always had higher automotive fuel prices compared to other capital cities. Territory consumers are right to be concerned about these higher prices and to expect they can be justified. This concern is not new.
There are a number of factors that contribute to higher prices in the Territory. These factors include lower sale volumes; less competition; distance and location; higher input costs, for example rent and power; lower sales from other sources of income; and a lack of a refinery in the Northern Territory.
Until about 2011 the price differential in the cost of retail fuel in Darwin against other capital cities was fairly consistent. However, that price differential began to increase in early 2010 and spiked in mid-2012. It has continued to rise more slowly since then.
This increase has coincided with an apparent contraction in the market. At the end of September 2014 the price differential for the average price of unleaded petrol in Darwin, compared to the average in other capital cities, was 26.5c per litre. A similar differential also exists in Alice Springs. During the fuel price summit we witnessed the unedifying incapacity of the industry to explain the sudden spike in prices in 2011 when there was a takeover of distributorship, particularly in Darwin.
On the other hand, the fuel price in Katherine continues to be significantly lower than the rest of the Territory. This can partly be explained by the existence of a price leader in Katherine who is willing to compete by lowering prices – in other words, real competition.
The reasons for the increasing differential outside Katherine are unclear and Territory consumers deserve an explanation; so far we have not heard answers.
Due to the growing concerns of Territory consumers, as you will be aware, the Chief Minister convened a fuel price summit on 7 October 2014. The summit was attended by a number of industry representatives, including the Automobile Association of the Northern Territory, Puma Energy, Caltex, United, the Northern Territory Road Transport Association, Vopak and the ACCC.
The summit did not elicit further information about the structure of the industry and its breakdown of costs than is already publicly available. While it is acknowledged the summit had the public benefit of discussing and clarifying why petrol prices can be expected to be higher in the Territory, it shed no further light on why the price differential continues to increase and why the cost of fuel in Katherine is consistently lower than in the rest of the Northern Territory.
The summit also provided clarity around the fact that the gap in meaningful public information is the breakdown of the retail margin. Accordingly, following the holding of the summit, the Chief Minister issued a further media release on 8 October 2014 reiterating this government’s commitment to fuel price disclosure legislation. A bill will be introduced during the October 2014 sittings of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly; this bill implements that commitment.
In developing our response to the Territory’s fuel crisis, government has considered a number of solutions, including the current regulatory environment in the Northern Territory and other jurisdictions. In the Northern Territory, there is no regulation of fuel prices and no disclosure requirements directed at fuel retailers, apart from the terminal gate price under the Oilcode.
The ACCC’s primary role is as a national competition regulator and consumer law advocate. It is primarily a law enforcement body that takes an active role in ensuring all markets, including the fuel market, operate competitively, free from collusion.
The ACCC has a role in monitoring fuel prices, but not in setting them. I spoke to the head of the ACCC in Sydney about this issue around ten months ago. Those principles were reiterated, in spite of the fact we were able to demonstrate to the head of the ACCC that there was no clear price leader in the Northern Territory in terms of putting downward pressure on prices. In spite of the fact we made some evidence available, it was not sufficient to convince the ACCC that a prosecution was warranted. I note there are a couple of matters in front of federal courts in relation to fuel prices in other jurisdictions.
Pursuant to a ministerial direction under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), the ACCC has monitored prices, costs and profits of unleaded petrol across Australia for the last six years. The ACCC has previously concluded there is no evidence of collusion or price fixing and that there is a degree of competition in the fuel market in the Northern Territory.
The Northern Territory Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, under the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, does not retain an overarching function of collecting, collating and disseminating information in respect of matters affecting consumer interests. Therefore, under existing legislation, the Northern Territory Commissioner for Consumer Affairs previously established and maintained a website called NT Fuel Watch. This monitored the weekly high, low and mean prices of unleaded fuel, premium unleaded, diesel and LPG in the Northern Territory’s major centres.
The NT Fuel Watch scheme was discontinued in 2012 due to high costs, the low uptake of the service and a lack of consumer benefit in a small market such as the Northern Territory. However, the Department of Treasury and Finance continues to publish a monthly economic brief covering Territory fuel prices.
In addition to the commissioner’s power to collect, collate and disseminate information affecting the interests of consumers, section 8 of CAFTA provides the commissioner with the power, in relation to any of his functions, to require any person to furnish him with information or answer any question put by the commissioner. It is an offence to fail to comply with the commissioner’s request or to give false or misleading information.
The commissioner’s existing powers under section 8 of CAFTA are somewhat limited. In order to access detailed data about individual retailers, the commissioner would need to give notice under section 8, on each occasion, to each retailer from which details were required. He would have to substantiate the purpose and basis on which the information was required in each instance. Therefore, CAFTA is targeted at consumers, which means it would be difficult to use the act to seek information from those at wholesale or distribution levels of the fuel supply business, even if that information impacted on retail prices.
There are already a number of limited disclosure requirements in Australia. At a wholesale level, the Oilcode, which is a legislative instrument under the Competition and Consumer Act (Cth) – which used to be the old Trade Practices Act – requires some disclosure, including the terminal gate price or TPG. It would be posted by the wholesale supplier each day. It does not require the components of the TPG to be disclosed. However, much of the information regarding the components is publicly discernible, including through the Australian Institute of Petroleum. Western Australia also requires additional disclosure of the TPG under a current Petroleum Products Pricing (Maximum Terminal Gate Price Order), which requires wholesalers to notify the Western Australian Commissioner for Consumer Protection of a daily TPG. The notified TPG then operates as a maximum price for product for 24 hours. When notifying a TPG, a wholesaler must also state each specified component of that price. No other state has similar legislation.
The Western Australian Petroleum Products Pricing Act also imposes disclosure requirements covering petroleum retailers. This is known as the FuelWatch scheme. Retailers in much of Western Australia are required to notify their next day’s prices by 2pm. They must charge that price for the 24-hour period, commencing at 6am the next day. The aim of the FuelWatch scheme is to provide certainty and transparency. However, under FuelWatch, retailers are not required to disclose the components of the retail price to the commissioner.
The Western Australian approach, which focuses on disclosure at the wholesale level and the notification of retail prices, was considered by the government, but will not be adopted in the first instance. It does not address the Territory’s circumstances or needs, as identified at the summit, that is, the lack of transparency about what constitutes current retail profit margins.
Government has also considered the issue of price setting. The Commonwealth government used to regulate wholesale prices through the Price Surveillance Act 1983. However, fuel price setting in Australia ceased as part of the National Competition Policy reforms. Since then, it has been generally accepted that a competitive free market is the best way to ensure consumers receive the best deal.
No Australian jurisdiction currently sets fuel prices by assigning a dollar amount, although most jurisdictions have the power to do so, including in circumstances such as natural or man-made disaster, failure of other laws to protect consumers from monopolies or to effectively ensure consumers benefit from the operation of the competitive market. The Price Exploitation Prevention Act fulfils this function. However, the circumstances in which the act can be invoked are constrained by its terms. There must be sufficient evidence of one of the preconditions in order to invoke its powers. In any event, any market intervention to impose artificial prices will always be a last resort.
Under consideration of the Northern Territory’s circumstances, this government believes the only way to protect Territory consumers is to bring meaningful transparency into the retail market. This will be done by implementing a legislative framework, subject to the consideration of the committee, that focuses on obtaining information from automotive fuel retailers and, where necessary, others in the fuel chain supplying those retailers, in regard to the details and breakdowns of their full cost structure.
I will now turn to the structure and content of the proposed bill for the committee to consider. The Commissioner of Consumer Affairs will be the regulator and have oversight of the legislation. It is proposed that the commissioner will ensure public access to this information regarding the breakdown of fuel prices and the structure of the fuel industry generally. This will include the publishing of information disclosed by retailers under the proposed Fuel Price Disclosure Bill.
It is proposed that the disclosure by retailers to the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs will be required. It will not be directly from the retailers to the public. Disclosure to the regulator will allow them to check the data and provide a report in a more consumer-friendly fashion. It will also ensure the data is available in one easily accessible place. Importantly, it would reduce the likelihood of retailers manipulating the data and reduce industry concerns about the disclosure of commercial-in-confidence information.
Requirements for disclosure will be set out in the proposed Gazette notice or notices. You can see that in clause 5 of the proposed bill. Those notices will be issued by the relevant minister. Initially, it is proposed that the Gazette notices will establish the following procedure and disclosure requirements: disclosure requirements will be aimed at retailers and could potentially apply to any retail outlet; disclosure will be of the components of total price, broken down to its separate and divisible parts, such as (a) aggregating costs and businesses expenses including the cost of purchasing fuel from the wholesaler, and (b) gross profit.
Disclosure will be in relation to automotive fuel only. Details about other business lines, including food, convenience stores, groceries, cigarettes, workshop, etcetera, will not be required to be disclosed unless they are relevant to the price of fuel, for example, in being used to transfer or obfuscate the profit margin from petrol.
Disclosure requirements are likely, in practice, to be imposed only on those retailers within the major centres of Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. It is not immediately proposed to apply disclosure requirements to regional areas, but that is a matter for the committee to consider.
Disclosure will be required on a periodic basis. Initially, this may be monthly. Although disclosure will be initially aimed at retailers only, clause 5 of the bill is drafted so disclosure requirements can be extended to other operators in the supply chain. This power is necessary due to the nature of the Northern Territory market, where there is a substantial level of market integration.
For businesses also operating across other sectors of the market, the commissioner will be able to require disclosure at other levels in the supply chain to determine if such businesses are transferring profits to other parts of the business in order to lower profits at the retail end.
The commissioner will, in effect, have the flexibility to publish the information in relation to fuel prices in any format he or she considers appropriate. It is proposed that it will be published on the commissioner’s website, but he or she may choose additional formats such as flyers and bulletins. That will be at the commissioner’s discretion.
There will be no restrictions upon what the commissioner can publish and it will be up to them to determine the information, subject to direction from the minister. However, it is proposed that guidelines will be developed to provide industry with a clear expectation as to what is to be published. The commissioner may, from time to time, require additional information to assist with determining the breakdown of prices, information which may not be suitable or intended for publication.
Compliance and enforcement are other important aspects of the bill; the commissioner will have the necessary investigative, audit and enforcement powers, mainly through linking current powers under section 8 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act. Section 8 allows the commissioner to obtain information relating to his or her functions under the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act or any other act. The commissioner can continue to use their power to request specific information from specific persons under section 8 of CAFTA, if necessary. It is intended the legislation will complement, rather than replace, the commissioner’s existing powers.
The commissioner will be assisted by fuel officers, who have the same powers and functions as authorised officers under Part 3 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act. Fuel officers, who include police officers and the commissioner, will have the power to enter and search premises and inspect copies of documents, should the committee consider it necessary.
Clause 8 of the bill creates an offence provision for failure to comply with the disclosure requirements. The maximum penalty is 400 penalty units, currently $59 600 and/or two years’ imprisonment.
The existing offences under section 8(4) and section 23(2) of CAFTA will apply to the provision of false or misleading information to the commissioner or fuel officers respectively. Additional compliance and enforcement tools in the form of infringement notices and the ability to name and shame, if they become necessary, can also be enabled under the bill.
The regulation-making power of clause 10 allows for the creation of regulations relating to infringement notices. The functions of the commissioner in clause 6 are wide enough to allow for the publication of the name of a recalcitrant retailer.
This government does not want to disadvantage retailers which operate fairly. The committee may also consider enabling a vehicle, such as a Gazette notice, under clause 5 to create a price motivator or exemption, that is, to exempt a retailer from disclosure requirements if they sell fuel within a certain price range. This range could be set by reference to the average Australian retail price for a certain period. For example, a retailer might not be required to disclose information if they have not, during a defined period, sold fuel specified in the notice above the prescribed price range. Based on the average amount, for example, this could be 10c a litre above the Australian average for the previous three months. Clause 5 of the bill is drafted so that an exemption Gazette notice could be possible as a blanket exemption or by reference to regions of individual retailers.
The Fuel Price Disclosure Bill is designed as a simple framework that is clear, targeted and easy to administer. It will benefit NT consumers, subject to the report of the committee, by making the retail automotive fuel industry more accountable and transparent.
I move that parliament supports this motion so Territorians can have access to data which I am confident will lead to lower fuel prices. If anybody has not already guessed, that was essentially the second reading speech for this bill restructured as a speech to support the motion to refer this matter to a committee.
The government notes, as we heard in Question Time today, there have been recent substantial reductions in fuel prices, particularly by United. I echo the words of the Chief Minister this morning; if Territorians want to take advantage of this courageous step by United to enter into genuine competition it is time for them to start filling their tanks in recognition of a competitor in the marketplace. I commend this motion to the House and look forward to ongoing debate.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, we support this motion. Our members of the committee will be the members for Nightcliff and Johnston. We look forward to scrutinising this bill through the committee. Along with the member for Nelson, this is something we believe would be useful for a number of bills. It is good to see it happening for this legislation. In many respects, having a scrutiny committee to look at some bills could be a very good idea. The Chief Minister, somewhat cheekily, took this House through how the second reading stage works this morning – things sitting on the Notice Paper for 30 days. We have had this debate before.
Some bills require a discussion with the community and an exploration of issues for legislative improvement. That is not always possible when it sits on the table for 30 days before coming forward for debate. No matter how altruistically we may speak, debate in this Chamber often descends into partisanship. There are times when the scrutiny of a bill through a committee can lead to improvements for all Territorians. It takes it out of this Chamber, where it becomes heated and where battle lines are often drawn prior to a bill being debated for passage.
By holding a scrutiny process – with members of this House sitting on a committee – and a discussion with the community about what may or may not work and what is practical and what is not, we could see significant improvement. In my portfolio area there have been debates on a number of bills where the community has provided improvements to legislation. These have not been taken on through the way bills are argued in this place. Government has come forward after a bill has passed to review it, and realised it should have made changes that were obvious in the first place. You can find a way through that issue if you scrutinise a bill properly in the first place and listen to the community and experts; that process has occurred through some of these debates
At one stage the Chief Minister – I will not repeat his language – told people, stridently, to go away, and those people turned out to be correct. There has been a review, and we are waiting to see how that will be implemented within mandatory treatment legislation.
Mr Giles: Why is crime coming down?
Mr GUNNER: To pick up on the Chief Minister’s point, we had the most violent year in Territory history in 2013, and 2014 is the second-most violent year.
When you compare 2014 to 2013 there is an improvement, but being second worst is not something to celebrate. We have significant room for improvement in how we deal with assaults, alcohol and violence. Some of the bills the CLP has brought forward on those issues would have been better if they had gone through a scrutiny committee and they had listened to experts.
We welcome the opportunity to scrutinise this bill, which concerns the cost of living. The CLP ran a very popular promise at the last election about cutting the cost of living – which everyone wants – but since then the CLP has not cut the cost of living. Instead, as explained by the Treasury, the CLP, through its approach to Power and Water, has effectively doubled the cost of living in the Northern Territory – the CPI. We can see this in the budget books. We held this debate during the passage of the last budget, and it is a concerning decision by the CLP, especially on the back of its election promise.
The Chief Minister tried to blame rises on other things and selectively draw from those budget books, but they are black and white. The CLP’s decision to massively increase power and water bills in the Northern Territory has effectively doubled the cost of living in the Northern Territory and hurt Territorians. We want to see the cost of living cut in the Northern Territory, and we want to see action, not talk. We do not want election promises broken; you made it, so honour it and we can all benefit. Territorians want you to honour that election promise. We are happy to engage with this bill, as we are concerned about talk without action. We want petrol prices to be cut, and we want the cost of living cut in the Northern Territory, as the CLP promised. We all fill our cars; it hurts me, as I have a diesel ute. It is painful for all Territorians.
We will be engaged in this scrutiny committee; the members for Johnston and Nightcliff will be involved, holding the CLP to its election promise to cut the cost of living in the Northern Territory. We want to see you honour that promise, and it would be a good thing if you did. It would be a good thing for all Territorians, but right now they are feeling the weight of that broken promise; it has hurt many of us. A number of people in my electorate, and others, have talked about the weight and impact of the power and water increases. This has hurt them, so we want the CLP to honour its promise to cut the cost of living.
We will be engaged in this scrutiny committee. The members for Johnston and Nightcliff, together with the member for Nelson as Chair and three government members, will do their best to hold the CLP to its election promise to cut the cost of living in the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion and I thank the government for going down this path. The government would remember I brought a motion to parliament some time ago requesting that bills go through the committee stage. At the time that was not supported, but life moves on and sometimes you win things in increments over a long period of time when you are in my position. This is a good win for the better governance of things that happen in this parliament. It should not apply to all bills, but this is an important one that should be scrutinised by a bipartisan committee.
Having a number of members on the committee from across the Territory is important. The member for Blain will have much to bring forward with his knowledge of numbers. There is also the member for Arafura, who knows what it is like to pay for fuel on Bathurst Island; it is probably even worse in Milikapiti and Pirlangimpi because of barge freight charges. It is even more of an issue if you live in Gove; if you live out bush, where I have just been, along the Central Arnhem Highway, you can see the prices there.
About two years ago I drove the Plenty Highway, and you should see the price you pay for fuel along there. If you think life is crook in Darwin, you need to go out bush to get an idea of what it really costs. The member for Goyder would have heard of the extraordinary prices being charged at Port Keats. Late last year, I think fuel might have gone over $3 a litre. How can people live and work when they have to pay that amount for fuel?
The members for Nightcliff and Johnston will also be on the committee, and they will give us a good indication of the effects in the northern suburbs of Darwin. Even though it is a committee, hopefully we will receive some feedback from members living in Central Australia, because they obviously have costs as well. I have just come back from Alice Springs, and I was surprised at the price of diesel there. It was not a great deal higher than the price in Howard Springs. Maybe there is a little competition in Alice Springs when it comes to fuel.
The committee has a specific task. The member for Port Darwin raised a number of issues in relation to how other states have approached this matter. He mentioned the role of the ACCC and price control as happened in years gone by; although those areas are nice to talk about, this committee has to look at precisely what it is being asked to do:
The committee will enquire into the effect of the bill in meeting its aims of better informing motorists …
The other matter the minister raised was that:
- The committee will inquire into mechanisms for setting the price motivator exemption to be gazetted under the bill.
Mr Elferink: Perhaps I can guide the honourable member; the motion was tweaked, and that is what I advised you of earlier. That is now accurate in accordance with the bill you have. It is now something for you to consider during the gazettal process.
Mr WOOD: Okay. It is something I do not know much about, but I am sure after the committee has looked at this it will know about price motivator exemptions. I gained an idea when the minister gave his explanation of what it was about. It is not hounding – if you can put it that way – retailers to the point of, ‘We make a 1c profit now you have hounded us to death’, but about giving some flexibility. It is about trying to reduce, I presume …
Mr Elferink: If you do the right thing you do not have to report.
Mr WOOD: Yes, exorbitant profit-making. That will be debated, about what is a reasonable profit and what is not. There are places in the Territory with higher costs than other parts, and that would have to be taken into consideration.
As I said before, I thank the government for bringing forward a proposal to create a committee that will scrutinise the bill. There are other bills that occasionally come to this parliament – TIO would be a classic. If the government is seriously considering introducing legislation to sell TIO, it must go to the public. One way to go to the public is through a scrutiny committee. It is a necessity, where you could put the government’s proposals to the people, travel the length and breadth of the Northern Territory and discover what people think. That is a classic example of where a scrutiny committee would be an excellent idea, if the government wants to go down a fairly radical path of selling TIO. It could put its own perspective, and it would allow the public to put theirs as well.
In relation to setting up this committee, I will talk with the Clerk of Committees to get the ball rolling as quickly as possible. When that has happened, we will notify all members of the committee. There are plenty of committees meeting this week, but I am sure we will have time to arrange the first meeting so we can get the ball rolling, receive the information we need and give members time to think about that. The sooner we get this going the better, because there will be, unfortunately, a period when we are unable to meet, mainly in December/January. It is usually very difficult for people to meet then. If we can get this ball rolling as quickly as possible we can meet the deadline, which is April, and that would be good.
I look forward to working with all members, because they all have important contributions to make in ensuring this is a good bipartisan approach to something we are all affected by, especially Territorians out bush who pay a lot more. It affects them because many people out bush are not on big wages. I keep mentioning Bulman because I went through it recently. A few people work, but food costs in the store, etcetera, all contribute to a high cost of living in those communities. If we can contribute to try to reduce prices in those communities, as well as in the urban environment, we will be doing a good thing. Let us see what comes out of the committee.
I welcome the minister’s statement. We look forward to the results of this committee in the future.
_________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 7 classes from Taminmin College. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome and hope you enjoy your visit to Parliament House.
Mr Wood: Say something nice about Taminmin.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Taminmin is one of the schools attended by children from my electorate. It is a very good school with a very good Chair of the school council. Kids also come from the members for Nelson and Goyder’s electorates. I am sure Madam Speaker – the member for Goyder – is very disappointed to not be in the chair at the moment.
Mr Wood: They have wonderful teachers too.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, there are wonderful teachers at Taminmin as well. I am reiterating the member for Nelson. Thank you kids, and I hope you enjoy your day.
Members: Hear, hear!
_________________________
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I extend my welcome to the Taminmin College visitors too, as a former student of Taminmin High School, as it was called then.
Mr Wood: Look where you can end up.
Mr VOWLES: Yes, exactly. Welcome and enjoy your trip around Parliament House. I am sure you will be well behaved, as most Taminmin College students are at all times.
I support the motion. As a representative of NT Labor on the Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee, along with my colleague the member for Nightcliff, I will work hard with the rest of the members.
Territory Labor has always said, including in the media, we will support anything that lowers the cost of living for Territorians. We will support anything that lowers cost of living pain on our working mums and dads and all families in the Territory. We will support anything that does that, and I look forward to working with the rest of the committee. There is a good bunch of people on the committee, which is always a good start.
I look forward to many discussions on this topic with the member for Blain, but it is important it is not just a talkfest and that we achieve some real outcomes. When we talk about real outcomes it means scrutinising the bill, talking and listening to experts, listening to Territorians and consulting with the right people. The ultimate outcome will be lowering cost of living pressures on Territorians.
I cannot let the opportunity to lower the cost of living go by, because it is what the CLP government promised to do in its election commitments. They said, ‘We will lower the cost of living and make it easier for Territorians to live in the Territory’. So far registration, power, water and sewerage costs are up, and they are even charging our seniors, who we should be looking after, to get on a bus. When you promise to do something Territorians expect you to do it. They voted for you, we understand that, and after over two years in opposition we have heard the message; we are working hard to win back the trust of Territorians. When you promise to do something you must do it.
Cost of living pressures affect everybody. As the member for Fannie Bay said, he has to fill his car up, as do I and most of my colleagues, so we feel that pain. I have worked in community education positions throughout the Northern Territory and, as the member for Nelson said, once you get to remote parts of the Territory it is quite alarming what you have to pay. Yes, you are in some of the remotest parts of Australia, but the exorbitant prices we are paying are extraordinary.
We will give the government some credit; there is cheaper fuel at the moment. Territorians agree something had to be done; that has been in the media many times. Territorians have seen me at the markets on Sundays to say something should be done. This government promised to lower the cost of living, and has not. The cost of fuel is a few cents lower, which is easing some of the costs.
I look forward to being part of this committee, holding it to account and making sure we achieve some outcomes, as the member for Nightcliff does as well.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been working on fuel prices for a while.
The cost of living was the number one issue during my by-election campaign. It is something this government has made promises about and it is something we are determined to deliver on.
Cost of living pressures cover a range of issues. This government has already been addressing the housing issue by releasing land, making that available and working very hard. I commend the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment for the fantastic work he is doing in this area.
The final stages of Zuccoli were released in the last few days and being the member for Blain – Zuccoli is in Blain – I am very excited about that. I am very excited that our area will be at the forefront of easing those cost pressures relating to housing.
This debate is around petrol prices. Petrol is a very interesting market. We are talking about a product that is perfectly substitutional. In economic terms, we are looking at a suite of goods in diesel, unleaded and E10, products that vary almost not at all between fuel stations.
Individual fuel stations have an elastic demand curve, which means a price leader in that market is able to effect change due to big changes in volume. On the holistic market level it is inflexible; people need fuel.
The member for Johnston has just said he has to fill up his car, as we all do; it is a very expensive proposition. We bought a KIA Grand Carnival; we get about 300 km to the tank and it costs $100. It eats into our family’s’ income and what we are able to do in our free time. Going boating is a very expensive exercise due to this.
We see it effects the lifestyles of normal people, mums and dads in the street, but for the plumbers, electricians or air-conditioning mechanics who drive to people’s houses or other places to work – all of these are small businesses that rely on fuel. It is a significant cost in their business. As we put downward pressure on these prices we hope to see those businesses doing better because we have decreased their cost of production, but we would also like to see costs passed on to consumers come down. This bill is fantastic because it provides clarity.
That clarity – I see this through the work I have been doing in this area – is what is sorely missing. If I asked five people their opinion on how something works I would receive about seven responses. This tells me nobody I spoke to has a solid understanding of exactly how mechanisms work between the terminal gate price and where fuel is sold at a bowser. This bill is fantastic because it allows us, as a committee, to pull this apart and create a scenario where we have clarity around charges.
This bill also provides clarity to others, such as people who may want to come in as independents to compete in this market. If they have clarity around where hidden costs are within this, they can be innovative and come up with ways that will cost-save in these areas. That is a fantastic initiative because it will promote competition in a way that has not been available before.
There is an old saying that if you are making money, do not say anything, be real quiet and do not tell anybody. That is very much the case in this industry; this bill opens it up so competitors can come in, see where the barriers and issues are and be innovative, change things and see improvements in this market.
I am excited about this because speaking to people who work in civil engineering, civil and construction works, etcetera, those guys use a lot of fuel.
Where I used to work at East Arm Wharf, there were cranes that would take thousands of litres of fuel at a time. The burn rate on that fuel was huge. The ongoing effect of having a more transparent understanding of what is happening with the fuel price to drive competition means everything in the supply train, even at the port with products coming off there, things coming up on the rail, things coming up to Darwin and through the regions of the Northern Territory by road, rail and seagoing vessels – all of these things now have the potential to come down in price. I would expect those prices to be passed through to consumers at the end.
The Giles government will make inroads into keeping the promise to bring down the cost of living. It is fantastic to see the petrol price today is $1.57.9, given the TPG price that exists at the moment. That is fantastic, and we are seeing it eat into certain areas of the market that were unclear.
It is not necessarily the large decrease in oil price that is reflected here. We are seeing a more competitive attitude. Sometimes the threat of competition can be just as effective as competition, and we are starting to see the beginning of that – a fairer deal for the people of the Northern Territory. I am very happy to be part of the committee that will look at this issue to bring some clarity around it so we can achieve some firm results for the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I pick up on a couple things I am a little concerned about. Members opposite are playing pure politics in regard to bringing down prices and our government’s promise to deal with the cost of living. There is no doubt the cost of living in the Northern Territory is high, and has always been so. There are a number of reasons for this. Members opposite correctly point out that we ran on a cost of living policy last election, and we also ran on things like crime reduction. Crime reduction targets have been met and surpassed, even beyond our expectations, and we take great comfort from achieving those results. I only ask members opposite to trumpet those successful results as passionately as they trumpet what they see as the government’s failures.
There is misunderstanding in relation to what reducing the cost of living means, when you consider the cost of living pressures we have. Government’s role is to put downward pressure on the increasing cost of living, and we are trying to make sure housing prices grow in a sustained fashion. If we were to depress the price of housing by the wanton release of land in such a fashion as to create a glut in the market, it would automatically eat into people’s equities. Whilst housing would be cheaper for those people who moved into the housing place, you would have exposed many other people to living in an environment where they may not have sufficient equity to cover their home debt. The art of governance is the art of balance.
We measure cost of living reductions as CPI. If CPI in the Northern Territory drops to below zero, that would put downward pressure on wages. The risk of putting downward pressure on wages is that if you have borrowings from one of the major banks and, all of a sudden, the cost of living went into negative CPI, effectively a deflation in the local economy, the cost of money would creep up. National inflation rates would suddenly reduce a person’s income and effectively increase their debt. We are proud to put downward pressure on the cost of living. We had to make some tough decisions, but we are now starting to see the fruit of those decisions in things like housing prices and more recently in what this debate is about – a reduction in fuel prices.
I remember speaking to the head of the ACCC in Sydney about 10 or 11 months ago, and going through all these issues. Whilst the ACCC and the legislation is not prepared to discover collusion in the marketplace – because there is no evidence of collusive behaviour, therefore, there is no breach of Australian consumer law – it is clear that what is occurring in the Northern Territory is what one could describe as constructive collusion, in the sense where a court, through a process of equitable examination, could discover a constructive trust; by the conduct and behaviour of the participants in that trust, you can infer that one existed.
Whilst it is not complete through the requirements of Australian consumer laws, one almost gets the sense that a single price setter only has to put the fuel price they are charging at their service station on a very large board at the front. If every other participant in that fuel marketplace uses that board as a measure to determine what the fuel price will be at their service station, whilst there has been no collusion, such a system does not require it, as by looking to take advantage of a high fuel price it has, in effect, created a system of constructive collusion. Nobody has to say anything; all you must do is look at the board of your competitor. When you realise the price is that high and you set your prices, because the price is exorbitant you know any loss of trade coming through your driveway because you are setting a better price will be more than recovered in the profit margin between the terminal gate price and the retail price.
The last time I checked the terminal gate price in Darwin – I confess it was some time ago – was about 3c per litre higher than the terminal gate price in Sydney. What that consequently means is that fuel in Sydney travelled at the terminal gate price from the wholesaler to various retail markets. Their margins would then be between the terminal gate price and the retail price, which is where the profit margin and all other costs go. That was not a substantial amount in southern states.
In the Territory, however, it was many times greater than the terminal gate price here through the Vopak terminal. Vopak is merely a shed; all it does is hold fuel. It takes fuel in from Singapore. The order comes in, it is delivered to Vopak, a person collects their order and then it is delivered into the marketplace through the retail arm. The steps in the chain from there are the costs of transport and doing business.
I find it incredible, considering the very short distance between the terminal and fuel stations in Darwin, you would then incur an increase in retail price many times over that experienced in the Sydney marketplace. Whilst the terminal price in Darwin is only 3c higher than the terminal in Sydney, the retail price is sometimes about 25c or 26c higher than the retail price there.
The effect of that is something happening between the terminal and the retail market. That looks, for all the world, to be gouging. I understand – I am not entirely sure, but I think this is the sequence of events – Australian Fuel Distributors was overtaken by Archer, which was ultimately overtaken by Puma. When Archer purchased the Australian fuel distributorship in 2011 there was a sharp increase in prices. It was the issue of concern that came out of the fuel price summit. When retailers and Puma et al were asked to explain why there was such a profound and sudden leap to a new plateau of price, they were bereft of an answer. That becomes the smoking gun, and is what this legislation has been designed to address and what this committee is looking at.
Some of the urgency in relation to this bill has now ebbed because United, in particular, is starting to look like a competitive service station. If that is the case, we are comfortable having this bill looked at by the committee. However, make no mistake, if the behaviour we have seen from fuel companies becomes manifest between now and April, we will be more than happy to bring the bill in here early. I am sure the Chair of the committee and members opposite will be more than happy to bring that bill in early and breathe life into it as a law of the Northern Territory.
We make no bones and no apologies about being firm on this. We do not like interfering in the marketplace, but the marketplace also has a duty to behave in a certain fashion to the people it seeks to sell product to. This is why we have, in this country, consumer protection legislation; this is an extension of the concept of consumer protection. In other words, play nicely, play fair and play unhindered, otherwise government will take out a big stick and assure things happen in a fashion which reflects the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to.
NOMINATION FOR FUEL PRICE DISCLOSURE BILL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition nominates the members for Nightcliff and Johnston for the Fuel Price Disclosure Bill Scrutiny Committee.
The Assembly suspended.
MOTION
Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future – Change of Membership
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Drysdale be discharged from and the member for Arafura be appointed to the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future.
Motion agreed to.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Rescind Motion Relating to Political Donations and Replace with Alternative Investigation
Rescind Motion Relating to Political Donations and Replace with Alternative Investigation
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that this parliament suspends standing orders pursuant to Standing Order 306 to allow a motion which:
1. rescinds the motion of Mr Wood, the member for Nelson, on 20 August 2014 under the Inquiries Act relating to political donations
2. replaces this motion with an alternative means of independently investigating political donations.
The motion passed by the House some weeks ago has been the matter of some negotiation between the office of the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson. Unfortunately, the motion passed by this House is effectively unworkable if you consider a 20-year backward look will not achieve anything other than creating a platform for anybody to allow any hearsay, if they so desire.
Firstly, we will deal with the motion to suspend standing orders, followed by the consequential motion resulting from the suspension.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this is a dark day for any government in the Northern Territory. They have moved in – after weeks of pretending there would be an inquiry into political donations, specifically referencing an investigation into Foundation 51 – two sitting days after a by-election with what I had warned about, because they are corrupt ...
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, withdraw that, please.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw, but we all know the election campaigns of those opposite – it will come to light despite your attempt to cover up today – have been funded through the CLP slush fund Foundation 51. Here you are, gathering your numbers in parliament to rescind a motion passed during the last sittings. If you had a problem with it you could have, in genuine and honest dialogue, dealt with it. If your problem is the time frame you could keep every other element of that motion and alter the time frame, but we all know Foundation 51 has operated as a slush fund for the CLP, funnelling money into CLP election campaigns.
There are members in this Chamber who have a conflict of interest in voting on this motion because they have been the recipients of funding. Those members who had Foundation 51 funds slushed into their campaigns should not vote on this motion.
On the member for Blain’s electoral return, there is $10 000 from Graeme Lewis. That is not from his private bank account, that is from Foundation 51, slushing through into the Blain campaign, but you will not allow an inquiry into political donations to get to the truth of that.
Last week I issued a media release about the CLP’s culture of cover-up. I condemned the CLP for its culture of corruption following leaked e-mails which suggest criminality at the highest levels of the party. There was no denial from the CLP or the government about what was contained in this media release.
In that release I referred to leaked e-mails between Foundation 51 director, Graeme Lewis, and then Chief Minister, Terry Mills, in late 2012 that show at least $200 000 was funnelled into the CLP election campaign via the party’s slush fund and never declared, as required by law.
A political donations inquiry would have found $200 000 to be the tip of the iceberg. The CLP has funnelled much more than $200 000 through its Foundation 51 slush fund into election campaigns.
In that release, I said:
- The latest media reports on Foundation 51 donations to the CLP show a breach of the provisions of the Northern Territory Electoral Act which requires the declaration of a gift of $1500 or more to, or for the benefit of, a registered party …
I then quoted the relevant sections of the Northern Territory Electoral Act – sections 194 and 215. I went on to report that ABC had obtained an e-mail written by Foundation 51 director, Graeme Lewis, and sent to then Chief Minister, Terry Mills, and five other members of the CLP executive team, eight weeks after the CLP took government in 2012. Mr Lewis said:
- ‘Once again, the contributors were clearly aware, and did generally stipulate that the funds raised would be devoted to NT elections in 2012 or thereafter,’ Mr Lewis wrote on 26 November 2012.
- ‘I will be mortified if this information becomes widely known. It must be closely held for obvious reasons.’
- Earlier leaked emails (ABC 10 October) from Mr Lewis about the purpose of Foundation 51 and who controls it to then CLP President Braedon Earley show:
- ‘I am the sole director and shareholder, with Terry Mills for obvious reasons, not appearing on registers, but adopting a directorial role throughout,’ Mr Lewis wrote.
It goes on to say:
- ‘As you very well know, it was set up for, and supported by numbers of business people and has necessarily had to operate absolutely separately from the Party in order to keep its activities away from public scrutiny.’
These latest e-mails show there is a culture of corruption and criminality which appears to have been known and tolerated at the highest levels of the CLP. If that is how they run their party, is that how they run government? There was the dodgy $1m payment to Tiwi Resources Pty Ltd; the Chief Minister is refusing to answer any basic questions about that. Where is the $1m? What purpose was it paid for? The leases do not exist. Why has it not been paid back? Is there a $2.8m bank loan guarantee? Is this how you do business, because you accept corruption and criminality at your highest level?
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, withdraw that. A suspension of standing orders does not allow you to make accusations of that nature. Withdraw ‘corruption’, etcetera.
Ms LAWRIE: That has been used before in this Chamber, so I seek advice.
Madam SPEAKER: No. Withdraw, please.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw. It is disgraceful that Chief Minister Adam Giles has been consistently denying a direct link between Foundation 51 and the CLP, when it is inconceivable he did not know of it. It is already public knowledge that Foundation 51 director, Graeme Lewis, sent a draft Foundation 51 press release to Mr Giles on 11 May 2014 for his comment.
Is Adam Giles trying to distance himself from something he knows is illegal? Today we have a suspension of standing orders so you can cover up the activities of Foundation 51. It has been donating to the election campaigns of CLP members in this parliament.
This is extraordinary. In any other jurisdiction in our nation there would be an inquiry into this level of corrupt and criminal behaviour.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She is out of control.
Madam SPEAKER: The Opposition Leader is referencing an item, not a person. Continue, Opposition Leader.
Ms LAWRIE: In any other Australian jurisdiction there would be an inquiry into this level of corrupt and criminal behaviour. Yet in the Northern Territory the CLP government uses its numbers to overturn a motion from last sittings to ensure the corrupt and criminal behaviour of Foundation 51 and the CLP remains hidden.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, I have listened to what you have said. Foundation 51 is directly linked to individuals’ names, so I ask you to withdraw those statements and not direct them towards individuals, please.
Ms LAWRIE: I am not directing them towards individuals. Foundation 51 is an entity.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be very careful with your language, Opposition Leader.
Ms LAWRIE: I am, and I note your advice. Foundation 51 is an entity.
Ms Fyles: Dave’s back.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Fong Lim is back to create the required numbers for this suspension of standing orders to pass.
Madam SPEAKER: You know there is a convention that you do not refer to people being inside or outside the Chamber.
Ms LAWRIE: I know it is a convention.
Madam SPEAKER: Continue, please.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Fong Lim, who has been shrouded in disgrace, of course has a deep interest in making sure there is no inquiry into Foundation 51 and the political slush fund that washes through the CLP. Of course he has a deep interest in making sure he is that number to get you across the line in this suspension of standing orders motion.
The real issue is that the public will not have the opportunity to ensure the law is being, and understood to be, upheld in the Territory through an inquiry into political donations. We have not been consulted on which alternative pathway the government is suggesting.
Through the lunch period, there was an attempt to negotiate an alternative with the Independent member for Nelson. He can speak for himself, but a whitewashed cover-up through the Department of the Chief Minister screams of the politicisation of our public service. How outrageous! I have been calling on you, Chief Minister, to stand down Terry Mills, who you appointed, not Gary Barnes, as your ASEAN ambassador in Jakarta. Public emails show he was undertaking a directorial role in Foundation 51, and those e-mails show $200 000 was used for CLP election campaigns.
Allegations of criminal activity exist and have not been answered, yet you are okay with Terry Mills sitting in Jakarta on a $750 000 a year taxpayer-funded junket. In any other jurisdiction in Australia someone with that degree of accusation against them would be stood down. .
Senator Sinodinos has been stood down but, oh no, Terry Mills stays in Jakarta; you cannot afford to have him talk about what he knows because it exposes the CLP. This is such a disgraceful, abhorrent act by a government that knows no depth.
We have been held up to national shame by your actions and ability, and efforts to cover up. The Australian newspaper article headline said ‘No more she’ll be right’. It said that if the Territory wants to lead it needs to raise its standards of accountability. Today, we see those standards plummet to the depths of a suspension of standing orders to cover up the actions and activities of Foundation 51 and the CLP.
The government will beat its chest about the ALP, Harold Nelson Holdings and EMILY’s List. EMILY’s List is a not-for-profit organisation that promotes women into parliament. It is declared. Harold Nelson Holdings is a property trust; any support it provides to the ALP in elections is declared.
This is about covering up the Foundation 51 slush fund, which has never been declared on electoral returns. Even when you had the opportunity to declare properly after the Blain by-election, after questions had been asked, you still could not bring yourselves to do it, could you? Graeme Lewis, the individual, declared the $10 000 donation to the member for Blain, but not Foundation 51.
The stench surrounding the CLP will not go away. Territorians know you will not appoint an integrity commissioner because you have no integrity. You are using numbers in here to try to hide from an inquiry, but if you had done nothing wrong it would absolve you of these very serious allegations. If you had done nothing wrong, if there is no direct link between Foundation 51 and the CLP or if there had been no contributions from Foundation 51 to CLP campaigns, the inquiry would be something you would surely hold to clear your names. Everyone is talking about your scandalous slush fund and how it washes money into CLP campaigns and, against the law, is never declared.
People ask me, ‘If they are business donations, why did they not declare them as that?’ That is where you get to the heart of concerns around corruption. Which donations are not declared? Why would you not declare donations? Because you do not want connections to be known; you do not want it known what favours are occurring in government for people who have donated. That is why you would want to cover up a declaration. That is why the CLP set up Foundation 51 as a slush fund. There is nothing wrong with taking donations, but it must be declared on the electoral return, and Foundation 51 has not been declared. That is why there is a stench of corruption. That is why there must be an inquiry into political donations.
You can crunch your numbers all you like; we will continue to ask questions. We will continue to hold you to account for this despicable behaviour in the Chamber today. We will fight to win government in 2016 and will hold an independent inquiry against corruption.
Graeme Lewis – who has form with Carpentaria Holdings – if prima facie evidence is proven, faces gaol because he is the Director of Foundation 51.
We will pursue investigations into this through the Australian and Northern Territory Electoral Commissions. We will continue to gather evidence and we will put that to the police because, of course, the Police minister will not. The Chief Minister will not. We will not let this go because Territorians need to know government will act with integrity and not corruptly.
Today your actions scream of covering up corrupt and criminal behaviour. It is disgusting. The Territory deserves better than this and if you have nothing to hide you would not be rescinding a motion of parliament. This is truly a dark, abhorrent day for the Territory parliament, with you crunching numbers to rescind a motion to hold an inquiry into political donations. If you had nothing to hide you would happily allow that inquiry to occur. If your only issue is the time frame, negotiate a tighter time frame. No, your issue all along is that you cannot allow an inquiry into Foundation 51 because it has been the slush fund for CLP election campaigns.
It is criminal to not declare on an electoral return. Foundation 51 has not been declared. There is prima facie evidence through e-mails already in the public domain that Terry Mills was in a directorial role when he was Chief Minister. There is evidence in e-mails that Chief Minister Adam Giles was being asked to vet draft media releases from Foundation 51. If you click on the Foundation 51 link on the website the smiling face of Adam Giles pops up.
Your hands are all over Foundation 51, Chief Minister. They are dirty, like they are with the Tiwi Islands $1m payment funnelled and signed off by Gary Barnes, Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Chief Minister and paid under instruction from John Coleman of the Land Development Corporation. Any supposed inquiry by the Department of the Chief Minister is a whitewash. It is repugnant. Let the electoral commissions do their work unhindered by the interference of the Department of the Chief Minister.
Territorians ask how on earth we can have a Chief Minister who co-owns shares in a racehorse with the CEO of his department. Territorians ask why the Chief Minister is being followed around different venues by the CEO of his department. What happened to the separation of powers? Through your actions you have tainted that critical role of separation. That is disgraceful.
The e-mail trail shows at least $200 000 was slushed through Foundation 51 into the CLP election campaign. They are the facts. You are happy to hang other people out to dry because you know if an inquiry is held into political donations and Foundation 51 your hands, Chief Minister, will be all over it. This is vile. If you had nothing to hide you would not be taking the actions you are today.
We have all been led to believe, since the motion passed last sittings, there would be an inquiry as per the established terms of reference. We sought advice, Madam Speaker, from your staff, and thank you for access to the clerks. We sought advice through you, Madam Speaker, from the Solicitor-General. The advice was very clear. The terms of reference could not be altered because they were established according to the motion of parliament.
If there was any decency, honesty or integrity within the CLP government it would have come to the opposition, the Independent member and members of the Palmer United Party and said, ‘We have a problem with the time frame. Can we shorten it?’ That did not happen. There is no decency and integrity among you. It is little wonder you do not want an integrity commissioner.
We have said all along that we are happy to be put under scrutiny because the ALP, through its election returns, acknowledges any contribution from Harold Nelson Holdings, which is a property trust, not a pretend research front which funnels donations from business into a slush fund. They are completely different entities. We are happy to be held up to scrutiny, but you could not allow Foundation 51 to be scrutinised.
The stench is strong. The stench of corruption and criminality exists, and it settles like a dark blanket across all members of the CLP in this parliament, unless one of you has the personal integrity and decency to vote against this motion to suspend standing orders.
I call you out, members for Port Darwin and Drysdale; I will not bother calling you out, member for Braitling. I call you out, members for Sanderson and Stuart. Member for Brennan, will you show any decency or integrity? Member for Araluen, member for Daly – member for Arafura, do not be a part of this. I know you had your own conversations in the corridor about whether or not $35 000 from Foundation 51 was funnelled into your Arafura campaign. Let that be cleared up by an inquiry, member for Arafura. I am calling you out to do the honest and decent thing here.
I will not bother with you, member for Greatorex. Member for Katherine, I am calling you out; this is your chance to show leadership. Member for Blain – I will not bother with you, member for Fong Lim, as your hands are all over this too.
Madam Speaker, I know you have indicated in the past that you will not support a suspension of standing orders to overturn a motion of parliament, and I hope that remains the case today.
Each of you is responsible because we will divide on this. Your names will be against this, and in the future, under a Labor government, you will be called and held to account.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I did not intend to talk about the suspension of standing orders, but I listened to the drivel that came from the Leader of the Opposition with her insinuations and accusations.
We all know Foundation 51 is a company that is separate from government. We all know the party is separate from government. We all know Harold Nelson Holdings is a fundraising organisation for the Labor Party that is called a property organisation. It is the body that was to take money out of Stella Maris and funnel it into the Labor Party. It also takes money from the unions.
We know all that. We know over the last two days and the two years preceding that you come in here with all your allegations, lies and misrepresentations …
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, withdraw ‘lies’ please.
Mr GILES: I withdraw. The member for Johnston is the classic person for making things up in this Chamber, as is the Opposition Leader. I have a challenge for you; go outside coward’s castle and make every one of those accusations in public.
Ms Lawrie: I will, again and again.
Mr GILES: I challenge you to go outside and re-read Hansard. If you do not have the guts to read Hansard outside and make those claims public, you are simply grandstanding in coward’s castle. You do not have the gumption to say it publicly because you know it is simply not true.
Allegations of this nature are easy to make in here. We can all make things up, but when you say them outside is when you start to get the ticker and are prepared to stand by your comments through legal proceedings. You will not do that. You have never done it. You are a coward, and I challenge you today.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, withdraw that please.
Ms Walker: You are the coward.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62.
Madam SPEAKER: I have asked the Chief Minister to withdraw that, please.
Mr GILES: Withdraw what?
Madam SPEAKER: Reference to the members.
Mr GILES: Will the member for Nhulunbuy withdraw too?
Madam SPEAKER: She will be withdrawing too.
Mr GILES: I withdraw, and I will say you are …
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause. Withdraw too, please, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms WALKER: I withdraw.
Mr GILES: You are a person with no shame and no dignity. If you are not prepared to say any of these things outside everything will be untrue, because the only way we know you are lying is when your lips are moving. Say it outside; it is a challenge, test your leadership. Get out there and say it and do not be a coward.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, let me try to make sense of this suspension of standing orders. If the Chief Minister will not allow an inquiry, what about a blood pressure test? The member for Fong Lim is the coolest of the bunch, so he can leave the room. But let us hold a blood pressure test, because I am trying to work out what is going on here.
A motion was brought to this House by an Independent member. He sits independent of both sides; it made a lot of sense because there were serious allegations resounding in the community. They tended to resonate through the New South Wales Liberal Party, and there were smatterings in Victoria. There were all sorts of inquiries, and suddenly it emerged in the Northern Territory. An Independent member of this House brought in …
Mr Giles: Will you talk about Gerry Obeid?
Mr McCARTHY: Oh, do not worry, we will deal with you later jugga.
An Independent member of this House brought forward a motion, which was to hold an inquiry and sort this out. It was to be an inquiry into both sides, which was a good idea. I have fessed up to everything that has been asked of me since being an MLA. I created a parliamentarians’ declared register of interests. I declare any donations to my election campaigns; I do whatever is asked of me. I have been asked many difficult things and I have participated fully. I have always fessed up, so the independent motion was a great idea, and it would be good for the Northern Territory to clear up this issue.
As this progressed I noticed there was a bit of a lapse on the other side, maybe it was meals, coffee or hospitality, but there was an absence of ministers in this room. This very important motion was in progress and the debate was very interesting, but I wondered why the government was not interested. It reached the point where we had to make the decision, and it passed.
I love people I learn from, and the professor of parliamentology, the member for Port Darwin, came roaring back in through that gate with an amazing twist on parliamentary process that I had not witnessed before. The process was to shut it down, gag it and get rid of it, so, being a human being, I was suspicious. My suspicion has increased each time this issue has been raised. Constituents ask me questions, which I try to answer to the best of my knowledge. However, I have said, ‘Let us hold an inquiry’, because inquiries can deliver the results the constituency needs. The member for Port Darwin started alarm bells ringing for me, and I wondered if this learned gentleman who intimately understands these processes was worried about something.
The process continued and democracy prevailed. The motion passed; it is very clear in its terms of reference, but we are suddenly back here again, with it being knocked out. The Leader of the Opposition has summarised the debate by asking what the government has to hide. It is as simple as that. There is not much more in the debate.
Let us talk about the Chief Minister. Some in the media would call him the best performer in the Country Liberal Party, therefore he is the Chief Minister. I happen to know there is a 12-month gaol sentence attached to anybody who does not declare details to the electoral commission that are set out very clearly in the statutory authority that controls this process in the Northern Territory. You would not want to muck around with that stuff because you may go to gaol for 12 months.
This Chief Minister just gave us an example of that leadership; I can see everybody is convinced and following him. You are all following him down the path to righteousness because the Chief Minister said there is nothing to declare. ‘I have no concerns about this at all’, he said. There is a memory and a future. There is possibly another government – currently the opposition – with a policy to implement an independent commission against corruption in the Northern Territory. It does not matter how far you want to go down the road, this matter will be investigated. It does not matter if you shut it down today, whether you live in Alice Springs, out bush or wherever you live; this matter will be investigated.
One of these days you will tell the story, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I would like to see the member for Braitling fess up first because he is the one telling you it is all cool and not to worry about it; he is saying it is all good. I would not be so confident. There is a chance to fess up during this parliamentary process. Do not vote for this. If you have any concerns or doubts whatsoever, then do not vote for it. It is as simple as that; the inquiry can continue.
Whatever you have been told with the semantics around ‘alternative means of independently investigating’ – what a crock! A semantic crock is being conjured up to make you guys believe you will never be discovered. That is if there is nothing to worry about. If there is something to worry about, we will do a blood pressure test in the room now and we might be able to hold a division on blood pressure. I am sure there are those opposite who are extremely concerned they may not be being told the whole truth and nothing but the truth by the Chief Minister.
I would be very concerned because, essentially, this inquiry will allow investigation into everybody. The Labor Party and I will be investigated – the Independents and the Palmer United Party, we are all in this together. Unfortunately, one side has something to hide. By coming into this House and conducting this circus of parliamentary procedure – an attack on democracy in the Northern Territory – somebody has something to hide. If you are not fully informed of what is being hidden, then you are vulnerable. You are also liable. One of these days down the track, it will come out. It will play on your mind and do your head in.
I am now trying to fathom the next chapter in this exercise, when it was perfectly logical, represented democracy and travelled through this House as part of the process. You guys were caught napping as a government that was not on the job and not, in the Chief Minister’s words, hands on. Hands were well and truly off the wheel that day. You tried to scuttle it then. The member for Port Darwin, who is a very diligent member in regard to parliamentary process, tried to scuttle it and is now appearing as the major defence lawyer. He is normally more competent in the prosecution role, but I am sure he will turn his hand to any side of legal procedures.
Do you trust your defence lawyer? Do you believe what he said? Has he said you will never be caught? Did he ever use words like that? ‘It is okay, you will never be caught.’ Did anybody say, ‘If anybody is caught the Chief Minister will go down’? What has been said? This is one time in my life I am glad I am not on your team.
Mr Chandler: Is this the only time?
Mr McCARTHY: ‘Is this the only time?’ When I want to deliver major reforms in education, lands and planning, the arts and primary industry I wish I was on your side, but I am on this side. Member for Brennan, I have a serious plan to be back on that side; as soon as I get back there I will make sure we follow through with a policy to implement an independent commission against corruption. We will then see the John Laws of the world really appear.
Your big performer over there has everybody under control. If you believe there is nothing to hide and it is all good then vote against this and let us hold the inquiry with the original terms of reference. It is as simple as that.
We are in this together, ladies and gentlemen, so let democracy preside and let us hold the inquiry into all dimensions of politics in the Northern Territory. Let us clear the air so constituents do not paint us all as that negative political figure. We cop enough criticism as politicians. You guys are now dragging everybody through the mud. There must be something so serious behind this action for the terms of reference of this inquiry to never be made public. I guarantee you, member for Braitling, I have a long memory and they will be made public one of these days.
Let us settle it now. Vote against this and let us go back to the original democratic process passed in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, naturally I do not support this motion. I wonder if I have been taken for a fool; I have been taken for a big ride by this government and Chief Minister. I trusted the Chief Minister would go down the path this House said it would and hold an inquiry. All we have today is a mention of one clause in the motion from the member for Port Darwin, which says they thought the clause about all donations to political parties and Independents in the NT over the last 20 years was impractical.
All that needed was a motion in parliament to change it slightly so we could have perhaps taken a sample of donations over the last 20 years. It was not enough, and that is what is so shallow about this. That is just a smokescreen for a government trying to hide from public scrutiny, which is what the inquiry was about.
I trusted you, Chief Minister, but I have been taken for a ride; you needed the numbers, but then the member for Arafura shifted sides. I trusted you when I sent you an e-mail two days before the by-election, asking if there was any problem with me saying, ‘The Chief Minister and I support the inquiry’ if asked by the media, and the details were still to be worked on, but it would happen. That was presuming we were talking about the inquiry passed in this Assembly. I received no answer because if people voting in the Casuarina by-election had known what we know today you would have received a flogging. You would be seen to be hiding the truth.
The truth could be there is nothing wrong with Foundation 51. I do not have the foggiest about Foundation 51; I do not have anything to do with it. The idea behind this inquiry is to have an independent person, through the Inquiries Act and at arm’s length from government, opposition Independents and PUP, tell people whether there was any form of improper behaviour by any of the parties in relation to political donations. Can anyone on the government side tell me what is wrong with that?
This now looks like a big cover-up and like there is something wrong on your side. This would not have been a difficult inquiry; this would have been a relatively straightforward investigation. It was dealing with legislation, which would not have been difficult to look at.
It would have looked at various bodies that belong to political parties to see whether they had done the right thing; you could have worked in with the AEC and NTEC. It was also to look at whether government’s policies, both Labor and CLP, were affected by political donations over a period of time. The 20-year figure was picked to be fair to both parties. If we had said 10 years that would have been all during Labor’s time in government, and the CLP would have gotten away scot-free from being looked at. That was the reason we picked 20 years.
If all donations had to be looked at, it might have been a bit over the top, and we could have changed that with a couple of words. Instead we will throw the whole thing out and replace it with a puff piece – if I might use a saying that one of the government members uses often – a featherweight motion that will be put before parliament. It will look good for some, but will not get to the bottom of what we are trying to do.
I am not the perfect person; I make mistakes in life, but I try to trust people, and I have come a cruncher many times doing that. I hope I never move away from trusting that what someone says to me will happen. I trusted you, Chief Minister; I believed we would go ahead with this. Why did you not tell me about this ages ago? Why did we have to wait until after the by-election? That is what smells; I was not worthy of your trust. I ask other members of this parliament not to support this.
Why do we not have a conscience vote on this matter? It is getting down to integrity; it is getting down to whether you believe our political system is tainted by corruption through political donations. Your silence on this, by disbanding the original motion, says you have something to hide. As I said before, I do not know if there is anything wrong with what you have done. Accusations always come from the opposition. If you were in opposition you would be going crook at the government for the same thing. Those accusations need to be tested, and the way to do that is through an inquiry under the Inquiries Act.
The government wants to hold its own inquiry and run it through the Department of the Chief Minister. As I have said before, that will not go over well with the public because they will see politicians looking at themselves. It must be at arm’s length from us if it is to have any inkling of being independent of members of parliament.
I was staggered when I received this paper at about 1.15 pm today. I did not believe the government would go down this path. I believed the government would do what I thought was the right thing; I have been led up the garden path, and that makes me wonder as to the use of me being here. A few of you might say, ‘Good, go’.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: The member for Fong Lim laughs and chuckles. I can live with that through most of my life, but this not frivolous, it is a serious matter
People will now judge your party on whether you are fair dinkum about good governance. We have many other issues to discuss, such as TIO. We have some great issues to discuss about biodiversity, the mosaic virus and banana freckle. These are important issues for the economy that must be looked at. We have issues with education, health and education in remote areas. We have issues with roads and infrastructure, the economy in the bush, etcetera, but if the government driving that is tainted by the smell of corruption …
Mr Conlan interjecting
Mr WOOD: The member for Greatorex laughs. He is laughing because he does not understand that this inquiry could clear it all up if there is no problem.
Mr Conlan: They do not want it either, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: I do not care what either side says. I, as the Independent member, put this motion forward and it was passed by the House. Whether some people were asleep on that side is irrelevant; it was passed, and here it is in black and white. By not passing this, you will be seen to be hiding something. You are turning your nose up at this Legislative Assembly, which passed something fair and square that you could not take.
When you are on this side of parliament you have to put up with a lot, because you never win. When you achieve a win, the other side jumps up and down, kicks and screams and finds a way to get around it by not telling people before a by-election that they are getting rid of it. They did not tell me I was being led up the garden path, but by getting rid of it today – the people of Casuarina did not know this was to happen, and the people of the Northern Territory will feel they have been let down by the government.
This suspension of standing orders motion is a farce. It is purely to put forward a new motion, which will not do the government any good because it will be seen as soft. A new motion will be seen as under the administration of the government, so not at arm’s length. As I said before, I have been taken for a ride. I am extremely disappointed, and the way I feel at the moment I am not sure I can be bothered staying here for the rest of this debate. I will see what comes up in the second part of the motion today.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, what a bloody disgrace this is. A motion passed, parliamentary process was followed and now, with the numbers, the government will ram a new motion through and change it. As a politician, I am sad to be part of this. The member for Nelson put the process in place, it was voted on and passed and we are all part of this. I ask every person in here, especially on that side of the House, why are you here? Are you here to represent yourselves or the people who voted you in? That is what we are supposed to be here for.
We supported this inquiry; it is also an inquiry into our political donations, which we welcome. We have been out in public and talked to the media. Almost everybody on this side has been asked questions by the media about this inquiry; we have said every time that we support this motion. We hear the calls from the member for Greatorex and the Chief Minister about us not wanting this inquiry. We do, because when we say we support something, we mean it. We support it and we want an inquiry into political donations.
You talk about Harold Nelson Holdings; we have declared every cent Harold Nelson Holdings has donated to the party. This is the core of the issue and of what you are trying to hide. Foundation 51 has declared nothing on electoral returns. We have seen, in e-mails released under the FOI Act, information about $200 000 going towards the 2012 election campaign. Is that the tip of the iceberg? Of course we all think that. Do you remember the Chief Minister saying he had nothing to do with Foundation 51? ‘It is a private company, I have no association with it, and neither do any members of the Country Liberal Party.’
There was an e-mail from Mr Lewis:
- He …
That is the Chief Minister:
- … and I have on many occasions discussed the matter of the Foundation …
- … he is well disposed to having the Foundation continue its activity …
…
The Foundation has already contributed significantly towards the … Blain by-election.
Let us go to the crux of this argument and the inquiry. The electoral returns do not have anything from Foundation 51 on them. If Foundation 51 donated to campaigns, to the CLP, if it is on their return there is not a problem. That is what this is all about.
This is why the member for Nelson brought this to parliament. Let us hold an inquiry. Regardless of what happened, there were a few people asleep at the wheel over there. Madam Speaker tried her best – it passed through parliament. We welcome it 100% and, as I said, this is a disgrace. It is a disgraceful day in parliament when the process of democracy will not be followed because you can ram it through on the numbers. Yes, you have the power and the numbers to do that, but it does not mean you do it because you can. That is the idea.
You guys on that side have been given a gift by the people of the Northern Territory: to govern for them. On this side of the House, we get that. For over two years now we have been fighting for, meeting with and consulting Territorians to earn their trust back. We are fighting and working hard. Every member of our Labor Caucus is fighting and working hard to be an alternative government and to be ready in 2016. If the people of the Northern Territory give us that great gift of governing for them we are ready to be a good government.
The CLP is not a good government. You have a Chief Minister who knifed the former, elected Chief Minister while he was overseas, feathered his own nest and now has 13 portfolios. We are all waiting to see who will get those positions. For once in this Chamber we have a full crowd on that side because obviously you need an absolute majority to pass a suspension of standing orders. You need 13 votes to get it through.
You guys have been given a gift to govern for the Northern Territory by the people who voted you in. All you are doing is looking after yourselves. That is what we see. There is so much infighting on that side that you cannot govern properly. You are worried about the numbers and who will support who. The one-man wolf pack, the member for Port Darwin, wants to be leader but cannot get any other votes than his own. You have a new Deputy Chief Minister.
Every one of you on that side of the House is implicated in Foundation 51 and the motion for this inquiry to be rescinded today. It is a bloody disgrace!
For a long time we have been calling for support of this inquiry to say …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr VOWLES: You can laugh all you like, member for Fong Lim. You can contribute to this if you would like.
Mr VOWLES: We have been calling for an NT-style ICAC since information on Foundation 51 came into the public domain. We have been calling for an NT ICAC inquiry, just like your mates in New South Wales – the Eight by Five foundation, which Foundation 51 is mirrored on.
So far, ICAC in New South Wales has found $400 000 was donated to New South Wales MPs by the Eight by Five foundation. At the moment 10 New South Wales Liberal MPs have moved to the crossbenches. They have either resigned or gone to the crossbenches because of the Eight by Five political donations up to $400 000.
I say again that every single one of you on that side of the House is implicated ...
Mr Tollner: How?
Mr VOWLES: Because you will all vote. That is how, member for Fong Lim. You will all vote because you all have to vote to rescind this motion.
This is why we put our hands up. This is why we knock on people’s doors. This is why we spend hours ringing them and saying, ‘Trust us, support us. We want to be your representative. We want to represent your issues and govern for you. We want to govern for all Territorians. We want to govern for everybody who makes the Territory their home, new or old.’
You have proven today that you are governing for yourselves because your first instinct is to look after yourself and your colleagues. Looking after the people who voted you in is not on the list, it is not a priority but it must be done. That is why we are here; we represent people who vote for us.
Often in parliament I hear people say, ‘I do not believe that is correct. That is not right.’ We need to take that to the people who vote us in. That is our job. We are supposed to talk to people in our electorates, regardless of whether they voted for us or not, and give them the opportunity to voice their opinion. My Labor colleagues discuss that in Caucus. Yes, we have robust discussions in Caucus because it is great for politics. We hear there are many robust conversations on your side.
We supported this inquiry because it was to look into all political donations in the Northern Territory. When we received news this motion to rescind was to happen the first thought that came into my mind was disgust with the process.
I feel for the member for Nelson, who has been here a long time. There are a few people in the Chamber I quite like. I like many people on this side, and there are a couple on that side I like sometimes, but the member for Nelson is one of the most stand-up people you will ever meet in your life
Mr Westra van Holthe: Do not leave us in suspense. We need to know now.
Mr VOWLES: I did not say your name, Willem. What the member for Nelson says is what he will do; you rarely meet people like that. If he says, ‘I want to do this’, he will do so. If he brings a motion to parliament and it is passed through process we, as parliamentarians, should support it and adhere to the decision made in this Assembly.
You guys on that side have many questions to answer. You need to have a good, hard look at yourselves in the mirror; there is no integrity, no morals, no ethics and no idea.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mr Barrett Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Ms Fyles
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Ms Lawrie
Mrs Finocchiaro Ms Lee
Mr Giles Mr McCarthy
Mr Higgins Ms Manison
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Moss
Mrs Lambley Mr Vowles
Mrs Price Ms Walker
Mr Styles Mr Wood
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
- Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Rescind Motion Relating to Political Donations and Replace with Alternative Investigation
Rescind Motion Relating to Political Donations and Replace with Alternative Investigation
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that
1 parliament rescinds the motion of Mr Wood on 20 August 2014 under the Inquiries Act relating to political donations
2. the government establishes an investigation administered by the Department of the Chief Minister to investigate the process of political donations in the Northern Territory.
The parliament notes the Chief Minister will appoint an independent investigator who will report with particular reference to:
1. existing legislation and any other relevant legislation relating to political donations
2. other jurisdictions and their practices in relation to political donations
3. the administration of public election funding models in the other jurisdictions and their potential application in the Northern Territory.
I listened very carefully through the suspension debate to the members opposite, and they have all conveniently and, in my opinion, quite deliberately, sidestepped a very important issue in this process. The issue is that the business of donations to political parties is ultimately governed by two very discrete and separate organisations which are, as the demands from the members opposite imply, at arm’s length from government. I refer to the Australian Electoral Commission and the Northern Territory Electoral Commission; neither organisation was mentioned by members opposite.
It is all too cute to come into this place and use words like ‘corruption’ and ‘criminality’. If members opposite are aware of any corruption or criminality, there are a number of organs of government which are at arm’s length from government, and which are capable of looking at and dealing with those issues. For example there is the Australian Electoral Commission, which is at arm’s length from the Northern Territory government as it is an organ of the Commonwealth, and the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, which is at arm’s length from government by virtue of the fact it is a freestanding and independent functional entity, as well as references to the police, etcetera.
When I receive information which I believe warrants sufficient further investigation, I pass that on to the appropriate authorities. In the past I have had just cause, in relation to any number of matters, to refer issues to the police. I have done so recently. I do so because those investigative bodies exist for a very good reason; it is their job to investigate breaches of the law.
Let us turn to the two concepts around the Australian Electoral Commission and the Northern Territory Electoral Commission. Without having read the legislative organ that establishes the Australian Electoral Commission, I presume, as with all governing bodies, it has investigative powers. Those investigative powers would include the capacity to seek the issue of, and execute things like, warrants, perform investigations, ask people to give evidence, collect it, put it into briefs and then deliver it, if they choose to do so, to appropriate prosecuting authorities if they believe sufficient evidence exists. Those prosecuting authorities can then determine whether or not to lay charges, either complaints by way of complaint or information, so those matters may then be expedited though to a court, a truly independent hearing body.
I have heard many allegations from members opposite; I presume, in good conscience, they have all taken the information they believe to be corrupt and criminal in nature and forwarded it to the appropriate investigative bodies. When this debate came up on 20 August 2014, this issue was raised. I noted at the time there were investigations afoot by the Australian Electoral Commission and the Northern Territory Electoral Commission in relation to information they had received.
We are still awaiting the results of those investigations and, for all we know, they may well have already been completed, with no further action taken. That is a matter for those organisations. If, however, those investigations remain afoot, we should not be subordinating those organisations to further inquiry. As far as we are concerned, there is more than ample power granted to the Australian Electoral Commission, the Northern Territory Electoral Commission and the Northern Territory Police Force to pursue whatever investigations they see fit, if they receive information of sufficient gravity to determine whether or not an investigation should be launched.
For argument’s sake, if the police receive a complaint, they pursue that matter through their investigative process; they will assign police officers to look into the complaint. They have many powers at their disposal to do that. What you hear in this place is lots of bleating, the use of the word ‘corruption’, etcetera, and the waving around of so-called evidence; I wonder if members opposite have taken the time to refer that matter to the appropriate investigating authority.
We will allow the police to go about their business. Look at the powers the police have. If they believe, on reasonable grounds, an offence has been committed, they may go to an appropriate authority, such as a magistrate, judge or justice of the peace, to obtain warrants necessary for the purpose of searching or, ultimately, arresting people who are the subject of investigations. Those people may, with or without a warrant in the case of an arrest, be taken before a competent court to deal with those matters. That is how the process works. Those powers exist in any number of environments.
The police, as a general rule, do not investigate electoral matters because there are specialty organisations that go through the process of investigating issues that come to their attention. They are the various electoral commissions, whether the Commonwealth or Northern Territory organ. I know the Northern Territory Electoral Commission is truly at arm’s length of government and it has been since the beginning of self-government here.
The proposal members opposite would have us engage in means we would be creating an environment where an inquiry’s body could, basically, go on for an unspecified amount of time, as well as look into any allegation that might be made. Who would run that? Somebody who, in every likelihood, does not have a background in specialist investigations into these types of activities.
I recommend we leave policing to the police officers. I fully expect that if the Electoral Commissioner of the Northern Territory, or the Commissioner of Police, becomes aware of any breach of the law for the Northern Territory, they would go through all normal processes unfettered. If members opposite claim they have prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, then report it to the appropriate authorities and those investigations will be conducted in accordance with the law of the Northern Territory.
Members opposite have assiduously and carefully avoided talking about any of these processes because they know if they accept that these processes exist, then their liberal use of the words ‘corruption’ and ‘criminal’ would be limited to, ‘We allege corruption and criminality and we will wait for investigative processes to come to their natural conclusion’. That is not what they are talking about. They just want to make allegations of this nature.
It is for that reason we choose to go down this path, and it is the intent of this government to allow those processes to be gone through. However, as is always the case when this sort of noise is generated in a jurisdiction, it is worth revisiting the processes of electoral donations. We heard before that those donations are entirely proper; they just have to be properly accounted for through appropriate processes.
The allegation from members opposite is that has not occurred in relation to a company called Foundation 51. I am sure Foundation 51 will consequently be thoroughly investigated by the Australian and/or Northern Territory Electoral Commission.
Perhaps it is time to look at existing legislation and any other relevant legislation relating to political donations so we can make sure the processes for full or expected disclosure are properly covered by the statute book. In other jurisdictions there are different ways they deal with their practices in relation to political donations, both nationally and internationally. It is always worth revisiting these things to make sure the statute book reflects current thinking.
The matter of political donations will always be contentious. But in our political system, political parties need money, whether they are Labor, the Greens, the Palmer United Party or, for that matter, the Country Liberals. That means when we want to advertise, pay for corflutes, etcetera, we must have a source of income from somewhere.
EMILY’s List is an example of an organisation that donates to political parties and individual politicians. Harold Nelson Holdings, the property company and recipient of certain arrangements in relation to the Stellar Maris affair, is also an organisation which will donate to political parties but is, of course, its own free-standing legal entity. That is why Harry Nelson Holdings has Pty Ltd listed after its company name. There are also other ways political parties raise money, including the good old chook raffle. In the case of the Palmer United Party, as far as I am aware it has a single donor, Clive Palmer, who doubtlessly spends zillions of dollars keeping his political ship afloat.
There are numerous ways political campaigns are paid for, which will always be a contentious issue. The way politicians are elected will always be a contentious matter because elections tend to be contentious. It is for that reason the appointed investigator will report to the CE of the Department of the Chief Minister in 2015 with recommendations considered appropriate to improve the transparency and accountability of any matters relating to political donations in the Northern Territory. The Chief Minister will report back to this House in the first quarter of next year.
That means we will get somebody – I understand negotiations are well under way with Frank McGuiness – to look at all this material. We can ensure somebody with a good record of true independence, lauded by both sides of this House before their departure with the political equivalent of a 21-gun salute through a ministerial statement and whose integrity is unimpeachable in relation to being effective through an auditing process can find a way to make sure the statute book and our systems in the Northern Territory are as trustworthy as they can possibly be. I have faith in the Australian Electoral Commission, the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, the Northern Territory Police Force and Frank McGuiness, should he take up this role – I understand things are going well – and this will be a fulsome investigation into the donations system in the Northern Territory.
For all the noise and bleating from members opposite, I look forward to them telling us they have referred these matters to independent investigative authorities. If they have not done so and are so concerned about them, I genuinely urge them to do so.
We on this side are careful to make certain the public can trust investigative bodies currently established to do their job effectively. The Australian Electoral Commission existed prior to the Northern Territory becoming a body politic and subsequent to 1978, when the Northern Territory Electoral Commission was created. It has served under Country Liberals and Labor governments.
The Electoral Act, if it was considered to be an act containing shortcomings in its investigative roles by the former Labor government, would have been accordingly changed by the former Labor government at the time it was in power. I cannot recall off the top of my head whether Labor made amendments or not. If it did not make amendments then it logically follows that Labor was already satisfied with the length, breadth and depth that legislative instrument held. If Labor was unhappy it was up to its members to change the instrument accordingly. If they changed the instrument during their period of governance one can only presume it was up to a standard they thought acceptable, fair and at arm’s length from government, as they now demand.
They are effectively arguing they have no confidence in the Australian Electoral Commission or the Northern Territory Electoral Commission to do their job. In the case of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission, if they had no confidence in its capacity to do its job why did they not change it in government?
Oppositions regularly call for all sorts of investigations and we could hear any number of investigations that oppositions may want to turn their minds to. In opposition I wanted the leaks from the fifth floor to Bob Collins to be investigated so that it could be determined who on the fifth floor made a number of telephone calls which ultimately found their way to the ears of Bob Collins, who never stood trial for the crimes he was accused of committing. Never did I hear members opposite bleating for investigations as they do now.
This is a vehicle being used by members opposite to do nothing more than cause noise and alarm based on some information they have received. My advice to them is to turn it over to the authorities and trust them to do their job.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I have heard some rubbish in my day, but that was ridiculous.
The member for Port Darwin would have us believe it is all okay. You cannot hold an inquiry because the Australian Electoral Commission and NT Electoral Commission have investigations into Foundation 51 under way and to hold an inquiry would somehow impinge upon those august institutions. What rubbish!
In New South Wales parties are also accountable to the Australian Electoral Commission and New South Wales Electoral Commission in relation to electoral matters, including the declaration of donations. That has not stopped ICAC from examining donations to and from Eight by Five, which is a slush fund for the Liberals in New South Wales with very close parallels with the CLP slush fund Foundation 51 in the Territory. It was errant rubbish coming from the mouth of the member for Port Darwin. He is the only one hung out to dry in having to try to defend this whitewash.
Foundation 51 director Graeme Lewis has form. He has appeared before the magistrates court in the Northern Territory on Carpentaria Holdings, which was the then CLP slush fund, and he was done. Why? Because he would not provide the electoral commissions with the information it requested on the operations of Carpentaria Holdings. The CLP government knows too well the history. The CLP government would know powers do not exist within electoral commissions, like they exist in an inquiry, to obtain the evidence required to lay charges of corruption.
That is why you are rescinding a motion of parliament for an inquiry into political donations. This motion might be titled ‘Inquiry into Political Donations’ but, in fact, it is not. It enquires into existing and other relevant legislation relating to donations. It looks at other jurisdictions and their practices – ‘look elsewhere, do not look here’ – in in relation to political donations. It would examine the administration of public election funding models in other jurisdictions and their potential application to the Territory. That is code for, ‘We cannot use the slush fund anymore. We have to shut it down because the heat has become too hot in the kitchen; let us make the taxpayer foot the bill for our next CLP election campaign.’
I do not know if you will be able to have Frank McGuiness as your special investigator. He is a man of great integrity. He is very capable, but do not pretend this is an inquiry into political donations that have occurred. Do not pretend in any way that this will touch Foundation 51, your CLP slush fund. This inquiry will not examine whether or not political donations have occurred in the Territory and failed to be declared on electoral returns, a breach of the law. No, it is specifically looking at existing legislation, other relevant legislation, other jurisdictions and their practices and the administration of public election funding models, code for (inaudible).
I do not know how much is sitting in Foundation 51 and I do not know how you will wind it down. Word on the street is that there is about $2m in there; how do you wind that down? How will you give that back to donors?
Mr Styles: Did she say $2m?
Ms LAWRIE: How will you find your next election campaign?
Ms Walker: You must know. How much?
Ms LAWRIE: We pick up on the member for Sanderson and his questioning of how many millions are in Foundation 51. You would know, mate. You will have your time on the stand, under oath, being questioned, when there is an independent commission against corruption. You will have your time there to explain how much has been funnelled into your election campaigns in Sanderson, whilst today you put your name towards covering it up.
Let us not pretend this is an inquiry into political donations. It is an inquiry into the legislative and regulatory environments that govern them here and elsewhere. It is not an inquiry into donations that have occurred in the Territory and whether or not they have been appropriately registered on electoral returns, as required by law. Let us not pretend Foundation 51 will provide information and evidence to the Labor Party to give to the police so they can fully investigate and undertake prosecution actions.
Mr Elferink: Have you handed the information in?
Ms LAWRIE: Rubbish, member for Port Darwin. We call you out on the rubbish you spoke in here. It is rubbish, unless you go to Graeme Lewis and come out tomorrow saying, ‘It is okay, he will disclose bank accounts. He will disclose the books of Foundation 51.’ You have entirely misrepresented what can occur. That is why you are covering this up by rescinding a motion of parliament, because you know Graeme Lewis has form. He has hidden it in the past – Carpentaria Holdings – and was found guilty. He did not disclose and still has not done so. We suspect he has not handed information over; we keep asking the commission if it has any information yet or if it is close to finishing its investigation. The commission is not having a good time trying to find information.
Mr Tollner: How would you know?
Ms LAWRIE: It is non-disclosure. Member for Fong Lim, I will pick up on that interjection; we make the calls and ask because we are very interested in this. We know you are all over it. Member for Fong Lim, you will have your time on the stand too because you are as grubby as they come. You are so disgraceful that you sit on the backbench.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, withdraw those comments, please.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw. Member for Fong Lim, you are such a disgrace that you sit on the backbench, having been ejected from Cabinet. You are told to sit there, behave and be quiet, because you will be returning to Cabinet. The member for Fong Lim is telling businesses it is okay and that he will be back as Treasurer within a few weeks. This government says one thing while it suits them, while they are under electoral scrutiny in a by-election, and then does entirely the opposite once the by-election has been held. If the CLP government had nothing to hide, its terms of reference for the inquiry would include an independent investigator looking into the donations of Foundation 51 and the CLP. By all means add Harold Nelson Holdings and EMILY’s List. We are fine; we declare, but you do not.
You have not provided information in the past about Carpentaria Holdings and we will not hold our breath waiting for you to provide it about Foundation 51. Your slush fund operates in parallel to Eight by Five; that information could only come out through an inquiry. You sit in your comfort zone and say, ‘We got out of that one today; we can keep hiding our CLP slush fund and the donations washing through our election campaigns’. But there will be a day when you can no longer hide, when we hold an independent commission against corruption, and members sitting opposite will be called to appear before it. It will be interesting to see how many of you are still in this Chamber then, because I have faith and confidence in the integrity of Territorians. Where it smells and looks like corruption and where you are doing everything you can to hide corruption, it is corruption. They will judge you at the next available opportunity at the polls.
Those who lose their seats will still be called to appear before the inquiry; those who save their skins and stay in here will still be called. Territorians deserve the best transparency, accountability and integrity of the Westminster system. Today the CLP has proven Territorians will not receive that under this government. Today the CLP Chief Minister has well and truly proven he is a man who cannot be trusted, his word cannot be trusted and he has led an Independent member of this Chamber down the garden path.
You have proven in spades that when you cannot trust the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, and you cannot trust the CLP government. Whether we agree or disagree with some of the policy ideas of the Independent member for Nelson, we all know he is a man of integrity and honour. I kept saying to him, ‘I do not know why you believe them because after the Casuarina by-election they will not allow an inquiry into Foundation 51’. He said to me, ‘I trust them, I believe them. The Chief Minister has spoken to me. Tim Baldwin has spoken to me and I trust him.’ I kept saying, ‘They have told plenty of lies on other subjects, so why would you believe them on this?’ He kept believing you.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: I know, member for Fong Lim, you find that funny …
Mr Tollner: I find it funny that you …
Ms LAWRIE: I find it disgusting.
We love the Northern Territory. We will hold you to account every step of the way. I wish we had a Northern Territory government with a scintilla of decency or integrity, or any ability to trust them in anyway. We do not.
Territorians deserve far better than this. If you had nothing to hide, if your concern was about time frames, you would have included, in the terms of reference for your investigator, a referral to look into the donations of Foundation 51 to the CLP.
Mr Elferink: Have you made any form of reference or complaint about this to the electoral commission?
Ms LAWRIE: It is abhorrent to listen to the member for Port Darwin pretend that somehow this is about us not trusting the Electoral Commission or not having faith in its ability or the legislation. Rubbish! We have lived here long enough to see you do this before; Graeme Lewis and Carpentaria Holdings did not provide the information to the commissions. They took him to court and he was found guilty …
Mr Elferink: So the system works.
Ms LAWRIE: No, the system does not work; I pick up on the interjection. You have one fall guy on a misdemeanour, rather than the exposure of corrupt CLP members of parliament ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She is over-reaching …
Ms Lawrie: I said ‘rather than’.
Mr ELFERINK: No, sorry, you over-reached that time. She is making an allegation which is utterly unfounded, without any form of evidence. She must do so by substantive motion and, by the way …
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, please withdraw.
Ms LAWRIE: If the commissions can get anywhere with their investigations, Graeme Lewis will take a small rap for the CLP. Is that the play? There is no decency and no integrity because if you had nothing to hide it would be included in the terms of reference to look into the political donations of Foundation 51 to the CLP. We know you have everything to hide. The e-mails are starting to leak out; I do not know if there are any more to be leaked. I hope whoever is leaking them has something else and it comes out.
We have known for the best part of a week now that Terry Mills was in a directorial role with Foundation 51 while Chief Minister, and you will not stand him down. The current Chief Minister, Adam Giles, is pretending he did not appoint him, and that the department did. However, a media release from the Chief Minister announced the appointment of his ambassador, so he is clearly misrepresenting the situation.
During estimates it was shown that Terry Mills was a contractor, yet today in this House the Chief Minister is pretending he is employed under PSEMA; he is a contractor, not an employee. You happily misrepresent anything you can. It is unbelievable.
When a community fundamentally loses its ability to trust its government, governments fall at following elections. Trust is fundamental in government. Honesty and integrity are fundamental in government. Yes, all political parties in Australia take donations; that is not the issue. It is whether or not you declare them. The CLP has failed to declare Foundation 51, which is the issue here. It raises questions about who is contributing to Foundation 51 and what political favours they can expect in return from a CLP government.
That is the issue, and that is corruption ...
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, please be very careful with your language and withdraw ‘corruption’.
Ms LAWRIE: I was describing a system of corruption.
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw the word ‘corruption’, please.
Ms LAWRIE: Can you seek advice?
Madam SPEAKER: No, just withdraw it.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw. We have Foundation 51, as a slush fund for the CLP, with business donations going into it; we know that because of e-mails provided by Graeme Lewis that have been leaked. Business donations go into Foundation 51 and are funnelled into CLP election campaigns. That is a slush fund. That raises the question in everyone’s mind as to what favours are given to donors by the CLP government. If I am not allowed to describe that as corruption so be it. I will leave that to others because it is outrageous. That is what the CLP is busy covering up in this Chamber today.
Instead of an inquiry into political donations they want to look at existing and other relevant legislation. They want to look at other jurisdictions and their practices, as well as offering the opportunity to have the taxpayer fund the next CLP election campaign by looking at public election funding models. In terms of government, it does not get much worse than what we are witnessing today under the CLP – may you be judged.
If we had access to the books of Foundation 51, member for Port Darwin, we would go straight to the police. We do not have access to the books of Foundation 51 ...
Mr Barrett: So you are speculating?
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Blain. No, we are not speculating. There is $10 000 on the electoral return for Blain donated by Graeme Lewis. We are asking the electoral commission to investigate that. There are leaked e-mails which say $200 000 in electoral donations from business went from Foundation 51 into the CLP’s 2012 election campaign, or thereafter. That is not speculation. There is further weight of evidence that people would require, and only an inquiry can truly get to the bottom of it. However, today the CLP government has made sure there will not be an inquiry.
Labor guarantees that if we win the next election there will be an inquiry. People will be held to account because we believe in justice and upholding the law of the Territory, even though today we have seen an acceptance and cover-up of criminality. It is disgraceful, and we reject this motion. It is a whitewash. It does not look into the political donations scandal and stench surrounding the CLP.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the Opposition Leader. Talk about hyped up self-righteousness; I have seen it all. If the Opposition Leader has prima facie evidence of corruption, surely the first thing she would do is report it to the police. It is not a big deal. If you are talking about a cover-up and entrenched corruption, and you have evidence of that, take it to the police. They are the first port of call, but clearly the Opposition Leader has not done that. The reason the Opposition Leader has not done that is obvious. It is because there is no evidence of corruption or a cover-up.
It has been interesting to listen to how the Opposition Leader is quite prepared to smear people, former members of this Chamber and members of the public, etcetera. She smears Graeme Lewis. It is a fait accompli in her mind that he is a criminal involved in some sort of cover-up. There is nothing criminal about Graeme Lewis.
Graeme Lewis is a rusted-on Country Liberal Party member, former president of the CLP and a long-term Treasurer as well. Graeme Lewis may have been involved with the Country Liberals since day dot. As far as Labor Party members are concerned, that in itself is a crime. I think that way about some people involved with the Labor Party. Their simple association with an organisation from the Labor Party worries me greatly. It is something I can understand the Leader of the Opposition may feel towards Graeme Lewis, but he is a man of integrity and honesty. He has never in any way benefited personally from anything that has gone on with Foundation 51, the Country Liberal Party, etcetera. He has always acted in the best interests of the Country Liberal Party and has always been very keen to make sure there is transparency and that the letter of the law is followed.
I have listened to the Opposition Leader denigrate former Chief Minister, Terry Mills. There are many negative things people can say about him, but I will not go into them. One of the very few things people cannot say about Terry Mills is that he lacks honesty. To suggest Terry Mills is involved in a criminal cover-up is staggering. It beggars belief that anybody in this place who knows anything of the former Chief Minister could start talking about his criminal activities and his involvement in cover-ups. It is highly offensive that the Leader of the Opposition talks that way about Terry Mills.
It is high time some things were put on the public record in relation to Foundation 51. Whilst I have never been a member of Foundation 51, I have been aware of its operations and how it was set up. During the last two election campaigns I played a significant role in the Country Liberal Party’s strategies and efforts to be elected. In 2008, the Country Liberal Party received a significant swing in votes. It was not a big enough swing to put us into government, but it raised our level of numbers from, I think, four to 11. It was a big thing for Terry Mills, who led the party in that election campaign, and he felt a debt of gratitude to the people who supported him and the CLP in that campaign.
The creation of Foundation 51 was Terry Mills’ idea. I had several conversations with him; I was not necessarily supportive of creating Foundation 51, but I fully understood what it was about. Terry, as I said, felt a debt of gratitude to all of those who supported the Country Liberals in the campaign, but he also felt a large debt of gratitude to those businesses and business people who supported us in 2008.
In 2008 there were 51 donors of large amounts to the Country Liberal Party, hence the creation of Foundation 51. Terry saw that as the foundation of 51 businesses and business people who could be relied upon to build and support the Country Liberal Party into the future. His efforts were to create an organisation that attempted to impart a level of valuable information to business people.
Business people joined for a number of reasons. They wanted to access information, and Foundation 51 had the ability to perform market research into a range of areas that affected business and business people in the Territory. It also had the ability, through links with the Country Liberal Party and conservatives around the country, to drag speakers to the Northern Territory who business people would find value in listening to; I can quote a number of them. I think the first speaker I heard at a Foundation 51 lunch was Mr Paul Everingham.
I put it on the record that at every Foundation 51 lunch I went to, I paid my own way. I saw it as something outside the Country Liberal Party, and if I wanted to attend lunches I would have to pay my own way. There were a number of speakers, including John Howard, Peter Costello, Bernard Salt, a very well-known economist …
Mr Giles: Clive Palmer
Mr TOLLNER: Maybe Clive Palmer. I think Gina Rinehart was one. There was a number of speakers who business people were interesting in listening to. It was about providing a service to business people, imparting information and researching issues and community sentiment, etcetera. At the same time, it was about making those business people feel good about a conservative government in the Northern Territory. The foundation had no links with the CLP and still does not.
It is interesting to think about this e-mail which the opposition seem to think is a smoking gun; it is far from it. Graeme Lewis might have been crowing a bit too loudly about the importance of Foundation 51, but having been very much involved in the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, I can say that no money changed hands between Foundation 51 and the Country Liberal Party.
There may well have been information transferred. It is probably questionable whether there was any value in that information. I have been to the Chamber of Commerce, which has let me in on internal market research into a range of things. I have been to a number of other business associations that perform market research and research on the community. They have been prepared to share that information with me. When it comes to polling, that is what Foundation 51 was doing, sharing that information with the County Liberal Party. There is nothing illegal in that.
I understand that all of the issues about Foundation 51 and the haziness of the relationship between Foundation 51 and the Country Liberal Party – it would be hazy because the main driver in its set-up was Terry Mills. He was also acutely aware there would be a serious conflict of interest if he was to be involved in the management and direction of Foundation 51 and chose, quite rightly, not to take a directorial position in it. It is quite obvious an organisation like Foundation 51 would want to maintain a relatively close relationship with Terry as the leader of the CLP, a conservative arm in the Northern Territory. I understand people see these things are a little hazy, but I know the history of Foundation 51 and why it was set up.
Labor has the unions. This must be put into context; why is the Labor Party so keen on destroying Foundation 51 and others? They are not necessarily keen on destroying Foundation 51, they are keen on destroying funding that comes from business people towards the Country Liberal Party. They would be happy for funding from business people to be completely wound up. Labor has the unions; what comes from a union is declared by a union, but they do not declare where they receive the money from.
Before this debate, I decided to Google ‘ALP and union corruption’. If you wanted to study ALP and union corruption, it would take you a lifetime. There is a Royal Commission ongoing. I found an interesting article that summed up many others; it appeared in The Australian on 15 February, written by Grace Collier, and the headline is ‘Hang on to your hat: union corruption probe will be a wild ride’:
- Will the royal commission into union corruption show the ALP has been partly funded by the proceeds of crime? Probably. This, for Tony Abbott, would be the cherry on the top.
What sort of stories are we likely to hear and who has the most to lose? This story won’t be about the odd bad apple. This story will be about the apple orchard, how it is organised and where the distribution chain leads. So many apples end up in so many powerful places. We will see how that happens and who pays.
We will see how the union movement controls public policy through its wholly-owned subsidiary, the Australian Labor Party.
…
It is not illegal for executives to give money to unions, but we need to know what the business gets in return and how much that costs the rest of us. A class of professional enablers will be revealed; the people in law, finance and superannuation who help unions do dodgy deals. We will see how some union people sell us a story of the poor and powerless to make themselves rich and powerful. But, most important, we will see ALP-affiliated unions for what they are; a tax-exempt business empire, our very own legalised mafia, geared to feed cash and candidates to the Labor Party machine.
The article goes on to talk about Julia Gillard and a range of other things. Those few paragraphs are poignant in what they point out, in that the Labor Party has its own corruption machine doing dodgy deals. The Royal Commission set up by Tony Abbott is starting to get a head of steam and there are stories coming from every state and territory in Australia. In the Northern Territory we had the Stella Maris deal, with the unions and the ALP cooking up a deal that would benefit no one but themselves.
This is all too blurry. It all must change. I was not a big supporter of Foundation 51 in the early days because I saw it as diverting funds from the Country Liberal Party. If people donated money to Foundation 51 they may have been left short in donating money to the Country Liberal Party. To me it looked like a way of splitting finances that should have been coming wholly to the Country Liberal Party.
We have, quite rightly, an ongoing Royal Commission into trade unions. We have the Australian Electoral Commission running any inquiry into political donations, as well as the Northern Territory Electoral Commission. What they will find is anybody’s guess.
The results of these inquires will plunge politics in general to new lows. It will be a pox on everyone, and that concerned the Labor Party with the Stella Maris inquiry. They said it was nothing but a political beat-up. It was obvious to everyone concerned that it was a dodgy deal. It was crooked and corrupt, but we held an inquiry to put the icing on the cake and show people how crooked and corrupt it was. It could have gone a lot further.
For too many years things have been too grey and blurry. We should not hold any inquires at all; we need to dispense with the entire dodgy system …
Ms Fyles: It is not dodgy. There is only one side that is dodgy.
Mr TOLLNER: There is only one side that is dodgy, member for Nightcliff, and we all know which one. Do you want me to read that article again – the crooked dodgy deals that go on between the unions and their wholly-owned subsidiary, the Labor Party? We know of the standover tactics of unions, the way they extort money from businesses, the way they funnel that money through their coffers into the Labor Party and the way they change public policy through those corrupt practices.
Ms Fyles: Hold the inquiry!
Mr TOLLNER: The inquiry is going on, member for Nightcliff. Have you not noticed? That is my point. This inquiry is happening now; there is not one inquiry, but three. Look around and see what is happening.
My view, that I have passed on to the Chief Minister, is that we should get rid of this inquiry, clean the system up once and for all and go to publicly-funded election campaigns for everyone. We should make political donations illegal for election campaigning. Maybe donations that exceed $1000 should be illegal and all donations under $1000 to a political party should have to be declared by those who make them. The public should fund election campaigns based on the number of votes a candidate receives. In the Northern Territory that might be as much as $10 a vote. If someone was to sweep the entire pool and gain 100% of the vote in their electorate, they may receive around $50 000.
That is the only fair and transparent way of doing this. Holding more inquiries, fuelling speculation, which is all the Labor Party is doing – it is all about running interference and deception to try to distance themselves from the Royal Commission and AEC and NTEC inquiries. They are saying, ‘All right, we are covered in mud, but so is everyone else’. That is not true. Only one party in this Chamber is covered in mud and dirt.
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member for Fong Lim.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: As I was saying, there is only one party in this place covered in dirt, mud and crookedness, and that is the Labor Party. It is very questionable where Labor gets its money from. I was going through its declared statements, and during the last election campaign more than $350 000 came from trade unions. How much of that money was illegally obtained by those unions? We know they are acting illegally and we know they use standover tactics with businesses to extort money from them. We do not know how much of that illegal money is being funnelled into the Labor Party to run election campaigns. We know, however, more than $350 000 came in during the last election campaign for the Labor Party.
Interestingly enough, the year before, the figure was $57 000. In non-election years unions are not too interested in the Labor Party, but when there is an election on they will get in and have a crack. It is interesting that the Opposition Leader tries to smear the member for Blain by suggesting he has something to answer for. It might be interesting for the Opposition Leader to look at Northern Territory electoral laws, because declarations are not yet required for the last financial year. It is 16 weeks from 30 June before a party is required to put in declarations. Let us wait and see what goes on there. My advice to all those in the Chamber is to forget this or any sort of inquiry. Stop getting down in the mud, throwing crap at each other and let us get on with the business of governing the Territory.
That is what everybody in this place should be focused on, not getting down in the mud with the Leader of the Opposition, who is one of the grubbiest politicians I have ever seen in my life.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62; that was offensive.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw that. The Opposition Leader will go to any level of depravity. She will use anything in her power to somehow tarnish decent people in our community. They do not even have to be in this place. To suggest criminality, corruption and involvement in a cover-up by Terry Mills – what nonsense!
I have highlighted what Foundation 51 was about. It was about supporting the business community and giving it a forum in which to discuss conservative ideas, listen to quality speakers and have good market research conducted. I see nothing illegal or immoral in that. It is what organisations around the country do. The Menzies Research Centre, Doc Evatt’s research centre – all these things are set up to promote ideas, encourage political discussion and have people focused on what matters in this country and the Northern Territory.
As I said, my advice to the Chief Minister and government is to dump any thought of an inquiry of any nature. Forget this nonsense, move on and let us do away with the traditional way of running campaigns. If we will hold an inquiry, let us hold an inquiry into how we might publicly fund election campaigns so they are transparent, accountable and everybody can receive a fair shake. One of the things Independents and Greens, etcetera, get so upset about is not having access to union funds. They say, ‘We do not have access to big business, we are the poor ones who really struggle in election campaigns’. Maybe making election campaigns publicly funded would give more people a greater chance of being elected. At the same time, it may give us a greater say in a democratic system, give parliament an opportunity to stop focusing on this crap and allow it to get on with business.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 13 Noes 9
Mr Barrett Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
- Mr Elferink Mr McCarthy
Mrs Finocchiaro Ms Manison
Mr Giles Ms Moss
Mr Higgins Mr Vowles
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Walker
Mrs Lambley Mr Wood
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
POLICE ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 98)
(Serial 98)
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. I move this amendment in accordance with my role as the minister with carriage of the Pillars of Justice policy.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Police Administration Act to provide for two specific amendments. The first amendment is to provide members of the Northern Territory Police Force with an alternative post-arrest option, where a person who has committed certain prescribed offences may be held by police for up to four hours and can then be released with an infringement notice, as opposed to requiring that the person be charged and have those charges be heard by a court. I will refer to the concept as ‘paperless arrest’.
The second amendment relates to Part IV of the act and sets out provisions to require members to answer questions put to them in the course of internal disciplinary investigations.
The concept of paperless arrests forms part of our Pillars of Justice law reform policy framework. The policy is to permit police officers to detain individuals for up to four hours in relation to public order-type offences, and where an infringement notice may be issued. The types of offences to be captured by this post-arrest option are offences attracting an infringement notice under the Summary Offences Regulations, the Liquor Regulations and the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Arrest for these public order offences will remain the same; however, where a person has been arrested for an infringement notice offence, that person can, if police consider it appropriate, be dealt with more expeditiously following arrest, and with much less paperwork, by the issuing of an infringement notice.
For this purpose, the bill inserts a new Division 4AA into Part VII of the act. The new division provides that where a member has arrested a person without a warrant on the grounds that the person has committed, was committing or was about to commit an infringement notice offence, as prescribed by the regulations, the member may hold the person for up to four hours and may then release the person with an infringement notice.
The bill also provides that where a person is intoxicated, the member may continue to hold the person beyond the initial four-hour period for so long as it reasonably appears to the member that the person remains intoxicated.
Requirements and protections are also put in place for people in custody in these circumstances, such as a requirement for police to establish the person’s identity, to conduct a search of the person, the registration of the person’s money and valuables and the use of reasonable force where required. These types of protection and circumstances are also reflected in the protective custody provisions set out in section 128 of the act.
The bill is not intended to limit police powers to the issuing of an infringement notice. In some circumstances, where a person is detained for an infringement notice offence and, for example, it is subsequently discovered that the same person is wanted on additional matters (or if they commit further offences while in custody), or it is considered that an infringement notice would be ineffective, police still have the power to charge a person with the original or other offences.
This alternative post-arrest option will provide further flexibility and efficiency in policing work. The option will enable police officers to return to their patrol in a more timely fashion, as opposed to being detained for long periods preparing necessary paperwork for a court to consider the charges. An additional benefit to the community is intended by the use of such an option to de-escalate social disorder situations or potential situations of public disorder before they escalate into major incidents.
The second amendment contained in this bill provides for the requirement of answers from members to questions put to them in the course of internal disciplinary investigations. These procedures are also known as ‘directed interviews’. The ability of a Commissioner of Police to discipline police officers and require answers to questions in the course of a disciplinary investigation, even where those answers might incriminate the subject members, has long been recognised as essential for maintaining the integrity of, and public confidence in, a police force. The High Court legal authority for this proposition is the case of the Police Service Board v Morris and Martin, which is reported at (1985), volume 156 of the Commonwealth Law Reports, at page 397.
In 2013, however, a single judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court determined that the New South Wales Commissioner of Police did not have powers under the New South Wales Police Act to direct a police officer to answer questions after the police officer has claimed the privilege against self-incrimination in criminal matters.
The decision is cited as Baff v New South Wales Commissioner of Police [2013], New South Wales Supreme Court judgment numbered 1205. This decision is not binding on the Northern Territory of Australia, and the High Court decision of Morris remains the binding legal authority in the Northern Territory. In addition, the decision of Morris has been applied by the Full Court of South Australia and is still relied upon by the South Australian Police Force to require officers to answer questions.
It is the position of the Northern Territory of Australia that the Commissioner of Police has the power under section 76(d) of the Police Administration Act to direct a police officer to answer questions. Despite this position, a management decision was taken following the decision in Baff not to pursue a directed interview where the member has claimed the privilege against self-incrimination. Directed interviews in these circumstances were put on hold pending this legislative provision to confirm the existence of the power, and that the power to require an answer to a question is intended to operate retrospectively. That is, the position will apply to current matters where a member is currently under internal investigation and no disciplinary outcome has been finalised.
The bill includes provisions to require a police officer to answer questions, as required, during the course of a disciplinary investigation. The disciplinary investigation can commence prior to the issuing of a notice of alleged breach of discipline under section 79 of the act, as recognised by the Northern Territory Supreme Court in the decisions of Holmes and Bulger v Commissioner of Police cited at [2011] Northern Territory Supreme Court judgment numbered 108.
The bill is intended to confirm the Commissioner of Police has the power to direct a police officer to answer questions during any time throughout disciplinary investigation for a breach of discipline or an alleged breach of discipline. An officer cannot claim the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid answering such questions.
To demonstrate the seriousness of a failure to answer a question in the context of a disciplinary investigation, the bill amends section 76 to provide that a member commits a breach of discipline where the member fails to obey a lawful direction, instruction or order given by, or caused to be issued by, the Commissioner of Police or a member or person having authority over the member, including general orders and instructions issued under section 14A(1), and directions, instructions or orders given in relation to a breach of discipline or an alleged breach of discipline. Where a member provides misleading information in the course of a disciplinary investigation is also provided for as a separate breach of discipline.
Failure to answer questions put to a member in a disciplinary investigation has the potential to seriously undermine the public confidence in a police force. For that reason, a failure to answer questions, or the provision of misleading information by a member during a disciplinary investigation, can be grounds considered by the Commissioner of Police to dismiss a member on public interest grounds under section 78 of the act. The policy basis for this position is that the Northern Territory Police Force is a body upon whose efficiency and probity is something our Territory must depend for the security of the lives and property of our community. Such a body can only operate effectively under proper discipline.
However, to put appropriate safeguards in place for police members, a direct immunity will apply to the answers provided by members, such that those answers are not admissible as evidence in any criminal or civil proceedings. The only exceptions that will apply to allow the use of these answers will be in respect of proceedings for perjury, tort claims against the Northern Territory by police officers, and proceedings from employment matters (which includes disciplinary proceedings).
The bill deliberately does not include immunity against a derivative use of the information provided in a direct interview. Such an immunity is considered too restrictive to allow police to exercise their functions, and will still permit alternative lines of inquiry to be pursued following information provided in a directed interview, such as already provided for in section 160A of the act.
Police officers are appropriately afforded special powers to exercise their duties. These powers include the authority to use force, to deprive people of their liberty and to access sensitive and confidential information.
It is crucial to have appropriate checks and balances in place to allow the Commissioner of Police to maintain the integrity of and uphold public confidence in our police force and ensure that the exercise of powers by members is held to account.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the multitude of stakeholders involved in the development of these reforms, including members and staff of the Northern Territory Police Force, members of the Pillars of Justice Steering Committee and the Northern Territory Police Association.
This bill is an example of this government’s commitment to improve police practices and community safety to provide an additional and flexible post-arrest option, and to promote integrity and public confidence in the exercise of police powers through the conduct of directed interviews with appropriate protections in place.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (REMISSION FOR RESENTENCING) BILL
(Serial 99)
(Serial 99)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to provide the Court of Criminal Appeal with the power to remit matters back to the sentencing court for re-sentence upon a successful appeal. This bill has resulted from the decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Gary Wayne Atkinson v The Queen [2013] NTCCA5 and Leo v The Queen (No 2) [2014] NTCCA 9.
In the case of Atkinson v The Queen the defendant has been sentenced in relation to a number of offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act and, approximately, 15 months later, had property forfeited under the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act.
The defendant argued, on appeal, that the forfeiture of his property should be taken into account as a substantial mitigating factor in his sentence and that, if the original sentencing judge had this information, a different and lesser sentence would have been imposed.
Section 5(4) of the Sentencing Act provides that a sentencing court can take into account the forfeiture of ‘crime-used’ property and an offender’s cooperation in relation to the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act.
As a result, had forfeiture proceedings against the appellant been finalised prior to or at the same time as his sentence, the forfeiture would have been able to be taken into account by the sentencing court.
The Court of Criminal Appeal agreed with this argument and upheld the appeal. Relevantly, the Court of Criminal Appeal indicated that a power to remit matters back to the Supreme Court for re-sentence would be desirable.
The court noted that if the court had the power to remit matters for re-sentence, any new information could be considered on its merits by the judge who imposed the original sentence.
In the matter of Leo v The Queen, the Court of Criminal Appeal again reiterated the desire to have the power to remit matters back to the original sentencing court for re-sentence when appropriate. This recommendation for remittance in Leo v Queen was, however, broader than that in Atkinson v The Queen.
While the court in Atkinson v The Queen suggested that the remittance power be used where information had come to light after the original sentence, rather than for all successful appeals, the suggestion in Leo v The Queen was that the power be available in a wider range of situations, including matters where the original sentencing judge incorrectly applied the law.
In this situation, the original sentencing judge would be able to re-sentence the offender, taking into account the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal.
In accordance with the recommendations of the Court of Criminal Appeal in both cases, this bill amends section 411(4) of the Criminal Code to provide the Court of Criminal Appeal with the power to remit matters back to the sentencing court for re-sentence upon a successful appeal.
As recommended in Leo v The Queen, the power to remit has been drafted so that the Court of Criminal Appeal has a broad discretion to remit matters back to the sentencing court for re-sentence as appropriate. Accordingly, rather than restricting the power to matters where new information has come to hand following the original sentence, the Court of Criminal Appeal will be able to remit any successful appeal if it is deemed appropriate.
The provision of the power to remit is an additional power which will not preclude the Court of Criminal Appeal from re-sentencing the appellant, if appropriate. The transitional provisions of the bill ensure that the Court of Criminal Appeal will be able to remit matters for re-sentence in all appeals heard after the commencement, even if the appellant was found guilty or filed appeal documents prior to commencement. This bill will enhance the administration of justice and ensure that the most appropriate court re-sentences the defendant following a successful appeal.
I would like to formally thank the judiciary for their ongoing assistance by raising their concerns and proposing practical amendments to the legislation. I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 90)
Continued from 21 August 2014.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, the Land Development Corporation is an important institution which has made a significant contribution to the social and economic development of the Northern Territory.
The LDC was established by the former Labor government to undertake strategic investment and development to assist industry and provide essential facilities to the wider community. Its achievements include a range of initiatives in the housing and industrial sectors championed by the previous government. Whilst not exhaustive, relevant examples include affordable housing projects in Kilgariff, Johnston and Zuccoli, and industrial land development such as the Darwin Business Park and common use area at the East Arm wharf, as well as the AustralAsia rail freight terminal. In 2013, the LDC held total assets in excess of $135m and total income in excess of $57m.
This is why the LDC requires a fully functioning advisory board with a broader charter to advise the corporation on its activities. Consistent with the Chief Minister’s total disregard for the proper standards of government, this bill is a direct attack on transparency, accountability and good governance within the Land Development Corporation. The bill emasculates accountability, transparency and good governance in the current act. It does this by a direct assault on existing provisions concerning the function, composition and operation of the LDC board.
Section 13 of the act establishes an advisory board; it states simply and directly that there is an advisory board. This section is repealed by the bill. Under the new section 13 proposed in the bill, the minister may establish an advisory board. Subject to the minister’s whim, the LDC may or may not have an advisory board; so much for transparency, accountability and good governance.
Under section 14 of the existing act the advisory board has a broad function to advise the corporation on its activities and, significantly, on the manner in which it carries them out. Under these provisions the advisory board is not constrained in the scope of its advice by the directions of the minister or the corporation. The bill before the Assembly repeals section 14 and creates new provisions which totally emasculate the role of the advisory board. Under proposed section 14 the function of the board is restricted only to matters referred to it by the minister or corporation. The advisory board is no longer empowered to advise the LDC on the manner in which it carries out its activities. Madam Speaker, I am sure you and honourable members would discern the emerging pattern of emasculation and reduced accountability inherent in this bill.
Section 17 of the act provides that the minister must appoint a Chair and deputy Chair to the board. These positions are abolished by the bill. Under section 18 of the act members of the board are appointed for three years. Under this bill board members are appointed for a period determined by the minister.
I am sure you have noted that the Chief Minister’s second reading speech contemplates the appointment of ad hoc LDC boards limited to short periods of operation. I am sure honourable members are aware that the corporation is a one-man band – a chief executive officer appointed by the minister. This is all the more reason for an adequately resourced, independent board with a mandate to advise the corporation on a broad range of issues, as opposed to only matters referred to it by the minister and the corporation.
In summary, this Assembly is being asked to pass a bill that will emasculate the LDC’s advisory board by a series of measures that will abolish the current board; reduce the scope of the board’s role in providing advice; abolish the positions of Chair and deputy Chair; subject to the minister’s whim, replace the board with a series of ad hoc boards; and reduce the terms of appointment of board members. That is not a bad day’s work if one of your primary objectives in life is to reduce accountability, transparency and good governance in the public sector you purport to lead.
Before I turn to the Chief Minister’s second reading speech, I will mention two other provisions in the bill. Clause 5 of the bill amends section 6(e) of the act in relation to the functions of the corporation. I am interested to hear from the Chief Minister as to why this amendment has been included in the bill. I also invite him to explain why clause 4 contains provisions in relation to applying the Criminal Code Act to offences under the LDC Act.
I now turn to substantial matters mentioned in the Chief Minister’s second reading speech. What is driving the intention inherent in the bill? The Chief Minister’s second reading speech provided some clues, but does not tell the whole story. One rationale for the changes, according to the Chief Minister, is the cost of operating the board. Is this reason credible in light of recent events?
Since coming to office little more than two years ago, the CLP government has appointed a plethora of former ministers, MLAs, advisers, candidates and party hacks to highly-paid positions in public service and on statutory and advisory boards. The combined salaries of these political appointments exceed $5m per annum. Disturbingly, there have been many appointments to key positions directly involved in the administration, allocation and utilisation of Northern Territory land. In the context of these appointments and related remuneration, honourable members and the wider community will draw their own conclusions about the creditability of the Chief Minister’s assertion that the cost of operating the LDC board has driven the amendments proposed in this bill.
In his second reading speech the Chief Minister asserted that avoiding conflicts of interest also underpins proposed amendments to the LDC Act. With a straight face, the Chief Minister said:
- … it has been difficult to find board members locally who are able to be involved in discussions relating to the full breadth of the corporation’s activities without potential conflicts of interests.
This is from a Chief Minister who appointed Graeme Lewis as Chair of the Land Development Corporation and conceded under pressure during estimates questioning that the position was not advertised. This is from the same Chief Minister who forced Graeme Lewis to resign as Chair of the LDC when the unlawful activities of the CLP’s slush fund, Foundation 51, were exposed by the media and raised in this Assembly.
I call on the Chief Minister, since he raised the issue in his second reading speech, to advise this Assembly on how many occasions in the last two years a member of the board has declared a conflict of interest and advised the relevant details.
The Chief Minister also stated in his second reading speech:
The recent resignation of existing board members has created an exceptional circumstance for the corporation to prepare an urgent bill without Cabinet authorisation, to be presented to Cabinet with a rolled up submission, seeking retrospective endorsement for the drafting of the bill, as well as approval to introduce the bill.
The statement is both extraordinary and disingenuous. Why? Because board members were invited to submit their resignations in anticipation of a bill that would abolish the board, not the reversal, as asserted deceptively by the Chief Minister. Why the haste? Why did the LDC draft a bill without the prerequisite prior approval of Cabinet? Why limit the scope of advice the board or boards can provide?
Recent disclosures in documents released under an FOI request concerning $1m transferred to the Tiwi Land Council, and subsequent media coverage, are directly relevant to these questions. Hundreds of documents disclosed under an FOI request were tabled in this Assembly yesterday.
I remind the Assembly of an e-mail dated 27 August 2013 from the CEO of the LDC to the Under Treasurer, the CEO of the Chief Minister’s department and the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. The e-mail is headed ‘Tiwi payment’ and states:
- Hi Jodie
- Signed transfer of $1m this morning.
You will also note an e-mail from the LDC’s chief financial officer to John Coleman, which states:
- I confirm that the $1m payment into the bank account of Tiwi Resources Pty Ltd was processed yesterday. Can we request the Cabinet Office for a copy of the Cabinet decision for our file for audit purposes? We will also need a copy of the contract of sale/lease once drafted and executed, as this should identify the specific location (lot no/title) of the land for the LDC land register.
The CFO’s concerns are understandable because under section 9 of the LDC Act a corporation is required to act commercially. Under section 28 of the act, the money of the corporation is only to be applied for the purposes of the corporation. The chief executive’s response to the CFO raised serious concerns about the payment of $1m to Tiwi Resources Pty Ltd and internal control processes in the LDC.
In his e-mail reply of 28 August to the CFO, John Coleman stated:
- David, thank you for the transfer action. We will get the decision when it is signed off by the secretary to Cabinet. As to the parcel descriptions, they will evolve as a whole lot of actions, including subdivision, will be happening to create the estate for the corporation. I’ll keep you informed.
- Essentially, we can report on an asset of 20 000 ha as Tiwi Development Lease Lot A as of today. You need to recognise that this will be subdivided and will cover different locations as we negotiate details.
There are no assets that can be registered on the assets register for the Land Development Corporation. These matters go to the heart of the bill before the Assembly, which emasculates the function and composition of the Land Development Corporation board. Why was the $1m released by the Land Development Corporation? The answer, hidden until it was discovered in documents released under FOI legislation, is the agreement signed by Mr Gary Barnes and Mr John Hicks on 27 August 2013, one of the documents tabled yesterday.
The agreement makes provision for an up-front payment of $1m in return for 99-year leases on Tiwi land. The agreement also stipulates that if the leases are not executed within six months the up-front payment of $1m will need to be refunded. Significantly, the Land Development Corporation is not party to the agreement, and the payment of $1m may be unlawful.
You can therefore understand the apprehension inherent in the CFO’s e-mail to his boss concerning authorisation to make the payment from the Land Development Corporation, and the registration of assets in return for the $1m.
In all these circumstances the last thing the Chief Minister would want is a Land Development Corporation board capable under the act of advising the corporation on its activities and the manner in which it carries them out. That is why the Chief Minister’s bill attacks these provisions and emasculates the role of the board; that is why we do not support this bill.
There are many more questions to be answered by the Chief Minister on the transfer of $1m from Land Development Corporation funds. If any members opposite believe in transparency or accountability to the community they will also oppose this bill. It is time to stop the Chief Minister riding roughshod over proper standards of transparency, accountability and probity.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Land Development Corporation Amendment Bill. The bill will refine the act and streamline management of the Land Development Corporation.
The key features of the bill are a reduction in operational costs, simplified business functions and access to a wider scope of experience and skill sets when seeking advice on specific development projects and other corporate functions. It provides the corporation the ability to convene an advisory board as and when required.
Most, if not all, of our school councils today have an ability to call in, from time to time, an expert in a field. A school might be working on a project where it requires, or would like, the expertise of an architect, planner, engineer or someone who knows how to construct a car park. A school has the ability to call in these experts, and this is what will be able to occur under this model.
The Land Development Corporation is the Northern Territory government’s strategic land release development agency. It is highly instrumental in the development of the Northern Territory. Through the Land Development Corporation the Northern Territory government is able to deliver innovative development and management of industrial, residential and commercial land.
I take this opportunity to outline the important work the Land Development Corporation has been doing, particularly in the area of industrial development.
The Tiwi Islands has been rubbished by the opposition today. It is a sad day in parliament when the opposition rubbishes this government for trying to get on and stimulate the economy in our regions so Indigenous people can prosper.
I have heard the Chief Minister talk about how this Northern Territory has spoken long and hard about Indigenous land rights. This Chief Minister talks about Indigenous economic development and rights, and that is what we need to focus on. I struggle in my role as the Minister for Education to provide proper carrots for children to go through school in many regions, and for what? For what reason do you provide an education for a child if there is no economic base in those communities?
This Chief Minister is trying to build economies in the regions, and this is where the Land Development Corporation has been very successful.
I sign documents every day that basically allow someone an extension of time. Let us look at leases in the Finniss region; these were signed under a previous CLP government, and then re-signed under the former Labor government. Why? You could have recalled those leases, but we are trying to stimulate development, so the people who hold those leases in the Finniss were given extensions.
It is not that we want to take those leases away from people; it is that we are trying to stimulate development. We will not withdraw the lease, but work with them to try to stimulate the economy in that area. That is exactly what is happening on the Tiwi Islands.
The Tiwi Islands investment is one of the most compelling investment opportunities in the Northern Territory. The Country Liberals government is committed to supporting the island’s continued economic development, and this investment is about partnering with Tiwi people to unlock the region’s potential. It encourages new investment in the agriculture, aquaculture and tourism sectors.
The Land Development Corporation facilitates this by identifying up to 100 040 ha of land that is able to be leased on a 99-year agreement to provide security and flexibility for investors – trying to stimulate the economy, work and job opportunities for Indigenous people in the regions, but apparently that is a crime.
East Arm Logistics Precinct, one of the Territory’s fastest growing industrial precincts is a purpose-built district to assist businesses to grow and capitalise on future projects in the region. The precinct includes Darwin Business Park, a common user area for businesses wanting to lease secure hardstand areas on short to medium terms, a multi-user barge facility, the Marine Supply Base, a transport hub and the new Marine Industry Park. The Land Development Corporation has been essential in facilitating and managing this massive investment in the Northern Territory’s future.
The Marine Industry Park offers 130 ha of premium waterfront land for marine-related developments. This is an exciting project which capitalises on the unbounded potential of the Northern Territory in the areas of offshore oil and gas, onshore minerals production and defence. The Land Development Corporation has accelerated this investment.
The LDC has been instrumental in a number of residential releases in Central Australia and Palmerston. The most recent project, close to my heart, which recently commenced was Maluka Views in Palmerston. Have you seen the growth in the Darwin CBD? It is amazing for me, being from Palmerston, to see it. The growth in Palmerston is phenomenal, and when you see a crane, the first for a long time in Palmerston, it is exciting. The new hotel and investment, again facilitated by the LDC, will inspire that city to grow even more. To see the new shopping centres there, the housing developments going ahead, thinking back to the Maluka site and understanding what that will turn into – it will revitalise the city centre area and fix a design fault there. That fault is the egress to the Hub complex, which is extremely busy most nights of the week.
The Land Development Corporation has, on behalf of the Northern Territory government, delivered for Territorians by facilitating ongoing economic growth. This bill allows the LDC to act commercially whilst achieving cost savings and streamlining business functions. This is another initiative of the Country Liberals government to provide efficiencies in facilitating the development of northern Australia.
I commend the bill to the House. The Chief Minister has worked hard in this area, and the LDC is a great facilitator. It is something that can be used to get in there, work with business and ensure we capitalise on opportunities which are about to, and already have, hit the Northern Territory. You need to have an organisation like this with the right framework; this legislation provides that framework to ensure it does what it is supposed to do, which is to facilitate development in northern Australia.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, the development of this bill and the dodgy payment of $1m to Tiwi Resources have much in common. One similarity is the haste with which both were undertaken. We have read, in documents tabled in the Assembly, about the mad rush to get the $1m payment out the door, despite the serious reservations of senior public servants. This significant amount of taxpayers’ funds was transferred, even though a Cabinet decision authorising the payment had not been seen by the Land Development Corporation’s chief executive officer or chief financial officer.
We have tabled the e-mail which sets out the chief financial officer’s apprehension about making the payment without proper authorisation. The haste in developing this bill was confirmed by the Chief Minister’s second reading speech. In an extraordinary admission, he said:
- The recent resignation of existing board members has created an exceptional circumstance for the corporation to prepare an urgent bill without Cabinet authorisation, to be presented to Cabinet with a rolled up submission, seeking retrospective endorsement for the drafting of the bill, as well as approval to introduce the bill.
We have heard Cabinet is dysfunctional. This shows that dysfunction writ large.
As the member for Johnston said in his reply to the Chief Minister’s second reading speech, this assertion is deceptive because board members were invited to resign, in the full knowledge the board would be abolished by the government. However, there are more important matters to be raised concerning the great haste in which the bill was prepared without the usual prior Cabinet approval.
What has driven the urgency to make these amendments? Is there any connection between this urgency and the payment of $1m to Tiwi Resources Pty Ltd? Will the emasculation of the board’s function and membership reduce the accountability and scrutiny of the LDC payment of $1m? This would be possible under the current act, but will not be open to the board if proposed amendments are passed.
It is crystal clear the rationale of this bill is to abolish the power of the board to advise the corporation on any aspect of the LDC payment of $1m in return for leases that have never been executed. Under proposed amendments, new ad hoc boards, if any are appointed by the minister, can only advise on matters referred by the minister or the corporation. That stands in stark contrast to the broad charter of the board under the current act to advise the LDC on any matter, including how it undertakes its activities. We know transparency and probity are not in this Chief Minister’s DNA, but the abolition of the board and its replacement with a neutered entity is a focused attack on the LDC’s accountability.
Labor has a proud history of supporting economic and social development for Indigenous Territorians, but economic development and job creation must be undertaken in accordance with proper financial accountability and in open consultation with our Indigenous communities and landowners. The emasculation of the LDC’s board function and composition will undermine both of these activities.
Yesterday we tabled in this parliament a petition from Tiwi Islands’ traditional owners who have never been consulted about proposed leases on their land and knew nothing about the payment of $1m to Tiwi Resources. Now we have a bill before the House which further undermines the prospect of proper consultation with Tiwi Islanders on what the government plans to do on their land.
The Chief Minister should withdraw this bill and strengthen the role of the LDC board, not emasculate it. This is a disgraceful day, and at the centre of this shocking disgrace is this Chief Minister.
We reject this bill.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition was talking about the way in which the Giles government has worked around this board it is looking to move aside, because the Land Development Corporation is now in a position to govern itself. I hark back to NTETA, which the opposition changed; we now have a situation where training and employment needs are so badly matched that the system is completely unworkable. This government has had to put NTETA back together so business finally has a voice again in the way employment and training operate. It has been my pleasure to play a part in this.
It is important to note that one of these organisations was not running well and the other one was. We had a situation in employment and training where some organisations were training people and putting them out at entirely the wrong time. For example, people who work in the tourism industry were being passed and graduated in time for the Wet Season, when there are not many tourists here. We were training fantastic tourism operators who then left, just as the Leader of the Opposition is now.
I will talk about the Land Development Corporation Amendment Bill, and how well the LDC is doing. The Land Development Corporation is an important string in the government’s bow, aimed at ensuring strategic land is available for the growth of the Territory, particularly as it relates to industrial sectors. The Land Development Corporation is self-supported through the land sales it makes and is not reliant on taxpayer-funded appropriations. It acts commercially and requires careful financial management. The changes put forward to the corporation’s act will free the corporation of the financial burden of carrying an advisory board at full annual remuneration rates. These savings can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The current advisory board has no governance role and existed to provide strategic project advice. Past boards’ advice enabled the corporation to grow into the highly functional business unit we see today. Their advice established financial systems, audit processes and the rigorous Estate Master analysis of projects and proposals to ensure returns on investment. Examples of recent projects in the marketplace include the Truck Central, the Marine Industry Park, Middle Arm, Fannie Bay and not forgetting the Tiwi Islands project.
Having worked in the marine and transport industry, I know how important it is to make sure we have that land available – particularly with the project work coming across the wharf – for laydown yards and areas where businesses can conduct marine supply functions. That land was not made available, and it is fantastic to see the Land Development Corporation putting these projects together in a strategic fashion to make sure things happen in conjunction with the economic development of the Northern Territory.
The changes required now will put the corporation in a position to appoint an advisory board for a specific time and purpose. This will not only save critical funding for land release purposes, but will also enable specific experience and expertise to be brought in when such advice is required. The revised act will allow the corporation to perform even more effectively and efficiently than it has since its establishment over 10 years ago.
I commend the proposed amendments to this act which see this government authority cutting unnecessary costs and red tape consistent with the national reform agenda and, at the same time, increasing its capability.
I recently represented the Minister for Business at a COAG event in Adelaide. Red tape is on the agenda all across Australia. It is fantastic to see this government taking a realistic, get-down get-in- and-do-the-work approach to cutting red tape. We are starting to target certain areas, and the Department of Business is spearheading much of that.
Areas where businesses have had trouble in the past getting through and doing the things they need to do in a timely and efficient manner – this government is committed to making sure businesses can operate and function in an appropriate way.
This is very important because we know small and medium enterprises in the Northern Territory do an awful lot of heavy lifting. They employ an awful lot of people in the Northern Territory, and it is important we support small businesses. It is great to see, through October Business Month, events that have happened. Businesses are starting to see the changes and say, ‘This is a better environment to work in’. They are starting to see the direction and vision of the Giles government gaining traction and beginning to change the way they do business, which is fantastic.
I support the passage of the Land Development Corporation Amendment Bill 2014.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I had the privilege of working with the Land Development Corporation as a previous minister for Lands and Planning. It is interesting to follow on from the member for Blain who, before reverting to the safety of his script, went out into the big wide world of parliament and said, ‘The Land Development Corporation has reached a stage where it can operate on its own and does not need a board’. That was progressive thinking from the member for Blain, but luckily he went back to the safety of his script and added a few other anecdotes as well.
Having had the privilege of working with the Land Development Corporation, acknowledging its success as a major arm of government and recognising that in 2013 it held total assets in excess of $135m and a total income in excess of $57m – that testifies to the success of this organisation and its important role for government. I remember working with the Land Development Corporation and that fierce spirit and determination to get on with the job and deliver for the Northern Territory.
The LDC was fiercely protective of its space and stood proud of its work. I remember the tours I went on as the minister and the incredible people I met, highly skilled experts in their field who were proud to show me the work that was going on. In terms of systems around that, the most integral part of having an overarching support network is an advisory board. Advisory boards have a very important function in overseeing, adding advice, reflection and assessment and valuation.
It is a very important level of accountability. This bill, essentially, wants to change that, as the member for Blain outlined, to where advisory boards will be appointed from time to time. That reflects a ‘make-it-up-as-you-go-along’ approach to a highly successful organisation. Is accountability being maintained?
The member for Johnston and the Leader of the Opposition have raised their concerns around accountability and then, in a very historic day in this parliament, linked it to some other very concerning events under this government.
The Land Development Corporation needs a fully functioning advisory board with a broad charter to advise the corporation’s activities. There is no doubt about that. I celebrate the successes of the LDC with the government and the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment – the East Arm Logistics Precinct, the Marine Supply Base, the multiuser barge facility, the marine supply business sector and the commercial hardstand area.
As the minister said, anybody who has visited that precinct is inspired by the move to create a very efficient, purpose-built and innovative industry space that will support both onshore and offshore activities relating to the development of northern Australia. It is under way and growing in front of your eyes. A very successful organisation is managing it, so I will go to an anecdote: if it ain't broke, why fix it? It does not seem to be broken; it seems to be going from strength to strength.
I was also very proud and privileged to work with the Land Development Corporation on joint venture projects to develop and release land. Those projects, which the current government is telling the story of, were monumental in terms of the development of the cities of Darwin and Palmerston, and what is the capital of northern Australia.
They were projects, once again, that were informed by an advisory board, a board that oversaw those activities and had a lot of expertise in different areas. It was a multiskilled board that provided the high level of accountability needed for a government dealing with taxpayer funds.
As part of the team formulating our position on this, when I read the material from the minister, looked at this bill and discussed it with colleagues in Caucus, I became very concerned as to why these changes were put in place.
Section 13 of the act establishes an advisory board. It states simply and directly that there is an advisory board; however, this section is repealed in the bill, and under proposed section 13 the minister may establish an advisory board. I presume that would be a hand-picked board. That tends to be logical when dealing with many millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money and high-level projects. It relates to going after experts.
I had the privilege of working with the Darwin Port Corporation and headhunting experts. I remember working with the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory and specifically headhunting experts to advise us on a board. The Land Development Corporation was the same.
Let us say that all things being equal, this change in the bill is not much to worry about. However, Chief Minister, you have certainly lost credibility during your time as the Chief Minister. It was not a good start, with the assassination of your party colleague while he was overseas conducting a very important trade mission, but the Territory then accepted you as the Chief Minister. You had the opportunity then to show your colours, but we are starting to see a pattern of avoiding accountability.
It means, as the member for Blain makes very clear, cutting red and green tape. It is desperate behaviour now to get things done your way. It is your way or no way, and it avoids all accountable systems of government.
I hear a lot of talk during my travelling in the bush, but when I come to the big end of town, it is great because many people I know and worked with still talk to me. They like to talk to and inform me. The word on the street is that the Cabinet processes of the CLP government are quite dysfunctional; future inquiries down the track will be able to trawl through those documents and bring them to the light of day. These are the serious records of the accountability of any government.
I have a reservation about the way you have worded your legislation, in regard to the minister establishing this board. It smacks of a hand-picked crew, and you can then hand-pick a crew for one job, dismiss them and hand-pick a crew for another job.
It does not resonate well with the opposition in the game we are competing in, because there have been lots of penalties from the CLP. The CLP is now starting to step up the game and, at the same time, expose itself in the constituency in regard to the level of accountability, where taxpayers’ funds are used and government operations are conducted.
The bill also repeals section 14 and creates new provisions which totally emasculate the role of an advisory board. That is of great concern to the opposition, which puts this as a challenge.
The chief executive officer is appointed by the minister; the Chief Minister has made that very clear during Question Time over the last couple of days. Hansard will reflect his words, but the theme of what he has said is, ‘I appoint the CEO’. You appoint the CEO and the CEO appoints the staff. I accept that too, and you have made that very clear. To use the Chief Minister’s terminology again, his hands are all over it. This bill says the Chief Minister will appoint the CEO. The CEO will be directly responsible to the Chief Minister. The minister will also decide who is on an advisory board.
It is pretty close quarters; it is almost like operating in a submarine. It is business conducted at close quarters, and a very radical shift away from the current systems of visibility and open and transparent accountability with an advisory board. It is a high-level board of representative experts that provides an integral role for the operation, in this case, of the Land Development Corporation, a highly successful arm of government.
Who is driving the intention inherent in this bill? The minister for Lands and Planning gave us a summation of the success of the Land Development Corporation, a synopsis of its activities, portfolio and investments, and then he mentioned the driving force being cost savings. After talking about the enormous successes of the organisation and its portfolios, he talked about the determining factor being cost savings. I do not understand that. Maybe the Chief Minister will elaborate on how much will be saved. Is it $33m? Is that how much will be saved by sacking an advisory board and appointing hand-picked boards from time to time? I am not sure, but the minister for Lands and Planning did not elaborate, other than to say the method and strategy was to deliver cost savings.
One rationale for the changes, according to the Chief Minister, is the cost of operating the board. Once again, there will be cost savings, but I daresay there is a huge risk factor here. For the cost savings that will be delivered, which the Chief Minister will inform parliament about, will they balance out the risk that will be incurred within a current system that is, obviously, highly successful? You must ask those serious questions when you are in opposition. You have to put forward the tough love and the government, hopefully, will respond in good faith.
When you look at some of the CLP’s transactions when in government, it starts to unravel. Maybe accountability is slipping and this bill is all about clouding and covering up. The big issue that has emerged is the matter of $1m to the Tiwi Islands. In a very spiteful attack, the Chief Minister tried to say Labor is against economic development on the Tiwi Islands; the constituency would judge that comment for what it is worth. It is desperate, vindictive political grandstanding from a Chief Minister who, over two days in Question Time, has refused to answer any questions about this $1m.
Having had the privilege of working with the Land Development Corporation, sitting in opposition and being the brunt of vindictive attacks from a neo-liberal politician, I have formed my own opinion that the Chief Minister has his fingers in the till at the Land Development Corporation. He has gone for a desperate cash grab. That is all I can make of this matter because the Chief Minister refuses to answer questions and be accountable to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
I know how this operation works in the Land Development Corporation. I know the integrity of that organisation and its systems of accountability. It seems to me there is something very wrong.
There is a trail of e-mails that support my conspiracy theory, Chief Minister. I want to give you credit, yet there seems to be more and more information emerging to show you have constantly and consistently stepped outside of accountable processes and protocols. Nobody is sacred, and the Land Development Corporation has also fallen victim to your style of self-centred, self-interested management.
I celebrate any investment in the Tiwi Islands. I have visited the Tiwi Islands on a number of occasions and can see its potential, but the difference between the Country Liberal Party and the Territory opposition is that we want to do it properly in an open and accountable manner. Unfortunately, this funding of Tiwi Resources Pty Ltd has taken place outside those accountable, open and transparent government processes. You had your fingers in the till and $1m of that prized and protected Land Development Corporation budget has been transferred well and truly outside of its system of accountability. I share the concerns of the Chief Financial Officer of the Land Development Corporation, who has expressed grave fears in a correspondence trail.
Chief Minister, you are compromising public servants and accountable, professional operators. Your actions are compromising the open, accountable and transparent work of diligent public servants and professional people working on behalf of the Northern Territory taxpayer, and that is very unfair.
The trail of e-mails is of great concern, not only for the lack of accountability, but because of the comprising of these officers I had the privilege of meeting and working with, and who I respect. Chief Minister, that will be one of your legacies which will continue rebounding throughout the Northern Territory public sector and the constituency.
The chief executive officer has also entered into this correspondence trail and, from reading the correspondence, has been totally compromised by a politician. That is a huge risk in terms of good governance and accountability. It is blight on the taxpayer and a disgrace that the chain of command is compromised. There are high-level contract officers who have to be compromised as well to manage the mismanagement of a politician, in this case the Chief Minister.
The Chief Minister has brought this bill to the House and is now trying to seek a legislative instrument to support his individual self-interest style in the management of taxpayer resources. We have seen an incredibly unprofessional self-interested, self-centred approach from a politician now moving it to a higher level, through this bill, that will create a legislative instrument allowing these transactions to take place under the guise of accountable government. That is the twist in this bill. That is one of the reasons the government cannot support this bill.
As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, it is perfect timing from the government. You could not have brought this into the House on a better day, after democracy has been smashed one blow after another. It has been decimated. We are now dealing with a bill that will allow a statutory authority to run its own show outside any accountable systems that have created and maintained an organisation that can stand proud of having total assets in excess of $135m and a total income in excess of $57m in 2013.
It is a successful organisation, but this government sees fit to change it. This government seems fit to attack the provisions and emasculate the role of an advisory board, which will give them extra cover. It will give them the cover they need to operate more effectively within the legislative frameworks of the Legislative Assembly.
I find this to be of great concern. Those members opposite, once again, must question the leadership and direction of the Country Liberal Party government.
I find it amazing that nobody seems to speak about why this government is open and accountable or how this government is transparent. It seems to be a closed shop. There does not seem to be much team playing going on. It is always delegated to one or the other; it is a quick scripted piece and then an exit out the back door. After what I witnessed today, be aware that at this level, as an elected community member, we are held accountable. It does not go away when you jump in your car and leave the car park. You are accountable for life, and that is what we take very seriously on this side.
I concur with the Leader of the Opposition and support our rejection of this bill. I thank the member for Johnston for his work in the Labor team and for creating a good, healthy debate. I thank the Labor Caucus for bringing forward a very strong alternative position. The government can carp and whine and twist and turn, but it must face a very strong argument, an alternative position and opposition to this legislative instrument.
Members on that side should be seriously considering their position on this after the series of attacks on democracy in the Northern Territory today. To add another outrageous cover-up to this litany of CLP, dare I say it – I had better not say it, because the Deputy Speaker will throw me out if I use the ‘c’ word.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, that was the most extraordinary contribution to a debate I have ever heard.
The guy has completely lost it. He said this is some sort of great conspiracy and there will no longer be an advisory board to advise the LDC because it is becoming too expensive. The LDC is a corporation that must run like a business, and is starting to look at the expense of running that business. It costs a lot of money at $190 000. The government’s determination, and the LDC’s advice, is to get rid of that expense. If we need advice we will probably hire a consultant to provide it, rather than keeping a board of $190 000 per year. That is a massive conspiracy, according to members opposite. That is leaving the reservation in an astonishing way. At least we are not generating headlines – ‘Labor is scum, filthy, corrupt’. That was the headline of the Northern Territory News of 28 August.
We can all use that sort of language, but we must stump up some evidence. Unfortunately, as usual, the fantasy world in which members opposite live goes from the ridiculous to the even more ridiculous with every passing breath.
I am quite convinced the LDC going to the Northern Territory government, telling it the cost of the board – $190 000 a year – and suggesting it could seek advice from other sources more cheaply is a straightforward commercial decision. To call it anything else is to gild the lily, which is the problem with members opposite. Every time they think they are on to an issue, rather than stick with it and explore it they gild the lily and start to expand to areas which are fascinating.
One of these includes the bizarre assertions we have been listening to during the last two Question Times about the LDC’s contribution to the Tiwi Islands. It is an effort to try to get something happening on the Tiwi Islands; as I understand it, a prospectus has been produced as a result of commercial decisions the LDC has taken in that space.
If that is correct, there is nothing improper. It is a case of making an allegation repeatedly until such time as something sticks. Rather than making the effort and working some yards you sit on your backsides in this place, use the ‘c’ word and determine to go down this path.
Debate suspended.
REORDER OF BUSINESS
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, at the request of the member for Nelson I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 153, General Business Order of the Day No 1 be postponed until the next General Business Day.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to try to accommodate members opposite, but if you make such a motion you must explain why. I have had no communication from the member for Nelson in relation to re-ordering the business of the day, and I have had no communication from members opposite.
The order of business, as it appears on the Notice Paper, is the order of business we try to work with. I will not make a big song and dance of it, but when you make such a motion you can at least say why. This is so people who need to be in the House to debate these matters can be informed they do not have to be here, or so the next matters of business can be dealt with by people who might be otherwise indisposed. A little courtesy with some warning would be useful.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Standing Order 153 does not require an explanation, so I am happy to put the motion.
Ms WALKER: The member for Nelson approached me and we took advice from the Serjeant-at-Arms. The member for Nelson is perhaps in a place at the moment where he does not feel obliged to communicate with a government that has shafted him, so if you could put the motion.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Elferink: Next time, keep your communication going, guys.
Ms Lawrie: You have been lying to him for weeks.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The use of the word ‘lying’ is entirely unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the Leader of the Opposition please withdraw?
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw. It is so accurate.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am happy to sit here, let you babble on and chew into your time, or should we start?
WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION AMENDMENT (FIRE-FIGHTERS) BILL (SERIAL 87)
Continued from 20 August 2014.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. I cannot believe we are here again; it has been over 12 months since this bill was first introduced to parliament. Let us remember what this legislation is about. This is, fundamentally, a very good bill and it is right. Why is it right? Because it is a bill to support firefighters, the people on the front line protecting human lives and property in their day-to-day job, knowing very well they could be putting their lives at risk for the protection of others. Day in and day out, they do a very dangerous job, yet here we are, one year after this bill was introduced, and there has been no progress in putting it in place.
We have had to reintroduce this bill because it is right. Our firefighters deserve protection under the Workers Compensation Scheme if they get sick and develop cancer as a result of performing their job. We know, and it has been medically proven, firefighters in the line of duty are more likely to develop certain types of cancers; that is, they are more likely to suffer from cancer as a result of doing their job.
As members of parliament, should we not be doing the right thing and supporting firefighters? Should we not be passing legislation that supports our firefighters if, as a result of their careers on the front line protecting us, they one day develop cancer? What if they have gone to an incident where they have been exposed to dangerous chemicals or substances, and this has meant them developing cancer? Should we not be giving them protection and support through workers
compensation?
That is what this bill is all about. The legislation is about making sure that if a firefighter gets sick as a result of doing their job, the presumption with regard to receiving support through the workers’ compensation system is reversed and it is assumed they have developed cancer as a result of their jobs.
Four firefighters have been fighting for this, and we have been fighting, as members of the opposition, to support them. It is not only four firefighters waiting to find out whether or not they will receive some support from this parliament – particularly from this government which, so far, has pretty much ignored them – it is for firefighters in the future. It is for the people on the job now and who will be on the job tomorrow. It is to ensure we have protections in place for them when they do their jobs.
This is not new in this country. This type of legislation has been in place in many jurisdictions in the United States and Canada, and now it is here in Australia. Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania have this type of legislation, as has the federal government. We have firefighters working on the front line at the airport who are covered by this type of legislation, yet outside the airport other firefighters do not have the same protections in place, which is ridiculous.
The legislation proposed by the opposition is very thorough. The bill covers not only career firefighters, but also volunteer firefighters in the Territory. We know there are many people in the Territory who give their time to volunteer firefighting services in the Territory. In the Dry Season it is pretty tough going, and in those long, dry, hot summers in Central Australia they can be right up against it. The conditions in the Territory make it very challenging trying to protect lives and property. There are many people who work very hard as volunteer firefighters and they also deserve our support.
This bill before the House will be retrospective, meaning it will recognise those firefighters battling cancer at the moment and who deserve our support. So far I have been very disappointed with the government’s response to that, because we do not know where it stands in relation to those four firefighters.
This legislation also covers 16 different types of cancer. Through research these 16 cancers have been found to be more likely linked to people fighting fires. These are cancers they are more likely to develop as a result of their job. However, here we are, a year on, having to reintroduce this legislation.
We can all remember the events of August last year when this bill was first introduced by the member of Fannie Bay. Firefighters were in the gallery, hoping to see some support from the government so this bill could pass and they would receive the support they so wanted for their mates in the job. Instead, the bill was not passed. We were told, ‘She’ll be right, just wait and see. We are currently reviewing workers compensation in the Northern Territory; we will look at it and have something to show you, but we support the firefighters.’ It was clear the government was not ready to give a commitment. These firefighters battling cancer have had to wait over a year and they are very upset, disappointed and feel let down by the CLP government. They do not feel supported at all.
A year on, and what did we see during the last sittings? When the government knew this bill was being reintroduced we finally saw a concession; the CLP was willing to, apparently, introduce its legislation, which we still have not seen the details of, with regard to presumptive legislation recognising that firefighters who develop cancer as a result of their job should be entitled to workers compensation in the Northern Territory. There are some differences between the legislation the opposition has put up and what we anticipate the government, if it does not support this legislation today and goes down the track of introducing its own legislation – from what we information we have been able to get regarding the government’s bill, there will be some differences.
For example, it will not cover as many cancers. We do not know which cancers will not be covered compared to this bill today, but I understand the government was looking to cover about 12 different forms of cancer, not the 16 in the bill we are debating today. The other big question is around the bill being retrospective.
Last sittings, during the heat of debate on another topic, we asked the then Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim, if the four firefighters battling cancer and needing support from the government would receive it. Would the government’s bill cover them through the Workers Compensation Scheme?
If the government proceeds with its bill and fails to support this legislation today, what will happen? Will they be covered? We asked the then Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim, again and again, ‘Will they be covered, yes or no? Will the four people battling cancer be covered by this bill you are meant to be introducing?’ He would not give us a straight answer.
People still do not know. It is not certain and they want an answer. I hope today that, firstly, the government supports the firefighters and this legislation, because it is far more extensive than what we understand it will put up. If the government will not support this legislation, will it give those four firefighters the support they deserve? They have put their lives on the line for Territorians for a very long time. These are career firefighters; these four blokes have been firefighters for a very long time, protecting Territorians and property. They deserve our support. Will the government show its support for them?
Here we are again with the legislation before the House. I hope the government will support the bill today and not hold off any longer. This could have been sorted out in August last year; people could have had certainty over a year ago about what support they would receive. It would have taken a lot of stress off their minds. It would help them with their treatment and in getting on with their lives and planning. It would make them feel far more supported by this government.
I hope we start seeing some of the politics taken out of this debate. This is a clear issue to me. We know the facts with regard to firefighters, their careers and what they are exposed to as a result of doing their job. It is straightforward.
This bill was put up in August last year when we knew the facts. Nothing has changed. We still know these four firefighters are battling cancer and we know firefighters in the future will be battling it as a result of doing their job.
Today this bill is back before the government, and I call on government to do the right thing and support the legislation. Last August when this came up, firefighters were told this was being reviewed as part of the Workers Compensation Act, yet we have seen very little action from the government. We have heard about a so-called bill, but there have been very few details.
Before the government today is a perfectly good, extensive bill. It is a bill that will not only give our career firefighters the coverage they deserve and need, but also volunteer firefighters in the Territory. It is a no brainer. These firefighters deserve our support.
I hope the government stops mucking about and gets down to business in supporting this bill. Firefighters have been waiting too long. We have brought this up time and time again, but is it any surprise we are again talking about the protection of workers? In this case, it is firefighters. We have seen the way government treats other workers. We know they will not sit down and talk to, for example, ambulance officers, another group of frontline service providers saving the lives of Territorians day in, day out. Where is the government when the people who put themselves on the front line to save and protect Territorians need our support and help? Where have you been? It is time to support this legislation.
I have been very fortunate to know Jock McLeod through this process and to have had many conversations with him. He is a very good man who has fought so hard to get this legislation before parliament. He is not the only one; there is also Tommy, Snogga and Danny, who have fought hard, not for themselves, but for their colleagues in the future and against what they will be facing if they are unlucky enough to suffer cancer as a result of doing their job.
Today I hope to finally see, a year too late, the government coming on board to support the Worker’s Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. This is good legislation; it puts the Territory up there, ensuring we have extensive coverage for firefighters and that career and volunteer firefighters are covered too. It ensures 16 cancers are covered, acknowledges there must be retrospective coverage and that people fighting cancer as a result of their job need protection as well.
I look forward to hearing what the government has to say. I hope they will be supportive so we can finally give these firies the support they deserve.
__________________________
Visitors
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of upper primary school students from Maningrida College, accompanied by Matthew Lotherington, Shannon Alexander, Jo Kilminster, Sharon Hayes, Sandy Cutler and Anton Bonson. On behalf of honourable members I extend a warm welcome to our visitors and hope you enjoy your visit to Parliament House this evening.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________________
Mr GILES (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, g’day to everyone from Maningrida. You are working very hard tonight. It is nearly 6 pm, way past your school hours, but it is very good to see you here. We were in Maningrida two weeks ago; we took Cabinet there, and Francis, your local member to my right – give them a wave, Francis. We were there talking to everybody and seeing what we could do to help Maningrida. We looked at your school, and it is good to see you here tonight.
This is an opportunity for the member for Casuarina to learn a bit about politics, because the member for Wanguri presents debate in a sensible fashion. The member for Fannie Bay used to, but he has lost it a bit these days. He gets a bit grubby; he is learning from the Leader of the Opposition, even though he opposes her. I suggest you move to that side, because when you see debates come into this Chamber on a very important matter, and they are constructed properly by people like the member for Wanguri, that is how you start to change things in terms of politics. This is a very important and serious matter when it comes to presumptive legislation around firefighters.
This is something we have discussed many times before, and it has been shrouded in politics because of the poor way it was handled before.
Ms Fyles: By your government.
Mr GILES: Sorry, what was that, Nicole?
Ms Manison: I did not say that.
Mr GILES: Sorry, it was the person who cannot run politics properly. Member for Wanguri, I will talk to you because you have the ability to converse in political speak a lot better than some of your rude and arrogant colleagues over there, but this is a serious issue.
We said we would look at this. It is well known that the final report into the review of the Northern Territory government’s Workers Compensation Scheme has been completed. The report was put on the NT WorkSafe website on August 20 this year, and it is well known that NT WorkSafe recommended all changes be accepted in principle, but with some variations and further suggestions. We have been looking at this intently.
This is before your time, but many others, including the member for Fannie Bay – who has fallen down in his political style trying to over-politicise it – have suggested we need to do this urgently. As you said, it has been a year since it was first raised, which is a shame. You were in government for over 11 years; you were a government adviser, so why did you not do it? It may seem simplistic in a question, but if it was that important why did you not do it?
A serious question to the head of United Voice, Matthew Gardiner: why did Labor not do this when he was the head of the unions? What was it that stopped you doing it? You want to do it now you are out of government.
It is easy for you to criticise us, but you were there. You were an advisor in government, and you did not drive it through. That is a fair question to ask, but a lesson in politics – you would know this lesson because you and I used to work together when you worked for the former minister, Chris Burns. A simple telephone call to talk about these things is how issues are fixed in politics. Member for Casuarina, on this side of the Chamber talking on important policy matters is a part of doing business.
The member for Nhulunbuy has never called me about Gove …
Ms Walker: Oh, yes, I have, you liar!
Mr GILES: The member for Barkly has never called; the member for Nightcliff never rings. To the member for Wanguri …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Ms Walker: I withdraw, even though he has been most dishonest.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have less calling across the floor, please.
Mr GILES: Member for Wanguri, the way business used to be done when you were working for Chris Burns was a good way of running politics and policy, and achieving change in the Northern Territory. You do not have to be in government to achieve change; you and I know that. You have the ability to run that model. Member for Casuarina, spend a bit of time talking to the member for Wanguri and you will receive much better lessons than you will from anyone else.
In regard to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the changes you have proposed, we will not be accepting the bill because we are working on it. We are accepting recommended changes. We will come to parliament very soon with some of those changes; we have been chatting in Cabinet about some of the last minute variations in some of these areas. It will be discussed this Friday coming, hopefully for introduction next week, with some changes to support those firefighters.
At this stage we are only looking at firefighters. I have been in discussion with colleagues, most notably the members for Daly and Goyder, about how we can also encompass volunteers and auxiliaries into this frame to support them. It is a little easier said than done, but we are looking at that now. That may end up coming as an amendment later if I can get some things done and the bouncing ball follows the right process.
It is interesting you have said it a little more delicately, but your other colleagues, who are very poor at politics, have screamed loudly about why this has not been done. You said it should have been done a year ago; these things take time. If it was that simple, you would have done it when you were in government.
I have recommended to Cabinet, should any changes come forward through our proposed bill – which I anticipate may come – that it should not be backdated to the date when it was first raised as an issue in this Chamber, but taken back to 25 August 2012, when we came into government. I cannot take it any further beyond that because if it was that important you would have done it when you were in government. There is obviously a reason you did not do it. I am not sure what that was, but we will take it back to the day we came into government. That is a guarantee from me, should it pass Cabinet in that form. That is for any proposed bill we may bring in; this is not your legislation. That is a commitment and something that will be considered later this week in Cabinet.
It is an important issue. I feel for those who are in the firefighting industry, including those who are auxiliaries and volunteers. It is something that is under consideration, and we are looking at how we can make changes to this into the future. We have to understand the full complexities of it. I hope, should the bouncing ball follow the way I believe it may go, there may be some changes through an amendment. If not, we may have to look at a later date. It is definitely on our radar in regard to how we want to change that.
I do not need to say much more, but I encourage you to go back to the old model of governance, when you were in government and we were in opposition, where a simple phone call could help resolve some policy and legislative matters so things could be worked through collectively. As I said, you do not need to be in government to make change. If you are prepared to work together, you can make change for the betterment of the Territory and, in this case, firefighters.
If that approach had been taken earlier, rather than the political argy-bargy of the descending member for Fannie Bay, this may have been resolved a lot earlier. We will not be accepting this bill, but we will be working on the issue going forward. If you would like to have a briefing next week, I would be very happy to provide one to outline where government is going in this area.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is appalling that our Chief Minister gave seven minutes to this debate. We are talking about important legislation that will be life-changing for some of the most valuable members of our community.
As shadow minister for Public Employment, I wholeheartedly support this bill, not only for our firefighters of today but our firefighters of the future, some of who might be sitting in the gallery watching this debate.
Chief Minister, you have dragged this on for a year. Last year in parliament I watched the then Deputy Chief Minister jump up and down and carry on; he then chased firefighters outside, and I witnessed him tell them he would do something about it. ‘It will be okay, mate.’ He spoke to them as if he knew them. He had them believing your government cared, but you do not. If you genuinely cared you would have done something in the time you have been in government.
These people – some of who are, sadly, sick – are fighting not only their illness, but a battle with the government as well. The least you can do is pass this legislation; I do not understand why you will not support it. If you want your own legislation, you have had a year to introduce it. Pass this legislation tonight and support these people. Acknowledge the four sick gentlemen and all our firefighters and their efforts.
You have talked about your bill, draft reports and things on websites. There are concerns about this, and you suggested you may introduce some legislation next week that will still not cover volunteers.
We do not have time; we need you to support this legislation and our firefighters tonight. It is not about politics. You know what the right thing to do is. You know that by supporting this legislation, you will be supporting some of our most valuable frontline workers. These are Territorians who, every day go to work and put their lives at risk when they attend incidents. Over time they have also sadly developed cancer as a result of their jobs. The research is there, which my colleagues, the members for Wanguri and Fannie Bay, have spoken about.
We are not asking you to put something in place that has not been proven. We are not asking you to pass legislation other states and territories do not have. It is ironic that firies working on the airport site are covered by legislation protecting them, yet less than one kilometre away our Territory firefighters are not protected.
Of all the issues we could be divided on, you choose this one. You are playing politics with people our community support and respect.
This is a good bill, and I thank my colleague, the member for Fannie Bay, for his efforts. He has spent a lot of time working on this bill and talking to firefighters; he has introduced all of us to some of the gentlemen fighting their own illnesses. He has worked with the union. I think it was last year when United Voice approached him as the shadow minister responsible; I know they approached the government, but you ignored them, which was so wrong.
Our firefighters have been waiting too long for this legislation, and it would be wonderful if you could come to the Chamber tonight, acknowledge the debate and pass this bill.
I do not understand, Chief Minister, what you have against our frontline workers. Amongst our key frontline workers are our firefighters, who we are talking about in this debate. You refused to talk to ambulance officers and laughed at our emergency department nurses. I will never forget sitting here looking across the Chamber when you giggled at the figure of 72 emergency department nurses as having signed a petition.
I hope, Chief Minister, you never get sick and have to go to RDH. I have friends who are nurses, and they are waiting to talk to you about the dangerous conditions they work in day in, day out. Not only do we have double-bunking, we now have triple-bunking. We have total bed block because you shut down the medi-hotel for its intended purpose. They cannot move people through the hospital. The Health minister laughed and said you cannot take people from the ED to the medi-hotel. We were not proposing that. RDH is in chaos, but I do not understand what this government has against our frontline workers, our ambulance officers, nurses and firefighters.
We have been aware of this for a year. We have legislation, so if you can put the politics aside, do the right thing for these people and pass this legislation – I know you do not want to listen to me, particularly the Chief Minister. He does not mind the member for Wanguri, but every time something is mentioned, he picks on the member for Nightcliff, which is fine; I have broad shoulders, I can handle it.
If you do not want to listen to me, listen to Andrew McLeod and his family’s story. Andrew is a legend in the Territory, but you probably do not know that because you have not been around long enough. The open letter he sent to you and the government last year was printed in the Northern Territory News:
- It has been interesting to read the stance, or lack of one, on the presumptive legislation that should enable Territory firefighters to access compensation for treatment of cancer-related illness. The fact that those in leadership aren’t from the NT is possibly one of the reasons they don’t get it, or maybe it’s that they don’t have the courage to make such a big decision because of the repercussions that may come their way from a big corporate.
My dad was diagnosed with cancer along with some other amazing men that I grew up idolising as a young boy in Darwin and Katherine. Many hours of my youth were spent at the old Daly Street fire station watching everyday heroes suiting up to battle a blaze or rush off to pull another fellow Territorian out of a car wreck or burning building. Something that you and I could only dream of.
All I wanted to do was to be a fireman growing up, but I was steered away from this line of work after everything my dad had witnessed and been a part of. He has, for the record, served over 45 years in this job. I know these men personally and they never seek to be lauded in any way, they never brag about the lives they have saved or do ever disclose about the lives they couldn’t save.
My dad and his mates they are saying don’t not warrant compensation and should have to prove which fire it was that caused the cancer, never once questioned going head first into a fire without the right protective gear, nor did they think twice about choosing to stay behind and rebuild Darwin after Cyclone Tracy destroyed it.
Should I mention my mum, who passed away from cancer early this year? She had to clean the uniforms my dad came home with, covered in smoke, ashes and remnants of the blazes he had fought each day. Early on, she never had the luxury of a washing machine, like we do today – she scrubbed them by hand.
So I ask you this, ‘what about the wives?’ I’m pretty sure their exposure would have something to do with some of the illnesses they have contracted as well. But I know they wouldn’t have ever questioned doing their duties as a wife.
I hope it never happens to them, that those politicians that sit on their high horses and make/don’t make decisions ever get cancer through working in the Territory’s version of the White House. I bet if this ever happened though, legislation would be passed quicker than Terry Mills was back-doored out of the leadership.
It’s about time the Government had a good look at themselves and what they stand for, because at the moment it seems very little. If they want to have an impact and be a part of the Territory, then maybe they should start looking after Territorians.
If they seek any further proof, they should get directions and go down to the Old McMillans Rd or Thorak cemeteries and look for some of our fallen firies from the past and find out exactly how those heroes passed on. I bet they’d get a rude shock if they did their homework. That’s if they are game enough.
We need to pass this legislation so we can protect past firefighters who are, sadly, ill, and those going forward. Chief Minister, sadly, some of these firefighters do not have time for you to have a chat; they are quite ill. It would mean so much if you could pass this legislation. What does it mean to you? This legislation is something other states and territories have. We are not asking for anything unique. It is well known these men developed cancer as a result of their job. We sent them to fires without the appropriate clothing and equipment. We sent them without breathing masks to protect them. They have made the ultimate sacrifice for us; think of all those lives they have saved over the years, and we are turning our backs on them. What is most frustrating is that a year ago in this House we debated this. Legislation was not passed that night, but we thought that debate had raised enough awareness with the government about this issue.
When the member for Fong Lim followed those men outside and pretty much promised them he would look into it and do something – I am not sure of his exact words, but I am sure Jock and the others would happily share them – they genuinely thought something would happen, but no. A year later, we are still waiting. We can end that tonight by passing this legislation. Our firefighters have been waiting far too long; to Jock, Tommy, Danny, Snogga and all our firefighters, we will not stop. We will keep raising this issue and we will make sure this legislation, when it finally passes through the House, protects you.
It is appalling that the Chief Minister and government are playing games with the date. The date we introduced it, a year ago, is where you will backdate it to. The legislation introduced then would have been retrospective to cover those firefighters who are sick and those who have run out of sick leave; TIO, as I understand it, keeps mucking them around. Our legislation would encompass them, but you are playing games. Tonight, we hear it will go back to 25 August 2012. Wake up to yourselves. Pass the legislation retrospectively to help all our current and past Territory firefighters who need it.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I pick up on the comments by the Chief Minister in relation to this legislation being in the Cabinet book at the moment. Presumptive legislation is before the government for consideration and all things being equal – I cannot second guess the conversation in the Cabinet room – that legislation will, in every likelihood, be before the House in the not so distant future.
One thing I am always cautious about when we create presumptive legislation is that it talks about a legal presumption, not the presumptions some members would care to make in this place. I am sympathetic towards firefighters, police officers and any number of people who, as a matter of course in their daily jobs, go about their business and expose themselves to danger. Some of the dangers those people expose themselves to are immediate and obvious.
Police officers will take on people with knives, guns and pointed sticks, etcetera. If there is danger from a needle stick injury in nursing – there is proximity between the injury and any subsequent damage that is caused, and proximity is one of the issues. Proximity is one of the fundamental issues of the law of tort. The difficulty with these sorts of cancers is creating a proximal link between the illness and the exposure. The proximal link to which this presumptive legislation refers is essentially a statistical one.
When a type of cancer is formed, it tends to be more prevalent in people who have been exposed to different kinds of smoke. In the course of my role as a police officer and volunteer firefighter, I was, on many occasions, exposed to smoke from grass fires, chemical fires, etcetera. This also included vehicle fires, which were quite common, and I even remember jumping into Red Rooster on Bagot Road one day to hose down a fire started by an arsonist inside that shop.
I would have to show, if I was ever to develop lung cancer, by way of example, there was a proximal link between exposure to smoke as a police officer and the lung cancer I had developed. I am also a former smoker. I used to smoke lots of cigarettes so if I ever developed lung cancer, it would probably have more to do with my exposure to cigarette smoke than fire smoke incurred on the job.
Many of these people who have been firefighters may have been smokers as well. Smoking was extremely common in the 1970s. We used to sit in police cars, drive around town with the windows up, air conditioners going and smoke all day long. I imagine people in the fire service were also regularly exposed through cigarette smoking in those days. If you walked into the muster room of a police station, cigarettes and ashtrays were all over it, and people smoked inside buildings. I smoked in the communications section in the old Mitchell Street police station. We would literally sit there with the running sheet and a fag hanging out of our mouths.
I raise these issues because presumptive legislation is reversing a presumption at law. Reversing the presumption at law means you are saying where there is now a presumption, generally, against a cancer being linked with a type of exposure as the result of being a fireman, there will be, at law, a presumption for it. There seems to be an automatic assumption amongst members opposite that a presumption in favour of it – you have developed a type of cancer which is more prevalent amongst firemen than the general population – means we will presume at law that your exposure to smoke for many years was a direct result of your job. The implications of that are workers compensation insurance payments. That is what this argument is about.
I advise members opposite to not make the presumption that insurers will automatically start to say, ‘Of course we accept your claim outright because there is a presumption’. Because there are hundreds of thousands of dollars attended to these sorts of payments, insurance companies will tend to still ask the question of a person making a claim. If lung cancer is one of the types of cancer involved – of course, you can develop lung cancer having never smoked and never been exposed to toxic substances. Sometimes, you can just develop lung cancer. Insurance companies may start to look at the history of firefighters and ask questions such as, ‘How many cigarettes did you smoke? Do you still smoke cigarettes?’
Where there is a belief, magically, that insurance companies will not ask hard questions, I am not entirely sure that will always be the case. In fact, I suspect insurance companies may, if the legislation is not drafted correctly and carefully considered, use the legislation as a vehicle by which they start to stridently resist claims against their compensation funds. They will do so in an effort to test the quality of evidence. It would go to court, where all circumstances of the cancer would be examined in an attempt to test the quality of the evidence or assumptions. Presumptive legislation carries in it a capacity to rebut the presumption, and that is what it is about.
When members say this is about stopping people having to go through a painful process, it is conceivable that firefighters, particularly those who have smoked, may find themselves in even longer and more tawdry litigation in an effort to fight the insurance company trying to rebut the presumption.
For that reason and other reasons like it, government then goes through a very careful process of doing its homework and research. I do not seek to diminish efforts made by members opposite. I will presume they are not playing politics on this but genuinely want to see this change. I want that too, but I am not an expert on the law of tort. I cannot – and probably cannot be expected to – cast my mind, with all the other distractions of my job, as we all have as members of parliament, to the substantial body of law surrounding compensation claims, workers compensation claims and claims made under presumptive legislation. For that we rely, and lean very heavily, on our public servants, who are professional and experienced people who know how to bolt this stuff together.
The bill brought before this House will have been drafted by an expert drafter and, no doubt, some research will have gone into it. However, the nature of a Cabinet document, as members opposite who have sat in Cabinet will know, is that whilst it grinds along ever so slowly, it make its way through a number of checks and balances, not least of which are through legal experts with expertise in the field of tort law pertaining to workers compensation matters. Those legal experts will push it through their filter.
Once the idea has been proposed, Cabinet ratifies that a bill be created. The minister trots off, has the bill created and then brings it back to Cabinet after it has gone through every department for relative input.
For those of you who have seen Cabinet documents, these are the infamous blues that sit on the front of Cabinet documents. Each department will write a note. Treasury will make a note; no doubt Treasury will say, ‘This is very concerning because it has financial implications’.
Police, Fire and Emergency Services will make a note and discuss all issues of concern. No doubt the departments of Health, Education, Business – through WorkSafe – and a number of other departments will have input into the process of the legislation. You then have a massive body of experience looking at the bill. As a consequence of that you have a bill that will have considered all issues, we hope, that must be considered through a process like this. It still goes back to Cabinet for its final ratification; that final ratification process will occur very shortly, and you heard the Chief Minister refer to it.
The reason we cannot talk in absolutes at the moment is because neither the Chief Minister nor I, as members of Cabinet, are in a capacity to pre-empt the board’s decision. There may be a last minute glitch in the system. There may be a last minute matter of concern that prevents this matter from being finally approved by Cabinet and could possibly delay it even further. However, we hope, with the amount of work that has already been done and the fact this has been to Cabinet twice, if memory serves me, that we are finally in a position to pass a bill which has been broadly considered.
I am sure members opposite would agree it is important to make sure this bill is checked, re-checked, double checked and then checked again to make certain all relevant considerations have been made and digested by all relevant parties. This is so we have a bill which is the most workable for all people concerned, most importantly the potential claimants under the legislation.
If members opposite would like to see all of that it would be proper of them to accept defeat of the bill before the House now. This is because it has not been through all those checks and balances; they should accept that the government bill, which will hopefully be introduced next week subject to a Cabinet decision, will be the better of the two by virtue of it having travelled more broadly in the interests of those people who will be affected by its operation.
Woe betide this House if, in a fit of desperation to pass this bill and have it operational, we act in haste and get it wrong.
The bill we have before the House has not gone through that rigorous process. There were instances under the former Labor government, to their congratulations, where they took a bill – I think it was from Terry Mills – for example, a very simple amendment to the Police Administration Act relating to medals. The former government allowed that private member’s bill to go through the Assembly. However, it also went through a very rigorous process of government before it was passed by the House.
It was not a difficult bill, it was very simple. We ask, if members opposite are not playing politics with this, that they ensure this has been properly pushed through the system by the minister. I imagine they will have written a number of letters, made a number of phone calls and sent a number of e-mails to the government saying, ‘How can we ensure the bill we have brought before the House is the right one to produce?’
I have not heard that from members opposite. They brought the bill in, well intended, and let it sit on the Notice Paper. We have taken it off, looked at it and it pulls up short in a couple of areas. Should our workers compensation scheme be approved by Cabinet next week, what we will present to the House will go into a range of issues that affect workers and employers across the board, not only firefighters.
We will make it clear that rather than dealing with things in isolation, we will deal with matters more globally to ensure individuals are properly protected. The Country Liberals government review was about a scheme that looked into the welfare of all workers. I would hate to find ourselves in a situation where, in our enthusiasm to protect firefighters, noble as it is, we have overlooked other people who might be exposed to workplace injuries caused by exposure to chemicals or other products, where a presumptive scheme might work.
This legislation before the House might pull up short because it does something for professional firefighters, but it does not do it, necessarily, for volunteers or other players in the field. I urge one of two ways forward to the leader of opposition business about this. It is up to the leader of opposition business to give me some guidance in this space, but if they are genuinely concerned about this, adjourn it and let it sit on the Notice Paper. Let us move onto the next item of business and see if we introduce the bill next week. If you are not prepared to do that and will press the issue today, what you will fairly allow me to do is accuse you of playing politics with this, because you will not be prepared to act in the interests of the people you believe you represent.
It is a straightforward suggestion, because in the face of something that may come forward to the House next week after it goes through Cabinet, we cannot pass this and then look at the next bill next week. It would have to be redrafted because there would be a new law on the statute book that we would have to deal with, and it would delay the government bill. If you were to wait, bring it back during GBD, not next week, but the next sittings before Christmas – and we will see if we bring our bill into the House in the meantime. It is a straightforward suggestion and will enable us to take comfort from the motivations of members opposite.
We would like to cast a wider net; we would like to look after nurses and emergency services workers more broadly, and we would like to look at a number of things in relation to what we bring into the House. In the meantime, rather than forcing the issue today and having the question put, seek leave to adjourn this debate, leave it sitting on the Notice Paper and we can come back to it in a month. We will be in a much better position to do what is necessary to protect not only the firefighters of the Northern Territory, but any number of other workers who may be affected by a government bill.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the contributions from members this evening, who covered a broad range of topics. The member for Nelson could not contribute tonight, but he has given me permission to verbal him, so to speak, in the debate tonight. He said he supports this bill, and that he would talk to that. He had a few questions around volunteers, who are included in this bill, and the test there. He accepted that we have responded to his concerns about the first version of this bill that was voted down last year, and that he intended to vote in support of this legislation.
The member for Nelson would have been here to speak for himself and to vote, but after separate business this afternoon, he is not in parliament tonight. It is a real shame, because the debate would have benefited from the contribution of the member for Nelson. I would have appreciated his vote, but he is not here to provide it. However, he did give me permission to comment on his behalf; I have obviously not spoken as well as he would have.
Bipartisanship came up during several contributions tonight, and that was the spirit in which this came forward. When I first met with firies after I took over this shadow portfolio they said they had extended an offer to the Chief Minister and Police minister to meet them at the same time. They wanted someone to bring this bill forward; they did not mind if it was us or the government, so I honoured a promise from ex-Chief Minister Paul Henderson to meet with them and to bring this bill forward. Paul made a personal commitment to them during the 2012 general election. We have heard the CLP ask why we did not do anything about this during our 11 years in government, and it is a bit of a furphy.
The Commonwealth Senate held an inquiry in 2011, from which a report was handed down late that year. We have largely based our bill on that report, as well as on bills that now exist in most other states and at federal level. In late 2011, the Chief Minister and Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services met with firefighters; he said we were going into an election in 2012 and he guaranteed that if we won he would bring this bill forward. We did not win, but as shadow minister I promised firefighters I would continue that work. They extended the same offer to the current government, because they wanted to see this happen and did not mind who did it. There was genuine interest from firefighters and the union to get this done.
We brought a bill forward last year, and I genuinely expected support on the principle. I was surprised to see the member for Fong Lim break convention and jump, immediately after my second reading introductory comments, to say they would not support the bill. It obviously surprised firefighters too. It was at that point the member for Fong Lim introduced politics and accused firefighters of being political for bringing this forward. We were all stumped by that.
Firefighters had a genuine issue, and leading up to that point, with the media we had spoken to and the comments we had made – you are welcome to read in Hansard the way I spoke on the original version of that bill; it was in the spirit of bipartisanship and about a genuine issue. I wanted to fix this, and we were stunned the member for Fong Lim said no to the principle of presumptive legislation. He became quite aggressive in how he dealt with firefighters. I expected the member for Fong Lim, during his second reading comments and as the minister chosen to handle the issue, to say something along the lines of …
Mr Elferink: I move that the debate be adjourned…
Mr GUNNER: We expected him to say that the first time around. When he spoke a month later, we thought he would say, ‘We understand the principle, but you are in opposition and we are in government. We think we can do a better job, and we will be bringing forward our own bill.’ However, instead he jumped, on the spot and off the cuff, to say no. He then proceeded to attack firefighters, which took us all by surprise.
I expected to raise this issue, get some action happening and then the government would come forward with its own bill. That was not the case, which was a shame. The member for Nelson contributed to debate and gave us a couple of things he wanted us to work on, which we have done; I will touch upon those in a minute. We then waited a year to bring the bill back to parliament.
There are some important differences between this bill and what the CLP has advised us it will do, through Dorothy Dixers, media, debate tonight and other forums. There are some important differences between this bill and what the CLP is bringing forward, which I will go through. It is …
Mr Elferink: That is what concerns us.
Mr GUNNER: That is what concerns me. We both have concerns, but different approaches to them. Regarding timeliness, if the Chief Minister had read the earlier debate, he will have read the answer to that issue. That is why we did not do it during our term of government. It came up late in our last term. The Chief Minister made a promise to make it happen in this term. We are no longer in government, so we have done it as an opposition.
The Attorney-General spoke for quite a while about presumption and, in some respects, presumption versus assumption. I have met with the firefighters and talked this through with them. As it was a concern of mine, I did not want them to think we were making a blanket promise. They understand how presumption works. There is no assumption from them that this is an automatic free ride, for a couple of reasons. One is that you have to be suffering with cancer, which no one wants. They also understand that presumption has shifted. It does not mean you automatically receive compensation; the insurance company still has the right of rebuttal. The experience they have had to date in trying to receive cover has been extraordinarily difficult.
I will use Jock as an example of the most recent person who has gone through this. He was being asked to provide evidence of the fires he attended, when the government had no records of this. It was impossible for him to answer the question for the insurance company. Government, whether CLP or ALP, had not been keeping that data over the period of time Jock served. We were asking Jock to provide information we did not have, which proved extremely difficult.
Through that Commonwealth Senate inquiry, the federal government developed legislation. In Tasmania, the ACT, Western Australia and South Australia much work has been done. The Attorney-General asked where the medical evidence is and how this has come forward. It is all based on statistics. A significant body of work has been done regarding what should be covered and the evidence. This bill has been crafted around that.
Firefighters understand how presumption works and how we have arrived at this point in time. They know what is going on. They are finding it almost impossible and would welcome the onus changing. The CLP has accepted this point now too, because it is saying it will bring its own legislation which includes presumption.
When I first introduced this bill, the Commonwealth, the ACT and Tasmania were, from memory, the jurisdictions that had it. Since then, South Australia and Western Australia have introduced their own acts.
One of the big differences between our bill and what the CLP will present is whether volunteers and auxiliaries are included. Our bill includes them and the CLP’s bill does not. I am surprised; I will use South Australia as an example – this is from an ABC article:
- The South Australian Government was among the first in the world to compensate firefighters automatically for job-related cancers.
It was not the first in Australia, but one of the first in the world.
It was a good news story because it covered career firefighters, but it did not cover volunteers. They have now said that was a mistake, and they are revisiting the legislation to include them:
The minister, John Rau, said in an ABC report:
- I accept that when this was originally conceived, the Government probably, in retrospect, should have given more thought to the knock-on implications of providing a benefit to MFS people, in particular the regular volunteers of the CFS.
Now compensation will cover all active volunteers, five years after they have been in the job, and for 10 years after they cease operational duties.
They have fixed their legislation to include volunteers and acknowledge it was a mistake at the time not to include volunteer firefighters. We have included volunteer firefighters in our bill.
In Western Australia it is the same situation. They admitted they made a mistake and will include volunteer firefighters. To quote WA’s Minister for Emergency Services Joe Francis:
- … we announced that cabinet has approved moving forward and drafting the bill that will provide the same presumptive cancer coverage for volunteer firefighters as it does for career firefighters.
…
- The government recognises that if volunteer firefighters and personnel from the Department of Parks and Wildlife and the Forest Products Commission – no matter what branch they come from – are exposed to certain carcinogens through fighting hazardous fires, such as building, rubbish, tip or car fires, they should be given the same principle of coverage and benefit of the doubt that we give career firefighters.
Both those jurisdictions have acknowledged it was a mistake to not include volunteers and will include them in their legislation. They are making those changes now. We have volunteers in our legislation, as they should be included. The change from the earlier bill to this version created some minimum criteria for volunteer firefighters to meet. That was at the request of the member for Nelson.
It is worth noting that SA has given its volunteer firefighters the same coverage as the career firefighters. Where we have limits around X number of fires you have to attend, they are saying, ‘No, it is the same criteria as for career firefighters’.
Career firefighters insisted on volunteer firefighters and auxiliaries being covered. They were aware they had a good case and would get coverage, but said they wanted to make sure volunteers and auxiliaries were also covered. The CLP would be making a mistake, just as SA and WA have acknowledged, if it did not include volunteers and auxiliaries in this legislation.
There are ways of including them. We have chosen a method around attending different fires. Across the nation there have been several different ways used to get there, but volunteers have been included. This riddle has not been solved. This has been done elsewhere and you can do it here, as it is not too hard. I urge the CLP to include volunteers and auxiliaries. That is one important distinction between our bill and the CLP’s. We will support the principle of the CLP’s legislation, but we would seek changes to it. The inclusion of volunteers and auxiliaries is one area which needs to change.
We are also concerned that the government says it will include 12 cancers that are covered in its bill. Our bill has 16 cancers, and they have not said which 12 cancers they have and which four miss out. Our bill includes primary site brain cancer; primary site bladder cancer; primary site kidney cancer; primary non-Hodgkin lymphoma; primary leukaemia; primary site breast cancer; primary site testicular cancer; multiple myeloma; primary site prostate cancer; primary site ureter cancer; primary site colorectal cancer; primary site oesophageal cancer; primary site liver cancer; asbestos-related diseases; skin cancer; and lung cancer. Each cancer has a different length of service with the firies attached to it in order to qualify for compensation. We know firefighters are concerned about not knowing if one of the cancers they have will or will not be included in the CLP’s bill.
I will not go into any firefighters’ personal circumstances, but they are unsure if certain cancers will be included. Our bill, based on medical evidence, offers better coverage than the proposed CLP bill. That is another concern – 16 cancers versus 12. We will be interested in which ones the CLP brings forward and which four it will not cover. That is one of the things we are looking at in the differences between the two bills.
There is also the issue of retrospectivity. The CLP first advised it would be retrospective to 28 August 2013, when I first introduced the bill in the House. The CLP is now saying it will be retrospective to the date it was elected. That is arbitrary. A former firefighter with cancer should not be covered based on the date the CLP was elected.
We have approached this with a threshold question. Has a firefighter or former firefighter in the performance of their duty for the Territory and for Territorians developed cancer on the job? We have accepted that responsibility and the CLP is accepting that responsibility too by bringing forward its bill.
We accept the medical evidence that as a firefighter you are more likely to develop cancer on the job. Done! We have a duty of care as a parliament to look after those firefighters. If a firefighter or a former firefighter has developed cancer and knew about that cancer before the CLP was elected, they have to go through the old system. We are saying nonsense to that. Once you accept the responsibility, you move on. This also goes to the cost issue, which has come up a number of times. Will this be expensive? Again, you must ask the question of yourself. Once you accept responsibility, you must deal with it.
There will not be a massive cost issue here. There are very few firefighters, thankfully, who have come forward since my last bill was introduced, and three former firefighters have passed away due to cancer. Under what circumstances they would have qualified under this bill is a different issue, but there are four who are alive that we know about and three who have passed. We are not talking about massive numbers but we are talking about people, so there is a human face to this bill. Once you have accepted responsibility do not draw an arbitrary line. Do not get into some sort of cost debate; this is something you need to deal with.
In SA’s experience, what they budgeted for has been significantly overestimated, so if that side is concerned about advice from Treasury, maybe ring around other jurisdictions. South Australia has been quite forward in saying costs did not reach what it had budgeted for, and that it was not nearly as expensive as thought.
Once you answer the threshold question about your responsibility, which we are – the CLP has asked this question because it is apparently bringing forward presumptive legislation to accept responsibility – once you accept it, deal with it. These are people who have developed or are at a greater risk of developing cancer from the performance of their duties. That is the third major difference between the two bills, why we will have issues with the CLP bill that comes forward and why this bill is superior. United Voice has written to the government to extend its hand again. I will quote from its letter, which I am happy to table:
- Dear Chief Minister,
We refer to the NT News article of 28 September 2014 in relation to the presumptive cancer legislation for our fire fighter members … the Northern Territory Government have publicly denounced their non-support of the WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION AMENDMENT (FIRE-FIGHTERS) ACT 2013 Bill and are tabling their own Bill in Cabinet.
The Union is genuinely disappointed that the proposed Bill has not been supported by your Government, as it would have provided the best coverage within Australia and internationally. The union hopes that your rejection of the proposed Bill was not based on political reasons, as the objective of the Bill is to remove the unfair barriers which stop firefighters accessing workers’ compensation for scientifically-proven occupational illnesses.
As you are aware United Voice, the NT Firefighters Union, has been tirelessly campaigning for amendments to the current Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to recognise occupational illnesses (presumptive) for firefighters career, auxiliaries and volunteers for several years, as the current legislation has left our dedicated firefighters vulnerable to compensation for work-related occupational illnesses.
…
As the risk of occupational cancers has already been established and the key issue becomes what the appropriate public policy will be, the union is seeking this opportunity for involvement to ensure that the proposed amendments do not disadvantage our fire fighters and provides a Bill which does not water down the WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION AMENDMENT (FIRE-FIGHTERS) ACT 2013 Bill.
We wish to provide adept advice to your government to ensure that our hard-working and courageous firefighters have the same rights as every other worker in Australia to access workers’ compensation for workplace injuries.
That was sent this month. Even though the member for Fong Lim engaged in politics, and even though the CLP voted down our last attempt at this, the union and firefighters are still saying, ‘Please talk to us, we have experience in this area and would love to engage and participate. We would love to give you advice on how to make sure this bill does what it is meant to do, which is provide firefighters with cancer proper access to compensation.’
Please sit down with them. They have written to you, again, saying they are happy to talk. I seek leave to table the letter.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER: They want to talk to you, and they have good advice. The Attorney-General said this has not been voted on yet in Cabinet. They have an opportunity to make sure retrospectivity is included, volunteer auxiliaries are covered and that those cancers are covered; we took ours based on the evidence. Working with current firefighters in the Territory, we know we are covering the right cancers, so there is time for you to include those illnesses. Firefighters have extended the olive branch; they have written to the Chief Minister and asked to meet with him to help ensure this legislation does what it is intended to do.
There are ways to solve those riddles, and this bill does that. In response to the Attorney-General’s request for bipartisanship on this, we ask that the government support a bill that provides presumptive legislation and which includes retrospectivity in a way that does not exclude firefighters. It should also include the 16 cancers, not 12. The three points cover volunteers, retrospectivity and the 16 cancers.
The Attorney-General’s request is that we adjourn this until next Wednesday and see what they bring forward, but you have already told us you will not provide those three things.
Do we vote for a bill today that provides those three things? Are you saying that come next Wednesday, when you look at your bill and realise it is missing those three things, you will add them?
Mr Elferink: You do not know what is in it yet.
Mr GUNNER: You have told us, through Dorothy Dixers, in the media and in your contribution today that your bill will not include those three things.
This bill has been on the table for a very long time now, so I am obviously …
Mr Elferink: You are obviously playing politics.
Mr GUNNER: This is not about politics, member for Port Darwin. We have a bill that covers these issues. We can vote on this bill today, and it includes the coverage I thought you would have looked at.
When we were in government, any opposition bill that came forward – in fact any opposition GBD item – went through a Cabinet process; this should have gone through that. We took every opposition item through a Cabinet process to determine whether we supported them and what was missing and what was not. It is one reason we expected the member for Fong Lim, last year, to say the CLP supported the principle but they would bring forward their own bill. Instead, he said they did not support it at all.
We are happy to go to the vote today. We know we will not win the vote today, as we do not have the numbers. However, there is no reason at all why we cannot work together on the government bill. This one will be voted down. The government is bringing forward a bill, and there is no reason we cannot work out possible amendments to that legislation to take it somewhere. This debate is on today and has been flagged for a long time; I appreciate the member for Port Darwin’s last minute approach, but it was last minute.
We are happy with time. If this bill is voted down, there is still a vehicle available, through the firefighters and union’s offer, for the government bill that will come forward. They have already said they are happy to talk to you. I am happy to talk to you after today and work through that government bill. You will have your issues, and we will see what we can argue out, but we are happy to put our bill up as a model. Once you vote this one down, we are happy to work with you on your bill to make it as good as it can be.
From debate today, we can accept your bill will not be of the same standard as this one. It will be different in retrospectivity and cancer coverage, as well as in covering volunteers and auxiliaries. However, I am very happy to engage in debate on that. I do not think adjourning this bill gets us there. Let us put this one to the test; you can vote against it and then we can work together on your bill. That is where we are at, unfortunately, on that one.
If you supported this, we would have it in place, it would cover volunteers, auxiliaries, 16 cancers and would have good retrospectivity provisions ...
Ms Lawrie: It is well worth supporting.
Mr GUNNER: It is well worth supporting. A bill that comes forward without including volunteers and auxiliaries is a mistake. You are saying you will introduce a bill that does not cover volunteers and auxiliaries. That is a mistake that has been admitted by Western Australia and South Australia. Include them. It is possible to include them, which other jurisdictions have done. We have them in this bill.
We believe Territory firefighters, volunteers and auxiliaries should have the same protections and coverage as firefighters at Darwin Airport and Alice Springs Airport. That is our position. We are very happy with the principle of our position. The government has indicated it will vote this down tonight. That will happen, but I am happy to meet with the Attorney-General, whether it is tomorrow or after Cabinet next Monday or Tuesday. If he is the one taking the lead on this now, rather than the Chief Minister …
Mr Elferink: No, not me, sadly. We can organise something.
Mr GUNNER: I accept the Attorney-General’s indication that we will be able to catch up. I appreciate that; I will let the union and firefighters know.
I commend the bill to the House.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 8 Noes 12
Ms Fyles Mr Barrett
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Elferink
Mr McCarthy Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms Manison Mr Giles
Ms Moss Mr Higgins
Mr Vowles Mr Kurrupuwu
Ms Walker Mrs Lambley
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Motion negatived.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 97)
Continued from 27 August 2014.
Mr STYLES (Multicultural Affairs): Madam Speaker, the multicultural community in Darwin is a plural one, with many different cultures living harmoniously. We have seen this on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis. I have witnessed this over the number of decades I have lived in the Northern Territory, particularly in Darwin.
We have people from different cultures who in their home countries, many years ago, were in war-torn areas. Yet in Darwin they all sit together sharing a meal at some of the community functions at the Malak Community Centre. They sit in parks at the various functions they run – government supports many of these functions – and you see them having a good time and getting on with their lives.
Government supports the multicultural community in many different ways. I recall sitting on my back veranda a number of years ago with a number of people from Asia. There were a number of people who, traditionally, had fought one another. One of these people made one of the best comments I have ever heard; we were enjoying a nice dinner, a number of curries and a couple of bottles of red wine, and one guy said, ‘I cannot understand why people at home’ – across the table were traditional enemies – ‘do not just sit down and share a bottle of red’.
That has always stuck with me because people who leave some of these countries do not bring their problems with them. They come here as people with good hearts and families and get on with living, contributing to their communities, working and enjoying life.
At that table free speech was alive and well. You can talk about those things, and it is important we do so. Free speech is an important right, one governments should rarely tamper with.
In the Northern Territory we do a great deal to support the concept of multiculturalism, including involvement with the harmony soiree, and we provide support for many multicultural groups in the community. We have Multicultural Community Facilities Grants, the Office of Multicultural Affairs, Quick Response Grants and funding for a range of activities that happen throughout the year to ensure harmony is at the forefront of everyone’s mind.
While people are free to say whatever they want, it is also people’s right to ignore them. Education and support for the concept of multiculturalism are also very important. To quote President Obama in relation to racist comments made by the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team:
- When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don’t really have to do anything – you just let them talk.
Those wise words say a lot. We do not have to listen to that sort of stuff. Generally in this Chamber we hear all sorts of things; we do not have to take any offence to it, unless we wish to. There are lots of things said here and across this country, but people have the right to freedom of speech. People have the right not to listen or respond to the sort of things President Obama was saying talking about people who wish to show their ignorance saying.
Senator Brandis released an exposure draft of proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act for public consultation. The public expressed their views and the government listened; I understand the federal government received thousands of submissions. People have considered the draft and had their say. It has been in the public arena, people have written about the changes, verbally given their opinions and a debate has been held in the community.
As a result, Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced on 5 August 2014 that the federal government is shelving any plans to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Section 18C of that act makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin.
I do not know what will be said tonight, but the bill from the member for Karama came forward as a result of possible changes that may have been made to section 18C. That has passed now, so I am not sure what they will do in relation to this. The current situation is that nothing has changed. The federal legislation provides the same protections against the offensive conduct today as it did last week and from when the member for Karama was in government. I understand the Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commissioner has made a public comment concerning the member for Karama’s bill, suggesting there are gaps in legislative coverage in a number of areas.
I remind the House that the commissioner perceives a gap. She has never suggested that government make this amendment, prior to the member for Karama’s bill. Indeed, the legislation is rarely used in the Northern Territory, which is a great demonstration of our healthy and vibrant multicultural society. It is important to note that government makes policy, not statutory offices.
I have heard the member for Karama speak on many occasions in this House about how wonderful it is in the community. She said she grew up here and there were so many good people in the Territory then. Many of them are still here. Sadly, some have passed on, but a new influx of people has come to the Territory. I attend numerous multicultural functions in the community; I see a fantastic display of what you can achieve when you all choose to live in harmony with one another.
We are very lucky to live in this part of the world and that the people who have been here for many years are of the nature they are. There may be a few ignorant people, but as President Obama said:
When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don’t really have to do anything – you just let them talk.
The government has made it clear we do not think the member for Karama’s bill is required and that the Territory is sufficiently covered by federal legislation. I ask members opposite to consider that nothing has changed and it is business as usual. It is business as it was when they were in government.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I support the Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill and its provisions for protection from racial and ethno-religious vilification.
The Northern Territory is rich in multiculturalism and diversity. The passing of this bill would demonstrate our collective view that discrimination has no place in the Northern Territory community. During my maiden speech, I mentioned how deeply growing up in such a diverse community has impacted on me, how welcoming this community was to my family, and still is. I am proud of my family’s heritage.
I have been grateful over the last six weeks to attend a range of events run by our local multicultural groups in the northern suburbs and the broader Darwin community. The wonderful and deep contribution these groups make to the social and economic development of the Northern Territory is clear. At recent Eid celebrations organised by the Islamic Society, unity and peace were strong. They are important messages, particularly given some of the discussions we know are occurring nationally. The Indian Cultural Society opened its doors to the community during its Navratri celebrations, as did the Filipino Association of the NT for its 18th Barrio Fiesta, the Fiji Association for Fiji Day and the Nepalese Association during Dashain.
We are incredibly lucky, and the way in which we share and celebrate each other is a unique part of the Northern Territory. Our diversity is rightly celebrated, and our social cohesion and harmony must be respected and protected. This is an opportunity for us to strengthen that. We have an opportunity to ensure people in the Northern Territory have a basis for the protection of their right to be safe from racial and ethno-religious discrimination, without infringing on free speech, and to take a stronger stance against acts intended to incite racial hatred. This is a move we could all be proud of.
Over previous months we have seen efforts by the federal Liberal government to amend provisions under the federal Anti-Discrimination Act. If these amendments were to occur, it is possible Territorians would be left unprotected under that legislation. The changes would effectively dilute and narrow protection when it comes to their right to live their lives freely and without discrimination.
The discussion paper released prior to this bill was available to a range of cultural, religious and community groups for comment, and it is clear there is widespread support for this amendment. Based on Tasmanian legislative measures, some of the strongest in the country, this is an important move to ensure Territorians are protected. I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for introducing this bill. She has an abiding commitment to justice and social cohesion in the community; she is a strong advocate for the rights of our multicultural communities, and is widely respected by them. I support this bill.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I support the Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill presented by the Leader of the Opposition. I am very disappointed the government will not be supporting this bill tonight. There is a reason to support this legislation; we need to send a very strong message to the community that in the Territory, we embrace multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism is such a strong part of the Territory and one of our greatest strengths and beauties. We should always do everything we can to protect our harmony and multiculturalism. Instead, when we introduce a very important amendment bill to further strengthen the Territory against racial hatred and vilification, the government will not support it. It makes no sense to me.
This year, a scary concept has come forward from the Abbott government, where it thought it was sound to amend the Racial Discrimination Act. Those amendments would weaken laws against racially vilifying people in this country, which is wrong. It is not what Australia is about. I am very proud to be part of the Labor team and was proud the Leader of the Opposition introduced a bill to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act. The bill says racial and religious vilification in the Northern Territory is not acceptable. She has taken action, with the full support of the Labor Caucus, to boost protections in the Northern Territory, in the face of the Abbott government’s intended action to amend the Racial Discrimination Act. As the Leader of the Opposition said in her second reading speech for this amendment bill:
- It is unfortunate the amendments were triggered by plans at the federal level to remove such protections. The Territory is the only jurisdiction which does not have anti-vilification provisions in legislation. Therefore, it is timely this private members’ bill be supported by the Assembly to provide protection for Territorians against racial vilification.
My team and I recognise Territorians celebrate a great Territory lifestyle. It is what makes our Territory what it is, and is why we call our multicultural Territory home. There is no place for racial discrimination in today’s society, and this bill enshrines that principle in law to ensure Territorians are protected from racial and religious vilification.
As unfortunate as it is that the Abbott government held a bizarre belief that dropping the bar on racism was okay, I feel so heartened by the response to these moves we saw across Australia. In many ways it reignited debate on what Australia is about and what we believe and stand for. In reaction to the Abbott government’s disgraceful attempts to weaken the Racial Discrimination Act, Australians sent a message to say racism is not acceptable in our great nation today. It made me very proud, but it was another stark reminder that when Canberra decides to pursue some bizarre items on its agenda, there is often little we can do to stop it.
However, here we are, with this bill to amend the Northern Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Act to strengthen our legislation, in case one day Canberra decides to go down this path again to amend the Racial Discrimination Act and weaken laws protecting people against racism. It is important we have protections in place in the Territory. We are saying racism is not acceptable.
This fight is not over. There are members in Canberra who still think, despite public outrage over the government’s attempt to remove section 18C, that changes should have progressed. They did not listen to the voice of the Australian people saying it would be outrageous to amend the Racial Discrimination Act in that way. There are still some people in Canberra who believe the bar should be lowered on racism in this country. That is a disgrace. We are here with this amendment bill to ensure whatever strange and stupid behaviour the federal government decides to pursue that would lower the bar on racism, in the Territory we have some protections in place. Territorians do not support racism. Territorians believe in multiculturalism and want to see that bar set high. They do not want to see people subjected to racism, vilification or hatred because of their race or religion.
That is why it is important this bill was brought forward. It is a shame and disgrace the government is not supporting this legislation today because we could send a very clear message to the community. We could stand together as a parliament to say racism and vilification based on religion is not on in the Territory.
The Leader of the Opposition’s amendment to the Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Act would prohibit behaviour reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of persons because of their race or religious beliefs or activities, subject to relevant exemptions. This is a good thing. Why? Because the Territory is a shining example of a vibrant, interactive, multicultural community, and we want to keep it that way.
Many places in Australia and around the world have communities made up of different cultures, but very few have the true melting pot we have here. The many different Indigenous language groups across the Territory have a long history of sharing their land with others from near and far. We have the Chinese, Greek, Italians and Afghan communities, which have a long history of living and working in the Territory. Today, we have large communities from many different backgrounds, including the Philippines, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Fiji, China, Germany, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Ireland and many African nations. I could go on and list almost any country in the world.
We are many different people with many different cultures, languages, foods and religions and, for the most part, we all get along. If anything, our differences are celebrated in the Territory, with such events as Harmony Day, the Glenti and Chinese New Year big standouts in the multicultural calendar for many Territorians. The fact we get along is no excuse to be complacent. It is important we protect this incredible community from those who might wish to incite hatred.
All in this Chamber should set an example. We are all involved with multicultural groups in our electorates and today we can show support by passing this legislation.
The Leader of the Opposition first spoke about this legislation when the Prime Minister and federal Attorney-General announced their plan to make changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. The Attorney-General famously said in defence of this move that Australians have the right to be bigots.
On the basis of human rights arguments, many may believe this to be true in as much as it follows from the freedom of expression. However, as the former Premier of New South Wales, Barry O’Farrell said:
- Bigotry should never be sanctioned, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
The freedom of expression argument against the content of section 18C intentionally misrepresents this wording, claiming it has no more than a subjective test of whether someone has their feelings hurt. This interpretation misrepresents the intent of the application of the act.
The aim of the Racial Discrimination Act is not to restrict freedom of speech, but to reach a fair balance between freedom of expression and freedom not to be vilified based on race or ethnicity.
Freedom of speech is not under attack. In the Racial Discrimination Act there is a clause which exempts anything that is reasonable and in good faith in artistic expression, academic work, debate or public commentary.
The Australian Human Rights Commission contends that sections 18C and 18D maintain a balance between freedom of speech and freedom from racial vilification, and that section 18C fills an important gap in legal protections for those affected by racial hatred and vilification.
As Race Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Tim Soutphommasane asked:
What is it that you want to say that section 18D does not allow you to say?
It is a serious question for anyone who would oppose this legislation and support the weakening of section 18C, as the federal government sought to do.
At this stage the Prime Minister has backed down under pressure from Labor, the community and his own party room and said section 18C will remain for now. This is not because of any change of heart by the Prime Minister, but because of the hurdles in parliament, other priorities and the voice of the Australian people. Given the opportunity, he would have gladly gone ahead with the changes, and if he has another chance we might well see the Racial Discrimination Act amended.
This is where legislation to amend the Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Act, currently before us, comes in. We have an opportunity to send a message to the Prime Minister, his Attorney-General, and those who want the right to bigotry sanctioned by government. We have an opportunity to put into law our support for every Territorian’s right to live their life without suffering racial or religious vilification.
I commend the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this legislation forward. Earlier this year the Assembly supported a motion from the Leader of the Opposition concerning proposed changes to section 18C of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act and it is time to take the next step.
This bill will strengthen the Territory Anti-Discrimination Act, provide greater protections around racial and religious vilification and send a clear message to the community that we, as a parliament, stand firmly against racism and religious hatred.
Today I will be proudly supporting this legislation. As a Territorian, I have been lucky enough to spend most of my life here and have visited many of the towns and communities scattered around the Territory. One thing I value most about being a Territorian is the unique multicultural make-up of these communities and the harmonious and friendly way people interact with one another. These are great characteristics of the Territory and Territorians. We share many incredible stories and cultures, and we learn from each other. We have a society that strongly believes in and values multiculturalism.
As shadow minister for Multicultural Affairs, I am privileged to attend many fantastic events put on by Territorians from many different backgrounds. We have events celebrating the Christian, Muslin, Hindu and Buddhist faiths, just to name a few. A few weeks ago, I was lucky enough to attend, with the Leader of the Opposition and new member for Casuarina, Eid celebrations at the Darwin Islamic Centre. It was a fantastic night, with a wonderful address by the imam to a very multicultural crowd.
It was a celebration that truly reflected the Territory. The Islamic Centre opened its doors to people from all walks of life and all faiths across the community in Darwin who came together to celebrate Eid. In the current climate of fear, one only has to look at the comments on news websites or social media to see some of the current levels of vitriol. Some – thankfully not the majority – of Australians are directing insults at members of the Australian Islamic community. Fortunately, we do not tend to see these types of attacks in the Territory; it is a harmonious place. However, for those who do face these types of unreasonable attacks, it is very unfair and does not represent Australian values or the values of Territorians.
Passing this legislation today would communicate in very clear terms that attacks of this type do not represent the Territory’s values. Our multicultural and religious communities deserve protection from vilification. With this legislation we are saying the Territory is a welcoming, accepting place. We are saying racism is unacceptable and that we value and cherish contributions made to our great Territory by the many people from all over the world who have made this their home, whether it was yesterday, 150 years ago or thousands of years ago,
Freedom of speech is important, but it is not okay to incite hatred based on race or religion. If at any time in the future the federal government goes ahead with changes to the Racial Discrimination Act that would lower the bar on racism, we must have protections in place in the Territory. Racism is not simply a matter of hurt feelings; it can be very traumatic for an individual and have serious implications on a person’s mental health and life. Worst case scenarios, as we know, can lead to violence, which is not what we want to see.
With this legislation we are marking a line in the sand to say we do not condone bigoted behaviour. If the Abbott government or any future federal government decides to push ahead with changes to remove section 18C or to amend it, with this legislation, we can protect the rights of Territorians.
The Leader of the Opposition consulted far and wide with the Territory’s multicultural communities, as well as religious communities, as part of her work to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act. She also wrote to every member of the Legislative Assembly to discover our views and put the discussion paper to us. She has done a huge amount of work to ensure this bill captured the views of Territorians, and she has got it right. I wish this bill would pass tonight, but clearly that will not be the case because the government does not support strengthening the Anti-Discrimination Act to strengthen laws against racial and religious vilification. That is a shame.
I commend the Leader of the Opposition for doing this work, taking up this issue and consulting broadly with Territorians, working on a very extensive and thorough discussion paper and bringing this legislation to the House. She has taken a stand for what she and Labor believe in. She has taken a stand for what every member of this opposition believes in, and I proudly support this bill, along with my colleagues.
This is an important bill because it goes to the heart of what we value as Territorians. It is important we do everything to protect the values of Territorians. Territorians do not believe in racism or religious vilification; they do not think it is okay. This bill would provide protections. We need to protect this from any further bizarre attempts from Canberra to lower the bar on racism in this country. I commend this bill to the House, and it is a great shame the government will not be supporting this legislation that would protect more Territorians from vilification here.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, ‘You should be ashamed to call yourself an Aboriginal person’, was what the member for Nhulunbuy bellowed across the Chamber by way of interjection some months ago.
Those words were directed at the Chief Minister because he was talking about Aboriginal issues. I found those words particularly insulting, so much so that I instantly leapt to my feet and called a point of order on the grubby little racist attack fired by the member for Nhulunbuy. She flushed red and immediately sought to withdraw the comments she had made. Let us put that through the filter of the legislation proposed in the House.
- A person must not engage in a public act that is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of persons on the grounds of:
(a) the race of the person or any member of the group; or …
‘You should be ashamed to call yourself an Aboriginal person’ was both offensive and insulting. It was a shameful moment for the member for Nhulunbuy, and to her credit she understood the insult she delivered and immediately sought to withdraw it. However, what it demonstrates is that she would have been on the wrong side of inserted section 22A in this piece of legislation.
Ms Lawrie: That is not true – your interpretation, seriously.
Mr ELFERINK: The Leader of the Opposition says that is not true. Let us pull it apart. The attack was insulting and based on the grounds of race. It therefore meets the qualifying benchmark.
I found that comment grievously offensive, so I immediately called the member for Nhulunbuy to account for her horrendous and ghastly conduct. That is what reasonable and upright people do when they see this sort of conduct in the community. I am proudly on the record as defending people subject to racial vilification, or even offensive language. I have told many a person over the years to pull their head in because their conduct was offensive. It does not even have to be on race grounds; it is just that I do not like offensive and obnoxious conduct.
There is legislative protection within the Summary Offences Act for people who use objectionable words in a public place. The N word, which I will not articulate in this House, would be considered so offensive to an Aboriginal person that I do not doubt a court would have no hesitation in convicting a person who uttered it to a person of African, African-American or Aboriginal appearance. There are any number of other epithets and titles used towards people which are offensive and based on race. Any of those words, used in a particular context, would be found to be an offence against, I imagine, the Summary Offences Act of the Northern Territory. However, this legislation is aimed specifically at the Anti-Discrimination Act of the Northern Territory.
We have the usual argument that if you do not support this, then by inference you must be racist. I am no racist and I do not believe anybody in this room is racist. I look around this room when it is full and see the kaleidoscope of our community reflected in this House across a range of political opinions and beliefs. That kaleidoscope exists in our community. The reason that kaleidoscope exists is because it grew over many years.
Darwin elected a Chinese mayor, Harry Chan – he was later a member of this Chamber – when there was still a White Australia policy. People who lived in the Darwin I grew up in during the very late 1960s and the 1970s loved, embraced and cherished this town, not necessarily because it was a racially harmonious place, but because it was free.
People could come to Darwin and the Northern Territory, spread their wings and fill their lungs with the air of freedom. You had the right to be who you were and not be judged on your race, religion, gender or sexuality. We were tolerant of homosexual behaviour in this community long before it became a fashion down south. People like Peter Morgan were out and out in the 1970s. Whilst he was a bit of a character, he was never isolated in this community, certainly not to my knowledge. People like Stanley Tipiloura, who I remember going through police training with and who was later a member of this House, were respected and regarded. Wes Lanhupuy, Jack Ah Kit and Francis Xavier are all highly-respected people in our community, all embraced by the community not because of their racial background or faith, but because of who they are.
The inference I have heard several times tonight was that if you do not support this you must be in some way bigoted and racist. If you scratch beneath the surface you will find it could not be further from the truth. The member for Wanguri, quite rightly, said she grew up in this city and is very thankful it is a harmonious place. That is true. This is a case of a proposed bill trying to follow an already established fact. The established fact is this is a harmonious community. You need not look further than Vanderlin Drive to see a mosque standing next to a Christian church to be convinced of that fact. When you point that out to most people in the community, their response is, ‘I never really noticed that’, rather than, ‘We are particularly proud of that’. I am particularly proud of it, but most people do not even notice.
If you go to the Marrara area, there is club after club dedicated to different languages and cultural backgrounds, which we celebrate. They have managed to operate up until now without any intrusion from the Northern Territory parliament’s legislative capacity. We continue to breathe the air of freedom, or at least try to.
I am often concerned when I bring legislation into this place – I know I am one of the worst offenders in terms of the volume of legislation I bring in – as to how much it will intrude into people’s freedoms and liberties. I am often concerned we try to cast the net too much.
It then comes down to the genesis of this bill, which was also discussed by the member for Wanguri. It was in reference to the conversation that happened shortly after the election of the Abbott government and some comments by George Brandis, the Attorney-General of this country, on the basis, I presume, of the treatment of Andrew Bolt – love him or hate him – and how the Racial Discrimination Act had touched him. I will not go into that debate, but we held a debate in this House at the time.
During debate, there was some agreement reached across the floor about the need or otherwise to introduce this type of legislation in the Northern Territory. I remember quite distinctly saying at the time that if the legislation did not go ahead in Canberra – I suspected it would not – there was no real need to go down this path. Nevertheless, the Opposition Leader has determined to press on regardless of the fact the federal government has stepped away from its recommended changes to section 18C of the Commonwealth’s Racial Discrimination Act.
The foretold changes did not occur; however, the Leader of the Opposition decided to press on. She has come back to the House with a bill, despite the fact her worst fears were not realised in the Commonwealth environment, to say we need this here anyhow. I would argue we do not because one of the reasons we have a federation with different jurisdictions is that different jurisdictions have different expectations and demands surrounding the people who live in them.
The jurisdiction of the Northern Territory has always been set apart, particularly from the southern and south eastern seaboard of this country. We stood alone for decades as a place that was truly free and a place truly free to grow up in.
The Leader of the Opposition now says we need to protect something that has always been. I argue that the protection of something that has always been will be upright people, such as the Leader of the Opposition, members of the Labor Party and all people in this House. When they see something wrong, whether it has the force of legislation or not, they will point it out and say it is wrong, as I did when the member for Nhulunbuy made her errant comment in this House.
I fear the Leader of the Opposition has been trying to sell puppies to the community in the sense she has spoken widely to any number of organisations to say we need this. I can well understand why those organisations would say, ‘Yes, we need this’. It is like asking them, ‘Who is against puppies?’ I am not against them. I know a legislative instrument such as these amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act has nowhere near the force of righteousness indignant Territorians have when they hear racial, sexual orientation, religious and other forms of vilification in the community.
This is a place where we still breathe free air. As far as I am concerned, the sad and pathetic few who make utterances of insult and offence to others are so rarely dispersed in our community and so quickly dealt with by upright citizens of this community that this is unnecessary legislation. This courses through the hearts and minds of the vast majority of Territorians as something that is simply right. It is now no longer a response to a concern that emanates from Canberra, because Canberra is not going down this path. I would hate to imagine that the Leader of the Opposition is pursuing this path so she can start calling people like those who support the Country Liberals racists because we do not support this legislative instrument.
I do not support this bill because I do not see it as necessary. If a word is so insulting and so offensive it is already covered under summary offences legislation which is not reflected in the Commonwealth environment. It is already covered by Commonwealth legislation, so if a person is sufficiently aggrieved they can also appeal through the appropriate Commonwealth bodies.
As far as the Northern Territory government is concerned, this legislation is designed to, unfortunately, highlight difference rather than celebrate it. Therefore, I am critical of the motivations behind it.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is incredibly disappointing that the government could not see fit to support this legislation. I listened carefully to the member for Sanderson who acknowledges, as other members in this Chamber have, that the multicultural community in the Northern Territory is harmonious. However, I was disappointed to hear him say people do not have to take offence to insults if they do not want to. He has completely missed the point of the legislative protective tool we are trying to introduce.
People take offence and are insulted. We heard members of parliament talk about how distressing the offence can be and how it can have very deep lasting issues for individuals on the receiving end. That is why this legislation is an incredibly important tool.
Member for Sanderson, you seem to have completely and utterly missed the point. You seem to think the matter is no longer an issue in Canberra, therefore it is business as usual and nothing has changed. I do not know who is informing you as the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, but you must seek better advice. There is a cross party of senators in Canberra who continue to pursue legislation to strip away section 18C. Cory Bernardi, who is a government backbencher – therefore of the same political bent as you – described section 18C as a ‘grotesque limitation on ordinary political discourse’.
You seem to be unaware, member for Sanderson, that Family First senator Bob Day is leading the push for change. He has introduced his private member’s bill into the Senate. That occurred on 2 October 2014. It has been co-sponsored by Liberal Democrat Party senator David Leyonhjelm and government backbenchers Cory Bernardi and Dean Smith.
The changes address the controversial provisions in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Senator Day’s bill seeks to remove the words ‘offend and insult’. He told the Senate those changes would be minor because it would still be illegal to humiliate and intimidate. He is saying freedom of speech and the protection against racial discrimination will be able to co-exist in the proper equilibrium. How extraordinary!
The disgraceful decision by cross-party senators to introduce a bill has this well and truly still in the domain of federal politics. You have completely missed the debate occurring in our nation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs. One wonders what advice you are receiving.
I sincerely thank the members for Casuarina and Wanguri for their support. They both recognise we need to send a clear message in the Northern Territory, in our own jurisdiction and from our own parliament through the passage of our own laws, that say racism, hatred and bigotry will not be tolerated in any way. That is part of the deep sadness in seeing and hearing the government oppose this legislation, because it is failing to stand up as members of this parliament and send the Northern Territory a clear message that racism, hatred and bigotry will not be tolerated.
It is extraordinary that the members for Port Darwin and Sanderson tried to brush it off as not being a problem because Senator Brandis was knocked down by his own Prime Minister in his push, and then completely ignored and made no reference to the bill before the Senate that attempts to strip section 18C down.
Instead we see the normal pontificating as judge and jury by the member for Port Darwin on what he deems to be his interpretation of the comments of others. He then goes on to say the Summary Offences Act is sufficient. It is not sufficient in any other Australian jurisdiction, member for Port Darwin and Attorney-General, and nor is it sufficient here. This is a shameful day. There are many reasons why I have been deeply ashamed of this parliament today, and that brings with it great sadness this evening.
You cannot bring yourselves to perform a simple act of decency in supporting legislation that has been supported across our multicultural groups, Aboriginal organisations and religious groups. Consultation has occurred. None of them said this is unnecessary; they all want to see Northern Territory legislation. They took the time to fully and properly consider the draft bill. We went to the effort of pointing out that we proposed introducing what is considered best practice legislation, modelled on the Tasmanian law, for the Northern Territory. People took the time to fully consider that and came back very supportive of this move.
The member for Port Darwin seemed to put the case that we do not need intrusion from the Northern Territory parliament, as everything is okay. That is not the situation. You have clearly not bothered to receive a briefing from the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner on this matter, because if you had you would not have made such a foolish comment that is wrong in fact.
The Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commissioner has advised that at least six cases have been brought before the Human Rights Commission concerning racial vilification in the Northern Territory. Without protections against hatred, there may well have been more reportable incidents and none would have been dealt with by the commission. Collectively, a message would have been sent to those who would incite racial hatred that it is okay. You erroneously claim there is not a problem here when six cases have already gone to the Human Rights Commission.
It is extraordinary you then diminished the importance of these protections by describing them as like selling puppies. It is disgraceful to talk in such a manner about a matter that deeply affects the lives of Territorians, particularly when racial hatred is occurring in our nation as a result of a reaction to a terrorism concern that is of such an extent it has put the country on high alert. Attending the Islamic Society function recently for Eid and the farewelling of the outgoing imam and welcoming of the new imam, I saw a community fully aware of the need for racial vilification protection laws in the Northern Territory.
Protections send a clear message that vilification, racial hatred and bigotry will not be tolerated. This was an opportunity for bipartisan support across parliament for a law that exists in every jurisdiction and for a law I have been up front with people about. We have chosen the strongest laws as our benchmark. We felt the Tasmanian model was appropriate in the Northern Territory because it includes religious hatred. That is why we consulted further with our religious fraternity. The response was supportive.
I struggle to understand the CLP of today; I grew up knowing the CLP of old. Shane Stone, who introduced the original Anti-Discrimination Act, would not kowtow to Canberra and say, ‘We will follow Canberra and do what Canberra is doing. We will rest with and be okay with Canberra.’ The CLP of old stood strong and proud of the Northern Territory, what we could do and achieve, and how we could express ourselves as Territorians through our values and what we believed in. That does not occur with this current crop of CLP members. It is little wonder I hear so consistently across our diverse community about the deep disappointment people feel in this government.
This was an opportunity to be bipartisan and send a very clear message that racial hatred, vilification and bigotry is not accepted in the Territory, and that we will stand proudly with our own law, not reliant on what Canberra is or is not doing. We could send our own message about what will or will not be tolerated in our Northern Territory, not based on what senators who have no place in the Territory with their bigotry might be doing in Canberra.
You are okay, CLP government, to lead us to their whim because you will reject this legislation. In your view, there is nothing to see here and no problem, even though the facts speak for themselves – six cases to the Human Rights Commission and there is a bill before the Senate seeking to strip down section 18C again. This is, as I said, a shameful day. It is incredibly sad there has been no statesmanship or leadership shown by the CLP.
If you are so sure we do not need this and so sure of the case you have put, which is to do nothing and not change our laws, why did you not hold your own consultations across our communities? Why did you not write to our community organisations – multicultural, Aboriginal, religious – and seek their views, pose the question as to whether we should leave it as it is or change it?
In your arrogance, you espouse your view without consultation. You are not a government that represents the views of Territorians. You are dismissive of an issue that is a very genuine and real issue in our society today. Sadly and tragically it is more of an issue today than it was when I raised it originally out of concerns about the federal government’s moves. Things have become worse since then. Things have become much worse for people of the Islamic faith.
Sending a clear message that we, through law, will rule out racist hatred, bigotry and vilification, in the midst of this debate, would have defined the Territory as the beautiful, multicultural, harmonious place we say it is. But some people living in our community do not experience that all the time.
Some people living in our community experience racial vilification. What is wrong with the Northern Territory having its own law against that to give them protection, with the checks and balances explained in my second reading speech? Given the comments from members opposite, I doubt they even bothered to read it. Many checks and balances have been provided within this legislation to have only the most heinous matters go before the courts, but you have decided we will not have this law in the Northern Territory.
I hope and pray for a time and space in this government when one of you might say to your own government, ‘Why do we not look at racial vilification laws in the Northern Territory? The opposition did it a little while ago. Why don’t we?’
I hope and pray one of you will undertake the consultation we have undertaken. I hope and pray you will listen to the community, because if you do the Northern Territory will have its own racial vilification laws enshrined in our Anti-Discrimination Act. We will ensure there is a definition of racially or religiously offensive behaviour enshrined in the act, and we will insert a new section concerning racially or religiously offensive behaviour which I hope will be modelled on the Tasmanian anti-vilification measures. I hope it will prohibit behaviour which is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of persons because of their race, religious beliefs or activity.
I hope we see fit for it to include public acts in any area of activity, not limited to the six areas mentioned in the current section of the act, namely education, work, accommodation, goods and service facilities, clubs and insurance and super. There is a need to extend it, as this legislation sought to do, to the Internet. You will not do that today, but I hope and pray someone on your side does that as soon as possible.
Exemptions are there; they exist in the amendments and are fair. They are based on the considered best practice of Tasmania’s legislation. My goodness, if Tasmania can do it! We use to be proud leaders; we can do it. I should not be surprised – but I am a little – by the government’s response tonight. We live with faith, hope and the goodness of people, yet time and time again I see that stripped away by the actions of this CLP government.
I will continue to work with and advocate for our multicultural communities and the rights of our Aboriginal community that wants this legislation. It is deeply disappointing. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for so many reasons today. You can add this one to that very long list.
I commend the bill to the House.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 8 Noes 13
Ms Fyles Mr Barrett
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Conlan
Mr McCarthy Mr Elferink
Mr Manison Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms Moss Mr Giles
Mr Vowles Mr Higgins
Ms Walker Mr Kurrupuwu
Mrs Price
Ms Purick
Mr Styles
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Attacks on Territory Workers
Attacks on Territory Workers
Continued from 12 February 2014.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, in February when I moved this motion that the Assembly should condemn the CLP for its continual attacks on Territory workers, the CLP promised that frontline workers would be safe, and then went on sacking hundreds of public servants on contracts.
The CLP is so out of touch with the spiralling cost of living, with inflation running at 4.4%, that it is offering a pay cut in real terms to teachers, firefighters and paramedics who have voted to take industrial action against their appalling treatment.
The CLP is in dispute with bus drivers who have an uncertain future because they are selling Darwin Bus Service. The CLP is in dispute with port workers over job losses and there are very real shudders of concern running through prison officers and Power and Water staff.
When firefighters spoke about their plight, the Attorney-General shamefully accused them of trading on their good name to line their own pockets. The Attorney-General should apologise immediately and move to ensure the pay offer is a fair one, not less than CPI.
Workers are not surprised the government is now trying to scrap the May Day public holiday where, internationally, workers embrace the successful campaign for the eight-hour working day.
The CLP government has done nothing but attack workers since winning government on false promises. Stop the bullying and start working with Territorians who are just trying to earn decent pay for decent effort, and support their families to live here under an increasing cost of living.
That motion was moved in February and sadly in the eight months since, not much has changed.
We continue to condemn the CLP government for its attack on our Territory workers. The CLP went to the last election promising frontline workers their jobs would be safe. We even had the member for Port Darwin handing out pamphlets on Mitchell Street. How very wrong they were.
Since then, hundreds of public servants on contracts have been sacked, and they are so out of touch with the spiralling cost of living, with inflation running at 4.4%, that they are offering a pay cut in real terms. The increases to power and water tariffs are making it hard for Territorians to live here. Territorians are struggling, and we have a government that laughs at our frontline workers.
When firefighters spoke about their plight, the member for Port Darwin shamefully accused them of trading on their good name to line their own pockets. He should apologise. The government is now trying to scrap the May Day public holiday, an international day that recognises workers and their rights. I have said it before and I will say it again: the CLP does not respect our workers.
Adam Giles, as the Chief Minister, will be remembered for laughing at nurses, turning his back on our firies injured at work, sacking teachers and forcing public servants into industrial action, privatising public assets and creating uncertainty for public servants in Nhulunbuy and the East Arnhem region.
Our Minister for Education refers to teachers as lazy. Our parents, teachers and students are devastated by the cuts we have seen; 125 teachers have gone, along with 60 support workers. You do not get more frontline than our classrooms, but staff have been sacked and he is still in denial about it. There has been $125m ripped from the Education budget since the CLP came to government. The Chief Minister and Minister for Education will not listen to teachers. Teachers have been telling the CLP this pay dispute is a desperate bid to stop harsh resources cuts, but they will not listen. They are not supporting education in the Territory; we are seeing larger class sizes, less support, less special education support and less individual attention for our students.
The CLP is still in denial about teacher cuts. During estimates the Minister for Education said:
- The reality is there are 35 fewer teachers at this time than we had last year.
The real number, tabled in documents, is 125. We have gone from 2596 to 2471. I will say it again, there are 125 fewer teachers. One-hundred-and-twenty five frontline staff have gone from the Territory public service. The bush has been hit particularly hard by these cuts; schools have lost up to seven positions, when the minister assured us no school would lose more than five. The Arnhem region alone has lost 47 teaching positions. You do not achieve better education outcomes by cutting 47 teachers from a region.
Compounding the teacher losses we have seen, 60 support positions have also been cut from our schools. This means there is more pressure on our teachers and they have less support in our classrooms. This goes on. Under the CLP government we have seen average class sizes in the Territory increase. Averages for Years 7 to 10 have jumped from 15.5 to 19 and the average for Years 11 and 12 has jumped from 14 to 18.
The CLP government has its priorities wrong. It is not supporting our frontline education workers. Teachers have made it clear their EBA dispute is over concerns about their conditions and the detrimental changes this government is making to our education system. The CLP government even spent $26 000 on advertising, trying to convince teachers to vote for the EBA, but it failed.
At the same time this government is not supporting those working on the front line, it has given jobs to CLP mates and candidates. I think we have lost count, but the last number showed 14 former CLP politicians and candidates who have been given jobs, including Terry Mills, who is now on a $750 000 package. The other night I was watching television and a former CLP party president appeared representing the government – another person with another job. Jobs for mates is all you are interested in.
People are leaving the Territory and our great lifestyle, whether in the Top End or Central Australia. They cannot afford the high cost of living, power and water tariff increases, registration increases, cuts to schemes to support our pensioners, and they have reduced job security as well. Employees offered wage and salary increases less than CPI are cutting back on discretionary spending. Small and medium businesses around town tell us they are suffering. We have been told this since February when I introduced this motion, and it has gotten worse. Business have closed down and left town.
This government will be remembered for decimating Nhulunbuy and the East Arnhem region. What has happened with the lack of support is appalling. Chief Minister, when was the last time you went to Nhulunbuy? You lack leadership skills. People accept things happen, but you have not faced up to this. You have been critical and not shown leadership. Previous Chief Ministers would have regularly visited that region and its community members to listen to them. I have been there to listen to them. They are upset because they feel forgotten.
You have played games with positions in schools, promising jobs that were not there. Your leadership has been disappointing for our frontline workers.
The member for Port Darwin talked about an average firefighter’s income being just shy of $90 000, and having a second job somehow meaning they should not receive a wage increase. It is about the job they do and the role they play in a community. They deserve a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.
My colleague, the member for Fannie Bay, said he has met with our firefighters and held long conversations with them. There are concerns about attrition levels within the firefighting service of the Northern Territory. Firefighters are concerned; if you spoke to them about their issues and tried to work with them on what they are genuinely concerned about, treated them with some respect and valued their opinion you might make progress. Instead, we see them denigrated and accused of being political when they try to advance legislation which will protect firefighters with cancer. As a government, you need to start listening.
You have privatised our bus service. I understand the last EBA of more than 50 Darwin Bus Service employees was changed to say that if the bus provider was changed they could not go across to employment within the Territory government. The conditions of these long-term public servants changed before the service was privatised. The protection of many long-serving public servants under Territory government employment agreements has gone. They were not even given the option to transfer to another position within the NTG; that was taken away from them.
Child protection is in crisis. We have seen so many frontline staff sacked. In frontline child protection we have seen caseload ratios go up. My colleague, the member for Wanguri, spoke about the concerns paramedics have and issues in the workplace that are putting them under more pressure and potentially impacting on their ability to do their job to the highest professional standard.
Power and Water workers’ morale is at an all-time low. You say it is a basket case and are busy dividing it up ready for sale with no certainty for workers, the same workers we call upon – we saw this recently with the power blackout – to keep our power and water running. We call on them any time of the day or night to provide that support and those essential services, yet the respect is not there, and their morale is suffering for it.
The truly scary thing about all these cuts and this arrogance to date is that it is the tip of the iceberg. The government promised no frontline workers would be sacked – I have listed examples. What else are we in for? We have a government with a Minister for Education who calls teachers lazy and cuts education funding by $125m. We have a Chief Minister who laughs at our nurses – highly-trained and dedicated frontline staff, and you simply laugh at them ...
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member referred to me calling teachers lazy. I would like to see where in Hansard she could ever find that. They make it up.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Ms FYLES: While we are talking about Territory workers, let us acknowledge the huge numbers of Defence personnel we have based in the Territory and the appalling pay offer from the federal Liberal government – 1.5% at the same time you are calling on them to take a huge extra workload. That is below CPI. Where is your government in standing up for these workers in our Defence Force?
I have looked, as we all do, on Facebook and am amazed at the posts and comments on social media – and in mainstream media – with friends and families talking about it. There are some professions that should be respected and our Defence Force, along with other frontline positions, should be. That 1.5% pay rise offer from the federal Liberal government is appalling; I call on the government to act on that and speak to its federal colleagues to let them know it is not acceptable.
All the member for Port Darwin did during his reply to this motion was give a great grammar lesson, criticising the wording of my motion. If only he could spend that much energy and time on our Territory workers. If his government could take the time and make the effort to listen to our workers, maybe he would learn something from them. They are struggling to live under your government’s cost of living increases. They are struggling with not knowing their positions are secure. They are struggling, they are scared. Public servants were once proud of their positions and role and felt free to speak. That is not happening now.
I commend the motion to the House.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 8 Noes 13
Ms Fyles Mr Barrett
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Conlan
Mr McCarthy Mr Elferink
Ms Manison Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms Moss Mr Giles
Mr Vowles Mr Higgins
Ms Walker Mr Kurrupuwu
Mrs Lambley
Mrs Price
Ms Purick
Mr Styles
Mr Westra van Holthe
MOTION
Proposed Power and Water Corporation Legislation Committee
Proposed Power and Water Corporation Legislation Committee
Continued from 19 February 2014.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased we get to wrap this motion after holding the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee. It screams loud and clear as to why we were seeking to refer the government’s move to separate Power and Water into three corporations to a parliamentary review committee to consider the policy decision before reporting back to parliament on its considerations. The work of the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee is every reason the legislation should have gone for review.
It is extraordinary that Jacana Energy and Territory Generation were unable to provide comprehensive Statements of Corporate Intent. They had to confess they did not have the data, so the creation of two corporations was carried out without the rigorous attention to information data and detail you would normally require. Extraordinary admissions occurred during the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee hearing.
We still do not know how much this hideously expensive exercise will ultimately cost taxpayers because the government do not know themselves. They are still trying to work it out. Essentially, the government has rushed to split the corporation into three separate corporate entities without truly doing the work first.
Normally to undertake something of this significance you would do all of the work first so each company knew exactly what its corporate fiscal situation was. They would have their billing systems and corporate structures in place, but that has not been done. We have a situation where two corporations are essentially flying blind, to use a colloquial term, making it up as they go along because they do not have the data. Power and Water is like a host body those two corporations have to feed off because it is still undertaking corporate systems work, such as on the billing system, that, ultimately, it will not be able to.
There are perverse consequences occurring across our community. People do not know what the feed-in tariff will be with solar because that corporation is nowhere near ready to determine that. Customers who have been paying their Power and Water utilities bills by direct debit are receiving a rude shock. Hefty power bills are coming in. They ring Power and Water and say, ‘How come I have a power bill for $800 or $1000?’ Power and Water says, ‘That is not us that is Jacana’, but the customer then says, ‘Yes, but I have been paying Power and Water for my power’. There is then a complex system they have to try to navigate to have some of that credited against Jacana.
The government did not explain any of that when it was going down the path we were debating, and we suggested putting it to a review committee. They are the sorts of things government was intent on hiding, which is why it will not refer it to a review committee. It will refer the fuel price consideration legislation to a review committee, but would not refer splitting our most important utility for review to make sure it could be done well and ensure all hidden costs in doing it were understood. They are still not known.
The Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee showed many costs are not known. I suspect we will not know for another one to two years, but there are some things we do know. Jacana Energy has 12 employees, six of who are on executive contracts. Half of their workforce is on nice big executive contracts; how will that end up? They are not that sure they will stay based in the Northern Territory because it might end up being a business run from Queensland. It is little wonder the government would not send that to a review committee to understand the considerations of our utilities heading interstate.
Net profit after tax, in the SCI provided by Power and Water, was $260m. The Chief Minister then said that was just paper profit. No, it is not. Operating revenue was $106.6m; that is not a paper profit. That is the money they are reaming in as a result of tariff hikes by the CLP. That is coming directly from the pockets of families and businesses in the Territory. It is little wonder people are struggling to pay their bills when you hear of a $106m profit in one year. From memory, the projected forecast profit was to be about $6m – $100m additional profit form forecast profit. It is bonanza time there. To set up a utility for privatisation you ratchet up tariffs, hike profits, fatten the pig and take it to the market for sale. That is exactly what this government is doing with our assets.
Our assets sitting in Territory Generation – the word around town is that General Electric must have a good deal going on to be constructing a plant alongside the Weddell station. What is it paying for gas? The supplier of the gas, Power and Water networks with its gas contract – how much gas will it take? The Chief Minister and the government seem to think the excess gas we supply from Power and Water will go to the Chief Minister’s gas pipeline. If they sell it to General Electric they will not have the gas supply required for the eastern seaboard; do they know what is going on?
I suspect this government is starting to make things up as it goes along. Its members say conflicting things in the public domain, and they assume people are not listening to them so they can say whatever they want and not be caught out. It is a bizarre situation, but it is scary that we are talking about billions of dollars of assets that belong to the Territory. These are public assets being risked by the cowboy CLP mentality. ‘Let us shed some assets and get some quick cash, so we can pork barrel through our next election.’
It is consumers – the small consumers, the mum and dad consumers and the small businesses – who will pay the ultimate price of that decision. Privatisation in other jurisdictions has led to escalating tariffs; that is not guess work, as it has happened. When you are standing outside a shopping centre with a petition against the sale of Power and Water assets, anyone from South Australia walks up and says, ‘How quickly can I sign? Do not let them sell it. I know what happened to my power bill in South Australia.’
We can kiss reliability goodbye. How has reliability been since the split of Power and Water? How has it been since the government made that grand policy decision we wanted to send to a review committee first to test its rigour? We have had catastrophic blackouts and single points of failure across the system.
There is now a mad rush to fix system control. When the member for Fong Lim was Treasurer, one of the first things he did with efficiency dividends was put a halt on work being done to fix systems control. But that is okay, because under this government you will only hear them complain about Labor. They will never take an ounce of responsibility for their foolish actions we are bearing the consequences of. You bear the consequences in price and reduced reliability when jurisdictions go down this foolish path.
Anyone who understands our market will understand we are too small to be the big, muscled-up competitors in this beautiful, deregulated environment – ‘come on GE, come in and compete against Territory Generation’. Who will they sell to? They are commercial competitors; they will be selling to the major users, such as new mines coming online. That is where Power and Water needs to make a profit from. Territory Generation will end up with the consumer market and need to ratchet up price. The flow-on affect will be disastrous.
This government will hope, and pace its asset sale and competitive marketplace to a point where the big slugs will probably hit us just after the 2016 election. We have been slugged a lot; we have another 5% coming our way in electricity tariffs in January. For families already paying an extra $8000 a year, which was evidenced during the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee hearing, another 5% on top of that is the difference between many hanging on grimly and staying here or simply giving up and having to pack up and go.
The CLP like to think we are making this up because we are the opposition and surely anything we say cannot be right. They must not get out of their office very often if they think that is the case. In moving around the community, I cannot count the number of people who have come to me and said, ‘Delia, we are going. I do not want to go; I have lived here for 25 years. But I cannot afford to keep living here.’
The government says, ‘If we can shave a few cents off a litre of fuel that will save us $100 per year’. That is great and we are supportive of that. But what about the $8000 a year, CLP, you have imposed on Territorians through your foolish decisions and the massive costs we will be hit with as a result of the structural separation of Power and Water?
A catastrophe will hit in a few years to come as a result of the major users who pay commercial rates no longer being the core customers of retailers like Jacana Energy. They have already lost a few of their contestable customers. Each time you lose a contestable customer, you look at your figures and start to do some recalculations. Where does that leave you? Anyone who understands that model will know where that will leave us as consumers in the small market reliant on Jacana Energy as our retailer. Our prices will go up.
The CLP has hand-picked the people to go on the boards. You have hand-picked the people to run the corporations. You will keep a lid on it to an extent, as best you can, until after the 2016 election. That is when it will start to get real scary because of the disaster you have created here.
These are genuinely the issues we would have unpacked, picked through and tried to find out about through a review committee, which is why we wanted a review. Living in our nation, it is great we have the ability to look at what has happened elsewhere and see whether or not it has been a good thing or a bad thing.
In Western Australia, a Liberal government is spending a fortune putting its utilities back together because its market is too small to sustain it. We are even smaller, and you are sending us in the wrong direction. As the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee discovered the other day, you did so without understanding any of the detail you needed to understand to make that decision. They have been unable to compile Statements of Corporate Intent with Jacana and Territory Generation. That is extraordinary.
Jacana is still looking at working with a private company. That is a clear flag they will move into a privatisation mode. Almost 80 of its customers are responsible for 34% of its revenue. The other 90 000 customers are us, the small businesses and households. Those 80 contestable customers are the attractive asset. People will not be in the market going after us, the small households and small businesses. They will be cherry-picking the contestable customers, but we will, ultimately, bear the brunt of that in our retail costs.
Territory Generation admits it is still assessing its asset base. It does not know its finances or its asset base. Can you believe it? A corporation established that does not know its asset base or finances. That could only occur under the CLP. However, Territory Generation knows it has far more generation than peak demand requires. It has two new power stations, and we know Weddell and Owen Springs are very attractive assets.
I have concerns for the future of Channel Island under Territory Generation and the model. I will be watching and listening intently. I have learned, time in and time out, that the CLP cannot be trusted. You cannot believe what they say because what they say and do are very different things.
It is incredibly concerning that the Chief Minister, who holds 13 portfolios, is currently the shareholding minister as Treasurer. I do not know if he has a clue about what is going on across those portfolios. It is all about Adam anyway. When will the reshuffle happen? When will we know who we are dealing with as Treasurer? The uncertainty pervading the business sector of the Northern Territory is huge. This government has been in chaos for so long that chaos seems to be part of the way it functions. That is extraordinarily scary because investors will think twice.
What is one of the major costs of setting up a small- or medium-sized business in the Territory? Your utilities. It was no surprise to me – I watched the data intently during the fuel summit – that there was a point in late 2012 where prices skyrocketed and stayed high. When one of the companies put up their breakdown for their commercial business, you saw what a significant component their utility bill was. That 30% hike in power in August 2012, accompanied by the 25% hike in water – guess what service stations need – had a big impact.
We will never get to the bottom of this data because the government would never want the truth to come out, but that had a huge influence on that spike at the time, and it stayed high. One of the real issues AANT prosecuted is that instead of coming down again and being a volatile price, it stayed high. It was 16c per litre higher on average. You will want to blame that on someone else because that is what you do.
Mr Elferink: It happened on your watch.
Ms LAWRIE: The 16c per litre increase happened under the CLP …
Mr Elferink: No, it was your watch – 2011.
Ms LAWRIE: … from August 2012 because the spike in 2011 came down. It was $1.57.
Mr Elferink: No, it did not. You are not telling the truth now.
Ms LAWRIE: You do not want to know the facts because you did not bother to find out about splitting Power and Water, our large utility – raising power prices without any facts. We were advised at the time that you took a guess on the state average for tariff increases. It is appalling. I wish we had the chance to have this review committee because we could have averted chaos.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 8 Noes 13
Ms Fyles Mr Barrett
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Conlan
Mr McCarthy Mr Elferink
Ms Manison Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms Moss Mr Giles
Mr Vowles Mr Higgins
Ms Walker Mr Kurrupuwu
Mrs Lambley
Mrs Price
Ms Purick
Mr Styles
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Nightcliff Island
Continued from 26 March 2014.
Mr Giles: How long ago was that? 12 months?
Ms Fyles: Maybe you could update us, Adam. You are on your feet.
Mr Giles: I will give you a hint. There is no island off Nightcliff.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, picking up on the interjections, it is great the Chief Minister is so vocal. Maybe he could come into the House and update us.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The convention in relation to reference to the presence or absence of members should be observed.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not refer to members when they are not in the House.
Ms FYLES: In March this year I moved that this House condemn the government and the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment for:
granting a five-year Crown lease for 98 ha of Darwin Harbour without …
Mr Westra van Holthe: We are condemned to having to listen to her.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have a bit of order, please. Withdraw that remark, please.
Mr Westra van Holthe: Withdrawn
Ms FYLES: … going to community consultation about the concept of a man-made residential island
failing to undertake community consultation or preparing a social and environmental impact analysis on the proposed Nightcliff island before issuing a lease and allowing geotechnical drilling to take place, and
we call on the minister to stop moves to develop a residential island in our pristine harbour and accept our community values that Darwin is a city built around a uniquely beautiful harbour.
It is ironic that I am closing the debate, yet we have more questions than ever. I thank all my colleagues on this side of the House for their support during this debate.
The other side seem to laugh at it and make comments like, ‘Where is the island? I was in Nightcliff the other day, I could not see the island’, but Nightcliff island is a very real threat to our community. It is wrong the government could issue a lease for 98 ha of pristine harbour during the quietness of the January holidays without any consultation with our community.
They allowed the lease for geotechnical studies to take place off the foreshore without talking to my community; that caused great concern. They were not being transparent with their planning process and held no community forums or information sessions about a project that could have a significant impact on the environment and amenity of Nightcliff, Coconut Grove and the broader Darwin community. It is the Planning minister’s responsibility to inform the community about all aspects of a proposal. Instead, he has not commented on it, nor answered our questions.
I think it was during last sittings when we debated the protection of the rural area. My colleague, the member for Nelson, moved a motion about the protection of the unique rural lifestyle. We debated the protection of that lifestyle, similar to what residents of my community want with the preservation of their unique tropical lifestyle. At the time, minister for Planning, you said:
- I even admit there have been some planning decisions I have made in the last 12 to 18 months which under perfect conditions I would not have made.
Our community does not want this island to go ahead and will fight it to the end. It causes continual anxiety in our community, and your government’s handling of the issue has been appalling. You have taken shortcuts with the planning process and given us no explanation. You talk about it being a method of providing housing. It will not provide affordable housing for Territorians.
Local residents have continually approached me this year at the markets; around the community, they are still asking questions. I have been doorknocking a lot recently, and people are still asking about this proposal. They are concerned that government has not kept them informed and still has not provided any information to date on what this proposed project entails.
The local community wants information. We have had a briefing and we were still unable to receive the answers our community requires. It is time for your government to come clean and let the community know what you have agreed to.
Will there be an approval this Christmas for the island to be built? Last Christmas, in the middle of the school holidays, a lease was issued for 98 ha of our pristine harbour. There was no consultation, just a tiny ad in the NT News. This year will we see some trucks roll up and building start? Our community is frustrated you will not provide any information.
When speaking on this motion, the minister said he has faith in the process. That can be thrown out the door. He told us in another speech he admits making planning decisions in the last 12 to 18 months he would not normally have made.
The minister said an island would be no danger to mangroves. He has been on a boat within those mangroves with one of our leading environmentalists, who has recently left town thanks to your government cutting funding for the Environment Centre.
A member interjecting.
Ms FYLES: The minister heard firsthand about how important those mangroves are. The mangroves will die if you build an island because they will not benefit from tidal flows. I can see the people on the other side laughing, but that is fine.
When you are spending millions of dollars re-establishing the mangroves, like we have seen in north Queensland, then you might start to listen. This is not my opinion. An environmental expert and world leader in mangroves took the shadow Environment minister and I for a walk through those mangroves, and they are beautiful. They play an important role in our harbour. They protect against erosion, and if those mangroves go we will see changes to the coastal wave patterns and wind-related erosion.
Last Wet Season there was a huge amount of erosion along the Nightcliff foreshore. We had sand and coral on Casuarina Drive. The waves pushed the beach that high; if we build this island we will see huge changes to our coastal patterns. We will see water channel to areas it has not reached before. Where will you be for liability?
Members interjecting.
Ms FYLES: You can keep laughing, but it will cost millions to fix the mangroves and pay people who are flooded because they are suddenly in a flood area, when they were not previously.
We still do not know much about this proposal, and our community is still concerned about it. We have had a petition going in our community for many months now. It is still collecting signatures. It is a difficult, concerning issue. In our community people have told me they will physically protest. What can they do? It is a hard one because you have issued a five-year lease nobody knows much about. It came out at a quiet time. We do not want to cause angst in the community ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Mr Giles: We hid it in a newspaper.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A bit of order, please.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have a bit of order, please.
Ms FYLES: Instead of laughing at me and making comments, it would be great if you could give us an update in the House.
We still do not know much, but we know the government has issued a 98 ha lease off Darwin Harbour near Coconut Grove for the purpose of a residential island. The government must rule this project out and show some leadership. It was clear the community did not want this protest. We had people in this gallery; there is no one here this evening, but they were here that night to listen to that debate because they were concerned. They wanted to hear what the minister said. I should forward some of the responses I received to the minister so he might wake up and realise he should be ashamed. They were appalled at his speech. I received a comment to say they noted that the only government members in here at the time were on their phones and computers.
The community needs to know what the process is for this ...
Members interjecting.
Ms FYLES: They think it is a comedy show; it is appalling. We are talking about a residential island for 3000 people being built off our community with no consultation or social impact plans. Have you looked at Nightcliff Primary School? It is full with 550 students. Your own government just spent $50 000 on a traffic survey for our community because it is already struggling with densification. There will be areas where single dwellings move to multiple dwellings. We have accepted that and we would very much like a plan for it. I thought the minister would agree to that, but so far we have seen no action. We do not need a man-made island off our foreshore. This is something that will affect Darwin as a city. It will change the shape of our city.
It is not on your Darwin area land use plan, yet you signed a lease in the middle of January. Is this a case of your government cutting red and green tape and cutting corners …
Mr Elferink: Work in January?
Mr Giles: This is Labor. They will not work over Christmas.
Ms FYLES: It is a shame you were not so talkative when I delivered the speech. The questions I brought to the House in February still stand. Residents have many questions surrounding the proposed development, because your government is keeping us in the dark. We want to know how this proposed development will affect us, where it is at and what the status of the lease is. The area flagged for development is a popular space for locals and residents from across Darwin and Palmerston. I go to the foreshore in the evenings, particularly on weekends, and there are people there from all over the Top End. They go there to enjoy the amenity. Do not think this will not come back and hurt you in your electorates. Residents want to know what type of lease was granted and what the process is from here …
Minister, you questioned me mentioning Nightcliff a lot. I proudly represent the people of Nightcliff, Coconut Grove and Rapid Creek, and you are proposing to build an island in our community. It should be expected that I will talk about Nightcliff a lot. You have totally missed the point. We are not against development; we are against a man-made island in our harbour.
You said that if you went through the mangroves with an environmentalist, you would agree to their point, but if you went with a developer you would have a different opinion. You need to show some leadership. You need to know what is right for a harbour, and a man-made island is not.
You have admitted you can do more to consult with the rural area. Why do you not consult with our community? Interestingly, during the debate in August you said:
- Even with exceptional development permits where I am ultimately the one who decides those processes, I still use the Development Consent Authority as my authority to undertake the process – the public hearings and consultations.
Our community is concerned. We will not stop at this; we will not accept a man-made island in our harbour, and they will hold you accountable.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 8 Noes 12
- Ms Fyles Mr Barrett
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Elferink
Mr McCarthy Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms Manison Mr Giles
Ms Moss Mr Higgins
Mr Vowles Mr Kurrupuwu
Ms Walker Mrs Lambley
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 90)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr GILES (Economic Development and Major Projects): Madam Speaker, I thank everybody who contributed to the debate. A lot of politicking occurred today; the Leader of the Opposition attacked public service workers throughout the debate and the member for Johnston attacked the Tiwi Islands and Tiwi Islanders. There were scurrilous accusations and imputations, and innuendo, from those opposite. However, fundamentally, this is a bill about removing the advisory board, which only pays lip service, to a certain degree, to the CEO.
In regard to the separation of the LDC from the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, it should be noted the Country Liberals moved the LDC out of Lands and Planning, where Labor had it. We now have two separate ministers for the LDC, one being me, and Lands and Planning being the member for Brennan, the Deputy Chief Minister.
I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr GILES (Economic Development and Major Projects)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Conservation of the Territory’s Unique Native Flora and Fauna
Conservation of the Territory’s Unique Native Flora and Fauna
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, the Territory has rich and unique flora and fauna, with much of the Territory’s plant and animal species found nowhere else in the world.
Today I provide the Assembly with an update and an outlook on the state of our biodiversity, and highlight the hard work undertaken by many public servants to ensure the long-term survival of our plants and animals in an environment that is safe and healthy and allows these species to flourish.
Altogether, the Territory is host to around 4200 native plant species, 700 fish species, 50 frog species, 30 reptile species, 420 bird species, 150 mammal species and a very large number of invertebrate species.
The diversity of reptiles in tropical and desert areas of the Territory is amongst the highest in the world. Our freshwater fish fauna is very rich. There can be more native fish species in a single pool of one of our large tropical rivers than in the whole of the Murray-Darling system. It is also possible we have the richest ant fauna in the world. A single 1 ha patch of eucalyptus forest in the Top End can contain at least 100 ant species.
Our range of ecosystems is extensive, ranging from the arid centre of Australia to the tropical monsoonal Top End. This huge climate gradient underlies the diversity of ecosystems and habitats that support the rich flora and fauna and, in total, make up our biodiversity.
The western Arnhem Land plateau is a notable national hotspot for endemic species, with about 200 plant species and 20 vertebrate species, such as the Oenpelli python, found only there. We have sandy spinifex deserts and the extensive mulga woodlands of the arid southern Northern Territory. Rugged Central Australian ranges such as the MacDonnells, with mountain tops, gorges and waterholes, provide unique habitats and refuges for relict species such as the cabbage palms in Finke Gorge that could not survive elsewhere in the desert.
There are the extensive grasslands of the Barkly Tableland and Victoria River districts which, in addition to their importance to the pastoral industry, support a distinct assemblage of native plants and animals.
A variety of eucalypt woodland savannah covers most of the Top End, and rugged rocky ranges and plateaus in the Gulf, Arnhem Land and eastern edge of the Kimberley.
There is a mosaic of small patches of monsoon rainforest dotted amongst the eucalypt savannah. Although small in extent it makes an important contribution to our biodiversity.
Many species depend on the swamps, creeks, springs and rivers and their associated riparian vegetation, with large coastal floodplains supporting huge aggregations of wildlife, including iconic species such as magpie geese and our crocodiles.
Along with our coastlines and beaches we have approximately 1000 islands that are home to diverse marine environments, including large estuaries and bays, seagrass beds and coral reefs. The Territory is characterised by extensive natural landscapes. Relative to all other states, only a very small proportion has been cleared for intensive development.
My Department of Land Resource Management has a key function in providing advice and support to government, landowners, industry and other stakeholders in conserving the Territory’s flora and fauna. This is particularly through the work of biodiversity experts within the flora and fauna division, but also flows from the department’s role in the assessment and allocation of the Territory’s water, soil and vegetation resources, and in supporting the management of major threats to our natural environment from weeds, feral animals and bushfires.
Scientific staff within the flora and fauna division have combined professional work experience relating to biodiversity in the Northern Territory of around 450 years. This includes 16 staff with PHDs. The current work program of the department in relation to biodiversity management is founded on a long history of systematic research, assessment and monitoring of the Territory’s flora and fauna so that, for a jurisdiction with a relatively tiny science community, we have a surprisingly good understanding of the basic makeup of our biodiversity, the distribution of species and the effects of various land use regimes on them. However, there are still significant knowledge gaps, and new priorities and challenges are constantly emerging.
A crucial aspect of protecting our native flora and fauna is understanding it, knowing what species there are, where they occur and what their conservation significance is. We have opportunities to conserve our native flora and fauna that are almost unique to the Territory when compared to other parts of Australia or elsewhere in the world. Compared to other Australian states and most other countries, the Territory’s rivers and wetlands are in very good condition. Similarly, compared to most areas of the world, our coastline and seas are largely pristine, with abundant marine life.
While we have some serious weed issues, the proportion of exotic plant species found in the Territory is much lower than in other Australian states.
In general, we are in a position to carefully manage and protect our natural ecosystems and biodiversity, rather than the far more expensive and less successful option of the restoration of badly degraded environments.
Islands are recognised as particularly important conservation assets. The Territory coastline has more than 1000 islands and it is generally not realised that this includes Australia’s second largest after Tasmania, as well as its fourth and fifth largest islands. Three Territory islands in particular have outstanding biodiversity values: Melville and Bathurst Islands, which have unusually high rainfall, tall forests, jungle patches and a number of endemic species and varieties; and Groote Eylandt, a refuge where threats of feral animals and deleterious fire regimes are low.
The Territory’s natural environment and makeup of plants and animals have been shaped by Aboriginal management over thousands of years, such as through the manipulation of fire regimes. Indeed, many Territory plant and animal species have cultural significance and are a resource value to Aboriginal communities. Indigenous elders hold detailed knowledge of the plants, animals and ecology of their country. Preserving and continuing this knowledge is another important aspect of managing biodiversity.
My Department of Land Resource Management is a key source of authoritative information about the Territory’s flora and fauna through the NT Herbarium and the Fauna and Flora Atlas databases. The Darwin and Alice Springs Herbaria are part of a national and international network of formal libraries of preserved plant specimens, which form the basis for the description and naming of plant species.
The NT Herbarium contains a total of 204 000 individual plant specimens, which includes a representative example of nearly all plant species occurring in the Northern Territory. The herbarium provides an important plant identification service for other agencies, including industry, land managers and the public, as well as providing authoritative advice on the distribution and conservation status of plants throughout the Territory.
The herbarium is currently working on making these information resources more accessible to users and the public via the web, including online resources for plant identification, local and regional plant species lists, species distribution maps and fact sheets about Territory plant species.
Another key biodiversity information resource is the Flora and Fauna Atlas databases maintained by the department. These have been painstakingly compiled to be a comprehensive account of the known distribution records of all native plants and terrestrial vertebrates in the Territory. There is a wide variety of sources for this information including museum and herbarium specimens, wildlife surveys, scientific literature and reports, citizen science datasets, environmental impact assessments and permit returns. The databases are continually updated as new data becomes available.
These databases currently contain just over one million local records for Territory fauna and 700 000 location records for plants. They are a crucial information source for biodiversity issues for both government and external stakeholders, with the department handling around 2500 biodiversity information requests each year.
My department is working on web services to make this and other natural resource management data easily accessible to the public. The flora and fauna data is widely sought after and used by land management organisations and industry to assist in planning sustainable development and environmental impact assessments.
Despite this large number of records there are still significant gaps in our knowledge of the Territory’s biodiversity. Department botanists and zoologists undertake targeted surveys to fill these gaps, particularly where there are requests from landowners for information, or to address emergency development or management priorities, such as the proposed agricultural developments on the Tiwi Islands. Such surveys also regularly turn up new species, either entirely new to science or species previously unrecorded in the Territory.
One important aspect of conserving the Territory’s flora and fauna is the management of threatened species. These are the species most vulnerable to decline and even extinction due to both natural processes and threats such as feral pests and habitat degradation. There are also particular legislative requirements under Territory and Australian law for the management of these species, and they require special consideration during environmental impact processes.
My Department of Land Resource Management also has responsibility, under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, for developing the list of threatened species within the Northern Territory. This is periodically reviewed and updated by a panel of internal and external experts, as well as by public submission.
Currently, 209 species in the Territory are listed as threatened. In order to ensure that investment in threatened species management is most effectively directed, the department is currently undertaking a systematic prioritisation review of the Territory’s threatened species. This uses a set of objective criteria to evaluate which species are of the greatest significance and are also most likely to be amenable to recovery. A set of action plans will be developed for these high priority species. It also provides a priority for research effort for species that are too poorly known to develop management programs.
As well as guiding the department’s efforts, these action plans will be an important resource for land management organisations, industry and concerned land managers.
One focus for department scientists in Alice Springs has been to work with parks and community organisations to further involve the public in threatened species conservation through the Biodiversity Matters program. This has included volunteer public involvement in surveys for the endangered Central brushtail possum in the MacDonnell Ranges, monitoring the population of the endangered waddywood in MacClark Conservation Reserve and reducing grass fuel loads around stands of red cabbage palm in the Finke Gorge.
Recent wildlife surveys by department staff in the MacDonnell Ranges have been successful in locating additional populations of mountaintop refuges of the extremely rare Central rock-rat, and a priority for future work is assessing the status of the black-footed rock wallaby in Watarrka National Park.
The department’s threatened species invertebrate expert, Dr Michael Braby, has been working with Greening Australia, community organisations and interested members of the public to promote the conservation of the spectacular but endangered Atlas moth. A population of this extremely rare giant moth was recently discovered in the Dundee Beach area, and it has become a figurehead species for the protection of rainforest habitat in that area, as well as the re-establishment of suitable food trees in revegetation areas around Darwin.
I have previously outlined to this parliament concerns about the widespread decline of many native small mammal species in the Top End of the Territory, as well as northern Australia more generally. Evidence from long-term fauna monitoring programs undertaken by the department in Kakadu and Litchfield National Parks shows that over the past 15 years the average number of mammal species recorded per site has declined by 65% and the average number of individual animals recorded declined by 75%.
Information from a range of sources supports this as a widespread phenomenon affecting at least half the 37 native small mammal species found in the Top End. The department is currently engaged in a major research program to better understand the causes of these declines and develop management methods to address and reverse them.
The available evidence suggests these mammal declines are caused by harmful fire regimes and predators, particularly the feral cat. Research by the department is particularly focused on understanding the role of feral cats, and this work has included the construction of two large cat-proof exclosure sites within Kakadu National Park. The research has also investigated disease and pathogens in native mammals, as there is very little data on this potential contributor to mammal decline.
Another significant aspect of the mammal decline work is the collaboration with Indigenous ranger groups and communities, including in Djelk and Warddeken Indigenous Protected Areas in Arnhem Land, and recently on Groote Eylandt.
The work with the Warddeken to manage feral cats has been particularly productive, including broad engagement with the community and the application of Indigenous bush skills in tracking and monitoring feral cats. This has been combined with high-tech science and cat detector dogs used to hunt down and capture cats, which are then released with a GPS collar that reports their movements and habitat over several months.
The ultimate goal is to work with Indigenous land managers to implement techniques to strategically reduce cat numbers in areas of high biodiversity value, including on island refuges such as Groote Eylandt and the biodiversity hot spot of the western Arnhem plateau.
The release of the national mammal action plan in June 2014 has further focused attention on these issues. The action plan identifies that northern Australia is now the area where vertebrate biodiversity is most rapidly being lost in Australia. It identifies predation by feral cats as the most serious threat to Australian mammals.
One aspect of the wildlife monitoring work undertaken by the department has been the development of new techniques based on the use of motion-sensing remote cameras. Camera traps can be deployed and then left for extended periods. They are particularly suited to species that are difficult to trap, such as cats, and occur very sparsely, such as many of our native mammal species.
Another feral pest that has been a major focus for the department is feral camels in Central Australia. From 2009 until the end of 2013 the Territory was a partner in the Australian feral camel management program, receiving $2.3m in funding. The Territory government committed $3.3m over four years to support the program, and this funding allowed camel culls to continue until June 2014. In 2008, it was estimated there were 250 000 feral camels in the Territory. These feral animals cause serious land degradation and damage to arid wetlands, pastoral infrastructure and community water supplies. During the program, the department took part in 26 aerial culling operations, which were successful in greatly reducing camel densities.
One important component of the feral camel management program was the monitoring of the condition of arid zone waterholes, many of which were being seriously impacted by high densities of camels, as well as high densities of wild horses in some areas. These waterholes are some of the jewels of Central Australia, with very high biodiversity values as well as great Aboriginal cultural significance. The waterhole monitoring program was successful in engaging local Indigenous communities, and demonstrated that the condition of these wetlands could recover when large feral animals were reduced or excluded.
Systematic aerial surveys, an area of specialised expertise within the department, are used to assess wildlife populations – both native and feral – and have also been applied to assess feral buffalo populations in Arnhem Land.
The aerial survey in June 2014 involved flying a total of 7700 km of transect, encompassing the entire extent of Arnhem Land at a spacing of 11 km. Analysis of this data has yet to be completed, but rough calculations indicate a population of up to 200 000 buffalo. The buffalo density maps and population models derived from this data will be vital baseline data that will allow all stakeholders to develop a strategic regional buffalo management plan, which may include commercial harvest and culling to reduce environmental damage.
Within the context of protecting our native wildlife, the Territory government supports the commercial use of native plants and animals where this can provide economic opportunities for landowners and sustainability can be demonstrated.
The outstanding example of sustainable wildlife use in the Territory is the crocodile industry, which is based on the annual harvest of up to 60 000 eggs and 500 adult saltwater crocodiles from the wild. It is estimated that the Territory crocodile industry is worth $25m per annum, and there has been recent significant investment by the industry to increase this.
The majority of wild harvest is from Aboriginal land, and an estimated $1m per annum is paid in royalties to Indigenous landowners. Long-term systematic annual monitoring of crocodile populations in the Territory demonstrates that the current wild harvest of crocodile eggs and animals is sustainable. Population and compliance monitoring by the department also ensures the saltwater crocodile management program satisfies Australian government requirements for the international export of crocodile products.
Another aspect of the Territory’s biodiversity is the marine environment, which is highly valued and used by many Territorians. The Department of Land Resource Management has responsibility for a group of species known as marine mega fauna, and this includes marine mammals such as dugong, dolphins and whales, and marine reptiles such as sea turtles, sea snakes and saltwater crocodiles.
While undertaking dolphin surveys in March 2014 off the Cobourg Peninsula, department scientists were able to embed satellite tracking devices in four false killer whales travelling with a pod of about 50 animals. This large super-dolphin is generally found in deep oceanic waters, but pods have occasionally been reported in shallow Territory seas.
The tags have reported the daily position of the super-dolphins for up to four months, and show them rapidly covering a huge swathe of Territory seas between the Tiwi and the Wessel Islands as they hunt for jewfish and other large fish.
The department has also, over many years, been working with Aboriginal elders and custodians to preserve Aboriginal biocultural knowledge of the Territory’s flora and fauna. Glenn Wightman has made a particularly notable contribution in this area over the past 30 years. Recognising that much of their detailed knowledge of local plants and animals was not being passed on to younger generations and was in danger of being lost, elders and custodians have sought assistance in recording and documenting this knowledge.
Over the past three decades Glenn has worked with elders and community members from many language groups across the Top End and Kimberley, and this has resulted in the publication of 26 books and reports documenting this knowledge. The most recent book was Ngan’gi Plants and Animals, which describes names and uses of plants and animals around the Peppimenarti area. I had the pleasure of launching this book at this year’s Merrepen Arts Festival.
Under Framing the Future, this government’s blueprint for the development of the Northern Territory, our balanced environment vision ensures the preservation and protection of our natural environment. The Country Liberals government is committed to an environment that is supported through research, information, knowledge and sound land management. Taking care of our natural environment and conserving our biodiversity is scientifically, culturally, spiritually and ethically responsible and the right thing to do, but it is so much more than that. It is about preserving the Territory way of life. It is about ensuring future generations can enjoy the unique, bizarre, unusual and important plants and animals that make the Northern Territory the unique, bizarre, unusual and, most importantly, best place in the world to live, work, play and raise a family.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement before the House. I join him in recognising the critical importance of biodiversity, conserving the Territory’s unique native flora and fauna, and maintaining, protecting and enhancing the biodiversity of native species, as well as landscapes, water resources and coastal marine environments.
I also acknowledge the good deal of hard work and professionalism of those public servants who work in the Department of Land Resource Management, as well as those in the environment section and Parks and Wildlife.
During my travels around the Territory, and more recently on the mid-year show circuit, I enjoyed the often interactive and informative displays these departments staged for the benefit of the public, showcasing the work they do. I enjoyed and found informative the conversations I had with officers manning these displays, for the most part outside of their normal work hours.
As we know, it is not only the public sector that has a vested interest in biodiversity. We have any number of organisations and stakeholders in the Northern Territory, from our traditional owner ranger groups across the Top End through Central Australia, as well as a number of environmental organisations, through to our schools, where we have children actively involved in programs and education processes – often in a very hands-on way – regarding the importance of biodiversity. That is very positive.
The minister is right that the Northern Territory has an invaluable asset in our pristine environments, but we must put in the effort to make sure it stays that way. We often hear – it was at the closure of the minister’s statement – about the great Territory lifestyle that comes with living in this unique part of our country. So much of our sense of what it means to be a Territorian relates to the wonderful environment we live in. I am blessed to live in a very unique and pristine part of the world in northeast Arnhem Land – a unique environment with a strong Indigenous and cultural overlay we can all feel proud of.
We can and should all share in an obligation to ensure the wise use of resources and the protection of our environment for future generations. We enjoy an environment that is relatively intact. We have the opportunity in the Territory to avoid mistakes made in other places.
A large geographic area makes up the Northern Territory, with a relatively small population of only 240 000 people. Most of those people are in our regional centres, and the population is scattered across the rest of the Northern Territory to our very remote parts as well. They are places where so much time, money and energy now goes into the restoration of degraded landscapes, particularly rivers, streams and wetlands. It makes much more sense to make wise and precautionary decisions, ensuring the long-term wellbeing of our environment and, of course, reducing future cleanup costs on the long-suffering taxpayer.
This is a critical time for our environment, with pressures from climate change and development. We need to ensure we are putting in the resources and standing up to protect our natural and cultural assets in the Territory.
This statement from the minister focuses on the important work on threatened species conservation, including the management of feral animals and invasive weeds. This is critical work, which members on this side recognise.
When we talk about biodiversity conservation, we are not only talking about individual species, we are also talking about landscapes. We must always remain focused on our stewardship role and our responsibilities to ensure the environment we enjoy is, as I said earlier, passed on to successive generations of Territorians in the best condition possible.
Amongst my Yolngu constituents, it is very much a part of the way they live their lives, especially so on their traditional clan estates and homelands, in teaching young ones the importance of caring for land and sea country so it can be passed on to the next generation. It is not only about land or seawater resources; it is about their entire lives and history. There is an expectation that they protect the land they are on for the benefit of future generations.
A heritage that sustains us in so many ways, including underpinning our tourism industry, is central to the Territory economy and jobs for Territorians. It is our pristine landscape, and with it the cultural heritage values, that attracts so many visitors to the Northern Territory every year. We need to be careful how we manage those visitor numbers. The Tourism minister would always want to see higher visitor numbers because it is such an important industry and employer, but we have to manage our natural resources carefully.
Territory Labor is very proud of its record in government in promoting good biodiversity conservation practice, which is informed by solid science but built on a good understanding of industry needs, for example, the pastoral industry and biodiversity issues in our rangelands. Community engagement and a combination of work by all levels of government, the community and industry supports the work.
Our hard-working public servants in Parks and Wildlife, and Land Resource Management simply cannot meet our biodiversity conservation objectives alone. Success will only be realised with whole-of-community concern and effort and a commitment to playing a role – everyone living in the Territory being part of protecting our resources and that biodiversity story.
Landholders, whether they are pastoralists, Aboriginal communities, homeowners, etcetera – we all need to be supported to look after places that are critical to maintaining biodiversity. Our 2005 Northern Territory Parks and Conservation Masterplan Summary Paper was a standout piece of work. It is a relatively slim document, but that overview of an enormous body of work mapping and understanding the significance of our biodiversity and the nature of threats to it – signing off on that master plan in 2004 was a much younger looking Marion Scrymgour, who at that time was the Minister for Natural Resources, the Environment and Heritage. For all the portfolios she held she tells me that one was perhaps closest to her heart. She did a top job in that role.
I very much enjoyed seeing Dr Scrymgour deliver the H C Coombs Lecture at Charles Darwin University a couple of weeks ago, which took a before and after look at the Northern Territory intervention. It was a fascinating lecture for those of us able to attend.
As for this master plan, it was important, groundbreaking work carried out by some of the best scientific minds in the country. It proudly underpinned the Territory as a leader in this area of work but, sadly, if a member of the public was to look for that work on Northern Territory government websites they will see a very sad response that says, ‘page not found’, even though the Northern Territory government website index still refers to the plan.
I urge the minister to reconsider opening the link; let people find this document. There is nothing political about it; it is an important body of work.
Mr Westra van Holthe: What is it called?
Ms WALKER: It is the Northern Territory Parks & Conservation Masterplan Summary Paper from September 2005. It would be great if people had access to these historical documents that have all built upon the body of knowledge that takes us to, hopefully, where we are today.
It is disappointing it is not readily accessible, but if the minister could get that back on the website and make it accessible that would be very positive.
Mr Westra van Holthe: I will look at it.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, minister.
The statement also makes no mention of the effect commercialisation of our parks and the added infrastructure it brings would have on the Territory’s biodiversity, or how it will potentially benefit our biodiversity conservation objectives. Such commercialisation would surely create an added need for quarantine measures as you would see increased levels of traffic, construction and human impact that would introduce or spread organisms and material that would irrevocably alter local biodiversity.
We are not anti-development. We say that continuously on this side of the House, but development and growth must be managed in a way that protects biodiversity and ensures, particularly in our parks, cultural and heritage values.
You cannot sit back and expect biodiversity conservation will be looked after by government. It requires much greater involvement in that we need a whole-of-community effort informed by good science and knowledge. That includes, importantly, Indigenous knowledge that has often been overlooked and even devalued in the past.
Turning to some of the specific elements of the statement, it was remarkable he did not think it worthwhile to mention cane toads when we are talking about biodiversity. That is because the government is ignoring that side of the debate and some funding cuts there. Cane toads are not only a threat to biodiversity but a stand-out example of how threats to biodiversity emerge and are best managed or not managed.
Recently, the ABC reported some new and very concerning evidence of the threatening impact cane toads have on ghost bat colonies in the Northern Territory. There was an ABC online article dated 14 October 2014 titled ‘Ghost bat autopsy finds cane toad bones, explains population’s fall in NT, Queensland’. The article opens with:
- Cane toad bones found in a mummified ghost bat’s stomach have been described as the ‘smoking gun’ that explains the mammal’s local extinction in Queensland and parts of the Northern Territory.
This is worrying. Cane toads are an introduced species that are wreaking havoc across Queensland and the Northern Territory. I will quote another line from that ABC article:
- There are now an estimated 10 000 ghost bats in the wild, with the figure declining by 10 per cent every 24 years, according to … a senior scientist with the NT Government’s Department of Land Resource Management.
It is one example of a potentially significant threat to one of our unique animals. The minister talked in his statement about islands; I think he made reference to Groote Eylandt. Groote Eylandt has had a very strict policy in place for a number of years and some quarantine checks around cane toads such that there are no cane toads on Groote Eylandt. Let us hope it stays that way. It will only remain that way with sustained efforts to ensure boat, barge and aircraft transport is checked, if people on Groote Eylandt are constantly vigilant to the threat of cane toads and, should they see them and know what it is they are looking at, alert someone or even perhaps catch it themselves, if they dare.
I remember the invasion of cane toads when they came to Nhulunbuy a number of years ago. I remember seeing the first cane toads in our garden; the locals were horrified at these awful, ugly creatures. Numbers have grown, and as the numbers of cane toads have grown around Nhulunbuy and northeast Arnhem Land, parallel to it has been a reduction in the number of native animals.
Goannas, of considerable size, and sand monitors were a regular sight in and around gardens in Nhulunbuy pre-cane toads. It is rare to see them around Nhulunbuy and Yirrkala these days. Our traditional owners talk to me about that and about how they used to hunt, in particular, goannas, but you do not see them anymore because cane toads are impacting on their numbers, which is disastrous.
We still have the very unhappy situation of a government that is unwilling to provide reasonable and continuing support for grassroots community action to better understand and mitigate the impacts of cane toads. I am talking about funding for Frogwatch.
Following the change of government in 2012, the CLP took a knife to the budget and there were cuts, along with the slashing of jobs – a piddling $200 000 a year for Frogwatch was wiped under the most bizarre guise that they apparently decided not to take up their funding. That was not the case, and that was a pathetic response from the government. Let us be very clear about it: funding for Frogwatch was axed by the CLP government. That is somewhat at odds with this statement about the importance of biodiversity, given the government has slashed all funding to Frogwatch, and no minister will outline any kind of replacement plans regarding how much priority is being placed on the Territory’s 209 threatened species.
The Leader of the Opposition, when she was a member of the government, was on the environment committee. She was Chair at the time the committee produced a fantastic report on the threat of cane toads and how to deal with their onslaught. It was a report that had much input in terms of submissions and contributions at public hearings. It was a good body of work; things like Frogwatch were supported from that work, and yet the chapter on cane toads – it seems to be a case of, ‘We have done that and we will direct our funding elsewhere’. It is incredibly short-sighted because cane toads are the biggest biological threat to the Territory’s biodiversity, and the government seems to be doing nothing to stop them. It is rolling over and saying it is all too hard. The minister’s statement even said some mammal numbers have dropped by 75%. The failure to recognise that cane toads have a role in the destruction of native fauna is a sign of having the blinkers on.
We must work with all landholders and users to value and protect biodiversity, particularly that which is at risk. That was the road we were on, and it was so disappointing the CLP, as one of its first actions, dropped support for the Eco-Link initiative established by our government. After my maiden speech in 2008, I think the first debate I participated in was about Eco-Link, which had been set up at that time. The member for Namatjira was the Environment minister and had launched Eco-Link.
The shadow minister for the Environment at that time was the member for Brennan, who is now the minister. In opposition days he did not support the Eco-Link initiative any more than he probably supports the ban on plastic bags. Having just re-read his Hansard contribution from the last sittings – as well the plastic bags review – I am alarmed. Even though he says not, the Environment minister does not appear interested in making the plastic bag ban work. Reading reviews across other jurisdictions where they have these plastic bag bans, the community, the retail sector and government have all embraced them. If there are things that need to be done in the Northern Territory, particularly around educating consumers about the importance of bringing their own recyclable bags when shopping – I will be watching with great interest to see what the Environment minister does with the plastic bag ban.
I will briefly mention Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2020, which identifies the following as the main threats to Australia’s biodiversity. The main threats to Australia’s biodiversity are habitat loss; degradation and fragmentation; invasive species; unsustainable use and management of natural resources; changes to the aquatic environment and water flows – a very important one in the Territory; changing fire regimes; and the sixth one is climate change.
What is the CLP government doing about these six key threats to Australia’s biodiversity, particularly about those areas of aquatic environment and water flows and climate change in an environment where we know conservative governments are climate change deniers? Prime Minister Abbott has axed the office of climate change and the science ministry, so this is concerning.
The potential for more habitat loss in land clearing and fragmentation of different ecosystems as the Territory continues to develop is concerning. We need to ensure the wise use of our resources and well-informed and transparent resource allocation decisions, including approvals for the clearing of land and vegetation for broadacre land development. What new work is being proposed in managing the broad-scale effects of fire regimes that might go wrong?
What is the government doing to support more work like that of the Wardekken rangers and the West Arnhem fire abatement project? Government, industry and community ranger groups do important work to reduce the broad-scale impacts of hot, damaging fires, and fine tune fire management for conservation in our fire-prone landscapes.
We talk about a program that was launched around asbestos removal in communities as a brand-new avenue for training and employment. I am not sure about career development in asbestos removal. It is important, but that is where the member for Stuart was focusing her energy on Indigenous employment and training. Managing land and sea country and things like these fire abatement programs that have been successful in West Arnhem is a perfect fit for our ranger groups in our remote areas. These guys get fire abatement projects. It keeps people on country, it is productive work and gains carbon credits as well.
Around 3.5% of our estate is managed by Parks and Wildlife, but our wonderful Parks and Wildlife rangers struggle with unrealistic operational budgets to address fire management and invasive weeds in our parks, out bush and in our key urban parks like the Casuarina Coastal Reserve. There needs to be realistic investment into not only jobs, but protecting and managing the biodiversity in these areas.
Where is the long-awaited Cabinet decision on the tourism and recreation master plan? When will we be able to see the CLP’s plans for our parks estate? I have seen the draft that was made available more than a year ago. It was one of the first things I looked at after a shadow Cabinet reshuffle when I picked up Parks and Wildlife. At the time I was advised that, ‘We cannot tell you anything about that because it is before Cabinet’. Some months later, I did receive a briefing about it. There is interest in commercial opportunities in our parks. There is nothing wrong with getting more visitors into our parks, but it is about understanding how sustainable it is in protecting biodiversity and cultural and heritage values.
There is a good deal of community uncertainty about this government’s commitment to biodiversity conservation. What is the government doing to arrest the loss of some of our best and brightest conservation talent underpinning our work in this area? What is it doing about cuts to the budgets of important organisations like Charles Darwin University that contribute so importantly to our understanding of biodiversity conservation issues and best practice in conservation management? How many of those professionals might we have lost in the Northern Territory through cost of living increases that mean they and their families choose to go somewhere else, not to mention cuts to higher education.
What of the CLP’s bloody-minded cuts to the budgets of grassroots environment groups that put their future at risk and limit their activities? We have already talked about Frogwatch. What about the Arid Lands Environment Centre in Alice Springs and the Environment Centre NT – important groups that help engender community interest and action in relation to conservation issues?
I am sure the Environment minister will stand up during this debate to read out a list of all the grants recently allocated. For organisations that have to apply six-monthly or 12-monthly for grants, with fingers crossed in the hope they get one, it does nothing to allow them to sustain the jobs of people who work with them nor sustain the important programs they run. They need greater certainty than that, but unfortunately the CLP government is not interested in the views of these organisations and sees them as a bit of a nuisance.
This government should be supporting, not slashing, community groups and organisations that have the interest, expertise and runs on the board when it comes to protecting our biodiversity.
When I was in Alice Springs in the middle of the year I caught up with Jimmy Cocking, director of the Arid Lands Environment Centre. They are involved in some critical programs and projects that have, at their core, protecting our biodiversity and taking practical steps in conservation issues.
Government has a great responsibility to ensure appropriate management and allocation.
The Arid Lands Environment Centre runs some terrific community-based programs that get Central Australians involved in land management and biodiversity conservation initiatives. I visited the Frances Smith Memorial Park community garden in Alice Springs, a beautiful community garden with different pockets set out for different users growing different things. At each plot there is a letterbox so plot holders can communicate with one another by sending messages on slips of paper. They are like little garden ornaments. It is a terrific place and well patronised by individuals and families in Alice Springs.
The Arid Lands Environment Centre Biodiversity Matters program includes information sessions and very popular hands-on field trips where participants learn about important local biodiversity issues and take part in conservation activities.
Biodiversity Matters has been running for more than two years and has involved more than 100 people in collaborative approaches to conservation, which has to be a good thing. In fact, you would want even more people involved if you could. Some of their activities include weed monitoring in Finke Gorge National Park, monitoring activities at Conlon’s Lagoon, discovering an area of national botanical significance on the outskirts of Alice Springs, and the examples go on. Many of them support the work of park rangers and assist the aims of Parks and Wildlife. Obviously these people are volunteers in the work they do and their contribution cannot be underestimated.
Biodiversity Matters was the Territory winner of the partnerships with Landcare award for its innovative and collaborative approach to volunteer-based conservation. Why a government would make access to funding for organisations like the Arid Lands Environment Centre beggars belief.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Government has a great responsibility to ensure the appropriate management and allocation of our precious resource, fresh water, including groundwater. Our community understands the importance of water, whether that be in our rivers and streams or our precious groundwater resources. The CLP has been riddled with scandal over the allocation of vast amounts of our precious water resources.
Our community is concerned when it reads of EPA concerns about the impact of iron ore dust at Bing Bong port, first brought to public attention not by government but by local traditional owners and the about to be de-funded Environment Centre NT.
We have seen strident community concern about the impact of legacy mines on streams and waterways, whether that be outflow from the Mount Todd or Redback mines or any of the many legacy mines across the Northern Territory. I have no doubt my colleague the member for Barkly, as shadow minister for Primary Industry and Mines, will be talking more about biodiversity in that sphere.
We will continue to pursue this government about its deeply troubling approach to water allocations. The Northern Territory government is being taken to the Supreme Court, where the minister will be made to answer for his failure as the minister for Resources in the reckless allocation of water resources, as well as his failure to respond to community concerns with any review process that would give people comfort about these allocations.
This is a scandal about the allocation of groundwater resources to CLP mates, and it is well known both here and nationally.
Most recently, there has been very deep concern about the over-allocation of groundwater resources from the Oolloo aquifer in the Daly River catchment area. A public notice went out – I think it was dated 24 September – stating that the water controller was advising of upholding decisions to allocate additional extraction licences. In making that decision, an annual extraction of 67 945 ML has now been approved. This exceeds the annual limit of 60 000 ML set out in the draft water allocation plan. This is outrageous.
There has been an outcry from numerous sectors ever since the water rush started with the very controversial massive water allocation to Tina MacFarlane from Stylo Station – the CLP candidate in the federal election. There was a massive water allocation to her, and following on from that there has been a number of water allocation licences issued. Some of them have been quite controversial, and it is not only members on this side of the House who have endeavoured to call out the government on this process, which lacks transparency, the support of science and consultation.
We have had the Northern Land Council, AFANT -representing amateur fisherman – the Farmer’s Association and traditional owners, and even the member for Stuart, in her early days of being a member of this House, saying they do not agree with the government’s water allocation and have concerns about the axing of the Strategic Indigenous Reserve.
Three members of the CLP actually walked out on the CLP for a number of reasons, claiming not only was the government and its colleagues racist, but the way they were treating Indigenous communities and resources such as water was simply wrong.
Mrs Price: Think about biodiversity. We can talk about wildlife.
Ms WALKER: Three members walked out, and now one of them has gone back. I look forward to the member for Arafura perhaps contributing to this debate.
Mrs Price: Why not? It was his choice.
Ms WALKER: He can explain to us why it is that his views have changed so dramatically about how his colleagues have treated him. I am sure he will speak in this important debate.
I am sure the member for Stuart, who has plenty to say, might tell us why she axed funding to Frogwatch, $200 000 a year, and why, initially, she was concerned about the Strategic Indigenous Reserve, but now thinks it is okay that traditional owners get no say in the allocation of these water resources.
We have been calling for an inquiry into water allocations since mid-May. There is a growing case that calls for an inquiry into the allocation of water resources, but members opposite are not interested in inquiries. Should they be asleep at the wheel and we manage to get a motion up that says there will be an inquiry into the allocation of water resources, you can bet your bottom dollar they would be back here during the next sittings putting up a motion to rescind any sort of inquiry. They do not like any sort of transparency.
They always have something to hide. I wish the Environment Centre NT well with its bid, the first time it has ever taken legal action. It is at cost to their members, potentially, but surely they would not be taking these steps if they did not think there was a case to answer. I am sure all stakeholders will be watching the outcome of that court case very closely. It is a debacle for the CLP government. There is an incredibly flawed process around water allocation, and there is much to be answered.
Scrapping the Strategic Indigenous Reserve was an inconsistent decision with the national water plan. We need nothing less than a full and independent inquiry to give Territorians the comfort they deserve. They should know the precious natural assets that belong to all of them are awarded without political interference and in a manner which supports principles of sustainability, as well as acknowledging the legitimate interests of all stakeholders, including traditional owners.
We have a government consumed with turning land in production, cutting through long-standing planning and community engagement protocols. The statement says it is about a balanced environment policy. It is not that at all – far from it. It is a useful contribution to the debate about the need for biodiversity conservation and the conservation of threatened species. There is nothing new in this statement, and it is not a statement about a balanced environment policy. It says little to us about climate change and what the impact of that is on biodiversity conservation.
We have yet to see a balanced environment policy from the CLP, and I fear it will be a long time coming. Earlier today I revisited the Framing the Future policy in this flimsy little document. There is a section called Balanced Environment, where there are three objectives with a few dot points – no targets, dates or measures. This flimsy little document that is Framing the Future has not been consulted on and it is not noted who the authors are.
In contrast to Framing the Future, the Territory 2030 document was put out by the Henderson Labor government in about 2009 or 2010. You only have to look at them to see which one carries a little more weight. Quite literally, it is Territory 2030, a blueprint for the future, which was highly consulted on around the Northern Territory. An eminent group of Territorians which was a subcommittee of Cabinet – Vicki O’Halloran, Bill Moss, Michael Berto, Jan Ferguson, Ted Egan AO, Jonathan Carapetis, Steve Margetic and Dennis Mackenzie were the authors of this report. Alongside Framing the Future, it is like comparing chalk and cheese. Territory 2030 was a document that was highly consulted on.
That pretty much says it; the jury is still out. Despite the well-intentioned statesmen we have today, we simply cannot afford to continue an ad hoc approach to protecting our biodiversity, especially in this era of developing the north. The biggest threat to biodiversity is the CLP government, with its determination to push ahead with development at any cost, and without accepting its responsibility to consult and properly balance development with the interests of Territorians and our natural assets at heart.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I hope people heard that last comment made by the member for Nhulunbuy. She said ‘developing the north’ like it is a crime and something you would not aim to do.
This is a lady trying to encourage this government to do what it can to help her town of Nhulunbuy. You think if there was a member who wanted to develop the north it would be the member for Nhulunbuy. You would think the member for Nhulunbuy would welcome any development of northern Australia, particularly in her electorate and for those people who live in Nhulunbuy. If the constituents of Nhulunbuy were listening and heard the tone of the member for Nhulunbuy when talking about developing the north, what would they think? That was horrendous. To think the member for Nhulunbuy is in that frame of mind, thinking of her constituents of Nhulunbuy at the moment. …
Ms Lawrie: Spin machine. It is about how much you spin
Ms Walker interjecting
Mr CHANDLER: Come in, spinner! That is the whole mindset of a Labor government. That is the whole rationale and thinking behind the member for Nhulunbuy and the Labor way of thinking when it comes to development. They are quite happy to trade in Indigenous misery, but are not about building our communities and the north.
I support the statement by the minister. As the minister for the Environment, I have a bit of skin in the game here. The Northern Territory has a sensationally unique environment. As the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries said:
- Altogether, the Territory is host to around 4200 native plant species, 700 fish species, 50 frog species, 30 reptile species, 420 bird species,150 mammal species and a very large number of invertebrate species.
It is a unique environment. It is a big part of our lifestyle and an even bigger part of our economy through tourism and agriculture. I remember coming to the Northern Territory in 1985; I was not born here, but I have lived the majority of my life in the Northern Territory. I always say to people that you cannot be blamed for where you were born because you have no say in that, but you can be blamed for where you live, because that is a choice. I have chosen to live in the Northern Territory for the majority of my life.
I remember coming here in 1985. I enjoyed fishing; I had a little 3.7 m tinnie with a 25 HP Mercury on the back. I used to love nothing more than getting down to places like Shady Camp, the Mary River system, to do a little fishing. I would marvel, as I trawled up some of the beautiful billabongs we have in the Territory, at dawn when the water was flat as a tack and it was quiet. As the sun came up and the mosquitoes went to bed it was a remarkable place.
Shady Camp is the only place I have ever camped where quite a few times during the night I would wake up thinking it was drizzling because of the pitter-patter on the tent. But it was not rain at all; it was just mosquitoes hitting the tent. I used to tell my father down south, ‘Dad, you could rub your hand on the inside of the tent and bend the beaks of a lot of mosquitoes that have their beaks well entrenched in the tent’. They were savage, and I had never seen anything like it. It is part of the unique diversity we have in the Northern Territory.
The dawn raids on the barramundi in those billabongs were unique. It was quite an enjoyable time with many of my friends in the Air Force, as we would sometimes open a tinnie as the sun came up …
Mr McCarthy: As the sun came up?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, as the sun came up, preparing for a big day ahead. It was so beautiful to see the sun come up through the trees, the reeds and the billabongs. If you caught a fish, that was a bonus. We used to do pretty well. There were many times you would go there and not catch a fish – to see the difference between the upper side of Shady Camp to what I call the lower side out to the ocean.
In recent times, I have shared some time with the member for Katherine along the Mary River system. We had the unique opportunity of flying over that area in a helicopter. That was unique, because I had been there many times over the years and fished both the upper and lower sides of Shady Camp, but I had never once seen it from the air. It was spectacular to see wild pigs, buffalo and the devastation of ..
Mr Elferink: Mimosa.
Mr CHANDLER: Mimosa. It is unbelievable to see what that can do to the countryside. To see cattle, crocodiles and so many diverse things in that area – I remember times we spent there with my parents, nearly killing them in the process. They were wonderful stories as it turned out, because if you survive that it is a good story; if you are there it is pretty scary sometimes. This is just an example of our unique biodiversity in the Northern Territory.
When people go back to Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide or other areas in the country and you visit, all they want to do is talk about when they were in the Northern Territory. It is the best advertising you could ever get. You can be down south at Christmas or another time, perhaps sitting around a fire barrel, and people will say, ‘Peter, I remember when we were in the Territory, we did this, we visited that’. They had seen Uluru at sunset or dawn. You will see the sparkle in their eyes.
There is something unique about the Northern Territory. As custodians of the Territory, as members of the Legislative Assembly, we have a responsibility to do what we can to protect this place. That is why I was thrilled that the member for Katherine brought this statement on tonight.
We have a diverse environment, ranging from tropical in the Top End to the arid lands of Central Australia. In the last few years I have seen remarkable change in Alice Springs. I recall seeing the Todd River flow three times in one year. There was a wet year in 2011 or 2012. I am not sure of the dates, but there was an extremely wet year in Central Australia, particularly around Alice Springs; it might have been the year I was bogged, which was 2010 or 2011. The area had turned green like I had never seen before. It was as if this green moss had crept up over the ranges; it was unique.
I tell people they cannot go to Alice Springs once in their life because whenever you go there – it is the same with the Barkly – you have a beautiful experience. Going back, it will be different every time you drive on that highway. Every 100 km you drive, look out the window and the landscape changes tremendously. If it is the Wet Season or Dry Season, whenever you drive up and down the track – the member for Barkly would know this, as he has driven the track many times. It is a unique environment to look at and something worth protecting. We must do what we can as Territorians to protect that uniqueness, whilst at the same time knowing this place will develop. There will always be a place we need to protect because it is different to wherever you go in this country.
We have some beautiful places in Australia. I have had the opportunity to go to Tasmania a couple of times. What a spectacular state Tasmania is. Wherever you drive it is picturesque; it is a lovely place. I would not want to live there as it is too cold, but it is very unique. Again, the north of the Territory has something different from the south of the Territory. The arid lands and desert country are beautiful, as well as the tablelands through the Barkly, and then you come north to Mataranka and Katherine. You then get into the sub-tropical areas around the Top End. It is all very different. We have to do what we can to protect that environment.
I was proud the Country Liberals government established the independent EPA to make sure we have that entity at arm’s length from government. Dr Bill Freeland does an amazing job with the EPA, and he is at arm’s length from government. I cannot tell him what to do. He comes in every week and tells me what he has been up to. If people understood the relationship I, as minister for the Environment, have with the EPA they would soon realise they have an entity that stays at arm’s length from the Northern Territory government.
The EPA is there to ensure environmental oversight if a new mine or subdivision has been approved, and that everything goes through and the checks and balances are maintained, EIS processes are put in place and terms of reference are robust enough to ensure we protect the environment.
Bill is not afraid to tell me where he thinks we might be going off the rails or where we might need to change direction in our thinking because something will damage our environment. If it can be done a different way he will encourage us to do that. That is what we appreciate about the EPA and what it is set up to do, right down to having a pollution hotline the average punter can ring. Action will be taken and the appropriate people will get hold of that.
The pollution hotline is managed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It receives around 700 calls a year where genuine people have concerns. They have seen something in the environment that concerns them or they might be out in their boat and see something that concerns them. They will ring the hotline and action is taken, because it is important we protect our environment.
Luckily, most of those calls we receive are low level; many big things do not happen in the Territory. We have big things that impact the environment here, but they happen less frequently than in some of the bigger states. In that we are very lucky.
We are a big territory, and whilst we know mining and the energy sector is growing, it is still an emerging industry in the Northern Territory. When you put all our mines in the Northern Territory together in one area and then put that up against the rest of the space we have here, it is such a small area we are talking about.
It is also important we have other things to back up the rhetoric we put together. We had many concerns with the original legislation for the Container Deposit Scheme that was put up by the previous government, but this government went into bat for it. We had some battles because there were some mistakes made. Some things could have been done better when it was first set up. As a government, did we walk away from it? Did we say it was a Labor initiative that was set up incorrectly, therefore we would not go back to it? No, because it is something Territorians got behind and because the intent was right.
The framework could have been set up better. If the legislation had been created better – we could have that argument all day, but the intent of the legislation was right. That is why Territorians got behind it and why the Country Liberals came into government, backed it and took on the big players like Coca Cola. They thought they were bigger than this government, and they were going to shake, rattle and roll. Guess what? We might have lost the first round with them, but the former government, this government or Territorians would not have accepted giving up the fight on this one.
Bigger companies will sometimes have the money behind them and could bankrupt a government the size of the Northern Territory’s very easily. We had right on our side in that battle, and it was right to spend the $4m this Cabinet approved to keep the scheme going to ensure it did not stop until it was sorted out and started again. It was an investment in our environment to keep the system going while the ship was being righted.
In regard to plastic bags, which are another part of that same legislation, again, the intent was right, but I am yet to be convinced we are having a positive effect on our environment when you see the amount of heavy-type plastic bags being purchased today. I think it is next week when I will table the report in regard to cash for cans and the plastic bag legislation.
Whilst it has been a good experiment to change people’s habits, we still need to perform some deeper analysis to see whether or not it is making a difference to our environment. It has changed people’s habits, which is a good thing. However, if the intent of the legislation was to ensure we ended up with less plastic going into landfill, which the minister at the time, Karl Hampton, talked about in his second reading speech, we need to perform some deeper analysis on whether or not it is meeting its intent. Again, the idea was a sound one. Is there something we can do to strengthen that legislation to ensure it is meeting its intent, with less plastic going into our landfill? We need to see if we can come up with some improvements in that area.
We all want less plastic to end up in landfill. We want more of our things recycled today, because when things are recycled it benefits our environment.
When I went on a planning study tour, I was taken to a place in the UK which had just completed the cycle. It was a recycling plant, basically, picking up waste in bins from the side of the road, like you see in Australia, and from there it went into a sorting place where things like aluminium cans, bottles, plastics, cardboard and paper were all separated, whilst all wet waste went to another area. The recycling had already started for the easy products like aluminium, glass, cardboard, which was all going to a recycling plant.
I was amazed that the wet waste – what we traditionally send to landfill in most places in Australia – was transferred to a huge furnace that burned all of it at such a high temperature that what was left at the bottom was bits and pieces of steel, from springs from old mattresses to wheel axles. Anything steel came out, and it was then a commodity because it had been burned at such a high temperature the steel …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: The steel had become a commodity because it had been burned at such a high temperature that all impurities had been removed from it, so it could be melted down and reused for steel products. Meanwhile, the furnace was boiling water which was turning a steam turbine, making electricity that went back into the electricity grid. The rest of the hot water was being circulated around the immediate suburbs, providing heating for homes. That was a complete waste stream, creating energy and heating homes.
I am not sure how many homes we want heated in the Northern Territory – maybe a few in Alice Springs – but it demonstrated that the waste stream could be completely recycled. Aluminium, glasses, cardboard, right through to what we call wet waste that goes to landfill was turning into hot water to heat suburbs and make electricity. Wow! I saw a complete recycling program.
If we really want to help biodiversity in the Northern Territory, we must head down that road in the future, where we might want to combine the waste of City of Darwin council, City of Palmerston council, as well as Litchfield Council for the north. It gets a bit more problematic in the south in the smaller jurisdictions, but smaller plants have been set up to deal with smaller areas. We are a lot closer today by turning 100% of waste like that and recycling it.
There are so many more things we could do for our environment. I commend this statement to the House. There is so much more we can do in the Northern Territory to protect our unique environment.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing what is a very interesting narrative to the House. It is a pity it happened so late in the day, because I was hoping the galleries would be full with school students to hear this narrative.
I will input some positive elements to this narrative. I start with where the minister said:
- In general, we are in a position to carefully manage and protect our natural ecosystems and biodiversity, rather than the far more expensive and less successful option of the restoration of badly degraded environments.
My first input is from the townsfolk and good regional community of the Borroloola Gulf area. An important issue has arisen in Borroloola, with the community concerned about heavy metal contamination issues at McArthur River Mine and the management plan for the waste rock fires, which have the potential to produce acid and metalliferous drainage during the Wet Season into the river and out to the Sir Edward Pellew Group of Islands.
Borroloola clan groups and elders are deeply concerned about potential health impacts from the bio-accumulation of heavy metals in edible fish species, the risk of acidic run-off from the mine and the lack of consultation from McArthur River Mining about these issues. Monitoring of metals by McArthur Riving Mining has only been occurring in small non-edible fish species, but independent water sampling indicates high levels of lead, zinc and cadmium which may be building up in barramundi and other pelagic species, and not being reported.
The independent mine monitor’s report will be presented to the community, detailing nearly two years’ worth of monitoring data from the mine. Elders from the four clan groups with responsibility for the McArthur River have held a protest rally and plan to deliver a letter calling on the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy, the Environment Protection Authority and the Health department regulatory agencies to halt production at the mine until these problems can be resolved. They are also calling for clan group representatives to be added to the independent mine monitor’s group so the community can stay informed about monitoring practices at the mine and improve regulation and communication about these issues.
Elders requested I attend the rally as their local member, if possible, and meet with them to discuss their concerns in Borroloola when I am next available. That will be on 17 November. It is a very positive, proactive community. I will revisit this issue in adjournment; I will table a copy of the letter that you will find interesting. It is rather challenging, but presents a good way forward in collaboration with the people.
Minister, I will also talk about a letter I have written to you about this issue on behalf of constituents. The residents of that area, the traditional owners and community people, are calling on relevant federal and Territory regulatory agencies to act. They are asking for intervention in health monitoring, a health monitoring program that could be run by the Health department and the very pragmatic establishment of a mine monitor’s program made up of representatives from the four different clan groups, so they can be involved. That is a real positive to send to McArthur River Mining.
McArthur River Mining has not been totally absent in this space. There has been a lot of work going on. In my last few visits, I have noticed some real achievement in putting out those tailings dumps fires. A lot of work has been done on the tailings dams, but now people want to work in partnership. They are a great mob down there; they are very proactive, and will stand up and fight. Minister, this is essential in supporting your narrative and Northern Territory biodiversity in the area. I will revisit that in greater detail during adjournment.
As I go through the statement, there are a couple of different areas I would like to comment on. One is feral animals. The minister said in the narrative that the department is particularly focused on understanding the role of feral cats, and that this work has included the construction of two large cat-proof exclosure sites within Kakadu National Park.
Minister, I draw your attention to the Barkly Tablelands and the feral cat populations concentrated around turkey’s nests. Anybody familiar with cattle producing areas in Central Australia will know the turkey’s nest is the water storage area that feeds troughs into paddocks, and this manages paddock grazing. The cats are attracted to the water and food source, which is the wildlife attracted to the water. It has become an intensive area, and I encourage the minister to discuss with the department the possibility of going into these areas with some intensive feral cat eradication programs. Many Aboriginal communities in these areas would be involved and probably want to be involved.
It is great to have the member for Stuart at the Cabinet table, who could lobby for these communities to be involved. It would be good to see the pastoral community, the Indigenous community, the government and agencies working together; we could have a serious impact on these feral cat populations in a large part of the Northern Territory, particularly around this time of the year when it is very dry. These turkey’s nests provide that small ecosystem with the reptiles and small mammals, the birds and these feral cats. If anyone has had an experience with them, they will know they turn into mini-tigers. They are large, quite ferocious and need to be eradicated.
It is good the minister spoke about other feral cat management programs and the ultimate goal of working with Indigenous land managers to implement techniques to strategically reduce cat numbers. That is the important point. It is about working strategically with Indigenous people. There are so many opportunities. I will talk about the fire abatement program later.
In regard to feral animal control, I acknowledge the Minister for Parks and Wildlife, who responded to one of my letters regarding feral animal control in the Elsey National Park. I took a trip there recently to look at the feral animal issue in what is a very small park. The park has realistic potential for management and is surrounded by Aboriginal communities. I asked the minister a series of questions, she responded and I thank her for that.
I talked about livestock in the park and the neighbouring properties being able to access those areas and muster stock out of the park. Pastoralists are very concerned about getting their animals back and not losing that value and production opportunity.
The minister mentioned shooting in that area. I was not talking about shooting at all, and with the surrounding Aboriginal communities there are many opportunities for labour intensive work around tracking, mustering, trapping and removal. Many Aboriginal people live around Elsey National Park, and it would be great to see some innovative programs working together there.
The minister wrote an interesting paragraph – the Mangarrayi Indigenous ranger group was disbanded due to lack of funding. That was a real pity, and I hope that can be addressed because ranger groups would definitely be an innovative way of working in the future.
The report also neglects, as the member for Nhulunbuy talked about, the wildlife corridors. Like the member for Nhulunbuy, I was very inspired when I came into this place, as a new member of parliament working with government, and saw that national policy development. It was about creating these wildlife corridors; it fits with much of the Indigenous mythology I have learned over the years and the song lines relating to the passage of mythological creatures, ancient spirit forms and ancestors travelling through various sectors and covering the continent. There was no such thing as South Australia, the Northern Territory or Queensland.
These song lines tell fascinating stories, and I immediately interpreted these eco-corridors as not only celebrating Aboriginal mythology but picking up on the scientific side of that as well. When I look through the Barkly, I see those links between the savannah woodlands, the tablelands, the arid zone areas to the south and then into more of the desert areas of Central Australia and the linkage with the APY lands in South Australia. It seemed logical, where landholders, land users, Indigenous groups and government could put a lot of emphasis on how to manage ecology and biodiversity through making sure the flora and fauna had access to that traditional movement, which would help preserve and sustain populations.
Pastoralists, towns and small communities can be involved in this. Indigenous people being involved in that would be the cream on the cake. It is a pity that has dropped out of the narrative because that was not only pursued by the previous Northern Territory government. There were also cross-border negotiations with Queensland and South Australia; they were willing to participate in the allocation of resources in that development, acknowledgement and celebration of our biodiversity across these borders.
That was the Eco-Link policy, and the minister mentions a concept of that. In his statement, he said, ‘We must work with all landholders and users to value and protect biodiversity, particularly that which is at risk’.
This is the road we were on, and it is disappointing the government has dropped the ball on that. It would be well worth revisiting, and, minister, you would find many people in the department with a lot of knowledge about that.
The initiative that understood the importance of wildlife corridors and connecting landscapes for wildlife conservation was a relatively low-cost activity that was enjoying growing support and was likely to realise some great outcomes.
Ranger programs: carbon trading is big picture stuff and a big political, ideological divide. As the CLP tries to articulate when it talks about the pressure on budgets, the dollars we should be going after are in big business. It is the big end of town, and we have already seen some great examples of that. The minister mentioned a little about this in the biodiversity narrative with regard to fire abatement programs. The West Arnhem project was an excellent example – the Warddeken Rangers and West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement project that sees government, industry and community ranger groups doing important work to reduce broad-scale impacts of hot damaging fires.
The money for that comes from industry; it is effectively a carbon trading scheme. If we can get rid of the ideology, be Territorians and work together for Indigenous economic development, then let us go after the money at the big end of town. ConocoPhillips and INPEX are immediately participants in this space; ConocoPhillips has set the ground rules for this, as a great example.
You will also discover, if you want to start that dialogue together, the issue of our own public utilities and the credits we have to buy because of the emissions we create. If you are with two Cabinet ministers, ask them where we buy those credits. How much are they? I am sure the Minister for Parks and Wildlife, who gets that privileged seat in Cabinet, will be asking this question immediately to find out where these cash streams flow. They can be re-directed back into vary important Indigenous ranger programs.
Minister, if you are interested, and for anybody looking for a gig – these are the Waanyi Garawa Rangers – 12 500 km2 of the Nicholson River land trust is critical to manage, because the wildfires that come out of the Nicholson – it is a beautiful place where I lived for four years – can wipe out the best cattle producing area in the world.
I have seen fires that started from the Nicholson burn on great cattle producing areas for three months, starting in kerosene grass. That is an example.
Those people are alive and well; they regularly lobby me for opportunities, and I would love to have some support to link them with these fire abatement initiatives at the big end of town. It means work on country.
I am very disappointed with Senator Nigel Scullion and his comments that ranger programs equate to green welfare. I find that very destructive; I ask the neo-liberals over there who hang out with our good Senator Scullion to challenge him on that. You give it to him at the next barbecue and say you want to talk about ranger programs on country. If we are to do a lot of work with youth and re-engage in opportunities around culture, ceremony and law, employment infused into that, with real wages, is the way to go. Give it to old Senator Scullion and get him back to the table, because I was very disappointed to hear a fellow who knocks around the bush talking like that. He is now a gentleman with a lot of power, a huge budget – short of $500m cut by the boss – but he has serious access to resources.
The other matter is water issues, and the minister has been challenged by the member for Nhulunbuy. Anybody who wants to talk about biodiversity in this House would want to start with Mother Nature’s essence, which is water. The minister has got himself in a bit of bother; it is important I raise it today because it relates to what I will define as the day of CLP accountability, or lack thereof. However, this is another issue. During exchanges across the House when we get a little spiteful, I have no hesitation in pointing at the Minister for Land Resource Management to say, in terms of an inquiry and getting to the bottom of these issues raised by the community, ‘You are next, mate’.
I see three big inquiries coming on. Community stakeholders have beaten us to the blocks on this one, and the minister will be answering very shortly in the Supreme Court. We will see whether this can influence the real alternative to policy in this water allocation area, that being the strategic Indigenous reserve. The strategic Indigenous reserve has been debated in this House from the Liberal side under pure economic rationalism. It is about the water being there and dishing it out to their mates, because they will grow …
Mr HIGGINS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: The issue about the strategic Indigenous reserve will now be at the forefront. I will quote from the ABC home page from an article by Katherine Gregory on 7 October 2014. It is titled ‘Green groups launch court challenge over groundwater extraction licences decision in NT’:
The Northern Territory’s Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) has filed legal proceedings appealing against an NT Government decision to uphold 18 groundwater extraction licences.
The Northern Land Council (NLC) has backed the Supreme Court appeal, which has been made by EDO on behalf of the NT Environment Centre, and called for an independent public inquiry into the ruling Country Liberal Party’s influence in granting water licences.
Let us hope this court case will reignite the debate in the Liberal Caucus. Essentially, I see that strategic Indigenous reserve as having two very important outcomes. The first is that it represents the fundamentals to develop economic opportunities. It is water, but it is also a very powerful recognition of the cultural association to water. Having said that, it represents the safeguard to preserve biodiversity.
As I debated that policy within the Labor Caucus, I came to the opinion we will preserve 20% of the 80%; 20% is immediately quarantined, and that is the safeguard. There are massive swings within weather and climate cycles. In my brief 35 years in the Northern Territory, I can talk about flood, fire and drought. That is a very brief cycle over 35 years. When you talk about the longer cycles, we are not quite sure what is happening.
Member for Arafura, it is sad that I struggle to find rainmakers performing rainmaker ceremonies now. I challenge the kids all the time. I was very fortunate to see rainmaking ceremonies; the Indigenous mob had better start that discussion, because we need the mythology as well as the science. With the Indigenous strategic reserve, we have that water preserved. It is a safeguard in case something goes wrong.
All the scientists tell their stories. The economists over there want to hand it out, and you see examples already of where some of these water licences have not facilitated agriculture; they have facilitated subdivisions and property being put up for sale. That has already happened. I find that very disturbing in any debate waged from the other side when it is all about saying, ‘We will grow things to eat and create agriculture. All you need is dirt and water. We have mates who will do it’, and off it goes. Now, in bush country, I am hearing about subdivisions. We could have told them that would happen. I hope the debate around the strategic Indigenous reserve is revisited.
If we are talking about biodiversity, let us talk about the Roper River and, essentially, the macro-geography where you have many agriculture producers and mining projects – currently in limbo, but which I daresay will come back online – as well as a major Aboriginal-populated town at the end of the line. If you look at the basic ecology through that system, having that 20% in reserve is a good thing. It is a good, important thing in a biodiversity debate.
When the people who can claim a cultural association to water – something we celebrate in the Northern Territory that is completely different from any rhetoric that comes from an economic rationalist on the other side – say, ‘By the way, we are going to use this in a western sense and start to create agriculture, agribusiness, etcetera’, we have an opportunity. That was a good policy and still is. I encourage the other side to revisit that.
I have a note saying, ‘Media release court action’. I have dealt with that, and having been involved with a Supreme Court action in regard to the Muckaty case – do not flip the wig, member for Port Darwin. It is too late in the night to talk about nuclear waste dumps, but I can talk about the price of bread and nuclear waste in the same sentence.
I found that the case fleshed out accountability. In the Muckaty case it forced the decision-makers over this nuclear waste dump to the wall, where the question was finally too difficult to answer and they walked away.
Instead of being accountable, opening the filing cupboard and looking at the traditional clan groups and genealogies of the people who had engaged in that case, the other side – what is the lawyer’s term for the other side, John?
Mr Elferink: You are either the plaintiff or the respondent.
Mr McCARTHY: The respondent chose to call it quits. ‘We will walk away.’ It was a good decision. The Supreme Court has this amazing opportunity to bring out the truth. It is a good thing these groups – they are doing it tough. The Environmental Defenders Office was de-funded, the environment centre was de-funded. By who? You mob. They have the bit between their teeth and have taken on government. They will flesh out the truth of these water allocations.
The material that comes out of the court action will come in very handy when a future Labor government implements an independent commission against corruption. It might be in 2016, 2020 or 2025, but on the electoral roll – the summons will arrive in the mail. I got one, and I have been down this road. It will arrive in the mail; it will find you, no matter where you are. If you have a mail bag it will find you, and then everything comes back to the table. It is all laid out in amazing folios with serial numbers and tildes, going through all sorts of amazing procedures. We look forward to that court action. In the meantime, I hope it reignites the debate about the strategic Indigenous reserve.
I will revisit, for the minister, the McArthur River Mining issue. We can put the groups together and do something very innovative and positive in this space which represents the Liberal ethos of having economic activity and being able to support the environment, something the minister talked about in the biodiversity statement.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory is blessed with rich and unique flora and fauna, with many plants and animal species found nowhere else in the world. Our range of ecosystems is extensive, ranging from the arid Centre to the tropical, monsoonal Top End. A great example of this uniqueness can be found in my electorate.
The plateau of west Arnhem Land is the most significant region in the Northern Territory for biodiversity. It contains far more endemic species to the Northern Territory than anywhere else. About 200 plant and 20 vertebrate species, such as the Oenpelli python, are found only there. There are many other plants, animals and outstanding scientific interests, and at least 32 threatened species can be found on the plateau. I am fortunate enough to not only have the West Arnhem plateau in my electorate, but the Tiwi Islands as well.
The Tiwi Islands are truly magnificent. They provide a safe haven for many plant and animal species, some of which cannot be found anywhere else, including 19 animal species listed as threatened. When we talk about biodiversity in the Northern Territory, the isolation of the Tiwi Islands from the mainland plays a significant role in protecting the biodiversity found there. Unfortunately, this is not bulletproof. As mentioned yesterday, the banana freckle disease has found its way to Milikapiti on Melville Island, requiring the destruction of banana plants within identified eradication zones.
There are many plants and animal species of significant cultural value to Indigenous people. Indigenous people have vast knowledge of the plants, animals and ecology of their country. Indigenous people must play a significant role to continue to protect the biodiversity of the Northern Territory.
The Tiwi Land Council does a great job of protecting the biodiversity of the island. This can be seen in the work of programs like the Olive Ridley turtle research project and a number of other programs. Preserving our biodiversity is about ensuring future generations can enjoy the plants and animals that make the Northern Territory the best place in the world to live, work, play and raise family. Taking care of natural environments and conserving our biodiversity is significantly, culturally, spiritually and ethically responsible, and the right thing to do. I commend ministers of the Country Liberal government for their commitment to the Northern Territory’s environment.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement on. It gives me an opportunity to speak about something close to my heart.
As people know I have lived at the Daly for about 16 years, and only recently have we sold our property there. We have moved into town but, again, on an acreage. I have been the Chair of the Wangamaty Landcare group for about 14 years, and I have been asked to continue in that position. That experience has been a real eye opener. I was born on the land and have always had some sort of link to it; many people pick on farmers and say we rape and pillage, but we do not. We have some affinity with the land, but living in the Daly area opened my eyes in many ways.
With regard to my wife of 40 years, she has an affinity with plants and animals to the point where if we have a spider in the house, my four sons and I leave because we know Rhonda will ask us to catch the spider in a glass and take it outside, which none of us are keen to do. She will not kill spiders, she will not have fly spray in the house, but by no means would you call her a greenie.
In the position of Chair of Landcare, I looked at biodiversity from a different angle. That group looked at weeds, so rather than investigating what existed, you examined what was destroying things. Some of the things in the area included neems, poincianas, gamba grass, mimosa and the bellyache bush. They were things the Landcare people were trying to control; when you get involved with these people you start to see the land and how they – these are Indigenous people – relate to it.
The previous government also introduced its land clearing guidelines. I became involved in that, sitting on the Daly River Management Advisory Committee; I was on the original community reference group. When that group was first set up, I said the issue was not land clearing, but water.
I was glad to hear the member for Barkly mention water, because it is the basis for everything. Some interesting things come out of water, and if you look at how it is measured – how much water would you need for the environmental flow of the Daly? The way it was measured goes back to a study performed – I cannot remember the name of the scientist who carried out the study – into pig-nosed turtles, and they found them to be an endangered species.
If you had less than 12 m3 water flowing down the river at any time the male turtles could not go from hole to hole in the river to find females. They needed water to move around, which meant if you had less than 12 m3 breeding was impacted. This study highlighted how critical things can be; you could ask why the pig-nosed turtle would become extinct. It relates to climate change, irrigation, etcetera, but it is a tiny measure.
When I was on the Daly River management group, I thought about the pig-nosed turtle and the 12 m3; I asked why we had looked at rare, threatened species, but not species that were not under threat, like the barramundi. I wanted to know how much water would need to flow down the Daly for barramundi to survive.
Another study was set up with people from Charles Darwin University, as well as from the national university and South Australia. They studied the fish and found there were more species in the Daly than any other river in the world. That was never highlighted until this study, but they also found species that could be threatened if we had a flow less than 12 m.
When you start to fiddle with the biodiversity of the environment you must be very careful. That highlighted to me that someone was looking at species that can become extinct, rather than ones that were not yet threatened. They could have been threatened through taking too much water out of the Daly. People are aware of my views on water in the Daly and the strategic Indigenous reserve, so I will not go down that path at the moment.
We have had problems in Australia with prickly pear, (inaudible), tussock grass and cane toads. The member for Goyder is quite aware no species have become extinct because of the cane toad. I found this out at the Daly, where a huge number of quolls lived in the mango trees. When cane toads arrived those quolls were wiped out. A large number of the quolls were moved to some of the islands off the coast because people made a big hoo-hah about them becoming extinct, which was fair enough.
The quolls are back. I drove along Dorat Road between Adelaide River and the Daly, and there was a dead quoll on the road. This was about eight months ago. If the quoll had been wiped out it would not have been there. We have also seen quolls at the mango farm. This is five or six years after the arrival of cane toads. When I made inquiries about that, I found that no species has become extinct because of the cane toad.
We think of all these species that were brought in, such as the cane toad, prickly pear, sparrows, etcetera. I talked about my wife and the spiders; I do not know of any spiders or snakes that have been brought into Australia. It is interesting. Are people scared to bring spiders or snakes into Australia? I noticed the redback spider has made an impression in Japan.
In regard to biodiversity in Australia, I am very worried about the feral pig population. I am very much against many of the pig hunters just going anywhere on Indigenous land; it is a major problem west of the Daly. People are gung-ho thinking they can go wherever they like, they do not need permits and can just shoot up the countryside.
Pigs are a problem, but one of the worries we have with them is that if you had a disease in this country like foot and mouth, how would you ever control it? It would devastate a number of industries. AQIS came to our place at least once every two years, if not every year, with a couple of choppers; they shoot a few pigs and take blood samples for testing to see whether there are diseases. It is constantly monitored. Many people do not realise there is that potential. Fishermen go to islands, fish and come back; they bring diseases in, and it is a constant worry.
I look at much of the bird life that flies in. The geese, etcetera arrive at this time of year, and you wonder if they bring anything in. Do they bring seeds in? Do their droppings go everywhere? They are worries I have and things Landcare opened my eyes to.
On the radio in the last week, a fellow was talking about people on country. He made the point that one of the problems we have in north Australia at the moment is there are not enough people on country. When the member for Barkly was talking about the rangers, I thought about this. The guy was making the point – I am sorry I did not hear the beginning of interview, so I do not know who he was, but he seemed very knowledgeable – that the more people you have in some of these places the more protected it is, because they see things happen day-by-day. I can vouch for that.
If you live in a place like the Daly for 10 years you notice change, but you have to be there from season to season. If we do not have people on country and do not encourage these people to look after the land, we will have bigger problems. They will not come back and report to us that certain things are happening, and they will not report to us that quolls have been spotted again, the dingo population has increased or there are wild dogs coming into the area. It is very important we increase the population in north Australia, especially in the bush.
I learned over the years at the Daly – something I did not think I would learn – what you can discover from Indigenous people in regard to the relationship between plants and animals. They are some of the simple things.
Many people, if they fish for barramundi, would know of the spot on the Daly called the Golden Mile. For the last couple of years I have asked people why it is called the Golden Mile. None of the fishermen – most of the experts – know. It is called the Golden Mile because the best time to fish in that spot is when all the yellow wattle falls into the river. You can imagine a golden area, and there used to be many wattles there – flooding has taken many of them out – but that was the best time to catch barra in that spot. The local Indigenous people knew that, and that is how it was named the Golden Mile. It is interesting the Europeans did not know any of that.
For years, I also noticed, and never bothered to ask about, the cars at the Daly River crossing at night, a bit like Hunter Street in Newcastle; you do your laps after work. They would go there every night, do a circle across the sand and then leave. I could not work out what these people were doing, but after a couple of years someone told me. They were looking for mullet. At night, the mullet would come upstream and jump out of the water. When the mullet came upstream they would start fishing for barramundi around the crossing. I know that was fish to fish, but all these things point to the knowledge these people have gathered over many hundreds of years about our biodiversity. This is an area we need to tap into.
There was also a rare bird at the Daly called the emerald dove. Everyone has seen the doves that fly around in the Territory, and I think some people call them bush quails. There are ordinary grey doves and the emerald dove. The emerald dove would go to the mango farm every year. It would land under the 100-year old mango trees, usually three to four weeks before the rain started. Every year three or four of these doves would come in and stay for a couple of weeks, but they were always there three or four weeks before the rain started. There is that relationship with nature.
I knew when it rained and had all the records written down, having done the weather there for 15 years. When I first started doing the weather we did it at 3 am, 6 am, 9 am, 12 pm, 3 pm and 6 pm, so you became attached to it. It was worse than a baby. You link many of these things after 15 years walking the 0.5 km out to the weather station and back and the wildlife that is around.
I also learned about fish. One day, a fellow said to me, ‘No, that fish is no good’. I asked what was wrong with it, and he told me it was slippery. I told him most fish were slippery, but he said, ‘No, that one is too slippery; you cannot hold it in your hand. If you cannot hold a fish in your hand and it jumps back into the water you have not lost much.’ I asked him how he worked that out, and he said, ‘If a fish is in fast flowing water it will not gather slime on the outside, but if it is in still water it will’. If it is in still water it will be muddy. That was it. They are the little things I learned from some of these people.
I used to think the pigs that go down onto the river bank every year must be smart because they know we will not go down there and shoot them. They are on the bank and you can never get them. It was only when someone said, ‘No, this is when we get the bamboo shoots, as long as we have beaten the pigs to it’ – I was amazed. I had been there for 15 years thinking the pigs were going down there to hide from me, and this person told me that was when I should get the bamboo shoots. That was an interesting one I only learned in the last 12 months.
The bad side of all this is when you live at a place like the Daly and get to the end of the season, the rain starts and the river comes up for the first time. You think, ‘I will get a holiday, no tourists can get in to see me so I will be able to work 12 hours a day instead of 20’. When that river comes up for the first time the amount of rubbish you see coming down – I always said it was people from Katherine because the Katherine River feeds into the Daly, but that was mean. I was amazed by the amount of rubbish that came down the river from people who had fished, pulled up on the bank and camped. It was unbelievable; if they could be there to see that, they would start to pick up their rubbish.
I have seen fishermen there, and one day I spoke to one who was parked on the bank chopping up spider wire into little bits and throwing them into the river. I asked what he was doing; he said, ‘I am chopping them up so they do not tangle on people’. I asked, ‘Why even throw it into the river?’ He thought it was good enough if he chopped it into little bits, but he was still going to throw it into the river. Needless to say, I told him that was not a good idea in some nice ways.
The rubbish is not just in the water. When people around Darwin get bales of hay, they leave the bale twine. We would often see bale twine wrapped around the legs of birds that gathered at the Daly. When you are on a quarter acre block, you do not see that. You open the back door and the bird takes off, so you do not see it, but if you are on a larger property or out bush you see those things. People need to remember that.
Tourists’ concept of some things is amazing. They want to travel around and see all this biodiversity. One of the things people do not think about is when they have driven up from down south, they have done many kilometres, they need to do oil changes, etcetera, on their vehicles, so we allow them to use…
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member ben given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HIGGINS: We found these tourists would spill oil all over drums; they thought we would get rid of it for them. I said they could not do it unless they took their oil away, and then they would throw it into the garbage bin. Eventually we just said no. We got to the position where I was driving out one day, and there was a big Winnebago parked on a windrow on the side of the road; I wondered what he was doing, so I stopped and asked. He replied, ‘I am changing my oil’. He was dumping his oil on the ground; people are just unbelievable. He was a resident at the park and said, ‘Where else am I going to do it? You would not let me do it at your park.’ That was my involvement with tourists.
In his speech the minister mentioned access to information released by his department that is available on the Internet and in brochures. There is an application that will run on an iPhone, as well as others. It is put out by NT Museums and is called the Field Guide to NT Fauna. I do not know whether people have seen that, but I have it on my phone, and it goes through terrestrial invertebrates, vertebrates, freshwater invertebrates and marine invertebrates. For anyone who wants anything to do with things that live in water or spiders, ants, etcetera, that is a very good application to have on your phone.
Last weekend I went to the Territory Wildlife Park for its 25th birthday celebrations. When I arrived I was surprised by the number of people, and you could not get a car park anywhere; luckily I had a four-wheel drive so I found one. There were 2500 people there that day, which was fantastic. The Territory Wildlife Park is a good place for people to visit.
In the last 12 months I have attended the opening of the sustainable garden area, so it is not just about animals. There is a bit more of the biodiversity-type stuff. There are sustainable gardens there, and they are doing a lot with kids. They have a joint program with Berry Springs School, and it would be good if that expanded even more into education, minister. We started to teach these kids about biodiversity; they are trying to expand, and they have camp groups which stay there overnight. I encourage that work.
The only thing missing there – I have not raised this with the Minister for Parks and Wildlife, but it is something that was there years ago and has been chopped – is feral animals. They always had buffalo, pigs and banteng. These are important because kids must be shown, for example, a pig. A lot of townies do not know what a pig looks like, or a buffalo, and they must be shown these things. I would like to see that reintroduced to the wildlife park. It is not a zoo, it is an educational facility, and that is how we should look at it.
The celebration was fantastic, but the cake was not big enough; we had to chop the pieces into tiny bits, and I only got a freckle. Those kids ate huge amounts. It was free for everyone to go, and it was a good day. The staff there must be commended for their efforts; I have not spoken to the minister about that, but I hope she passes on to staff what a terrific job they all do, not just on that day, but all the time, and they are all very dedicated to what they do.
I thank the minister for bringing this statement on so I could prattle on for a while about something I am passionate about.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House. It is a good statement, not dissimilar in quality to the Minister for Health’s statement on health practitioners. Yes, there are many things you could have put in it; you could have read a whole statement on cane toads, weeds or the herbarium, but it encapsulates many things going on in the Territory.
The Territory has an abundance of flora and fauna, even up to our urban or rural back doors, with birds, bugs, lizards, ants, spiders, frogs and other wizardo weirdo things. If it bites, stings or irritates, we have it in the Territory. We have snakes, bees, ants, box jellyfish, hairy caterpillars, centipedes, scorpions and crocodiles, to name a few of our friendly residents. There are others as well.
Birdlife anywhere in the Northern Territory is extraordinary. Birds are everywhere. I have had an ornithologist stay on my block, and she counted over 50 species of birds there, from freeloading cockies to the lorikeets, rainbirds, curlews, doves, butcher birds and pee wees, just to name a few.
Denise Goodfellow is a renowned person in regard to ornithology. There is also Darryel Binns, who I have spoken about in one of these speeches before. I think he has sighted 800 birds, one of only five people to do so in Australia. Much of that has been done in the Northern Territory. We have a vast array of birdlife everywhere.
The vastness and diverse landscape of the Territory lends itself to a myriad of flora and fauna. There is desert, mulga woodlands, coastal, mountain tops, valleys, semi-arid and, of course, the riparian vegetation, just to name a few. There are also many other types of landscape and environment across our Territory.
We have a vast land mass, plus the islands, beaches, bog holes, swamps, old rivers, and by the nature of our history and development, relatively small levels have been cleared and developed compared to other states.
I have no doubt department people are experienced; they are professional, open, dedicated, passionate and they love their work. Having grown up and lived here since late 1959, I have seen changes across the Territory, mostly good, but not all. Generally, people try to do the right thing by the environment, but not always. That is why we have regulations and laws.
Having worked in and around the exploration and mining industry, I learned a lot about many areas, one being the requirements and work performed in regard to the environment. Contrary to what some small sectors of the community have tried to suggest, many mining industry people work hard to protect, preserve and manage the environment. It is through this work that many new species have been discovered in the Northern Territory and elsewhere; I will give you an example I know about.
In the Pilbara, which is a hotspot for unique flora and fauna, the minerals industry was instrumental in discovering 12 new acacia species in 2008, two new geckos in 2012 and the number of stygofauna has increased from 40 species in 2002 to over 350 species in 2012. For those who are not familiar with stygofauna, they are the little bugs, etcetera that live in waterways, caves and at the sides of creeks. The industry has not exclusively found those items, but they have worked in association with environmental groups and government agencies.
In the Territory, work done at the Ranger Mine discovered a new bird species; this is going back about 10 or 15 years. Knowing these kinds of examples as we do, I was a bit concerned when government contractors cut a swathe through the bush to start the rural Litchfield hospital. The bush may have been seen as a boring patch of ground to town people, but those who know the bush know there could have been species of note there. Why is it that industries have to go through rigorous environmental baseline studies and government does not? Why do industries have to preserve cycads and government does not? Why do industries have to report against KPIs and government does not? It is something we should think about.
The statement, albeit not in great detail, talked about the serious problems we have with weeds in the Territory. About 27 500 introduced plant species have made their way into Australia, compared to our 24 000 species of native plants. About 10% of the invaders have become established, meaning they now grow by themselves and thrive in wild and urban settings. Sadly, humans tend to spread them around, thinking they look pretty in their gardens or ponds. They then get bored and chuck them in the river somewhere, and off they go.
The Territory knows all about our weeds. We have gamba grass, the mission grass, calopo, rubber vine, the bellyache bush, horehound, sida, Berrimah weed, coffee bush, mimosa and pond apple, to name a few of the baddies. Of course, there are many more. Half of my garden apparently contains weeds, but they still look pretty. They were all introduced for a variety of reasons, mostly for pasture for cattle or for decorative reasons. When they get out of control, they go wild and become very invasive.
There are plans and good programs in regard to weed management. I am pleased to hear the government is continuing to supply the spray units and glyphosate; people can go to Freds Pass, collect the spray unit and get the glyphosate to try to keep on top of and get rid of the gamba grass that is quite a menace. It is good for stock, especially when it is young, but if it gets out of control on your block, government land and road reserves, it becomes a serious problem, particularly at this time of year when we have had a late Dry Season. The fuel load is very dangerous. Most people who have lived in the bush say it is one year seeding and seven years weeding.
The minister also talked about the herbarium – I have done some research on this, and I know some people, including volunteers, who have worked there – and the terrific work they do. More people should go to the herbarium, whether in Darwin or Alice Springs.
The word ‘herbarium’ comes from the Latin herba which is plant or shrub, and orium, which is a storage house. It is not somewhere they store herbs, which is a query they often receive. A library in Roman times was known as a scriptorium, not a library.
Our herbarium stores all records of the occurrence of plants in a state or territory. Ours is linked, via a national alliance known as the Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria, ensuring species’ names are used concurrently across the nation. There is a spread of information regarding weeds and threatened plants, which is very interesting. We have a problem with banana freckle and disease in the melon and cucumber family.
The herbaria in Darwin and Alice Springs have plants in their collections that are of historical importance and cultural and national significance in conservation and agricultural values.
The Alice Springs herbarium was established in 1954, which I do not think people are aware of, to determine which plants were toxic to cattle. Our knowledge base has grown from there. Two of the baddies with cattle and any animals are the cycads and ironwood trees.
The main service these herbaria provide is free identification. You can take your leaf or tree there, and they will tell you what it is. It is also used by other government agencies, the university, naturalist groups and various consultants who perhaps work for industry, developers or planners. They also have a relationship with the ABC gardening show, which is good.
They monitor the spread of weed taxa, and with their records it is possible to determine the distribution patterns of poorly understood species or those of conservation value. They enumerate all species of the Territory.
They currently know – I know this from my research – about 95% of the species of the arid zone, but only about 70% of the Top End. Their biggest black hole is in the McArthur River/Roper region and the Sturt plateau, which I think is in your area, member for Barkly.
There are also patches in Arnhem Land likely to hold a new, rare species we do not know about yet. There is nothing to suggest there are not species of flora and fauna out there; we just have to look around.
The historical aspect is also an interesting one. The older herbarium houses collections made by explorers such as Burke and Wills, Cook and many other people who ran expeditions around our country.
The biggest problem, I understand, is still not knowing all species of the Territory or having knowledge of the 800 to 1000 species considered rare or poorly known. This contrasts with the 40 species of small mammals or the 200 total species of birds.
I have asked what other functions they could perform. Yes, they have staff and volunteers, but they need to continue to do the work they do to benefit not only government agencies and private industry, but also the community.
Within the collection there is an original plant specimen collected by Sir Joseph Banks. Kew Gardens have returned most of the Australian specimens collected on those early voyages, and now they are distributed to all Australian herbaria, including two in the Northern Territory. That is good news.
I want to place on the record some of the people I know who work there. I have a vested interest in this, and you will see why. I compliment the chief botanist, Ian Cowie; Glenn Wightman; Deborah Bisa; Dr Donna Lewis, who works part-time; Nick Cuff; Charmaine Tynan, who is one of my constituents at Elizabeth Valley; and Mireille Beaupellet. Volunteers are Dr Mike Michie, an ex-science teacher I know from my Minerals Council days, who works two-and-a-half days there per week; Marj King; Cassandra Wadrop; Plaxy Purich, well-known volunteer; and they also have workplace students. Cheryl Owens’ – she works in the Speaker’s office – daughter who went to Taminmin was one of the workplace students and had a wonderful time. They are volunteers, and volunteers also work in Alice Springs.
I do not know much about how they are supported by government through funding, but it is one of those essential services government should ensure is adequately funded with paid professionals, as well as encourage people to volunteer.
As a result of work with the herbarium, I receive many inquiries at my electorate office – I do not know if the member for Daly does. People bring in their piece of weed, leaf or flower and want us to identify it. Sometimes we can, but generally we refer them to the herbarium, and they are usually grateful for that. The herbarium deals with a lot of those enquiries. Sometimes it is a positive plant and sometimes it might be a funny plant, but we do not want to know about that.
One of the major threats to our environment has been the introduction of wildlife, particularly large animals such as camels, buffalo, pigs and feral cats. With these animals comes degradation, erosion and feed competition, so keeping control of feral animals will always be a challenge, whether in the Top End, on the floodplains or in Central Australia with the camels.
Minister, I compliment you on your statement. We could talk about a lot more, perhaps weeds, the herbarium and where we are going with our work to discover and document more species of flora and fauna, but that could be a statement for another time.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of travelling to Central Australia – Central Mount Stuart to be precise – to remember a Territory pioneer who made an enormous contribution to the Central Australian horticultural industry and the birth of the local table grape industry.
The story of our table grape industry is the story of Ian Dahlenburg’s hard work and progressive thinking. Ian Dahlenburg first entered the table grape growing business in Robinvale, Victoria, where he established his first successful vineyard on the banks of the Murray River in the 1950s. In 1971, Ian relocated his family to Alice Springs, where he established grapevine cuttings and citrus on a small allotment near where the casino stands today.
Working with the late Frank McAllister, an agronomist well known in Central Australia, Ian organised a supply of grapevine root stock to come from Mildura. These root stocks were used for the first trial planting of grape vines at the animal industry branch now known as AZRI, where Ian was also working at the time.
It did not take Ian long to identify that grape production in Central Australia was commercially achievable. The fruit quality was excellent and the region could produce early grapes, which Ian knew was a distinct market advantage. Ian’s association with the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries dates back to the time he worked at AZRI as a technician. He was a mentor for many new staff, offering his knowledge and advice on topics such as horticulture, politics and religion.
Ian also helped establish the planting of grape vines and a small orchard of stone fruit at the Santa Teresa mission in the early 1970s. He also helped local legend Dennis Hornsby establish the Northern Territory’s first ever winery in Alice Springs. Ian spent a lot of time at Chateau Hornsby teaching Dennis how to care for and maintain the varieties of cabernet sauvignon, Rhine riesling and shiraz wine vines.
In the cooler months Ian could often been seen pruning vines and fruit trees around Alice Springs, which he offered as a free service for residents. During these years in the early 1970s Ian also spent a lot of time traveling around the Northern Territory, particularly the Central Australian region, hoping to find an area with a suitable water supply on which to grow grapes. Ian’s efforts where often laughed at, as Central Australia was then firmly considered as nothing but cattle country. However, on 1 September 1975, Ian was able to acquire one square mile of what was then a densely covered plot of mulga scrub. This was to later become known as Ti Tree Farm.
Testament to his tenacity and will to succeed, Ian cleared this land by hand with pick and shovel. His first homestead on Ti Tree Farm consisted of four star pickets holding up a sheet of corrugated iron over a folding camp bed. Ian’s first crop of grapes was harvested in December 1978, between two and five weeks ahead of other grapes in Australia. The first shipment was sold within hours of arriving at Sydney markets.
Ian and his family not only pioneered table grapes in the area, but also a vast range of other crops. He grew and marketed the first rockmelons, watermelons, zucchinis, figs, peaches, nectarines, asparagus and citrus fruits. In 1998, the Dahlenburg family sold Ti Tree Farm and moved back to Alice Springs, where Ian judged horticultural entries at the Alice Springs Show for many years.
Sadly, Ian passed away on 13 October 2011, having celebrated his 88th birthday and 65th wedding anniversary earlier the same month. The success of the table grape industry in Central Australia has waned in recent years, a reflection of the tyranny of distance Territorians endure, as competitors in regions such as Queensland do not have the same costs to bear and hurdles to overcome. However, it is good news that a number of old plantings at Ti Tree have recently been replaced with new root stocks. This, in conjunction with the future release of properties at Pine Hill, could well be the beginning of the rejuvenation of the horticultural sector at Ti Tree.
It has been 39 years since Ian Dahlenburg forged a new era in horticulture in the Northern Territory. Without a doubt, the Central Australian horticulture industry and table grape sector will forever remember the efforts of this industry pioneer.
As the Northern Territory Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, I acknowledge the legacy left behind by Ian Dahlenburg. When in Central Australia, it was a privilege to unveil a plaque at a Central Mount Stuart highway truck stop that will forever tell the story of Ian Dahlenburg. It was gratifying for me to be there among so many of Ian’s family and friends. There were family members and people who had known Ian who had travelled from interstate. There were also local Aboriginal people there from the region who had known and worked with Ian during his life at Ti Tree. It was a moving experience and real pleasure to be among those people who had been so instrumental in Ian Dahlenburg’s life, including his family, friends, co-workers and the Indigenous friends he made there.
In a very moving moment – it did not happen while I was there, but a day or so before – Ian’s ashes were spread across the landscape by his family during a service, near where we were at Central Mount Stuart. For all Ian put into and took from the ground, he has returned to it in that region.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, an important issue has arisen in Borroloola. The community is concerned about heavy metal contamination issues at the McArthur River Mine, and the management plan for the waste rock fires that have the potential to produce acid and metalliferous drainage into the river and out to the Sir Edward Pellew Group of Islands during the Wet Season.
Borroloola clan groups and elders are deeply concerned about potential health impacts from the bio-accumulation of heavy metals in edible fish species, the risk of acidic-run off from the mine and the lack of consultation from McArthur River Mining over these issues.
Monitoring of metals by McArthur River Mining has only been occurring in smaller non-edible fish species, but independent water sampling indicates high levels of lead, zinc and cadmium which may be building up in barramundi and other pelagic species and not being reported. The independent mine monitor’s report will be presented to the community, detailing nearly two years’ worth of monitoring data from the mine.
Elders from the four clan groups with responsibility for the McArthur River have held a protest rally. They also plan to deliver a letter calling on the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy, the Environmental Protection Authority and Health department regulatory agencies to halt production at the mine until these problems can be resolved. I seek leave to table a copy of that letter.
Leave granted.
Mr McCARTHY: Elders have also called for representatives of the clan groups to be added to the independent mine monitor’s group so the community can stay informed about monitoring practices at the mine and improve regulation and communication about these issues.
Elders requested I attend the rally as their local member, if possible, and meet with them in Borroloola to discuss their concerns when I am next available. That will be on 17 November. I will also read onto the record a copy of the letter I have written on behalf of constituents of the Borroloola-Gulf region to the Honourable Willem Westra van Holthe, Minister for Mines and Energy, Parliament House, PO Box 3146, Darwin NT 0801:
- Dear Minister,
My letter relates to constituent concerns about possible heavy metal contamination of the McArthur River and associated Gulf of Carpentaria estuaries as a result of mining and bulk load-out of lead and zinc from the McArthur River Mine. I have been offered a briefing from Glencore Queensland Ltd, operators of the McArthur River Mine, on recent concerns raised about the mine and port of Bing Bong in the media, and look forward to relaying such information to Barkly constituents.
In addition to this briefing, I am aware of water quality testing on Surprise Creek, Barney Creek and the McArthur River conducted by the Department of Mines and Energy which would provide important answers for rationalising the possible contamination debate, and request such relevant information be released for informing concerned traditional owners and residents.
I am also interested in water quality testing results from the port of Bing Bong relating to the levels of lead and zinc in the coastal environment and associated estuaries of Pine Creek and Mule Creek, and again respectfully request relevant information be released for informing concerned traditional owners and residents.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my correspondence, and I look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Gerry McCarthy
8 September 2014
I am still looking forward to a reply from the minister. I acknowledge this opportunity to provide some details around this important submission from residents of the Borroloola-Gulf area.
The Borroloola town and regional community are a tough mob. They are a good mob and definitely a mob that does not shy away from a fight. They have some very pragmatic recommendations that can bring together government, the community and the McArthur River Mine. They are calling on the relevant federal and Northern Territory regulatory agencies to act.
In the tabled letter, the minister will see that their demands represent real concerns. A number of demands will directly challenge the McArthur River Mine, which has been in the area for a long time and works with the community. Together, I am sure we can work through these issues.
There are two points in the letter I would like to stress for the minister. One is about establishing a community health monitoring program for all residents to detect any impacts on human health that could be attributed to the mine. That relates to the Health department, and I urge the Minister for Health to take note of that very pragmatic recommendation. It is not unlike the public health campaign in Mount Isa, where there are proactive initiatives to monitor lead levels and provide that very important education and awareness for residents living in an environment around lead.
The second dot point I will emphasise from the letter is their request to:
- establish a community mine monitors’ program made up of representatives from the four clan groups so we can determine what aspects of the mine to monitor, interpret the data for ourselves and communicate this information to our families.
That is a very pragmatic initiative. Our government, the department, the traditional owners, the residents and the mine can work together on that. It represents an initiative to bring people together. Glencore would be able to appreciate that education and awareness are key to traditional owners, residents and the mining operation continuing together.
It is a good opportunity, on behalf of concerned traditional owners and residents, to put this information onto the public record and provide very good policy initiatives for the government to consider. The Borroloola groups represent pragmatic initiatives, in good faith, that are about working together, education and awareness of activities that relate to mining, the impact on the ecosystem and biodiversity, and how we can all work to achieve sustainability for the traditional people and culture, the ecosystem, the biodiversity and the economic opportunities the McArthur River Mine brings.
I have visited the area on a number of occasions, and will be back on 17 November. I have witnessed a lot of work being done on the tailing dumps by Glencore. I am aware of a lot of work that has gone on in previous years on the tailings dams. There are concerns about the port of Bing Bong; once again, I stress the mine, the government and the departments, including the Department of Health and public health, can work together on these initiatives. It certainly represents the Borroloola mob I have known for a long time. They do not shy from a fight, but when they talk they give real, honest and pragmatic advice, which this represents.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will talk about the achievements of some of my constituent families. In the past, I have spoken about young girls and boys who have been involved with the Girl Guides, Scouts and Venturer-type activities, which are very popular in the rural area. They are very good activities because they teach young people so many life skills, and they have lovely experiences.
The first registered Guide company in Australia was supposedly in Hawthorn, Victoria. Some states claim the Peace Guides were established earlier. For many years, Girl Guides NT functioned under the care of Girl Guides South Australia. From memory, there were Girl Guides and Brownies in Darwin; I was involved as a little girl in the 1960s and possibly earlier in the 1950s. In 1987 Girl Guides Northern Territory became a guiding state in its own right under the guidance of Mrs Lynne Mounsey as the state commissioner, Mrs Norma Simmonds and Mrs Carrol Lynch as her able assistant.
The Humpty Doo Brumby Guides have been in operation for 10 years now under the excellent leadership of Mrs Michelle Leach and Miss Becky Myers.
There are two Taminmin students whose achievements I would like to highlight. The first is Natasha Bond, a keen and dedicated Girl Guide who has given 10 years’ service to this youth organisation. In this time, Natasha has achieved her junior BP and BP awards. Natasha then challenged herself and completed the Queen’s Guide Award with a focus on science and technology, arts and leadership, and a junior leader award. Each of these awards was completed to an extremely high standard, the highest for her peer level.
Natasha also completed her Commonwealth Award. This award has only been achieved twice before in Australia; Natasha had the privilege of achieving this last year, along with two others. They were the first Guides in the Territory to be recognised with this award. Natasha also received the Black Cockatoo Award at this year’s peak achievement awards night for her dedication and service to Girl Guides and her local community. Natasha has also completed her bronze and silver Duke of Edinburgh Award, as well as gaining the Black Cockatoo Award for her wholehearted commitment to Girl Guides. She was recognised for her 10-year commitment to Girl Guides, her volunteering and high standards in achieving her goals in guiding.
Natasha received two focus badges this year, one being in leadership, requiring a great deal of responsibility initiative and personal development. She was also, and is, a role model to younger Girl Guides.
Her science and technology focus required a high degree of initiative, development of scientific skills and knowledge and personal development in the area. Natasha attended a school holiday science camp and participated in extra-curricular science competitions and activities to achieve this badge. Last year, Natasha achieved her arts focus badge, involving many hours of dance and practice. Girl Guides can only achieve three focus badges, which Natasha has now done. Congratulations to her on that achievement.
Natasha completed her Queen’s Guide Award last year, and was one of the first Territorian Girl Guides to achieve the Commonwealth Award. That is a real achievement. All this required many hours of hard work, with written and verbal presentations.
Her family is immensely proud of Natasha, who has managed to juggle her Girl Guide achievements and responsibilities whilst remaining a straight-A student at Taminmin College.
Natasha was the dux of Year 10 at the school last year, along with achieving academic, scientific and community awards, both last year and in previous years. Last weekend, Natasha attended the national finals for the Royal Australian Chemical Institute Titration Competition. Her team consisted of three Year 11 Taminmin students competing against 14 other Territory teams from various high schools. Natasha and her teammates all achieved gold medals, winning the Territory competition.
Natasha is focused on science and would like to continue studies in this area – possibly in the medical field – after Year 12. Her Girl Guide experience has given her more confidence to pursue her interests and tackle challenging situations. She has developed leadership and organisational skills that have made her an independent and ambitious young woman. With that kind of background in Girl Guiding, the extracurricular activities and college and school activities, she will do very well in whatever she puts her mind to.
Kate Ferguson is the other Girl Guide who has done really well. Kate has been a youth member of the Humpty Doo Girl Guides for nine-and-a-half years. Over this time, Kate has achieved her Junior BP and BP Award before challenging herself and gaining her Queen’s Guide Award with an arts focus. This year, Kate completed her Commonwealth Award and received the Black Cockatoo Award for her dedication and commitment to guiding in her local community. Kate has also achieved her bronze Duke of Edinburgh Award. She has been a Girl Guide for nearly 10 years as well.
Both of these girls have been very lucky to have a motivated and fantastic leader in Michelle Leach, who has encouraged them to challenge themselves and aim high in whatever they set their minds to. These girls have been on many camps and hikes where they have had to organise their own equipment, including first aid and survival items – food, water, compasses and things of that nature you need on a bush trek.
They have been to many remote areas in the Territory, where they have camped under the stars with no toilets, showers, etcetera. They have faced their fears of crocodiles, stingers, cockroaches, snakes and the dark together, supporting others along the way as well. One of the highlights was a hiking and canoe trip at Katherine Gorge.
They have also managed to find the time to volunteer many hours in the community, helping with church groups, dance groups, Scout and Girl Guide groups and at community events.
I compliment and congratulate these two young students for their interest in and contribution to the rural community, and the support and encouragement they give to other people in their extracurricular activities and at Taminmin College.
Congratulations to Natasha and Kate. It is commendable; I am sure your families are very proud of you. Well done.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016