2016-03-17
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 5 classes from Essington Primary School, accompanied by their teachers, Mr Darren Beattie and Mr John Knight. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that Mr Barrett be discharged from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and Mr Westra van Holthe be appointed in his place, and that Mr Westra van Holthe be appointed Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
At the risk of stating the excruciatingly obvious, Mr Barrett is now a minister of the Crown and Mr Westra van Holthe no longer holds that position. We seek to make arrangements on this side to accommodate those changes.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Northern Territory government is committed to reducing red tape for all Territorians. Economic growth and a strong society require a continued focus on productivity and a reduction in the administrative burden for individuals, businesses and non-government organisations. For small business and non-government organisations, time is crucial. The time spent on compliance is time lost on growing the business, improving productivity and innovating. Having to resubmit the same information every year to multiple agencies is a significant impost on business.
In June last year the government committed to a red tape reduction strategy with clear objectives about the way it will regulate. First, regulation should minimise imposts on business, maximise productivity and provide incentive for investment and innovation. It should ensure efficient use of administrative resources and be proportionate to the risk being managed.
Government is also committed to regulation being customer focused and minimising costs to individuals, businesses and the non-government organisation sector. Reducing paperwork and the number of contacts clients need to make with government is a key element of the government’s Red Tape Reduction Strategy. To this end, all agencies have been requested to offer one-, three- and five-year licence and permit terms, introduce pre-filled renewal forms and to place all transactions online.
Agencies are also consolidating regulatory functions, including by way of information sharing, collaboration and centralisation of licensing databases. In addition, agencies are exploring ways to reduce reporting requirements and simplify forms. Preparing omnibus legislation to give effect to reforms that will streamline and simplify processes and requirements is demonstration of the government’s commitment to reducing regulatory costs for business.
The bill includes amendments to the Liquor Act, the Commercial and Private Agents Licensing Act and Regulations, the Auctioneers Act, the Agents Licensing Act and Regulations, the Tobacco Control Act and Regulations, and the Water Act.
This bill amends legislation to reduce paperwork and save time for businesses, individuals and non-government organisations by increasing licence and registration terms from 12 months to up to five years, with applicants being able to choose one-, three- and five-year licence terms.
I turn to the amendments in detail. The bill provides new applicants or those renewing their wholesale liquor registration an option to have a registration term of one, three or five years. This reform will save time for approximately 30 registered liquor wholesalers in the Northern Territory.
Commercial agents, private agents, auctioneers, real estate agents and business agents will also now have the option of either a one-, three- or five-year license term. These amendments will provide these professionals, numbering approximately 750, with less paperwork, allowing more time for business.
The tobacco retail licence will be offered for one-, three- and five-year licence terms, benefiting approximately 300 businesses in the retail, tourism and hospitality sectors.
The Department of Land Resource Management identified an opportunity to reduce paperwork and save time by increasing the duration of a bore construction permit from 12 months to two years.
Each year approximately 400 to 480 permits are issued for the construction of bores. Extending the permit from 12 months to two years will benefit those whose construction process needs to extend past 12 months.
Government needs to provide greater customer-focused flexibility for business and individuals in licensing regulations and when dealing with government. We want to make business with government faster and easier. For applicants of agents licences or tobacco retail licences the bill replaces the requirement to provide documentation, showing the Northern Territory’s Commissioner of Police has been given authority to release a criminal history report, with a requirement that a National Police Certificate be lodged with the Director-General of Licensing.
The bill amends the requirements for common expiry dates for agent licensing regulations, for property agents and commercial and private agents. This means licences granted to new applicants will expire on the anniversary date of their granting in accordance with the licence period of one, three or five years chosen by the applicant. This change will enable more efficient use of regulatory resources and will be complemented by new technology in the Department of Business’ Licensing NT division that will greatly improve and automate the compliance task for businesses and individuals.
Implementation of the department’s new licensing and compliance system will mean that licences will receive renewal notices electronically, will be able to renew online and will have prefilled renewal forms. Businesses and individuals will be able to easily keep track of their licences and licence applications.
The Red Tape Reduction (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2016 is removing unnecessary red tape. It is removing the regulatory and administrative burden on businesses and the community, and improving productivity and competitiveness. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill before the House and I thank his office for providing me with a briefing last week. That briefing was brief, as will be my contribution to this debate. I understand this bill is part of delivering the government’s broader Local Court reforms, which are not insignificant, and that there has already been debate on the policy side of things. This bill is totally technical and procedural.
The bill provides for some of the amendments to the 156 acts and subordinate legislation consequential to enactment of the Local Court Act 2015, and that debate was had in April last year. At that time the bill had passage.
The amendments in this bill, as detailed in the explanatory statement, see terminology updated and made consistent with the new act and associated acts, along with a raft of other amendments and repeals. Further to the amendments introduced in the February sittings, I was advised during the briefing last week that there would be a further consideration in detail stage amendment, and that amendment would be in relation to section 177 of the Justices Act.
It was explained to me that the amendment addresses an anomaly which exists in Part IV Division 5 under the heading Costs, and is specifically in relation to section 77, which provides for a prescribed scale of costs to apply for failed prosecutions in the lower court only.
Section 177 of the Justices Act is amended through this consideration in detail stage amendment, and this section deals with the procedure and power of Supreme Court on appeal. This amendment allows the Supreme Court – if the circumstances of the case or the legal issues are of an exceptional nature the court may order costs exceeding the prescribed scale. I note the amendment has been developed in consultation with the Chief Justice.
I thank the Attorney-General’s office for sending me this consideration in detail stage amendment, and I note in addition to the consideration in detail amendment relating to costs, including consideration in detail stage amendments which address some of the transitional matters, there are several extra CSAs which pertain to the schedules associated with acts, including the AustralAsia Railway (Third Party Access) Act, the Liquor Act, the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act and the Youth Justice Act.
I can only assume that somehow there were oversights in the original bill and the opportunity has been taken to squeeze them through today whilst addressing the costs matter in the Justices Act. I have no issue with that.
I thank the Attorney-General’s senior adviser for the offer of a further briefing yesterday. I declined that kind offer because the consideration in detail amendments are technical in nature and there is no policy change. This was also supported by the explanatory statement supplied during the second reading.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition has no issues with this bill and we give our support to its passage today.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will also keep my comments relatively brief.
I commend the Attorney-General for the work he has done not only in relation to the passage of this legislation, but also in addressing and dealing with the entire court system across the Northern Territory, bringing it into the future and preparing it for a much larger Northern Territory in decades to come.
The intention of the bill is to provide for minor consequential amendments to the other main acts that apply to the lower courts. These consequential amendments arise from the enactment of the Local Court Act 2015. More substantive consequential amendments of a policy nature are contained in the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015 (Serial 148).
The consequential amendments of a statute law nature arising from new terminology and principles arising from the Local Court Act 2015 and the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015 are key features of the bill. These amendments include reference to Local Court judges rather than magistrates, which effectively means the title ‘magistrate’ will no longer exist. They will all be called judges whether they sit in the new Local Court or the Supreme Court – and referring to the Local Court rather than the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
There are also some Parliamentary Counsel amendments dealing with matters such as the use of the word ‘proceedings’ rather than ‘proceeding’, and ‘registrar’ rather than ‘Registrar’.
This is part of a raft of changes the Attorney-General has made to the court system over the past three years. I suspect they have largely gone unnoticed, but they prepare the Northern Territory court system for the future.
There have been some other changes consequential to this, which are about empowering the NTCAT, providing for many of the minor matters that were ordinarily dealt with in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to be now be dealt with by the NTCAT, freeing up valuable time in the court list for more important matters. I guess there is a slippage of those types of matters from what was the Court of Summary Jurisdiction down to the NTCAT to make our court system more efficient and effective in what it does.
It is worth noting that the Attorney-General has done a power of work over the past three to three-and-a-half years. He should be commended for the amount of work he has put in and the changes he has brought to bear on the court system across the Northern Territory.
Mr STYLES (Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I echo the words of the member for Katherine in relation to the member for Port Darwin in his role as the Attorney-General and the changes he has brought to the legal system in the Northern Territory.
The Westminster system, as everyone in this room knows and as Winston Churchill said, is not the best system in the world but it is the best we have. Along with that system we have a legal system which is unparalleled with any other in the world. We have a very fair system that works well. However, one should never rest on the laurels of those who came before us and brought in a good system.
Changes have occurred in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory is growing and changing, and Darwin is not the city it was when I first came here 35 years ago. Some of the types of offences are changing, the commercial aspect of the courts is changing and what used to happen in the Supreme Court now is able to be shifted to Local Courts. The magistrates court will change. Being a former prosecutor in the courts, I can attest to some of the interesting challenges in relation to court lists and getting through a range of matters that have to go before the Local Court, the magistrates court and various tribunals.
With the NTCAT, the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, we have been able to successfully become more efficient in time and management of what goes before tribunals, and we have become more fiscally responsible in relation to taxpayers’ dollars. When you are part of a wing like there is on our side, I am sure Labor does this as well, and you toss ideas around – the Attorney-General has done an enormous amount of work, not only in his office, but at home and on weekends, ensuring he sets up the courts and the legal system for the Territory for the next 50 years.
It behoves us, as the members of this House, to discuss this issue, talk about what is proposed and look at the amendments to ensure this works well and serves the people of the Northern Territory better than it has been in the past.
The nature of crime changes and people are committing crimes in different ways now. Governments bring in particular laws to shut one loophole, and the criminal element in our community seems to find another way of getting around the laws we bring in. This means one will never be out of a job in politics. Good politicians are required to change the rules and the game plan so that the criminal element does not get on top of the good people.
It is, as one can always say, an ongoing battle of good over evil. There is a saying; ‘When good people lay down, evil rises.’ Our job in this House is to make sure we keep up with current requirements of the law and give the police, courts and court system the flexibility to take the fight to the criminal element in our community, who do not care about you, me, your grandmother, your cat, your dog or your budgerigar. Some people do not realise that.
Look at what we have done through the court system and with the protection that criminals are afforded; there is a debate going on in the community as we speak about the rights of victims. The court system is bogged down at times, so much that the rights of the victims seem to be forgotten over the rights of the criminal. The new prison is a pretty flash place. I had a tour of it to see what is there. People get looked after very well as criminals. People in this House call it the Taj Mahal of prisons.
The court system is there to deter people, as are the laws. We want people to be rehabilitated, but when people do not care it is an interesting conundrum. What do you do about victims? What do you do about the criminals?
As a former police officer and prosecutor, and having interviewed numerous people during my 27 years in the NT Police Force, I know that some people are just different, not in a positive way but a negative way. They do not care. We need a court system that is not rushed. Pressure needs to be taken off the Supreme Court so it can take the time to carefully consider cases that come before it and make sure people have the right information in a timely manner. We need to make sure cases are not delayed. This legislation gives the court the flexibility and freedom to move in this area.
Many people may not understand this or even care, but it behoves us to make sure we care and that we look at all those elements. I am glad the opposition has spoken on this and does not see too many issues with it.
We need to make sure people in the legal system who read the Hansard know we support what is happening. We need to ensure police have our support in relation to matters which go before the lower courts. The detectives and major crime squad detectives, who put everything on the line every day to keep Territorians safe, deserve a court system that backs that up.
As a former police officer and detective I know it is disappointing when you work hard – and many people do not see what goes on – for days on end, 20 hours a day on the trail of criminals for weeks, then you lock them up and get all the paperwork done and can have a few days off, but those days off are not spent fishing or doing your favourite thing; they are spent catching up on sleep. That is going on today. As we speak there will be police officers who have been working flat out on cases for two weeks who are at home sleeping, trying to catch up. It is a tough gig, but then it is not much different to many businesses and people in the community who work hard.
It is important that they have confidence in our court system and know the courts will have time to deal with issues when we are moving things around, like we have with the NTCAT, and changing the structure of the court system.
We are fortunate because crime stats are down across the Territory.
Ms Lawrie: Rubbish!
Ms Walker: Rubbish!
Mr STYLES: I pick up on the interjections. I am trying to contribute to this debate, but they say ‘rubbish’. Members of the opposition, are you saying that police are fudging the figures, that the stats are fudged?
Members interjecting.
Mr STYLES: If you want to interject, please answer the question. Are you saying the Police department is fudging the figures? Crime is down in the figure supplied by police and the system, so are you saying the system is wrong?
I hear silence from the other side. They are very happy to interject and say it is rubbish, but when I ask them if they are saying the figures are wrong, I hear nothing. It is amazing. They understand that they are running a scare campaign in relation to crime overall.
When we came to government, crime levels were up. The Chief Minister quoted figures yesterday from across the Territory. There were serious reductions in crime. Let us talk about Katherine and the court system there. There are fewer people being assaulted in Katherine, and fewer people being confronted by a range of issues there.
It disturbs me when the opposition members make these claims but will not say them in this House. They will not back up their interjections. They are interjecting to try to politically point-score. It happens all the time. I put the questions back to them every time about what is going on.
Let us talk about some of the crime statistics. Seeing that they raised it, I will give you some answers. Since coming to government in August 2012 …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 35: relevance. We are talking about a Local Court bill, not crime statistics. I draw your attention to that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I see a direct relevance between Local Courts and crime in the Northern Territory. There is no point of order.
Mr STYLES: They raised the issue, and when you try to rebut some of the things they are raising because they are incorrect …
Mr Tollner: They do not want to hear it.
Mr STYLES: … they do not want to hear it, because it rebuts exactly what they have raised in interjections.
Let us talk about a couple of issues. Since coming to government in August 2012 – please note that this compares the rates of offences in the 12 months ending August 2015 with the 12 months ending August 2012. These statistics are about to be released and are for the end of last year.
Total crime rates across the Northern Territory are 11% less than three years ago. That is equivalent to a 4% drop per year. The assault rate was down 7% …
Mr Wood: You are stretching it.
Mr STYLES: No, these are the stats.
Mr Wood: I know. You are stretching the relevance.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson!
Mr STYLES: I pick up on the interjection. People listen to this, member for Nelson. The opposition wants to interject. I made a statement about local governance and the Local Court Act, and then those people across the Chamber, when you talk about crime rates, say, ‘Oh, that is all rubbish’. If I was listening to that, I would say, ‘Okay, maybe they have a point, so what should I do?’ This is what the opposition tries to do all through the arguments in this House, make cheap political points by saying something and hoping it sticks. When we try to rebut what they say – and people are listening – they and other people do not want to hear it.
I want to have the right to rebut what people have heard. I go back to where my original contribution was going in relation to Local Courts and the restructuring of the courts. I simply wanted to say a couple of things about crime and how it changes. Now people on the other side say, ‘No, you cannot talk about that’. If you want to raise the issue, at least listen to the rebuttal of the things raised.
Mr Wood: There are standing orders on relevance.
Mr STYLES: You are spending time trying to explain what I am trying to do. The opposition does not want people to hear these stats. Why? Because it is a good news story.
Mr Wood: I do not know how you can keep a straight face.
Mr STYLES: You want to interject. As people say, be careful what you wish for. If you want to raise the issue you will get some pushback. Total crime rates in the Northern Territory …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 35; I know this point of order has been raised. This is about a bill. It is a very technical and procedural bill. There is some room for latitude, but this is way off the mark. The government has so little business today. I have done the job for four years and I think this is way out of order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, please resume your seat. I have already ruled on that point of order.
Ms Walker: You have; maybe you should take advice from the Clerk.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a direct relevance between crime in the Northern Territory and courts in the Northern Territory. If members fail to see that, it is a sad state of affairs. Members have been interjecting; perhaps the Deputy Chief Minister will be able to make his point in a quick manner without the interruptions.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am concerned that the member for Nhulunbuy was reflecting on the Chair. You might like her to withdraw those comments.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear those comments.
Mr Barrett: She asked you to take advice on the decision you made.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will look at the Hansard and the transcript of that. Thank you, member for Drysdale.
Mr STYLES: They fire up when you are about to give good news and then battle every inch of the way to get you to say you cannot give a good story. In relation to those matters raised by the member for Nelson, they raise an issue and they make a statement, and when you go to rebut the statement they do not want you to give the facts.
I will start again and see how we go with interjections. This could have been over; I only have a few of these things to read out, and I could do it quickly. Their debate on whether or not I can have the freedom to stand here and rebut what they are saying is amazing.
Total crime rates in the Northern Territory are 11% lower than they were three years ago. The assault rate is down 7%, house break-ins are down 23%, the commercial break-in rate was 20% lower and the property damage rate was 19% lower.
Since coming to government, the Country Liberals have seen a reduction in alcohol-related offences with an 11% decrease across the Territory, 17% in Alice Springs, 51% in Tennant Creek, 31% in Katherine and 24% in Palmerston. Property offences have dropped 9% across the Territory, 9% in Darwin, 26% in Alice Springs, 23% in Tennant Creek and 16% in Nhulunbuy. In relation to the Country Liberals’ target of a 10% decrease in crime rates per year, that has been met in certain regions in the Territory for certain offences.
Next time the opposition members want to interject, they will know what the facts are. Commercial break-ins in Darwin in this period are down by an average of 12% per year. House break ins in Alice Springs are down by an average of 14% per year. Property damage in Alice Springs is down by an average of 11% per year. Assault rates in Katherine are down by an average of 12% per year. The total crime rate in Tennant Creek is down by an average of 14% per year. These things rebut some of the interjections and claims made by the opposition. These figures are available publicly for all to see. To the people listening or watching today, you can get that information. There are stats on Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy in relation to a range of things.
Sexual assaults in Palmerston are down by 24%. Sexual assaults are down overall by 13%. There are many stats which clearly demonstrate crime is down. The opposition continues to say crime is up and out of control, but the stats tell a different story. I reiterate for those listening that those who interject say that things are out of control and it is terrible. In some instances when itinerants move into town – I remember in opposition talking about these stats being much higher.
In the Wet Season people get stuck in town and that becomes an issue, but we have challenged the member for Casuarina to provide the times and dates when she has phoned the police about the issues with her community room so we can look at those issues.
What a great job the Attorney-General is doing in changing the court system. These amendments will free up time in the Supreme Court, take the pressure of them and allow people to spend time without feeling the need to be rushed. I am sure when solicitors and barristers look at the time they have set aside for a case in the Supreme Court – when I was a police officer going to the Supreme Court, you could not make plans. You would say, ‘Well, it will take five days’, and you had to get in there and get your evidence in. The pressure was on to meet the requirements.
If we take the pressure off the Supreme Court, as the Attorney-General wants to – I assume most members of this House will agree, and I hope they will support it for a host of reasons. That is why we should give people the reasons they should support this legislation.
If you take pressure off the Supreme Court and say to police officers that they have 10 days for a court case, not five, the prosecution has more time to cross-examine witnesses and make sure everyone’s story is told. If you only have five days of the case, you have to ask yourself the value of each witness and what they can contribute. You have a hierarchical structure of witnesses, and you might have five witnesses you do not have time to call. If it is not finished then you have to come another time when the courts can slot you in. Everyone has to front up again at a different time. Interstate witness and people from overseas have to come back.
We want to make sure the cost pressures on the court system are reduced. Some things will move from the magistrates court to the Local Court. When I talk to magistrates socially I do not talk about cases but about workloads and what is happening. They say it is pretty busy, but it has backed off a bit. You always fill the space available, as I am suggesting for the Supreme Court. It means people will always be busy in the courts. Sadly, we will never get down to zero crime. That is utopia. When someone finds utopia – not the one in Central Australia – I will be happy to get the address.
When we shift that load it gives more time and certainty that if they have to come back to Darwin or Alice Springs, or wherever the case is being heard, they have the time. It is about freeing up time and resources for prosecutors and defence counsels. I hope defence counsels in the wider public will see this as very positive and that they will have time to say, ‘I want to bring all these witnesses in and let them have their day in court’. Sadly, some of these people do not get their day in court. It is human nature that when we are aggrieved in relation to witnesses and victims, and if there are multiple victims, we want to have our day in court. We want to tell our story. Not being able to do that because of the pressure that is on the court system is pretty awful. I know this from experience as a prosecutor; I have had people sit for days outside the court.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments and the bill proposed are a credit to the Attorney-General, who has done many great things for the legal system in the Northern Territory. He is a man of innovation. He has introduced this legislation and I am grateful he has done so, because this will set up the Northern Territory for the next 50 years.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I could not resist after that. I would not have said anything, but if we have filibustering I might as well join the chorus. I congratulate the minister for all the hard work he has done and, I imagine, the department. Both these bills before us have taken a heck of a long time to put together.
Mr Elferink: I find it mystifying how they do it.
Mr WOOD: Yes. I was a bit concerned that what the previous speaker was talking about was slightly off the focus of what is proposed, because it is the Local Court (Related Amendments) Bill. At the bottom of the second reading speech it says:
It goes on to talk about the removal of the word ‘clerk’ and replacing it with ‘registrar’. There is a whole series of changes to existing bills, consequential amendments. Anyone who looks through it would see that to change the words from ‘judge’ or ‘clerk’ requires someone to go through a lot of legislation, which must come through this House.
I thought that is basically what this piece of legislation is about. The member for Nhulunbuy summed it up well by saying the legislation was technical. We moved onto other areas about crime stats and I am not sure how the crime stats relate to this Local Court amendment. Things in parliament are a bit slow at the moment. We are not exactly drowned in bills at present. To fill it out a bit we are doing a bit of professional fluffing, called filibustering.
It is a very legitimate discussion to have if the government wants to talk about law and order. Why not bring on a motion to discuss law and order in the Northern Territory? I think that would have been a good thing to bring on today. Do not use or abuse the system we have on relevance to the bill before us. That is what I was complaining about. I could raise many issues about law and order in the rural area. I have been asking for mobile CCTV cameras for a long time and have gotten nowhere. Yet they are in Darwin and they are going to Palmerston, but when I have asked for them in certain spots in the rural area, zilch.
I have some issues about law and order as well, but I would not want to get charged with irrelevance. It is a terrible thing to be charged with. I thank the Attorney-General and his staff for the wonderful work they have done in bringing these important amendments to the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I fail to see how some honourable members cannot draw a correlation between Local Courts and crime activity in the Northern Territory, considering Local Courts are full of criminals. I think it is highly relevant and some of the interjections have been completely out of order, member for Nelson.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions. I hope when you said the courts were full of criminals that you were not referring to the people at the bar table.
Mr Wood: They are not criminals until proven.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right. I have always been intrigued by the notion of the title ‘criminal lawyer’ as to where you put the punctuation mark.
Mr Wood: A bit like disabled car parking.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right. However, having made those observations I remind members what this is about. This is the tail end of years of work. This work predates me and it came to my attention when I became Attorney-General. I have been very aggressive with law reform in the Northern Territory. The NTCAT is something I wanted to pursue and I said that in opposition. Coming to power I had the support of the government and my colleagues, and I thank them for the establishment of the NTCAT to create a court system which prepares the Territory court system for the next 50 years.
It is important to pause briefly on the overall issues of how a court system will work going forward. I suspect despite my ambition and that of many people in the department and the courts – which have been well consulted on this – we will achieve that 50-year target. I have already travelled to other jurisdictions and observed the future of the court system.
In the Northern Territory we already have flirtations with those notions, and we see that with the emerging information technology which sees evidence being obtained over long distances, with judges sittings in Darwin holding court in remote areas through video conferencing technology. That technology has now reached a stage where the person before the court giving evidence or appearing as a defendant may as well be in the courtroom. A classic example is the video connection between the prison, where remand prisoners have their bail applications and matters dealt with without leaving the prison, and the courtroom, where the lawyer is representing that person in the courtroom whilst that person appears on a television screen.
To take that to the next level, Cook County, which is in Chicago and is the largest court system in the United States, has some interesting technical innovations, not least of which is the ability to have regulatory matters dealt with summarily, essentially by way of e-mail. That is a very intriguing thing to do and I think it is worth visiting. I have spoken to the Chief Magistrate about it – soon to be the Chief Judge – and how we may do those things here.
Cook County, a jurisdiction of some 10 million people – seeing how far it covers the city of Chicago and surrounding areas – enables you, if you receive a traffic ticket generated by electronic means, to dispose of it electronically. Let us say you drive through a red light. It is not a camera still that is taken; it is actually a small GIF or JPEG file, so when you go online and look up your citation number you can see yourself committing the offence in a moving picture. It is electronically generated. The pressure pad under the road feels the weight of the car going past the solid white line. That triggers the camera to take the film. A computer takes film and generates a citation, and you get it in the mail, which is the first time you are aware of it.
But what about circumstances where you feel that you have not committed the crime? A classic example would be when the electronic system was responding to what it considers to be a normal environment but a police officer was waving the person through the red light, an instruction the person was obliged to follow. Under our system in the Northern Territory you would have to go through the process of pleading not guilty, arguing the toss, making an appearance in the courthouse and having the matter disposed of. If you are uncertain about it you may need to get a lawyer. It is unlikely, but that is an example; you could do it by yourself.
In Cook County you go the website where your citation is, log in and explain the reason you are pleading not guilty to the citation. That is packaged electronically and comes before a judge. I have been in a court room – if you could call it that – where three judges were disposing of these matters. They were sitting there in loafers, jeans and a T-shirt, disposing of the matters coming before them on their screens. The courtroom, which held three judges and three different courts, was a little bigger than my office in Parliament House. You were then electronically advised as to whether or not your defence had been accepted and, therefore, an acquittal had been lodged against the matter and the citation had been disposed of, or whether you had been subsequently acquitted and were then required to make payment of a fine or appeal through the normal court process. That is an intriguing way to do it.
The second thing I noticed in Cook County – which would be a long time before we get it here, but it was interesting – was how they processed what you would call summary offences, which are disposed of on a regular basis. What struck me was that the court list for a single judge, if memory serves me, was about 300 matters in one day. If you calculate that over eight hours, I think it gave the magistrate – or the judge, as it was in Cook County – about one minute and 15 seconds to dispose of each matter.
What sort of a hearing can you deal with in one minute and 15 seconds? How the system works is very intriguing. Around the courtroom itself, which is not very big, probably about the size of one our parliamentary lobbies, there is space for a prosecutor, a defendant and defence counsel, plus the public can sit there if they like as there are a number of seats in the back of the courtroom. But around that courtroom there is a series of ante-chambers. In those ante-chambers, when a person came in to have a matter dealt with because they had been summonsed to appear, there was a series of rooms in which negotiations were held by Cook County officials. They would negotiate the outcome with the person who had been summonsed to appear, so by the time the matter was to be disposed of in front of the court, they walked out of the ante-chamber, took a number and the matter was disposed of by the judge.
Because it got to the point where there was an agreed set of facts for particular circumstances and there was nothing in contest, then it was how they disposed of a guilty plea. The judge would then say, ‘Mr so-and-so, do you agree with these facts?’ ‘Yes, I do.’ ‘Does Cook County have anything to add to it?’ ‘No, we do not.’ ‘All right. I find the matter proved. The person is fined $400; have a good day.’ Only if the matter was under contest beyond that would you go to the hearing process.
The capacity for a single judge to dispose of 300 matters in a single day was an extraordinary achievement. Of course, we will never have the volumes – certainly not in my lifetime, I suspect – to replicate that type of court system, but it is indicative of the lateral thinking you can have in how a court system should work.
Coming back to the Northern Territory, we had, when I became the Attorney-General, a functioning court system. Functionality and effectiveness in regard to the administration of the court system may not necessarily be the same thing.
It was clear to me by the representations I received from the department and the magistracy that things needed to change in how the system worked. I was aware that in 50 years’ time, it is not inconceivable that Darwin could be a city of a million people. How does the court system look in 50 years’ time? Those are the questions that impelled me and I started asking for certain work to be done.
I am sad to report that it has not all yet been done. The Justices Act is still somewhere in the Palaeolithic era and needs to be updated. The Criminal Code, which was started by Peter Toyne remains in, for lack of a better word, a schizophrenic state. Half of it is the Griffith model and the other half is the model Criminal Code as adopted by the jurisdictions. At least the work has been done. I have gone to the profession and have asked which one they want. Do we go back to the Griffith model and repeal everything we have done or do we go forward and continue moving over to the model Criminal Code? It is generally accepted amongst the jurists, which is surprising as you do not often get this out of the legal fraternity, but they said to convert to the model Criminal Code.
There are still reams of work that have to be done. To readjust the whole statute book of the Northern Territory – Part IIAA about compliant offences – means a massive amount of work. Even in the Criminal Code there are offences that have not yet been converted to Part IIAA type offences, which is reflective of the model Criminal Code.
I urge any future Attorney-General to press on in this space because, as a part of the legacy I will leave, I have not had the capacity, time or people to go through the statute book and do the massive work of rewriting the whole book. For whoever the next Attorney-General may be whether, they are from the CLP or ALP, there are a couple of things they may want to think about.
Nevertheless, I take comfort in looking at how we have prepared the court system of the Northern Territory to more closely reflect what other jurisdictions do. We are too small a jurisdiction for a three-tier court system. A three-tier court system is what you see in other jurisdictions. They have magistrates courts in New South Wales. There can be county and district courts depending on what jurisdiction you are in. Then there is the Supreme Court.
I will not go over it again in great detail, but by making these changes and expanding the role of the NT Magistrates Court to the Local Court at the lower end of the indictable range means we have been able to relieve the Supreme Court of more of its lower end matters and expand the powers of the Local Court to be more reflective or a county or district court for low-end indictable matters, hence the title change from magistrate to judge because they are straying into an area that is no longer reflective exclusively of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. We have changed the values of the matters that can be heard so criminal offences amounting to losses of $50 000 can now be dealt with by a Local Court, which until yesterday was limited to $5000, and the rats and mice stuff the Court of Summary Jurisdiction has to do has been passed to the NTCAT. The small claims jurisdiction is no longer an irritation for what will become the Local Court.
The best way to describe it is we have a platform for a three-tier court system for the next 50 years, and the NTCAT is Judge Judy, the Local Court will be The Practice and Boston Legal is the Supreme Court. I have to thank my wife for that analogy because I could not come up with something that simple. Every time I say it people understand.
How politically sexy has this been? Not very. This is just the nuts and bolts of government. There have been bucket loads of work, oodles of work needing to be done to pursue this, drafting exercises which would be the perfect vision of hell in going through the statute book to change commas, capitalise R, put lower case J and whatever else we have done. If I die and go to hell I will be taken to the legislative drafting office to do an exercise like this. I am glad there are people who can do this; otherwise, my ADED would kick in way too early.
I thank the staff for the enormous amount of work they have done, especially Mr Robert Bradshaw, who, if he were here, would doubtlessly blush for being acknowledged for the enormous amount of work he does. He is a true soldier for the administration of justice in the Northern Territory. A justice department without him would be a lesser justice department.
In his usual self-deprecating way, Mr Bradshaw has tried his hardest to avoid any form of acknowledgement from the Attorney-General, but he also pointed out that people like Fiona Hardy and Nicky Armstrong have done enormous amounts of work in the conceptual stages of the bill, which dates back a long time, but the bulk of that work was done in 2013-14.
I thank honourable members for going on this rather boring and dull journey with me. I know with great certainty that at the end of it – as well as including things like pre-trial disclosure, which is one of the more controversial elements of my Attorney-Generalship, and paperless arrests, which have gone on to see much safer streets because we have lifted the burden of paperwork from police officers to get them back on the street in a more effective way, which is all these things ever were – we will have made for a more effective court system and police force in the way it performs its duties.
Three-and-a-half years ago I said I wanted to pursue a concept called the Pillars of Justice, the capacity to manage the criminal justice system and, to a lesser extent, the civil court system from the point of arrest to the end of parole, or the point of an action starting to its completion. We made enormous strides across all those areas. The great thing about the Pillars of Justice model is that it enables me to look into the police force, the corrections system, the judicial system and the victim support system and bring all those silos into greater harmony.
This is part of that overall, big-picture change. I expect the Territory and the people living in it, now and for at least the next 40 or 50 years, will be well served by these changes. Something acknowledged by members on this side of this House, the ALP and Independents – and I genuinely believe it – is that the Territory’s criminal and civil justice systems have been substantially enhanced through this long process.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of some special guests. In the open gallery we have a Year 4/5/6 class from Middle Point School, accompanied by their teacher, Narelle Dahl. They have been sitting up there on their best behaviour. A big hello to you guys.
We also have two Year 5 classes from Leanyer Primary School, accompanied by their teachers. Welcome to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Clauses 1 to 17, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 18:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 50.1, that clause 18 be amended by omitting the reference to section 4(5) in clause 18(3) and replacing it with a reference to section 4(5)(a) to (g). Clause 18(3) deals with amendments to the Criminal Investigation (Extra-Territorial Offences) Act. This amendment has been made by Parliamentary Counsel for drafting purposes. The revised amendment highlights the specific paragraphs of section 45(1) that are being amended.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 26, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New Division 6A:
Mr ELFERINK: I move amendment 50.2 relating to new Division 6A. I move that the new Division 6A be inserted in the bill after clause 26. The new Division 6A provides for clauses 26A through 26C.
Clause 26A seeks to amend the act with the following provision: that a new Division 6A amends the Justices Act.
Clause 26B, section 177 amended. Section 77C of the Justices Act provides for a scale of costs to apply for failed prosecutions in the lower courts; however, the scale only applies where the costs decision is being made by the lower court. Section 177 of the Justices Act provides the Supreme Court with various powers, including powers relating to costs in dealing with appeals in criminal matters from the lower courts.
Clause 26B amends section 177 by providing that a scale prescribed under section 77C applies to the Supreme Court, except where the Supreme Court considers the circumstances of the case are of an exceptional nature. If the court has that view it can award higher costs. This amendment has been developed in conjunction with the Chief Justice. I note that the scale under the current justice’s regulations is being reviewed so the monetary figures in it are contemporary rather than at the time they were originally set in 1994.
This brings me to 26C, Part IX, Division 5, to be inserted. Clause 26C provides for transitional provisions relating to the amendment of section 177 of the Justices Act. Division 5, ‘Transitional matters for the Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016’. Section 207, ‘Appeal already commenced’. This new section 207 provides that section 177, as enforced on the date of the commencement of section 207, applies to any appeal lodged prior to that date of commencement; for example, prior to 1 May 2016.
Amendment agreed to.
New Division 6A agreed to.
Clauses 27 and 28, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 29:
Mr ELFERINK: I move amendment 50.3. I move that clause 29(2) be omitted and replaced as set out in the amendments schedule. Clause 29 deals with amendments to the Marine Act. Schedule 2 of that act sets out amendments to the Marine Board and Navigation Act 1881 of South Australia in respect to the continued application in the Northern Territory. Clause 29(2) is being amended so that Schedule 2 is to be amended rather than Schedule 1. This was an incorrect reference. It is being amended by splitting the proposed amendments concerning sections 263 and 265 into separate amendments. This appears necessary because one amendment uses the upper case for ‘Magistrate’ and the other the lower case for ‘magistrate’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 43, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 50.4. I move that the schedule to the Local Court (Related Amendments) Bill 2016 be amended by removing the proposed amendment to the AustralAsia Railway (Third Party Access) Act and replacing it with the amendment set out in the amendment schedule. This new provision makes it clear that the amendment relates to the code contained in the schedule to the AustralAsia Railway (Third Party Access) Act.
I also move amendment 50.5. I move that the schedule to the Local Court (Related Amendments) Bill 2016 be amended by removing the proposed amendment to the Liquor Act and replacing it with the amendments set out in the amendment schedule. The amendment is being made to include an amendment to section 101ZC(2), replacing reference to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction with a reference to a Local Court.
I further move amendment 50.6. I move that the schedule to the Local Court (Related Amendments) Bill 2016 be amended by removing the proposed amendments to sections 5(1)(b) and 11(1) of the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act . These amendments are now unnecessary because of the amendments made by the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vulnerable Witnesses) Act 2016. That bill commenced operation prior to May 2016.
I further move amendment 50.7. I move that the schedule to the Local Court (Related Amendments) Bill be amended by including an amendment to the Youth Justice Act as set out in the amendment schedule. The amendment is being made to remove cross-references to recognizance. These provisions to which these cross-references may have been referring are repealed by the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Congratulations, Attorney-General. It has only taken you an hour, but you have successfully cleared the gallery.
Amendments agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 10 February 2016.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I thank the advisers and departmental staff who provided the opposition with a briefing on this important bill. The opposition supports this legislation before the House today.
This legislation has been developed over a long time. It is important legislation which provides a way forward in relation to occupancy permits in the Northern Territory. It is not a reward for those who may have ill complied in the past. There are 3000 circumstances in the Northern Territory where buildings do not fully comply. The process of this legislation will amend to allow three tiers of occupancy compliance certificates, which will help address this issue.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Building Act to establish new administrative arrangements to resolve issues relating to the issuing of certificates of occupancy where a building permit has expired, and create two new categories of occupancy certificates in addition to the exiting single category we currently have of occupancy permit.
The situation today – I have spoken before about how we have a significant backlog of unresolved applications for building occupancy permits – has its roots in changes to the building certification process dating back to 1993. At that time there was a shift to building certification services being provided by the private sector in company with the adoption of a National Construction Code in the Northern Territory. This, combined with the continuing growth of the Northern Territory over this period of time and the growth in building works across the Territory, saw the constant challenge of providing building certification across the Territory. It led to a growing number of unresolved building certifications.
As the minister has noted, 2006 saw further changes, when the issuing of an occupancy permit was conditional on full compliance with prescriptive acts and regulations.
This is an important piece of legislation because often a person’s home is the biggest asset they will own. Often, in the case of businesses, the building can be that business’s biggest asset.
Additionally, over time we have seen a concurrent continuing increase in the number of circumstances where building permits for construction activity have expired, further complicating closure of outstanding applications for occupancy permits.
In government, Territory Labor sought to address the problem, which included a continuing moratorium on prosecution of building owners for failure to comply with certification, which was not assisted by the huge growth in demand for building certification services and administrative delays in dealing with applications for occupancy permits.
As I said, I am advised that there are 3000 circumstances across the Northern Territory where buildings do not comply with the requirements for building occupancy. Some of these shortcomings are minor; they might include a window frame that is slightly smaller percentage-wise than it should have been. Other shortcomings could be more serious, for example, door access and emergency exit issues that must be rectified.
Members would agree that it is an administrative issue that needs to be resolved, given the large number of buildings now occupied across the Territory that do not have a full occupancy permit. This is an important issue in terms of ensuring health and safety of all building occupants and visitors. It has strong implications for property owners in regard to the capacity to insure buildings and the market value of properties.
I understand that departmental staff have worked hard with industry, including detailed discussions over the past two years to find an effective way forward to resolve these issues. I take the opportunity to thank them for the briefings they have provided me to understand this complex legislation. As a consequence of their hard work, we have before us amendments to the legislation that aim to establish more options for Territorians to facilitate building certification.
It is essential to the new arrangements that in relation to all categories of occupancy certification the building works must be suitable for occupation. We have been given assurance that essential health and safety requirements will be met. These are critical points that have swayed us not to oppose the legislation through the new arrangements. These are untested in other Australian jurisdictions, as we understand, but these amendments are designed to create pathways to building certification while reflecting the true level of compliance achieved by building works. Where a building permit has expired, that compliance will be assessed against the building standards required at the time of construction as was intended at the time.
Section 38 expands the role of the building certifier to include granting Certificates of Substantial Compliance and Certificates of Existence. The new section 72 provides for an occupancy permit to be made if the building permit is no longer enforced and the building certifier has determined the essential elements have been completed subject to regulations.
A Certificate of Substantial Compliance applies where building works comply substantially with the building permit and legislative requirements, are suitable for occupation and meet relevant technical standards subject to regulations. A Certificate of Existence will only apply to building works completed before the bill commenced, and is also subject to regulations.
It is important to pick up that there has been a continuing moratorium in place, which will finish on June 30 this year. Therefore, this legislation is intended to be enacted on 1 May and will allow a period of a couple of months to allow buildings to be assessed and receive compliance before the moratorium expires. It is also for buildings already caught up in the process, not for new buildings – those which are part of the moratorium.
Conditions include that all building works require building authorisation under a relevant building law in force in the Territory at the time the building work was carried out. An application for this certificate can also be made for unauthorised building works and works that do not substantially comply with the legislative or technical requirements, but ultimate approval will be dependent on the recommendation of the building certifier. This legislation will hand that to the experts in building certification.
I am assured that the regulations referred to in the bill will properly prescribe information relevant to a Certificate of Substantial Compliance and Certificate of Existence.
We have been provided with a copy of the guidelines. These are still in draft form, but it was good to see them. I understand they are being worked through by the relevant department’s staff and industry stakeholders.
Minister, were electricians and plumbers notified regarding post-construction compliance? Obviously building authorities have been heavily involved, but with OH&S issues around plumbing and electricity, has that been taken on board?
For many properties the new certification arrangements will provide a timely opportunity to acknowledge and reflect the level of compliance achieved by existing building works. It is important to note that a key feature of the new arrangement is to harness the market value of a property to provide an incentive for compliance with building regulations. The level of compliance will be reflected when someone goes to sell their property. Hopefully, it will encourage people to go that step further and get their building fully compliant so they can get the full market value.
Owners will have a financial incentive to maximise building compliance to maximise their market value. The new arrangement will also realise an extension on the principle of buyer beware. For the first time the buyer will have a better definition of the level of building certification attached to a property, and, importantly, what further work may be required to achieve a higher level of certification. If an occupancy certificate was not issued previously, or people were unsure of what needed to be done to gain that certificate, this tiered system will give them more understanding and they can be fully informed when purchasing a property. For many people, purchasing a business or a home is one of the biggest financial outlays they will make.
One of the questions we still have is about the insurance sector and how it will respond to the new arrangements, but it is likely that a high level of compliance will, over time, also influence insurance premiums. I understand we are one of the first jurisdictions to take this legislation on board, so it will be interesting to see how the insurance sector responds over time.
Earlier I touched on the safety of electrics and plumbing. When we raised questions on core health and safety, the departmental staff assured us that issues like fire safety would be monitored rigorously.
One of the reasons we are supportive of this legislation is that we are assured of full compliance for public buildings, such as hospitals, schools, emergency shelters and other essential public facilities.
This legislation has been developed over a long time. We urge caution for the minister in the roll-out of it. It is tight time frame; it is mid-March and we are debating the legislation, and I assume it will be passed today. It is intended that this legislation will begin on 1 May and the moratorium will finish on 30 June. We urge the government not to speed ahead for the sake of being able to tick the box, but to have caution, because it is an important, valuable change to legislation.
The industry and community expectations regarding a user-friendly system – it will be interesting to see any bottlenecks while this legislation is put in place. People may jump at the opportunity to make sure their property has one level of compliance. Health and safety requirements will be ongoing and will require monitoring by certifiers and the department.
We will be keeping a close eye on this. We have seen a copy of the draft guidelines, about which there are still a few questions. I understand there will be consideration in detail amendments today, which the department and the minister’s office kept us fully informed of as they stepped out. We look forward to seeing those in the House today.
We support this legislation and look forward to progress in providing adequate protection to building owners and occupiers across the Northern Territory.
Mr HIGGINS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support the legislation and think it has been a long time coming. However, I would like to – and I know other members are of the same view – see the success or otherwise of these amendments reviewed in two years’ time. It is something we have to keep a close eye on.
I will give you some background of some of the things that happened in the rural area which people might want answers to. The first is that we recently sold the Daly River Mango Farm. One of the things I knew when I purchased the property, and when I sold it, was that all the documentation relating to that property had no buildings because there is no building code there. Basically, if people in these areas want to build, they just go ahead and build. I want to know if we will extend this at some point into those areas and how we would gradually implement it into those areas.
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr HIGGINS: The member for Nelson is rumbling. He has built a few buildings at Daly River. They would never meet any compliance.
Mr Wood: A chook shed. They are exempt.
Mr HIGGINS: Yes. If I go back a few years, I had a property at Howard Springs on which was – this is the best way I can describe it – a horse stable. There were four posts, some tin over the top and the horse lived in it. According to the plans it was a hayshed. Some of the people in the rural area, I am sure, would rely on the definition of a hayshed as opposed to somewhere a horse might stand. I want to know if the legislation picks up on some of that. I am sure it does.
We also had a chook house which was built to cyclone code anyway because it was made out of besser blocks and it was core filled …
Mr Wood: That is not a chook house!
Mr HIGGINS: It had lights, fans and everything in it. We look after our chooks, not like the chook farmer I know from Howard Springs.
Because it was less than 5 ft, it did not need to comply. I want to know whether some of these types of sheds fall into that category.
There is an old rule or exemption regarding garden sheds. People know what I mean by garden sheds. If they were 3 m2 or less you did not need to build those to code, but that was only in certain areas. If you took somewhere like the Howard Springs Hardware …
Mr Wood: When it existed.
Mr HIGGINS: When it existed. It was not allowed to sell them unless they asked where the people would erect these buildings. It had a small area it was selling to and it was controlled. If you were putting one up in the larger rural area or the further out rural area, you did not need it. If you go to Stratco you can buy those exact same sheds that are not to code. They do not need to ask you where you are going to build it. My son built a house in Girraween. He had approval for a shed which did not have any sides. It was a huge shed and was built to code. All they did was fill the inside with cool room panelling. A company in Queensland supplies the cool room panelling, with the doors, windows and everything in it. I am sure that does not comply. How it will in the future, I am not sure.
It is interesting; some of this needs picking up. When we sold a property at Daly and started looking for somewhere closer to Darwin, we did not want to come closer than 100 km and we ended up at 60 km; we did not want to come too close and be corrupted. We found a lot of houses that we liked where the home was fine, but the price was overinflated on the basis that they had a second dwelling down the back, which was not to code and they were renting to people. I came to the conclusion that it was not a good look for a politician to buy a property that had an illegal structure. The cost was such that for me to bulldoze it would build into the cost of purchasing the property. They were basing their price on the fact they were earning an income from this building.
The concern has been raised in regard to insurance and I agree with that. Over the next couple of years we need to keep a close eye on insurance premiums and how this affects those premiums. A lot of this legislation is in so that during cyclones we do not have a lot of rubbish flying around. We are applying these impositions on people with their housing, but are we controlling what people in the rural people leave lying around their blocks? We need to lift our act in that area. There are more pieces of iron and rubbish laying on people’s properties that will create bigger problems than these sheds being blown down.
I support the legislation. There are a couple of questions people in the rural area have concerns about and want answers to. Do they need certification to some level with the old three-by-three shed, the chook houses less than 5 ft or the hayshed for their cattle?
I support the legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly for dobbing in his son for panels on the shed. I am sure the member for Fong Lim has taken note of that …
Mr Higgins: He sold it.
Mr WOOD: He sold it; that is all right. We have a pretty good description of the rural area. In regard to garden sheds – I worked in hardware for a long time – you could buy a standard garden shed as long as it was 20 m from the boundary and was 3 m2. The theory was it would collapse in a cyclone. I do not know if that was tested. There were some exemptions, but whether they still exist I do not know.
Some people might remember another chicken: Red Rooster at Tennant Creek. That is where this started. Madam Speaker would have had something to do with this when she was in opposition, I think, because she mentioned quite a number of government buildings in Tennant Creek that did not come up to scratch. We thank Madam Speaker for bringing that to our attention because from then on they decided to look at every building in the Territory. That has culminated in this legislation today.
From Red Rooster in Tennant Creek we have these amendments today. Chickens have shown …
Mr Higgins: Come home to roost.
Mr WOOD: Yes, they have come home to roost. Very good, member for Daly.
That is where it started, and it has been a difficult road for both governments. There is no doubt, especially in the rural area – that is why I am interested in this legislation. Minister, I support this good legislation and I appreciate it coming back. I raised with certifiers I have spoken to that this should be reviewed in two years. It has taken a long time to get here and I have no doubt there will be issues with it working. It is a good attempt to solve problems with buildings that do not come up to standard but can with a few changes.
It will not cover the hayshed or horse shed. The government needs to use some common sense when it comes to older buildings, especially in the rural area, and not only the Darwin rural area. I imagine that in places like Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek there are some buildings which have been sitting at the back end of blocks for many years and were probably never certified. Time will change things; those buildings will eventually disappear.
People today understand that you have to build a shed to code. You do not see many people putting up a do-it-yourself hayshed or chook shed anymore. Most people buy the materials and have it certified. In the rural area, eventually these building will either fall down or be knocked down by new owners. The practicality of chasing people – I went past Andrews Road the other day and I do not think everything was to standard there, but I do not think that is a big deal. Eventually those buildings will go.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 5 classes from Essington School, accompanied by their teachers, Mrs Kate Kain and Ms Marie Noonan. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, that is three out of four that you got right today.
We talk about three forms of certification, but we have two new ones we have been asked to discuss today. One is the Certificate of Substantial Compliance. The second reading said about 1000 building permits had been lodged but no occupancy permits. There are many buildings where people have either never bothered to get around to the occupancy permit or there have been changes to the building. Some of those could be minor, as the member for Nightcliff said. Someone might have put in a window or added something to the side of the house. The house has been built to code, but the changes – maybe a new door has gone in. That type of change does not necessarily make a change to the building itself, although it could if it was a major change, but it can be certified. That has to be looked at. It has to comply with the regulations in the act.
It says under 72B:
Go down to (e):
We do not have those regulations yet, minister. I might be wrong. I am interested to see what those regulations are when they are released.
We have been told that the Certificate of Existence, which some of us in the place need, will help in relation to buildings for which:
I understand this will help with buildings that have been built but perhaps do not come up to the code. This is an area where someone will have to make a decision as to whether that building does comply. I should quote from the second reading speech to get the right words. It says:
One of the issues there is the risk and liability of the certifier. Obviously a certifier will have to make a decision about a building to see whether it will comply with reasonable levels of safety, health and amenity. That will also have to be approved. My understanding is the director will give the final approval, from what I read in relation to this. An application can be made for unauthorised building works. The director can grant or refuse that. The Certificate of Existence will require some risk by the certifiers in ticking off a building. I am interested to know if the government is willing to assist certifiers to reduce that risk. They do not want to get sued for giving a tick to a building that blows over in a cyclone. I am not saying they are that silly, but certifiers have a role to play in making sure a building complies with safety and health. I am interested in the minister’s comments in relation to the liability that could place on a building certifier.
Thank you for your department’s briefing; it was excellent. I went to Master Builders Northern Territory and had a meeting with David Malone. I received some top information and guidance from asset services, Sam Nixon and Mike Hatton, who gave me a rundown of how it will work in practice and some of the issues that would be involved. They gave it support as well. They felt the government had done a good job. Government spent a lot of time getting to this point. They would also support a review. They say this legislation has to be tested and has to go through some trial and error to make sure it works properly. When you have certifiers like those two people saying they believe it is a good piece of legislation, people like me who are not experts in this field feel more comfortable saying it is good legislation.
Government could look at promoting house insurance. People have to understand that if you put a new window in or change something on your house, there is chance that if a cyclone comes and someone finds out that change has not been given the tick of approval by a certifier, your insurance can be challenged. An insurance company might say the house that blew away did not come up to the correct standard and did not have a certificate of occupancy to cover the new door into the laundry, the new window in a wall, or a new addition to the house.
One thing my meeting with the MBA emphasised was that people need to understand that if they have unapproved additions to the house they can risk their insurance. That needed to be said in parliament and perhaps it needs publicity because people may become lackadaisical and think adding something to the house is fine when, in fact, you could risk your household insurance. That would be disastrous after a cyclone.
Minister, I looked at your amendments. Section 166AA is acquisition on just terms. Why is it in the bill? It says:
That applies in many cases; however, why has it been put into this bill? Was it something that should have been in the bill previously? It does not seem to have much of an explanation elsewhere. Why has that been added?
Minister, obviously you will discuss the amendments. I imagine they relate to transitional provisions. You mentioned that if transitional provisions were left unaltered it would lead to an absurd result and that is not the intended outcome of the reform. That has to do with an application in relation to building work approved or commenced before commencement – section 197. I think that is what it refers to.
There are also changes to clause 22, proposed section 195(4). In my understanding it relates to that. I am interested in some clarification on that, minister, when you move the amendments. They came in last night. I do not think there is anything contentious about it, but it would be nice to get a bit more detail on what they mean.
The changes are good. They have taken a long time, and I know this is a case where there has been consultation. The government asked people about this for a long time. It is a good example of why you do not need to rush some legislation. Get it right in the first place, add some time and, as the member for Daly said, in two years come back with a report on how it is going. You will get feedback from the certifiers and builders, and probably the homeowners, as to what they think of this legislation.
It is a bit of a test run, but we cannot wait forever to make these changes. They are needed, and if it was not for Red Rooster in Tennant Creek we probably would not be standing here today congratulating the minister. Minister, you know who to thank.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I add my support as part of the Territory opposition, and I thank the minister for what was a long journey which I was privileged to be part of.
A Labor government inherited the challenge, which started around 2006. Far more than the Red Rooster story, it was a story about the Northern Territory dealing with the built form of modern urbanism and how the challenges relate to – I used to say to the department, as a former Minster for Lands and Planning, and Construction and Infrastructure, that it is overlaying new systems on an old town. That is visible, coming from Tennant Creek, a frontier town where the built form commenced in 1931, which is quite contemporary. But in terms of the Territory it is quite an historic …
Mr Tollner: With a broken down beer truck.
Mr McCARTHY: That is a good comment from the minister, but I will not pick up on it because it will take us on a tangent that would be completely unparliamentary. However, it reflects a frontier town and the circa of that in relation to Territory history.
Let us fast forward to 2006 when Labor took up this massive challenge. That represents the incredible workload undertaken by the previous Department of Lands and Planning, and now the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, as well as the previous Department of Construction and Infrastructure, now the Department of Infrastructure.
I acknowledge those departments and the incredible work of those public servants. As a lay person, a teacher by trade, who was privileged to be given the job as a minister in both of those areas, with no engineering experience and no background in architecture or building certification, being guided and advised by those experts was an incredible experience. The scope of that work was amazing.
I remember being toured through storerooms in Palmerston where building files had been collected and arranged into a workload process that reflected the priority that emerged, which was the certification of public buildings. We had to prioritise. It was a matter of public safety in regard to the Territory constituency accessing public buildings. Those files alone took up an incredible amount of physical space. I remember the looks on the public servants’ faces when they explained to me that this was only the starting point, because layer upon layer of those files would be added to that workload.
The member for Nelson said it took a long time and considerable consultation, and it did, but it took an incredible workload from the department to get us where we are today. I feel privileged to be a part of that journey, and I thank the minister. From a lay perspective, coming from the bush and now living in a frontier town, I asked the department what the answer is in regard to buildings that cannot be certified under the normal processes. So we had to look at a compromise. It related to the initiation of a moratorium and to what we are debating in this House regarding alternative building certification processes.
I acknowledge that because it was a very commonsense approach and it is delivering for the Territory today. It is not always about cyclones. Cyclones are a very dominant weather impact on the Northern Territory. It is about the Territory and all our built form across the Territory – past, present and future. When we talk about the opportunities this legislation will bring, it relates to towns like Pine Creek, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Batchelor and Borroloola. These are our future development potentials for the Northern Territory. We must always be cognisant of holistic development opportunities in the Northern Territory.
Whilst the Top End and the socio-geographic influences of Darwin and Palmerston continue to dominate, any government needs to have a clear focus on development across the Northern Territory.
I extend a big acknowledgement, thanks and comment of enjoyment regarding that incredible learning curve and work I was privileged to participate in with those departments. The new alternative has been developed and completed under the minister and current government. I will take this story home to Tennant Creek, as the member for Nelson highlighted. Tennant Creek has been the initiator of major change in the Territory and the powerhouse of the Northern Territory across decades, producing more gross state product than Darwin. Tennant Creek at one stage had more registered businesses than Darwin.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members and the viewing public, I have received some isolated reports associated with our parliamentary broadcast today. To access it you should go to the Department of the Legislative Assembly’s website and click on the broadcast quick link on the left hand side of your screen.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity. I encourage members of the opposition to listen to this because I intend to go through events and deals from the MUA blackmailing on Blacktip, right through to the Power and Water Corporation receiving the gas.
We have heard this week that the Maritime Union of Australia blackmailed $1m from Saipem, a barge company doing work on the Blacktip gas field. Whilst I may have said some not nice things about one NT News journalist, I acknowledge that the NT News broke this story earlier this week and opened a can of worms. As we have started to pick at the facts, more and more things have come to light. I intend to go through that now.
We all read the story in the newspaper about the $1m that had been extracted from Saipem by the MUA. We heard about the Royal Commission findings during Question Time. We did not hear until earlier this week that the $1m went into the Darwin branch of the MUA for training purposes. That was revealed to us by the local secretary, Thomas Mayor. Thomas Mayor said, ‘Nothing was underhanded. There was $1m paid for training. We were simply standing up for our members because we do not like foreign workers on foreign ships and it was all fine.’
You have to then ask the question about $1m in 2008 going into training for the MUA. You have to understand the context of this. The government spends almost $100m on training in the Northern Territory. The vast majority of that, 95%, is tied grants from the Commonwealth so it must go to Charles Darwin University, Batchelor Institute or Group Training NT. The discretionary amount this government has to spend on training is maybe $2m or $3m. It is not a big portion of that money.
In 2008, $1m going into training would have been seen as a fortune. Given the close ties between the MUA and the Labor Party, one would expect that a Labor government would be crowing from the rooftops that they managed to get $1m from this Blacktip deal, which was the biggest deal going in the Northern Territory. I thought the Labor Party would be crowing from the rooftops, saying what a wonderful thing it was to get $1m going into training seafarers and maritime workers in the Northern Territory.
There was not a mention. You can trawl through the media, newspapers and Hansard and not find any mention anywhere from 2008 of where this $1m came from or where it went. We have heard nothing from the MUA about how many people they have trained or the courses they have put them on. One of our members was a member of the MUA. He said, ‘I worked there. I did not get a cent of training money. No one trained me.’ The question is where did that money go?
On top of that, we found out today that not only was this $1m extracted from Saipem but the workers lost entitlements. They received $200 a day as an allowance for living in hard conditions on ships. The MUA, as a result of extracting $1m from Saipem, conceded that hardship allowance and allowed it to be cut back to $30. The first question one has to ask is how is it possible that the union can be arguing against its members for $1m to go into a training fund and then see their workers worse off as a result? It defies logic.
We found out that the minister at the time, Kon Vatskalis, despite the Opposition Leader saying nobody knew anything of this, caught a plane to Perth to meet with Saipem officials. We know this because parliamentary records and his diary show that he met with people from Saipem. You have to wonder what a Labor government minister was doing flying to Perth to meet with Saipem at the same time the MUA was extracting money from that company.
This is where it gets bad for Territorians. At the time, the delays in the Blacktip project cost the Northern Territory government, taxpayers and electricity users millions of dollars in extra diesel. I have a copy of the 2009 annual report, which says energy costs were $60m higher than the previous years, with distillate worth $53m. That $53m was the extra diesel we had to pay for because of the delay in getting gas to our power station. That $53m is picked up by taxpayers, households and businesses that pay for electricity through tariffs. We are not talking small numbers. That is only on the development of the Blacktip deal.
The government then purchased 740 PJ of gas over a 25-year period from Eni. Almost half of that – in excess of 300 PJ is excess to the government’s needs. Over 300 PJ is excess to what the government needed.
Mr Chandler: Why?
Mr TOLLNER: I will get to the why in a minute. You wonder why anyone would buy almost twice as much gas as they need.
So that people understand the magnitude of what we are talking about – I cannot explain the exact numbers for the deal that Power and Water made with Eni on that 740 PJ of gas or how much was extra, but in rough terms it was substantially more than 300 PJ in excess of what was needed. I cannot talk about the price of commercial-in-confidence agreements, but the standard price around the country is about $7 per gigajoule. For 300 PJ of gas, that equates to $2.1bn. That is a standard price that you would find in the marketplace. New South Wales and Queensland are paying substantially more than $7. Let us say the government did an extraordinarily good deal. It did not buy it for less than $4, but it was somewhere between $4 and $7. If it had just paid $4 per gigajoule, it bought in excess of $1.2bn worth of gas.
We live in the Northern Territory. There are 240 000 of us here, and we bought a minimum of $1.2bn more gas than we need. Who pays? Ultimately, the taxpayer and energy users pay. We have gone out on a limb. The previous government bought all this extra gas. It lumbered Territorians with bills for extra gas that we will never need. This is what they call a take or pay contract; use it or lose it. If you do not use it you lose it, but you still pay for it.
We bought excess gas that there is no possible way to use; I say ‘we’, but I mean the previous government. It was to the tune of over $1bn, all to be worn by taxpayers and power users.
Mr Chandler: Same union negotiator.
Mr TOLLNER: We will get to the unions in a minute.
These are the deals that were happening at the time. The Chief Minister today in Question Time, in response to the Opposition Leader’s question about the port, talked about the pipeline deal. What happened with that? The Amadeus Gas Pipeline was constructed 30-odd years ago at considerable cost and, fundamentally, taxpayers and energy users paid for the construction and operation of it. It was a 1500 km pipeline.
At the end of the 25-year period there was a residual amount of about $65m left to be paid. The government at the time made the remarkable decision not to pay that $65m and own the pipeline. Instead it said to its partner APT, Australian Pipeline Trust, ‘You can own it’. Rather than Territorians owning that pipeline, it was to be owned by the Australian Pipeline Trust. It was picked up for $65m – 1500 km of pipeline.
I heard the previous Opposition Leader, when I raised this a couple of years ago in parliament, say, ‘We are not in the business of owning pipelines’. Well, they are in the business of owning power stations, networks, retail businesses and everything else to do with power generation so what is the problem with owning a pipeline? All right, there is a reasonable argument to say governments should not own pipelines and should let the private sector own that pipeline for $65m.
What came after that, though …
Mr Elferink: What is the asset worth?
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, the asset’s worth – it cost $1.5bn to build.
That is garbled logic, but if you live with that you say, ‘Governments are not in the business of owning pipelines’. Fair enough.
What then followed was the gas transportation agreement which the then government negotiated with APT, which became APA. That is what happened; they negotiated a gas transportation agreement. Fundamentally, when it negotiated that gas transportation agreement, the government paid virtually what you would pay to transport gas through a new pipeline, as though it was a new asset. There was no taking into account that Territorians had already paid for that asset over the previous 25 years. We were paying near-new prices.
On top of that gas transportation agreement, Labor agreed to pay uncapped costs for maintenance and any augmentation of that pipeline. If we get a new development and we have to connect into it – we agreed to pay uncapped costs to have that happen. An outrageous deal! And at the same time as all these things happening.
The thought that the government could be negotiating multibillion-dollar deals on gas and building pipelines, and the Opposition Leader, being a senior adviser and chief of staff not knowing a skerrick about it is incomprehensible, quite frankly.
Mr Elferink: It cannot be true.
Mr TOLLNER: I do not know if it cannot be true. If it is true you have to ask the question, is this guy up to the job of running the Territory? For something of that magnitude to pass underneath the Opposition Leader’s nose and for him to not know anything about it is beyond belief.
I have never heard anybody on this side accuse the Opposition Leader of being part of these negotiations, but we all thought he had to be aware of these negotiations and discussions. You have to ask where the unions come in. The member for Nightcliff discussed the motion to suspend standing orders and said the government is a disgrace, that we put up electricity prices and did all sorts of things to Power and Water. What led to all those decisions? Why did we have to do that?
When the gas got to PWC, to the generation business, in 2008 we had the biggest electrical malfunction we have ever had in the Territory. The Casuarina substation blew up. It cost huge amounts of money. It may be coincidence – a report was done, but I have heard from a number of people within the organisation who have said, ‘Do not believe what you read. It was literally a spanner in the works.’ Some person had left a spanner sitting there; it vibrated down into the works and blew up the Casuarina substation.
The view was that it may have been done intentionally. I will not make that allegation one way or the other. When you look at the way PWC operated at the time, and the people involved, you have to start asking questions about what was going on.
PWC had employed a linesman. He was a bit of a lefty, a troublemaker. He joined the union and convinced PWC at the time that under the Labor government he should not be working as a linesman but paid to be the PWC ETU organiser. PWC gave him an office, a car and a mobile phone, and kept paying salary that in today’s dollars would be between $110 000 and $152 000 a year. Nice job being paid to be the union organiser and sit there driving the union’s goals on the PWC worksite.
In 2008 we had this incident then PWC spent a bomb of money. It borrowed $144m from the NT government. It expended another $223m. There were hundreds of millions of dollars for fixing the Casuarina substation blow-up.
PWC also brought in 100 emergency staff from all over the country to work in the organisation and those staff never left; they are still within the organisation. PWC has grown into a mammoth giant with expenditure going everywhere. It had a major blow-up and an onsite union organiser was driving the mission, dictating how it will all work. The name of that organiser is Paul Kirby.
Mr Elferink: That sounds familiar.
Mr TOLLNER: It may sound familiar to some people in this House because when we came into government and put a new CE into the job, John Baskerville, the first thing he said to Paul Kirby was, ‘You are not paid to be a union organiser. You are a linesman. Get out there and do your job.’ At that point Paul Kirby left the organisation and became the secretary of the ETU in Darwin.
The ETU then began lobbying, rallying and carrying on, running scare campaigns about this government trying to sell Power and Water and cut jobs. We were shell-shocked when we came to government at the problems contained within PWC. We had received advice from the board that they needed a massive cash injection to keep going. This came after they borrowed and spent hundreds of millions of dollars after the Casuarina substation blew up and put on an extra 100 staff, then we came into government and were advised that the whole place was about to fall to bits and PWC needed to be put on life support. Without a massive capital injection it would die.
We came to government facing $5.5bn of debt; we had a $1.1bn budget deficit thanks to all the mates over there. We were sitting there wondering how we would pay it. The only thing we could do was allow Power and Water to increase electricity charges. That was the only way we could do it; our hands were tied.
We then started doing the work, bringing in consultancy and determining what we could do to fix this organisation, bearing in mind it was paying for gas it did not use. It was paying exorbitant costs through a pipeline that was – I remember looking at the pipeline deal and wondering how it was possible. Treasury looked at it and said, ‘We cannot work it out’. I said I wanted all the information around the pipeline and they said, ‘We have been to Iron Mountain, the repository of all our information, and we cannot find anything on it’.
The deal was done by a subcommittee of the Power and Water Corporation Board and there were no minutes. There was a great deal of cloudiness and the only person who seemed to know anything about it at the time was the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Karama, who is still the only one who stands up during debate and yells. Fundamentally, she knew what was going on with it.
For a new government, there was very little information. People were warning me by saying, ‘You should not talk in parliament about the pipeline deal. That is a commercial deal so do not worry about it. Look in other places.’ It has always been at the back of my mind that something funny was going on, and now we find this. We were tipped off by the NT News in last weekend’s paper.
Ms Fyles: You like them today.
Mr TOLLNER: There is one journalist I do not like, but I do like the fact the NT News tipped us off on this issue. It has given us that little thread we can start to pull. We are now seeing everything start to unravel. We see the same players involved everywhere.
The ETU secretary at the time, before Paul Kirby got there, was a bloke called Alan Paton. Alan Paton left the ETU and went to work for Paul Henderson as the senior adviser on the Power and Water Corporation, which was his title. Straight out of the ETU, he moved into the Chief Minister’s office, advising the Chief Minister whilst all these deals were being done. The MUA was doing deals, working out what they could extract out of them. No one really cared because there was billions of dollars floating around everywhere.
The member for Nightcliff today said, ‘Nothing new here, look somewhere else. Let us get onto the real business.’ Well, member for Nightcliff, this is the real business. For four years I have been scratching my head, wondering how it is possible that the Power and Water Corporation could be in such a financial mess.
You might recall when we came into government; the first thing we found out was the asset management system of the Power and Water Corporation did not work. It was originally budgeted to cost $15m to put this asset management system in place. It cost $70m, went live in 2012 and had more than 150 major defects in it.
Then we started the structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation. That just ripped the lid off this can of worms. Not only did we find out that the asset management system had problems, but we found out the financial management system was riddled with problems and did not work. The accounts of Power and Water were a scrambled mess. Whilst it was one big monopoly, it was all contained within the organisation. The minute we started pulling it to bits and doing the structural separation, all of these things became apparent.
This was massive mismanagement by the former Labor government and its union mates, all in there on a feeding frenzy on taxpayers’ and electricity users’ money, in deals that were done over 25 years that the government is locked into. It will be almost two decades before we can extract ourselves from these deals. They are binding agreements.
We want to know who was involved. We already know a bunch of them – Kon Vatskalis was involved; he was flying to Perth to talk to Saipem. Paul Henderson was involved. The former Treasurer, the member for Karama, was involved. Alan Paton, the former ETU bloke, moved into the Chief Minister’s office as the senior adviser on PWC, so he was involved. Paul Kirby, ETU secretary, was involved. He is now the candidate for Port Darwin, which is a disgrace.
These are the people Labor cuddles up to and calls comrades. Only a few weeks ago we saw the MUA boasting on its website it is now a sub-branch of the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory and it has 10% of the vote – in your party, member for Nhulunbuy. Are you happy with that? You can rub shoulders with these people happily and accept their votes at party room meetings. To me it is a disgrace.
The Leader of the Opposition, in my honest opinion, knew nothing. He literally knew nothing of this and he has not been lying when he has said he knew nothing. I do not think the Opposition Leader is up to the job. The Opposition Leader is a puppet of the faceless men and women of the Labor Party, the heavyweights of the trade union movement and all the others. I do not think we will see the Opposition Leader shed any light on any of this. I think he knows nothing.
We still have to ask these questions and get to the bottom of this nonsense. If we do not hear answers to questions it is my strong view that the Chief Minister should launch an inquiry into this whole matter, not just the MUA deal on Blacktip but the process that saw Blacktip gas arrive at the PWC, which culminated in the 2008 Casuarina substation blow-up. We need answers to the lot.
I fundamentally believe Labor members may well get their way. We may well end up with a judicial inquiry into this matter. I encourage the Chief Minister to launch that and start scratching around.
It appears the Stella Maris inquiry only scratched the surface of this unholy relationship between Labor and the unions. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence tells an enormous story about his capability to lead the Northern Territory.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am proud to defend unions today, although it is entirely regrettable we are in a censure motion that we do not support. This is clearly a distraction from Government Business. I hope that in Adelaide my 94-year-old mother, Mrs Jess Chambers, is watching this debate. I have left her a message to log on and watch it.
The reason I want my mother to watch this debate is she has been a union member all her working life. She was a career nurse who devoted decades of service to looking after soldiers as an Army theatre nurse, delivering babies, riding her bicycle around the streets of Manchester in the UK, and being the matron in charge of a small country hospital in South Australia.
She has given much advice to my three sisters and me, but the best advice she ever gave us was to make sure we joined a union. ‘The union will look after you, protect your rights and entitlements and advance your role as women and as workers.’ My mother having been a member of the nurses’ union in the UK and Australia for her entire working life, I took that advice. I was a nurse when I left school, so I was a member of the ANMF. I went to university and became a member of the ASU. I became a teacher and a proud member of the AEU, and I am a proud member of the Australian Services Union. I will continue to be a union member. I see paying my dues as a wise investment.
Those who do not join a union still enjoy and benefit from the many workplace conditions that have been fought for, even died for, because of unions. I have had enough of the grubby talk from this government, for years, about unions. Three-and-a-half years ago this government was elected to govern under Chief Minister Terry Mills, who has long since left this parliament after being stabbed in the back by the member for Braitling. Three-and-a-half years down the road they have stopped governing. They have given up and forgotten what their job is. I think the last three days in this parliament is evidence, and after this the parliament sits for a further six days, then two weeks of estimates and one final day, before we go to an election.
Given our proximity to an election, I expect more of this government and expect its members to behave like one – Territorians expect the same – but they do not. This is clearly a distraction strategy to take the spotlight off themselves and the fact they have given up on governing. They do not know how to govern and have lost Territorians’ trust.
Let us look at the facts; these are very serious and scurrilous allegations with no basis towards the member for Fannie Bay, a story that has been cooked up about these Blacktip negotiations. The matter raised by the CLP refers to discussions conducted between Eni, Saipem and the WA branch of the MUA from approximately 15 August 2008 to approximately 7 November 2008. The Royal Commission report corroborates those facts and dates.
Michael Gunner was elected as the member for Fannie Bay on 9 August 2008. He was elected before those negotiations took place. He had no involvement with the negotiations between a WA union official and a subcontractor to Eni – none whatsoever. In the general overview of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption preamble, it states at paragraph 4:
This is the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. That is what it says in black and white.
The CLP is simply trying to conduct a smear campaign because it is so terribly, desperately afraid of losing the August election. Consecutive and very negative polling results are feeding and driving that fear.
The Leader of the Opposition has said in relation to the CLP’s attempt to smear him that he was not involved. It is that simple. He was not involved; he has said so.
That is unlike the member for Katherine, who only last month had to resign because he was involved in a dodgy deal for personal gain. It is also unlike the member Greatorex, who used taxpayers’ money to fund a night out on the drink in a Tokyo with a bar bill of some $5000. Let us call it for what it is …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order! That is incorrect. It was not taxpayers’ money. I ask that you correct the record.
Ms WALKER: I suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, you use standing orders to make a personal explanation. You are the Speaker at the moment; you are not the member for Greatorex.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, I ask that you withdraw that comment. It is incorrect and misleading of the parliament.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I ask that the member withdraw that incorrect information. It has been rebutted time and time again in this parliament, and they continue to try to get people to believe it was taxpayers’ money when, in fact, it was not.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, I ask that you withdraw that comment, please.
Ms Walker: I wish to speak to the point of order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, there is no speaking to the point of order. You can dissent …
Ms Walker: I will speak to the point of order. The reality is the bill was paid on a taxpayer-funded credit card. That is a fact, Mr Deputy Speaker. These comments refer to the member for Greatorex.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, I have asked that you withdraw the comment. You can make a personal explanation at another time if you so desire.
Ms Walker: No, you can make the personal explanation. And I withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, please leave the Chamber for one hour pursuant to Standing Order 49.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was surprised to hear the member for Nhulunbuy raise this issue.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Nhulunbuy is still in the Chamber. I thought you gave her instructions to leave.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member for Nhulunbuy to remove herself immediately.
Mr ELFERINK: I wonder what the member for Nhulunbuy’s mum would think of a Royal Commission that reported the union movement was corrupt in every jurisdiction in Australia except the Northern Territory. I would be shaking my head if I was a long-term serving and faithful union member. I would also be shaking my head if I had heard, as a long-term faithful union member, that a deal had been struck between Saipem and the MUA, which had the effect of reducing allowances paid to staff working on the Blacktip deal from $200 to $30 a day. That would be an unacceptable outcome.
A part of that arrangement was the MUA when it was in the process of extorting $1m of training money from Saipem, which was working in the Northern Territory. We have now heard from the MUA that money found its way into the Northern Territory subsequent to the delivery of that report by the Royal Commission.
Instead of having the Royal Commission exonerating the Northern Territory’s position it now might be the case that the Royal Commission, if it had the power to do so, would revisit the arrangements in the Northern Territory and ask some questions about the $1m training money that has found its way back into the Northern Territory after being extracted from a Northern Territory project. The extraction occurred in Western Australia. That is the difference.
Who was in Western Australia at the time money was being extracted from Saipem? Was it the minister, Kon Vatskalis? Who was the chief of staff to minister Kon Vatskalis? Maybe it was the current Leader of the Opposition. Can you imagine? I ask everybody in this Chamber to think about this and imagine the meeting between Saipem and Kon Vatskalis. Let us pretend the Leader of the Opposition was not there at the time. Kon Vatskalis walks into the room and there is the usual shaking of hands; they sit around the table and have a cup of tea. ‘How is it going?’ says Kon Vatskalis. Saipem, which has just been extorted for $1m, says, ‘It is going fine. We are not going to mention anything.’
That is what we are being asked to believe. If Kon Vatskalis had been told by Saipem in that board room, or wherever it was, that $1m was being extracted from them, the Leader of the Opposition would have known. It would have come back.
We are being asked to believe that this extraction of cash by the MUA from Saipem, a company trying to work in the Northern Territory as a 40% owned subsidiary of Eni which was laying the Blacktip pipeline, one of the biggest projects in the Territory’s history – it will not mention the fact it is being stuffed around by the MUA. If I was in a company the first thing I would say is, ‘Goodness me, minister; you will not believe what is being asked of us by the MUA. If we don’t comply with that process they will slow down the project. You need to know that, minister.’ No, Saipem said, ‘Nice cup of tea, minister? Things are going well.’
From the position of the Saipem board and Eni, I would say, ‘Goodness me, minister; the project is under threat because if we don’t pay $1m to the MUA your project timelines won’t be met and you’ll be spending millions of dollars more on diesel to get your generators running.’ Place yourself in that environment and ask yourself if Saipem would have raised those issues. Of course Saipem raised those issues. Of course it did not want a public fight with the person paying its bill so Saipem would not raise it publicly, but it is not conceivable that Saipem or Eni did not raise the issue with the government of the day. I would have raised it if I was in that position, because it would have cost the government of the day millions and embarrassed the government’s contracts in that construction phase. We hear the Sergeant Schultz defence from the member opposite – ‘I know nothing.’
He is not even here to reply to this. He leaves it for other people because he does not want to answer more questions. Why? Because when you answer questions, as he attempted to do on radio today, and are not being truthful about the process you end up creating more holes for yourself. We have seen it in the witness box and where people try to explain stuff away and all they do is create more trouble for themselves. The only way to deal with that is to zip the lip. Can I hear the Leader of the Opposition? No, I cannot.
The strategy upstairs has been to tell the Leader of the Opposition, ‘Say nothing. Do not go near the issue.’ That has been a consistent approach from the get-go. An intended member of parliament in the form of a candidate for Blain punches out a window – ‘That is very naughty; you shouldn’t do that. You should pay that money back.’ That is it? A bit naughty? Where is the outrage that I expect from the members opposite, and the screaming hysteria about violence in the workplace? It is all right when it is a Labor person.
Is the language of the union finding its way into the Labor Party? Oh, yes it is. We hear it in the use of the term ‘dog’. In this parliament yesterday I heard a number of Labor people call members of this House dogs. That is the language of militant unionism in this country and it is weaving its way through the Labor Party. Now the government of the day’s members are dogs. That is not acceptable. It is deeply offensive, not so much because I am offended receiving it, but I am offended by the intent of the utterance of the word in the first place. It is the language of militant unionism.
The head of the NT POA, Phil Tilbrook, recently tried to obtain money from a trust account which is held in trust by prison officers who settle the money on trust in their own association’s constitution. That constitution makes it clear that the trust money is there for the benefit of the intended beneficiaries, namely the prison officers who pay into the account. It is there for purposes of bereavement, looking after prison officers who may find themselves the subject of legal action or helping prison officers who may have run out of sick leave to give them extra cash.
How much money is in the account? It is in the order of $900 000. Without formally circulating an agenda item, what does the NT Prison Officers Association do? It has its annual general meetings, one in Darwin and one in Alice Springs. Whilst not in a circulated agenda there is suddenly a motion off the floor, magically, while Mr Tilbrook excuses himself from the room to give the appearance of decency and objectivity. He excuses himself and there is a motion off the floor which says we should touch that trust account and spend $5000, which is for bereavement and legal purposes, on Tilbrook’s personal election campaign.
The Darwin branch says, ‘Yeah, we will sort that out’. They ask the people at the Alice Springs branch and they say, ‘Hang on, that is not what the money is for’, and they object.
Subsequent to that time I have received a number of other complaints from prison officers, who I respect. They have come to me with issues, which has given me no option but to refer the matter to the Director-General of Licensing, who oversees the Associations Act. It concerns me that the trust account is being touched in ways which are inappropriate. What do we hear in relation to that from the Leader of the Opposition?
Surely he must condemn the idea that a trust account is being touched by his own candidates. Not a word is uttered. It is excruciating to see a Leader of the Opposition simply ignore that component of what is occurring on his watch.
We have just heard from the Treasurer that the candidate for Port Darwin was on the PWC’s public nipple to the tune of $150 000 a year to look after union interests. When that money is cut, does he go back to being a liney? No, he just fronts up to the ETU. That was money from people who paid it towards their electricity bills and expect them to be paid, and we hear that the union rep who was being paid for by the people paying for their electricity bills could not go back to being a liney. No, he will not sit on the ETU benches until such time as he can find his way in here and become a politician. It is unionist after unionist.
It bothers me that the Leader of the Opposition is not showing any restraint around those things. We just heard the defence from the member for Nhulunbuy, ‘Unions should not be questioned’. That was her opening line. ‘I am proud to be unionist. You cannot question us.’ Well, we do question you because there are things unions do that are, in essence, unlawful.
Let us go through the Stella Maris deal, yet again. Will the Leader of the Opposition condemn what occurred in the Stella Maris deal? He certainly used it to wedge his way into the Leader of the Opposition role to make sure the member for Karama was not only removed from the leadership but cast out of the party. Good. Here is the other point. Where is the inquiry he is demanding into what happened around the deeper issues of Harold Nelson Holdings?
What people do not remember, or conveniently overlook, about the Stella Maris deal is that the unions and the ALP shared similar offices on the union- and ALP-owned premises in Woods Street. The unions were offered a public building rent free for 10 years and were about to move in. The Woods Street site was to be demolished and redeveloped to the advantage of the owners. One of the owners was Harold Nelson Holdings, which is the financial vehicle for which the Labor Party funds its money. There was never an apology for that.
It meant that hundreds of millions of dollars would pour into the Labor Party’s coffers. Where would the unions go? They would sit in a building owned by the public for 10 years, rent free. The Leader of the Opposition says nothing about that either. The militancy of these unions is growing. The Leader of the Opposition should, if he wants to convince Territorians of the integrity he claims to have, say the MUA is no longer or should no longer be part of the Northern Territory Labor Party, and certainly not contain the 10% voting rights it brags about.
The MUA directly threatened the viability of a Territory-run project at the expense of workers on the project and at the threat of having the Territory taxpayer continue to pay for diesel at an inflated cost to gas because the project would be held up. The Leader of the Opposition says nothing. There are inconsistencies about whether he was there or not. He was either on holiday, working as a staffer or, depending on the timeline people are quoting, already a member of the Labor backbench at the time. Those stories are inconsistent.
Let us accept that he knew nothing, that the Sergeant Schultz defence applies; that is easy. The next message to send is, ‘I will not accept a penny of that money that was extorted from Saipem by the MUA’. That is all you have to do, put out a press release to say you will not accept that money. If you were not complicit before, you now are by knowledge. You are complicit going forward because you know the details, Leader of the Opposition. Wash yourself clean of that complicity.
Say to Territorians, ‘I will not accept that the MUA is in my party, and I will not extend the money that was extorted out of Saipem at the risk to the Northern Territory’. That is all he has to do and he will have washed himself clean. But will we hear him support that motion today in the Chamber?
That is one of the reasons I support censuring the Leader of the Opposition. He is not taking the necessary steps to wash himself clean. He is not taking the necessary steps to deal with Labor candidates such as Phil Tilbrook who used government resources to pay for their own campaign.
Phil Tilbrook was on duty, using government e-mail systems to actively promote the interests of the Labor Party. Moreover, he was saying to people within the prison system who received those e-mails, ‘Vote for me at the next election because I will look after your interests’.
If John Elferink, the member for Port Darwin and Attorney-General, sent out an e-mail to the people in Health saying, ‘Vote for the CLP at the next election’, there would be screeching headlines of corruption. The members opposite would be screaming from the rafters for my head, and rightly so, if I was using the government e-mail system to promote the interests of the Country Liberal Party.
No such noise has come from the members opposite regarding their candidate doing this. They think the public’s property is theirs to dispose of as they see fit, whether it is smashing a window with their fist, using government e-mail, touching a trust account, taking money from a government contractor or giving rent-free accommodation to unions. It is all about, ‘What’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine’.
At the heart of this is a Leader of the Opposition who repeatedly says he will run a clean government. I am not seeing much evidence of him running a clean opposition. I have heard the comment that we are behaving like an opposition today; we are, in a very important way.
Since 2012, 23 censure motions have been launched in this parliament. This is the first, if memory serves me correctly, run by government on members opposite. I am opposing unions using other people’s property for their own purposes. I am opposing the Leader of the Opposition, an alternative Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who either lacks the ticker, is shrouded in complicity or does not have the heart to call out things that are wrong. Yes, I oppose those sorts of things and will continue to do so. If after the next election he forms a government and is not capable of resisting the invariable pressure for unions to touch public property as their own, the Territory is in for a very tough time after the election.
It is for that reason I support the censure motion. I realise censuring an opposition is largely symbolic, but it is a message that needs to be sent. You cannot sit there as the Leader of the Opposition, the alternative Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, and not show courage in every measure in protecting the interests of the people of the Territory over all other interests, including the unions’ and the party’s. The silence from the Leader of the Opposition is a disgrace.
Mr BARRETT (Sport and Recreation): Mr Deputy Speaker, when we look at leadership we look for certain qualities. I speak to people about leadership and always say that character is the underpinning thing. It is like a pyramid, the base of which is the largest and strongest part. That needs to be based on character, which must be forthcoming in the way it upholds issues of morality and ethics. Leadership also means recognising the difference between right and wrong, staying on the right path and steering clear of the wrong path. It means deciphering, in regard to capacity and quality, a good and bad way forward for an entity. It requires multiple types of intelligence to do that.
A leader should understand themselves, their team and the context of the problems they are dealing with, and be strong enough to bring that team together to come up with quality solutions to the problems that arise.
To me, this censure is on the grounds of two things. One is the track record of the Leader of the Opposition’s leadership, and the other is the inability to rein in unions.
What will we expect from unions? I was a member of the MUA while I worked at the waterfront, the union in question in this regard. I have a high regard for the locals workers in the MUA. They are members who care about the rights and safety of people who work on the waterfront. I know Thomas Mayor and, on the whole, he does a fine job of representing people on the waterfront in Darwin.
The member for Nhulunbuy spoke eloquently about her mother and that she had been a part of various unions. At the time she was talking about, there were many examples of where union movements corrected some pretty serious wrongs in the community and the workspace. In Australia now we have a fairly solid set of regulations and acts that govern the way industrial relations take place. You cannot do things to workers now that could have been done in the time when the member for Nhulunbuy’s mother was working as a nurse.
My grandmother also worked as a war nurse. She spoke of being a young person in Glasgow and having to walk through the snow in bare feet in the middle of the night because, at 14 years of age, she had to work through the Great Depression. The hours and jobs in which she worked would not be allowed under today’s industrial relations rules and guidelines.
What do we expect from a union? We expect that a union will look after the interests of workers, especially as they pertain to negotiations around wages, conditions and safety. We look at negotiations around wages from two perspectives. What is the job structurally? In relation to the entity, has this job structurally changed and does the wage need to structurally change? We look at the Consumer Price Index and whether the wage should change in line with that.
I have been involved in enterprise bargaining agreements that involved unions. Some of them have gone very well and some not so well. On the whole, workers expect from their unions representation in negotiations that occur between employer and employee.
What we are talking about is not that. We are not talking about how the unions act on the ground with their workers, doing things with workers to alleviate concerns. We are talking about deliberate and illegal activities that unions undertake, which hurt business and do nothing for the workers they represent. They reinforce poor behaviour and go against performance management practice. They work against an employer trying to manage their staff to improve productivity. They create situations where they are not balanced, in check and working with industry. They create circumstances where our industries become uncompetitive.
This is a big problem. I have seen firsthand what happens when companies that are competing with each other – the workers from one of those companies are unionised and the others are not. I have seen situations where companies have lost contracts because of the way unions handle themselves in relation to their workers. The end result was the loss of contracts and jobs because of the way the union was conducting negotiations. It is the ugly truth of the way things go. There needs to be a balance in industrial relations in the way unions and employers interact with each other for the better of everybody concerned.
We are not living 100 years ago where industrialists were riding roughshod over the top of workers. We are in a new age where we can openly talk about equality between races and between men and women. We can understand the structural nature of a job and, therefore, the level of the job and what the wage should be. That is what society expects from a union.
In The Australian dated Thursday 17 March is a story showing that 100 CFMEU members are in court. It comes down to allegations including coercion, unlawful industrial action, intimidation, bullying and breaches of right of entry legislation. We see some serious things here.
I remember being a new person on the wharf and people there not talking to me because I was not a union member yet. ‘You can only talk to me when you become a union member.’ They once threatened me that if I went to work on a day when there might be industrial action they would probably smash my car.
That happened in this day and age and not because the employer was drastically unreasonable. It had nothing to do with our workplace. The industrial relations happening at the time referred to something that was happening in a completely different sphere, but for some reason our guys were going on strike for something unrelated to us. ‘By the way Nathan, if you get a call and turn up for a casual shift we’ll probably smash your car up on the way through the gate.’
This is the type of thing we are talking about. I did not sign something when I became a member of the MUA which said, ‘I think X percent of my union dues need to go towards the Labor Party to run campaigns against the Country Liberal Party in Darwin’. During the Blain by-election, whilst still a member of the MUA, ironically, I was paying union dues and union people were using union resources campaigning against me. I said to this guy, ‘Mate, I pay your wage. What are doing?’ The answer was, ‘Hurry up and lose this election. It’s hot out here.’
When we deal with situations where unions run rampant and unchecked, we end up in a situation with 100 CFMEU workers fronting court. People are being bullied or confronted in an aggressive manner in the workplace, and for what reason? As far as I can see the unions want to maintain control. What do we see in the Labor Party? We see the inability of the Labor Party to distance itself from that. Not only do members not distance themselves from that, many of their candidates and sitting members are powerfully tied up with the union movement. Is that how we want to run the Northern Territory?
Why are we censuring the Leader of the Opposition? It is because he shows an inability to rein in that behaviour. The Attorney-General pointed out several things today – I will not go through them again, where this thuggish, riding roughshod behaviour where the pendulum has swung – it is not industrialists doing this but the unions. This is our reality now, and if they cannot rein that back the Northern Territory will be run by a trade union.
What Bill Shorten is facing at the moment includes the following:
We talk about double standards and the fact these candidates are doing things like using the government e-mail system to promote themselves. On the weekend it drove me nuts. I was driving down the road and smack bang in the middle of Temple Terrace there was a massive Luke Gosling sign. It is illegal to put that sign where it was. I know that because the council is forthright in telling us as local members where we can and cannot advertise.
I would not do that because it is illegal. This was up on a Sunday. He knew no one would be at the council, so no one would take it down. He put it up Sunday morning and took it down Sunday afternoon because it is better to ask forgiveness than permission. He did something he knows is illegal. He knows and understands it is illegal. We are talking about nit-picky things, but this in the underlying character of the individuals we are talking about. If they are not honest and forthright in this regard, how can we trust that they will be honest in anything?
We have these connections with Shorten. He is connected to the MUA. Where has the NT Leader of the Opposition come out against this? He has not admitted at any time that he is partly responsible for poor decision-making that cost Territorians millions, as outlined by the Treasurer. He has not taken the higher ground and said that he will not take donations of any sort from the unions – track record of leadership. Everything that went down with Saipem, Eni and the gas pipeline, the agreements that were signed and everything in relation to the Amadeus Gas Pipeline being sold for a drastically low price – something is wrong.
Whenever something seems completely irrational, there are usually a few missing jigsaw pieces. We are asking the Leader of the Opposition to come out and tell us of the missing pieces of this jigsaw puzzle. Show us where the quality leadership and decision-making is. At the time these decisions were being made he was in a position of influence and authority over how these decisions went down.
If you cannot be trusted, are unable to rein in the unions, are unable to make good and solid decisions for the betterment of the Northern Territory and are unable to rein in the behaviour of these union people that are doing the wrong thing – I am not talking about union people who do the right thing. I am not talking about union people who care about the rights and safety of individuals in the workplace, as well all do. What I am talking about is 100 people facing court for thuggish behaviour and the $1m blackmailed from Saipem. I am talking about things as simple as where you put a sign. I am talking about the way unions have continually and consistently made in-kind direct investments into Labor campaigns. I know all about that. Sometimes this is done at the expense of taxpayers and their union members.
I want to know, from the ETU and Paul Kirby, who is a candidate running for the seat of Port Darwin, when we will see some money from the Electrical Trades Union for all the stickers that were stuck on every piece of electricity infrastructure in Darwin saying, ‘Not for sale’. They sit back and say, ‘No, that was not us; we do not know who did that. That was some mob from Queensland.’ It was the Electrical Trades Union. They were wearing Not for Sale shirts. It was their promotion material. They find sneaky, tricky ways to distance themselves legally. No one is fooled. It smacks of what is happening. You are wearing the very thing that is on a sticker stuck on everything.
I would love to go around to every piece of our infrastructure, clean it up then send the Electrical Trades Union the bill. They are defacing public property. Where is the Leader of the Opposition reining this in and saying it is not okay to break the law even if it is a Sunday? It is not okay to deface the living daylights out of every government asset just so you can have a crack at something that is not for sale and that we did not sell. Where is his ability to rein this in? It is not there.
He is not saying they will not take donations from groups of people who, like us, were in unions. We did not sign up to give the Labor Party money. We signed up so people could protect us if we ended up in court for something or in an unsafe situation. I do not pay union dues to the MUA so they can give money to the Labor Party to fly people to Darwin to run against me. That is not their remit.
There are 100 CFMEU members in court. They would sit here and play some line about the people on the ground needing to be in a union so they can have safety. That is not what we are talking about. They sit here with double standards, trying to look innocent while our public infrastructure is defaced. This thuggish action is not good enough. When will the responsibility be taken? When will they come out and say this is not okay? At a national and local level they are not doing that.
There are two reasons we are censuring the Leader of the Opposition, which are a poor track record of leadership and an inability to rein in unions. We are paying for gas that we do not need. Why did they buy so much gas that we did not need? Is there a missing piece of the puzzle? Was there a deal done? Are we paying a lot of money to keep something quiet? I do not know, but it was either a really bad decision or there are a couple of missing pieces which are rotten to the core. Did Labor buy more gas than was needed to sweeten the deal and cover up this blackmail we have been talking about?
The pipeline from the gas field in Mereenie, the Amadeus Gas Pipeline, was sold for $60m. The NEGI was $800m. How much does it cost taxpayers to rent it back? When will the Leader of the Opposition show some leadership and rein in the unions?
The Assembly divided.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was talking about Tennant Creek and how it is the powerhouse of the Northern Territory, but I will move on. I think Hansard has captured that part of the story. It related to what is a sensible and pragmatic outcome for building certification in the Northern Territory, which was established and progressed under the Labor government. I have already acknowledged the minister for continuing that good work.
In relation to the two categories, I will quote from the minister’s second reading speech:
I once again acknowledge the sensible and pragmatic outcome. In Tennant Creek there are many building owners who will now be able to embark on these alternative pathways to have their building certified. Tennant Creek and the Northern Territory are good examples, being a frontier part of Australia, as there are a number of buildings which were built in the 1960s and 1970s which can now be covered and normalised. Their owners will appreciate this as an outcome.
It is representative of trying to normalise this system across the whole of the Northern Territory with other centres, such as Pine Creek, Borroloola and Katherine, which will benefit from this. The members who have contributed to this debate have talked about some of the challenges and the request to review this legislation within two years. Having been part of the Labor government, it was always policy to review legislation. It was part and parcel and was always reviewed at 12 months, but in this case two years.
There needs to be more clarification around the certification process and those trained building certifiers who conduct that process. I remember when the Labor government embarked on this journey and started to work through the issues. As I travelled the Territory it was loud and clear there were not enough certifiers in the Northern Territory. Darwin and Palmerston were challenged by the sheer weight of development numbers.
The Labor land release programs that were founded and established were continued by the CLP. I have acknowledged that in the parliament before. There are no new names out there. They are all the same suburbs that were established under Labor, the master-planned suburbs. They were all started and under construction. This government has claimed them and run its spin and semantics around it.
Be what it may, it was a sheer weight of numbers that reflected the date that appears in the minister’s second reading of 2006. That was when the Territory started to understand that Darwin was the gateway to Asia and is the capital of Northern Australia. The government had to put the pedal down to make sure development reflected that growth.
We are now seeing a downturn. The Territory will pick up again. Coming from a regional area like Tennant Creek, when you look at minerals, resources and energy you know it will pick up again. It has to be acknowledged that the government will have to reflect planning for those future developments.
That 2006 figure was very real. It started then and this is a direct response that goes across the Territory. My point is about certifiers. When we talk about a holistic Territory – certifiers in the bush are difficult to find. At that time the Labor government had incentives in place to support the travel of certifiers. A good example was building certifiers travelling from Alice Springs to Tennant Creek, who were given a significant a subsidy in the form of a travel allowance.
That was an incentive for them to come to Tennant Creek to do the work. It also took care of their business expenses, which were above and beyond what they would normally incur for the same type of work in Alice Springs. But there were not enough certifiers.
In towns like Tennant Creek, and once we expand into further regions, this will become a challenge. This will need to be looked at over the next couple of years. One tip, from an old school teacher, is to look at what will encourage qualified builders and industry participants to retrain, engage in further education and become building certifiers.
The Minister for Employment and Training may want to look at that as another added positive element of this legislation, which is passing through the parliament. We need that level and type of industry and it has to be a regional approach. It cannot just be for the Top End.
This is part of the challenges coming our way. There are lots of ways to address this. As I moved around industry in the Northern Territory I appreciated the amount of mature builders. There are many very established builders across the Territory who have been on the tools for a long time. They could look at this as their next tier in the building industry and their career.
I am interested to hear what plans government has to address this issue. There will need to be a continuation or enhancement of incentives, such as travel and travel allowance, to get building certifiers moving further into the regions. We know the workload is there because the numbers have been identified in the minister’s speech and from other members who have spoken on this bill.
Minister, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. This is a good outcome. As I have said, I was privileged to be part of this process. I acknowledge the public sector employees who have worked diligently on this over many years. The nature of the work has not been easy. The work is very methodical and mundane in some respects, but they have conducted themselves as professionally as we expect, which I got to learn as a previous minister working with our public sector employees.
It has all come together; it represents the regions and a holistic picture of the Northern Territory. I agree with my colleagues and thank the member for Nightcliff and staff for doing their research and preparing our main contribution to debate. I now look forward to learning about the amendments that will be put forward by the minister.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also support the bill. I congratulate minister Tollner for getting this through parliament tonight after a long journey, which I know of as the former Minister for Lands and Planning.
One of the first files that turned up on my desk was this, and the difficulties people had across the Territory with certifying. We have talked about how we first became involved whilst in opposition, learning about what was occurring in Tennant Creek with Red Rooster. I promised a group yesterday that I would not bring any zingers into this, or mention KFC or any other chicken shop in this debate. I will not promote KFC, although I might have eaten it occasionally. Red Rooster is okay too, but it is good if they have buildings you can occupy with proper certificates.
There is an issue, so what do we do about it? I listened to the former Labor minister for Lands and Planning, the member for Barkly, and I am sure he was also frustrated with the process and the situation they were left in as a government. It is easy to point fingers, but he rightfully pointed out that in 2006 the place went through a rapid time of change and lots of building was occurring.
One issue raised with me was the fact a builder may start a project, especially an owner-builder, and have not complete it in the time expected. They are then left in a position where perfectly good work could not be certified because it was outside the time frame of the original permit. It is simple things like that. Many buildings have been built over the years and not been certified, for many reasons, and we were left with a system that did not allow them to be certified. We had a problem.
A lot of time and effort was spent by departmental staff. They did a fabulous job. They threw up ideas on what we could do. In the end we settled with a process similar to the current process where you need a building occupancy certificate provided for new builds. You needed them to have a system in place to allow people to certify buildings that have been around for a while.
I think minister Tollner said earlier that this does not mean an unsafe building will be certified. It will not happen under this system or any other system. We still expect a level of compliance and safety.
Mr Tollner: For people living in dongers in the rural area?
Mr CHANDLER: That may well be. If the certifier is willing to put their name on a certificate to say, ‘Yes, this building complies because it has withstood the last 30 to 40 years of Wet Seasons, does not look like it will fall down and is structurally sound’, there is a good chance that building will get a certificate. At the end of the day, there had to be a process in place that could catch up.
The problem I had when I was the Lands and Planning minister was what to do with the moratorium. At the time, the moratorium did not provide a carrot; there was nothing they could do under the old system. The former minister would have felt the same way, frustrated. We did not have a system that could allow some of these issues to be addressed. All the people involved in putting this together have applied some rational thought and pragmatism, and even some level of common sense. Good legislation should always include common sense.
I have a lot of information here, but I will only go over what other people have said. I do not want to speak just to get my voice on the record. At the end of the day, the minister should be commended for following through with this. We are here today, passing legislation that will provide for the first time an opportunity for many people to do what they have wanted to do for a long time, that is, get their buildings certified. It will clear up the industry and make it better for people who are selling and buying property. It is fantastic that we are here today and will get this legislation passed.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the opposition and the Independent who spoke in support of this legislation, as well as my colleagues on this side of the Chamber. I acknowledge the work put in by the former government. It saw a problem in the marketplace; however, it saw it pretty late and it took a while to act, after a lot of spurring on by the opposition. But it acted eventually so you cannot knock it too much for that.
A number of questions were raised in the debate. I have extensive answers, which I will go through quickly in response to those questions raised about the bill and, more broadly, the potential impact of these reforms.
These reforms provide a pathway for buildings that would otherwise not be able to be covered by occupancy certification to achieve compliance. The bill does not exempt, as the Education minister just said, particular classes of buildings from the requirements, nor does it require compliance from buildings that previously did not need to comply. The sheds and outbuildings the member for Daly referred to need to comply and there is no paperwork. This bill will enable two new levels of certification, which will provide a pathway for owners to comply.
Another comment was made in relation to the alteration of a large open-roof area. Where buildings are altered, for example, you have a large open-roof area and you enclose it with walls; those walls would add wind load to the structure and, therefore, require building approval.
In relation to the comment around certain exemptions, the member for Daly was correct. The building regulations exempt certain buildings if they meet minimum setback requirements. In regard to buildings constructed outside of the building control areas, there is no impact on those buildings or those areas as a result of these reforms. That will make you happy, member for Barkly.
If the government policy changed and more areas were declared to be within building control, they would be subject to some of the provisions in the act, for example, provisions around building notices and orders if there were safety issues. They would not be required to obtain certification retrospectively.
Over time declared building control areas have expanded. The existing buildings will be treated as compliant unless there are safety issues.
Regarding the question from the member for Nelson around the potential liability of certifiers, the Building Act already contains a provision limiting the liability of certifiers in section 153(2), where the certifier acts in good faith. When considering applications for new level certification, the expectation on what the certifier should do to demonstrate they have acted in good faith would be the same as it is now. That is, the certifier should clearly document how they reached a certain decision. The certifier also has existing limitations on liability when relying on a certificate issued under section 40. This could be a certificate issued by a registered structural engineer, for example.
For Certificates of Existence, the responsibility of who makes the decision rests with the Director of Building Control. Certifiers are responsible for making a recommendation to the director. However, the responsibility for granting those certificates is shared.
Plumbing and electrical installations are an integral part of buildings and the building certification process. That was a matter raised by the member for Nightcliff. They have been considered as part of these reforms. Plumbers and electricians will be consulted as part of the development of the guidelines. For assessments made about electrical and plumbing components, appropriately licensed people must undertake that work.
I will address the matter of insurance for the member for Nightcliff around the potential impact of these reforms on insurance. Insurers have their own risk policies which will affect the price and structure of the insurance they offer. Under the new system, building works undergo technical assessment and an appropriate level of occupancy certification will be granted accordingly. This should give insurers much greater confidence when insuring buildings. It enables them to more accurately price insurance on the basis of potential risk.
Acquisition on just terms, in section 166AA, provides for the acquisition of property on just terms and was inserted because the proposed new provision at 198 addresses buildings covered by Home Building Certification Fund cover.
The bill applies the 10-year Home Building Certification Fund cover to building works covered by the fund policy when the works are granted with a Certificate of Substantial Compliance in addition to the existing cover for works granted with an occupancy permit. Building works finalised by a Certificate of Existence will not be covered by that fund, as it covers only for the rectification of works that did not comply with the technical standards at the time they were built.
To ensure the Home Building Certification Fund does not inadvertently cover old works, it was essential that proposed section 198 be included, which makes it clear that the period of cover commences from the date the builder-certifier determines physical works were completed, but no later than two years from the date of grant of the initial building permit. This is because without that provision there could have been an argument made that a building that is 30 years old, or older, has a building permit and fund cover, but has not been granted an occupancy permit. It could have its cover activated on issue of the occupancy permit or Certificate of Substantial Compliance.
Because this provision is proposed to be included, the acquisition on just terms provision was recommended by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. It safeguards a new provision at 198. The provision enables the court to determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not the proposed provision constitutes an acquisition of property.
The member for Nelson asked about the regulations. They are in the drafting process. Broadly they cover the classifications of buildings to which the three levels can apply, as well as documentation that is required to make an application, and further criteria that may be prescribed for Certificates of Existence. It is proposed that all classifications of buildings are able to obtain any level of certification. However, buildings that are categorised as importance levels three and four, such as hospitals, schools, emergency shelters and buildings that accommodate a large number of people, are not able to apply for a Certificate of Existence.
The regulations are proposed to specify that, for Certificates of Existence, the building work must meet a reasonable level of safety, health and amenity. What is reasonable is proposed to be defined through guidelines, and one of the key elements of that test will be that the structure would need to meet current wind loading and fire safety standards.
In relation to Certificates of Substantial Compliance applications, the ability to make regulations in 72B(1)(e) was inserted to provide flexibility in the event that additional criteria needed to be specified in the regulations. For this level of certification the regulations specify the same documentation as is required for an occupancy permit. However, if there is missing documentation the proposed regulations specify that other documentation that demonstrates the building work to which the application relates complies with the relevant technical standards, and it will be deemed appropriate.
In relation to the review of the legislation, members also raised the possibility of ensuring the legislation is reviewed within two years. It is always imperative that government reviews legislative reforms to ensure they have been and continue to be effective and appropriate to the jurisdiction in which they operate. These reforms are no different and in that respect will be monitored from commencement and reviewed on a regular basis.
I hope that has answered many of the questions honourable members have raised on this bill. I thank you all for your contributions. They have been heard and I hope I have answered some of that. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Clauses 1 to 8, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 9:
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 51.1.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 21, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 22:
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendments 51.2 and 51.3.
Mr WOOD: Will you put an explanation on record?
Mr TOLLNER: I am more than happy to, member for Nelson.
Amendment 51.2 is in relation to proposed section 195(4) of the bill. This proposed section relates to work carried out or approved under the 1983 Building Act. The amendment will make it clearer that it is the legislative requirements and technical standards in force at the time the building work was approved and/or commenced that will apply.
The Building Act and Regulations have been amended on several occasions and technical standards have changed almost annually. If the transitional provision was left unaltered this would lead to an absurd result which was not the intended outcome of the reforms, nor would it accord with the content in the explanatory statement.
To ensure the intent of the reforms is accurately reflected in the bill, a consideration in detail stage amendment is required. It is also necessary that the legislation is able to be modified in the event that changes to the procedure for occupancy certification applications are required. The legislation also needs to be clear as to which provisions apply and at what time. To address this, a table has been inserted which makes it clear whether a reference to the legislative requirement is at the time the building works were carried out or from time to time.
The second amendment for clause 22 is 51.3, as shown in the schedule. Amendment 51.3 is in relation to the proposed section 197 of the bill, which relates to work carried out under the Building Act of 1993.
The proposed section 197 in the bill is a transitional provision inserted to deal with applications for an occupancy permit made prior to amending legislation, but not yet decided. The intent was to enable an owner to elect to apply for any of the three levels of occupancy certification the bill will create, without the need to resubmit the application once the bill commences. Currently an owner may only apply for an occupancy permit.
As the provision is drafted, building work carried out after September 1993 and before the commencement date of the bill, would be required to comply with current standards and not the standards of the time of the approval or commencement of the work. This was not the intent.
The Building Act and Regulations have been amended on several occasions and technical standards have changed almost annually. If the transitional provision was left unaltered this would lead to an absurd result which was not the intended outcome of the reforms, nor would it accord with the content in the explanatory statement.
To ensure the intent of the reforms is accurately reflected, a consideration in detail amendment is required. The CSA provides clarity and ensures the standards that apply to the work being considered for an application are the standards applied at the time the work was approved or commenced.
It is also necessary that the legislation is able to be modified in the event that changes to the procedure for occupancy certification applications are required. The legislation also needs to be clear as to which provisions apply and at what time. To address this, a table has been inserted which makes it clear whether a reference to the legislative requirement is at the time the building works were carried out or from time to time.
I hope that answers your question, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I possibly should have asked this question during the second reading debate, but do you have any idea how many government buildings would fall into this category? You can take that on notice if you like. One of the reasons we are bringing this forward is due to issues with government buildings.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, we started with 2200 government buildings that we did not have proper certifications for. In the intervening years, and during the Labor years, a big effort was made to reduce that number. We are down into the low hundreds. I do not have an exact number on hand, but I am happy to chase that for you. I am assured they are all in the low-risk category.
The priority was the highest-risk buildings when the previous government started the work. The department has been methodical in going through those priorities so we are now down to the low hundreds.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to the requirements of clauses 6.3 and 8.9 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2013, which applied to 2015 member travel and telephone expenses, I table the annual report to the Assembly on those matters.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to the Auditor-General’s recommendations, I table a quarterly report on the use of fuel cards by members for the final quarter of 2015.
Report to Assembly on a Proposal to Table Members’ Interests
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise today in my role as the Chair of the Standing Orders Committee in relation to the tabling statement regarding members’ interests. Pursuant to Standing Order 200, I table a report and the minutes of the February 2016 meeting of the Committee of Members’ Interests.
MOTION
Publish Paper – Report to Assembly on a Proposal to Table Members’ Interests
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the paper be made available in an accessible format.
Motion agreed to; paper published.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposal before the Assembly is that the Assembly agrees that the Register of Members’ Interests, which is compiled pursuant to the Legislative Assembly (Disclosure of Interests) Act 2008, will be tabled annually in the Assembly and subsequently made available on the Assembly’s website. Section 5 of that article states that the Clerk must keep a register of interests disclosed under this act. The register is to be kept as directed by the Committee of Members’ Interests. The register is to be available for inspection under reasonable conditions to be laid down by the Committee of Members’ Interests, as occurs from time to time.
In determining the conditions for inspection, the Committee of Members’ Interests must give effect to the principle that the information recorded in the register should be generally available to the public unless there is a good reason to restrict availability.
Given the statutory ability of the committee to make determination about reasonable conditions for inspection of the register, it is arguable that this can occur under a statute without the need for approval of the Assembly. However, in exercising its statutory power the committee members wish to avail themselves of the views of the Assembly members and have the opportunity to provide the views of the committee to facilitate the final decision.
The proposal of tabling the Register of Member’s Interests would also occur during the second sittings period, approximately March, of each year and the register would be available as a tabled paper with the notion that on the Assembly’s website subsequent updates prior to the next required annual tabling may be viewed in the office of the register. As the tabled document is a report of interests at the moment and the legislation requires members to ensure it is consistently updated, the procedure for inspecting updates will continue to occur as it does now.
The committee has considered options for the inspections of the register, such as maintaining a constantly updated document on the website or another appropriate option, which is an annually tabled document allowing the interested parties to examine the register as of March in the given year and attend the Office of the Clerk to view updates. This procedure reflects what occurs in a number of Australian jurisdictions. The committee prefers this proposal as an option because it will increase transparency and ensure the register is accurate at any time and can be viewed in situ.
The proposal will make it easier to inspect the register to note updates as annually tabled documents will be the starting point of each year. Tabled papers are publically available documents and work is underway for e-tabling to become a routine, as per a resolution in the Assembly in 2013. This proposal will result in the tabled document being specifically earmarked and easy to find on the website. When considering the proposal, the committee took note of the practice of all Australian jurisdictions, which disclosed that the proposed approach is similar to what occurs in New South Wales, Tasmania, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia.
Queensland and the Australian parliament are major jurisdictions that have constant updates on their websites rather than annual returns. The committee therefore recommends to the Assembly that an annual return of registered members’ interests be placed on the Legislative Assembly’s website after tabling during the second sitting period in each year, commencing 2017.
I thank the committee for the consideration and suggestions concerning this proposal, and I commend the report to the Assembly.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 200, I table a report on the minutes of the February and March meeting of the Standing Orders Committee.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be made available in an accessible format.
Motion agreed to; paper published.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.
The committee reports that at its February and March meetings it considered a proposal to reform the procedure for Question Time as referred by resolution of the Assembly on the motion of the member for Nelson, 18 November 2015, and a request for a right of reply by Ms Margaret Clinch, pursuant to procedures outlined in sessional orders applying to the 12th Assembly.
I will now briefly update the House on the content of the report. On 18 November 2015 the member for Nelson, Mr Wood, moved a motion agreed to by the Assembly. He proposed that the Assembly considers a new model for ministerial reports to allow ministers to have three-minute oral reports in lieu of so-called Dorothy Dixer questions, and to reserve oral questions for opposition and non-government members to ask questions of ministers.
The report provides a detailed analysis of the proposals. At the meeting of the committee in February, as members will be aware, the committee determined not to proceed with the member’s proposal; the member for Nelson is a participating member. The reason not to proceed is that the committee takes the view that the 13th Assembly will be the best place to deal with such a procedural proposal. It would be unfair of this Assembly to bind the next Assembly with procedures and standing orders that the next Assembly may not want.
The second aspect of the tabled report is the citizens’ right of reply submission received by the Speaker from Ms Margaret Clinch. The submission was sent to the Speaker by Ms Clinch on 5 December 2015. The Speaker subsequently wrote to the Standing Orders Committee by letter dated 15 December 2015 advising that she was satisfied the matter was not obviously trivial, frivolous, vexatious or offensive and that it was practical for the committee to consider this submission under prescribed procedure. Therefore, the Speaker was obliged to refer the matter to the Standing Orders Committee.
The committee has considered another matter which remains on the committee’s agenda for further consideration. The matter is mentioned in passing, but I was hoping to report on it today. The matter is subject to a letter I have written to the secretary of the committee. It is attached to this report in the form of a dissenting report from the committee. I thank the committee for its work.
The issue is implied in the title of the committee report, which says the Standing Orders Committee Report to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory on Matters of Question Time Reform – which I have referred to already – Infant Care and Right of Reply.
The speech I made today referred to reform and right of reply, not infant care. The reason for that is the committee turned its mind to the matter raised by the member for Drysdale who, in January this year, wrote to the committee seeking guidance on the rights of women breastfeeding in the workplace, namely the parliament. The committee turned its mind to the issue and I found myself at a point of difference. Minutes were prepared from a former committee meeting which matched my memory, but it was not consistent with the memory of others. That is not a major issue.
In relation to the issue of breastfeeding in the workplace by women, we should, as a committee, at least pass a motion of in-principal support. The committee declined to do so, hence the source of my dissenting report to this committee. I will quote from my letter to the committee in regard to the dissent:
Since writing that letter of dissent I have had the opportunity to speak to a couple of members. I suspect they are starting to see it through the lens which I see it; therefore, I look forward to the continuing debate and the resolution of this matter to the satisfaction of the member for Drysdale and, I imagine, other women who wish to have that matter addressed in their workplace.
I thank the committee for its work on this report and I commend the report to the Assembly.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, on the issue of Question Time, I certainly hope it comes back to the next Assembly. Whether I am here or not is not in my hands. The idea of changing the process to allow the minister to give reports before Question Time should get rid of Dorothy Dixers and allow the rest of the parliament to ask questions relevant to their electorates or government policy.
It is good that Margaret Clinch’s issue has been raised, looked at by the committee and brought back so it can be incorporated into the Hansard. It is important that citizens have a right of reply which can be incorporated into the Assembly’s record when they feel that their character has been blemished by what someone has said in the parliament.
In relation to breastfeeding, it is an issue we need to ensure is handled appropriately. I understand that the member for Drysdale has raised the issue, which is good. I appreciate that it is not that far for the member for Drysdale to travel to her office, but it does not just apply to the member for Drysdale. For any member who comes into this parliament, who has a child, we need to sort out some kind of protocol.
Although the member for Port Darwin made a dissenting report, I do not think any member of the committee is trying to delay this for silly reasons. The difference is how we go about it. The Speaker has put an alternative proposal and hopefully that will sort the matter out to the satisfaction of everyone. I cannot speak on behalf of other members of the committee. I do not have a problem with setting up a protocol for breastfeeding. It has to be done appropriately in keeping with the House and in consultation with the women of this parliament.
I thank all members of the committee for their work on these areas. I support the committee’s report.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present to the House the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission’s final investigation report, the investigation into the prison health service of Darwin Correctional Centre, which is identified and dated 26 February 2016.
Mr ELFERINK (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker I move that the Assembly takes note of this report.
I have chosen to table this report with a tabling statement rather than dispose of the report by way of deeming. There are a number of issues in this report that need to be addressed. The most concerning component of this report is the operation of an undetected pregnancy in 2014 which entered the prison system. That matter can be read about in the report.
The purpose of this report is to provide the House with a report into the investigation of the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission into two complaints from female prisoners relating to access to primary healthcare services in the Darwin correction facility. The report was finalised on 26 February 2016.
The prison health services – operated by the Top End Health Service – and the Top End Health Service have been working cooperatively with the Darwin correction facility and the commission throughout this investigation. All the recommendations have been accepted by the Top End Health Service and acknowledge that prisoners are entitled to expect a high standard of healthcare like other individuals in the community.
The recommendations provide for the Top End Health Service and the Darwin correction facility to work together on strategies to improve access for female and male prisoners to primary healthcare services as well as to improve the standard of care, provided it meets the health and wellbeing needs of prisoners. The Deputy Chief Executive of the Department of Health, the Chief Operating Officer of the Top End Health Service and the Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services have met and agreed to co-host a workshop to review the model health system of service provisions of correctional facilities. It is scheduled for Tuesday 12 April 2016.
The Top End Health Service, the Department of Health and the Department of Correctional Services have established a panel comprising key senior office and staff from each agency, including clinical staff.
This panel has devised an action plan to address the recommendations for improvement in the following areas:
policy and processes of managing requests for access to health services to ensure timeliness of treatment
Prison health services and the commissioner have agreed on processes to encourage inmates to raise concerns directly with the health service to achieve resolution through internal mechanisms. This has been operating effectively for the last four months.
A number of recommendations have arisen from this report, as there should have been. We have continued to roll out those recommendations. When I became aware of this matter not so long ago, I was concerned that some of these issues had not been raised with me. They have now been raised with me and I am making sure the matters raised in the report have been responded to.
I move that the Assembly takes note of this report.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee Report – Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct – consideration adjourned.
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee Report into Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation – consideration adjourned.
Note Paper – Northern Territory’s Energy Future Committee Key Challenges and Opportunities Issues Paper – consideration adjourned.
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly –consideration adjourned.
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly – consideration adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to Rachel Fosdick, Palmerston’s 2016 Citizen of the Year. On 26 January this year I had the pleasure of attending the Palmerston citizenship and flag raising ceremony at the Palmerston Recreation Centre.
At this ceremony each year, Palmerston’s Citizen of the Year is announced. It is a highly prestigious acknowledgement bestowed on a member of our community who works tirelessly to enhance our community spirit and way of life. As the finalists’ names were read out I was extremely impressed with the line-up. We are fortunate to have so many wonderful, generous and enthusiastic members of our community, all of whom are worthy of the Citizen of the Year status.
I know Rachel through her tireless support of the Palmerston Power Basketball Club and the Palmerston and Regional Basketball Association. When her name was announced as being the 2016 Citizen of the Year I happily let out a little cheer and burst into applause. Rachel is very worthy of this honour. Unfortunately she was an apology at the event. In true Rachel style she was extremely busy fundraising that day and, due to an unforseen consequence of her efforts, could not attend the ceremony. Knowing this I immediately sent her a text message saying, ‘You won!’ She could not believe it. We had a very short but excited text message exchange.
I later met with Rachel to transcribe her story in detail so this Assembly will forever record her contribution to Palmerston and its community.
Rachel Fosdick is a lovely girl from Lismore. A qualified psychologist, she spent the 1980s working tirelessly for the Queensland AIDS Council to raise awareness of this devastating disease. As you can imagine, this is a field of work that held a very heavy burden, and Rachel started to explore a sea change.
Rachel moved to the Territory in 1994 from central Queensland. In a drastic change from her life at the AIDS Council she bought a kebab shop at the bottom of the stairs at Casuarina Square, which I frequented as a teenager, which, memorably, opened the week before McDonald’s opened. Long-term Territorians will remember the Territory’s frenzy with the opening of McDonald’s. The lines when it opened ran far past Rachel’s kebab shop, much to her dismay. Moving to Darwin and running a kebab shop was an enormous sea change and it made Rachel realise just how much she loved psychology, and the reality of being a retailer was that it was a hard slog with very long hours.
Rachel then made another career change and became the manager of Jingili Pizza Hut. This is where she met her husband, Tim. Rachel laughed as she recalled this story for me of how they met. One evening when Rachel was working, Tim came into the store. He immediately fancied Rachel. As he stood at the counter Tim made his big pick-up line, which was, ‘Can I have a Coke?’ He knew full well that Pizza Hut only sold Pepsi. Rachel knew exactly what Tim was up to and promptly replied with, ‘Don’t be cheeky’. Tim had sparked her attention though and she knew where he worked. One night after work she delivered him a pizza, accompanied by a six pack of beer, and they have been together ever since.
Tim and Rachel had their first child, Josh, in 1997. It was very clear to Rachel that she wanted to stay home with her new baby and be the best mum she could be to little Josh. Rachel reflected on how things can change so much in someone’s life. She laughed when she reminded herself that she had cried when in 1997 Tim proposed that they build a house in Palmerston. Josh was only six months old at the time. In the end, building their home in Palmerston was the best thing they ever did. At that time, all their neighbours were building and starting families. As a result, their street had a wonderful sense of community. It is now the only place they call home and she could not imagine living anywhere else.
Tim and Rachel married at Marlow Lagoon in a beautiful ceremony under the trees. Her children now tease her and raise their eyebrows about marrying Tim at Marlow Lagoon, but it was a beautiful day and Rachel would not have it any other way. Rachel and Tim had their second child, Jemma, in 1999. Rachel was still at home raising Josh, and Jemma was a welcome addition to the family home.
When Josh turned three, Rachel started her home-based day-care business where she cared for the children of their friends, and it very quickly grew from there. When Josh was old enough to go to school Rachel started volunteering. She joined the preschool committee at Bakewell Primary School and absolutely loved it. Rachel felt part of such a nice community. It was friendly, comforting, supportive and nourishing. Rachel was involved in making decisions around setting up the school, which at the time was brand new. She fondly remembered how enjoyable this experience was.
This was Rachel’s first real taste at volunteering, aside from the work she undertook as a volunteer while working at the AIDS Council in the 1980s. It was so enjoyable being part of her children’s school community that it whet her appetite for volunteering for the next two decades. Rachel’s third child, Ben, was born in 2005, perfectly completing their family of five. During Rachel’s time volunteering at Bakewell Primary School, Palmerston was rapidly growing and there was so much opportunity. Rachel recalled that everyone was looking to start new things for people in Palmerston and for children to participate in, like craft groups and mothers groups.
Rachel spent two years on the Bakewell Preschool committee then six years on school council – eight years in total serving her community. She laughed with me at the end of her comments that she had spent six years on the school council. She quipped, ‘And then you have to step down’. Rachel was chair for two years and vice chair for two years.
Some of Rachel’s biggest achievements were successfully securing funding for the special education unit, writing funding applications for additional school resources, employing senior teaching staff, working behind the scenes and getting things done. The school council’s aim was to create a sense of community. It was the most important thing to them. They knew even though it was a big school it needed to feel like a small one. Rachel is proud they achieved this and acknowledges that she learnt as much as she gave in the process.
While Rachel was enjoying immersing herself in the school community, her children were growing up. They started hockey, calisthenics and swimming. One day Josh came home from a come-and-try day and said he wanted to start basketball. Young Josh was 5 foot 9 inches when he was 10 years old. Rachel felt he was definitely big enough to play basketball.
This started Rachel’s new love, new endeavour and new chapter of volunteering commitment to basketball in Palmerston. Palmerston Power Basketball Club started in 1999 with just five teams. In Josh’s first year playing for the club, Rachel joined the committee, ‘just to write the newsletter’, she laughed. She was hooked and loved it. The sense of community was there. Rachel could not help herself but get more involved. The environment was perfect, the people were great and the opportunity presented itself.
Rachel soon became club secretary and the following year she became the registrar. She felt she was not busy enough and added fundraising coordinator on top of that. The woman is addicted. Rachel spent the next eight years devoted to Palmerston Power Basketball Club. It was a lovely committee of 12 people where everyone was on the same page, had the same focus and the same philosophy.
Damon, the club president, was strong on club culture so it was a lovely committee to be a part of. There was a strong focus on new committee member inductions so the strong community club culture was always there. It was really important to all of them.
Rachel went to an AGM four years ago with past president of Palmerston Power, Brian. He said to Rachel, ‘One day we will have the numbers to run something of our own in Palmerston’. Brian’s comments resonated with Rachel and really struck a chord with her. Rachel’s goal for the next four years became to build Palmerston Power up to a point where they could run a basketball association in Palmerston.
In those four years, Palmerston Power doubled in size and senior basketball was introduced. They also introduced coach mentoring, which meant they were generating their own coaches, which in turn meant they could support the growth in numbers.
Palmerston Power had a strong volunteer base, as well as strong player numbers and governance structures. This led Rachel to see 2014 as the opportunity she had been waiting for. There was growth in the Palmerston and rural area, and the opportunity to increase participation in sport and active healthy pathways for kids was compelling.
Damon and Rachel created a strategic plan to generate interest in creating a Palmerston basketball association. Rachel gave the analogy that Rachel and Damon were like a duck. Rachel was the frantic legs peddling underneath the water and Damon was the duck steering the ships.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will continue my remarks about Rachel during the next sittings.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I premise my adjournment remarks today on the annual acknowledgment of closing the gap – a very powerful term to try to address significant disadvantage amongst Australia’s Indigenous communities.
The national partnership on remote health clinics was signed in 2010. This agreement was to build new remote clinics in Elliott, Canteen Creek, Robinson River, Ntaria, Galiwinku, Numbulwar and Ngukurr.
This agreement also committed to upgrades at clinics at Titjikala, Papunya, Kaltukatjara and Maningrida. This agreement was reinforced with signatures of the federal and Territory health ministers in 2014, both Coalition governments. What eventuated was six years of frustration in communities eager to receive a new or upgraded health facility, which is often the most important infrastructure in a remote community.
Upgraded facilities contribute to staff attraction and retention, improvement and modern services like tele-health. All we have from this disappointing CLP government is delays and inaction.
According to the public record, only two clinics have been officially opened, being in Ntaria and Maningrida. Every milestone has been missed. They have let down remote, mostly Indigenous, Territorians very badly.
The Papunya clinic was due to be concluded in April 2015. The tender was only awarded in December 2014. The Docker River clinic was due to be completed by April 2015, but the tender was only awarded in April 2015. The clinic in Elliott was due to be completed in April 2015, but the tender was only awarded in January 2015. The clinic at Canteen Creek was due to be completed in April 2015, but the tender was only awarded in January 2015. The Canteen Creek clinic has been completed, but clinicians are still operating in a rundown clinic from the 1980s. The Titjikala clinic was due to be completed in April 2015, but the tender for the clinic was only awarded in March. The Ngukurr clinic was due for completion in November 2015, but the tender for the clinic was only awarded in June.
The Numbulwar clinic was due to be completed in November 2015, but it is still out to tender. The Galiwinku clinic was due to be completed in November 2015, but tenders only closed two weeks ago. As for the Robinson River clinic, due to commence construction in July 2015, a design consultancy only went out in October and I have not seen any tenders released for that important clinic.
This government is without passion for government services or delivering improved health services in the bush, where they are needed more than anywhere. I am advised that for the clinics being rebuilt or refurbished in my electorate, there is no provisional funding for furniture and other fittings.
It is a very sad story on the annual acknowledgement of closing the gap. If there is one thing we can do together, it is to make every effort possible to improve the health standards of some of the most disadvantaged Territorians. This litany of failure is incredible. The government has now reverted to a stimulus strategy that has been called for in the NT for a number of years. These clinics, in partnership with federal government, should have been part of this stimulus ongoing over the last three years.
There are more important concerns. Two clinics in the Barkly, at Canteen Creek and Elliott, have been completed. Today they stand idle. Worse than standing idle, there are some significant defects appearing in the Elliott clinic. The laminate in the waiting room and the foyer is starting to peel off the walls. In the construction business, this defect period is critical to be addressed by the contractors before a period runs through. The air conditioners in both those clinics, as I have seen when I walked around the boundary fence, are running. I suggest trying to climate control those buildings in this oppressively hot Wet Season we are going through. There could be more damage to the facilities.
There is considerable expense being borne by the taxpayer whilst those most disadvantaged Territorians have no access to those clinics. The clinicians in those areas are operating and they deserve acknowledgment and credit for the incredible work they do 24/7. They were mystified as to why there have been no announcements about openings. The Robinson River community is extremely disappointed that no work has started and we cannot identify any tender processes that give us an indication of plans for the future.
With Elliott and Canteen Creek receiving no official opening dates, it has come to my attention that there are no plans for establishment grants relating to furniture and fittings. These two buildings are superb. They have been provided by the Commonwealth and constructed in the Territory by Territory companies, and they are ready to start business. It would be a terrible shame if we saw clinicians moving furniture from what was originally a preschool building, a tin building built in the early 1980s; I remember it well. At Canteen Creek that has subsequently been their clinic ever since.
One could only imagine the level of amenity inside that tin building, and the standard of the furniture and fittings. It would be very sad to think that would be relocated to the new clinic. There are no identifiable establishment grants. To add insult to injury, it was drawn to my attention that the grant for Elliott was noted and then withdrawn.
Minister, I am not sure what you are doing in this area. The constituency has grave concerns. Our clinicians are doing a wonderful job, but they are getting disillusioned with purpose-built new infrastructure sitting idle with no plans to progress the establishment, set up and running of those clinics. This is not only a Barkly story, but right across the Northern Territory. If you are looking for a stimulus strategy, we can revisit what should be money in the bank. We can look at the areas of promise for new buildings and refurbishments that have not taken place. This is something that will deliver a closing-the-gap outcome. This will deliver jobs and provide an incentive for Australians to go to these areas, work in these fields and provide serious outcomes for closing the gap in Indigenous health.
Minister, I hope you respond to this. There are two clinics awaiting occupation. They can be great celebrations within the town of Elliott and the community at Canteen Creek. I ask urgently that you revisit Robinson River, and that you get some advice on what is happening in the other areas of the Northern Territory that represent remote areas and deliver services for Aboriginal health, and a commitment to closing the gap by the CLP government.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to talk about middle years schooling in the Northern Territory. I am excited to announce that today I launched the Work Like the Best – Middle Years Teaching and Learning Strategy 2016-2018 at Sanderson Middle School with my good friend and colleague, the Deputy Chief Minister, minister Styles.
This is a fantastic strategy that aims to ensure middle years education throughout the Northern Territory is delivering quality programs and teaching. This strategy will see the Country Liberal government continue to focus on education reform that promotes best practice, quality programs and teaching, and strong engagement with the local community.
This focus is critical to the success of our middle schools and their teachers and, most importantly, the success of middle schools and the students. That is what we should be focusing on. The Work Like the Best – Middle Years Teaching and Learning Strategy is guided by the work of independent education consultant, Vic Zbar, following his review of middle years education in the Northern Territory. I commissioned the review of middle years schooling in the Northern Territory in 2014, eight years after initial introduction of middle years schooling in the Northern Territory by the Labor government.
You might ask why a review of the effectiveness of these programs and facilities was necessary. Those of us who can cast our minds back may remember that Territory Labor’s ill-considered and hastily implemented middle years schooling program failed in its most necessary requirement to provide a classroom for the students. This was the program where many students spent the first months of their middle schooling experience in their primary school classroom.
There was the strategy where Labor’s union mate, AEUNT head Matthew Cranitch, said that the introduction of middle schooling in 2008 had been a debacle and education levels had gone backwards. Under this strategy there was limited systematic direction for the middle years. It lacked a clear focus on the most fundamental aspect of schooling, that is, teaching and learning. It was a rushed strategy which greatly focused on the physical movement of students to a different location, yet still struggled to get that right. That is why the review was necessary. We are building on a system that was implemented poorly. It was necessary to ensure we delivered a clearly-defined program that aligns with the government’s plans to improve the educational outcomes of all Territory students.
The report found some excellent pockets of teaching and learning within Territory schools, which outlined the need for a strategy to spread this practice consistently. The Work Like the Best – Middle Years Teaching and Learning Strategy is a three-year strategy that is aimed at driving policy and programs in the areas identified as having the greatest positive impact on the quality of middle school education.
This strategy invests in the skills of teachers through targeted professional development and training. It will provide leadership coaching to principals and leadership teams. This strategy will drive policy and programs that will have a positive impact on the quality of education throughout the middle years of a student’s educational journey.
This government made history, with a record 1338 Northern Territory Year 12 students graduating with their Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training. Under this government we saw an increase in the number of Indigenous students completing the Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training. Under this government we have more students achieving A+ merits, with a total of 44 gained by 35 students.
That is proof that this Country Liberal government invests in education reform that produces results, and those results will continue to improve. I am confident that, like our other investments in education, the Work Like the Best – Middle Years Teaching and Learning Strategy will work. We are positioning students for success as they enter their last stage of secondary education.
I am proud to be the Education minister and was thrilled to announce a well-considered, research-based strategy that focuses on the heart of educational institutions, the delivery of quality programs, quality teaching and strong engagement by the school community.
I also take this opportunity to raise awareness of the National Day of Action against Bullying and Violence, which is tomorrow. There are 77 schools across the NT that are registered to participate in the National Day of Action against Bullying and Violence. I hope they have not been watching parliament this week. This is the highest number of NT schools to engage in the six years of the event’s operation. Well done.
I look forward to spending tomorrow morning with students at Centralian Middle School, participating in anti-bullying activities at the school. It is important that we promote these messages within our communities and schools, and support the wellbeing of young people within our communities.
I met the previous minister, Syd Stirling, when middle schools were his baby. I remember him saying that we have to focus on that age group of children. I agreed; I knew that age group was causing some concern. I think the previous government spent a lot of money on infrastructure. Rosebery Middle School is one of the best pieces of middle school infrastructure I have seen in the Territory. Some money was invested in education. If it was let down it was because there was not a great focus on what would be taught and who would teach it in those schools.
From my understanding, many teachers came from the primary school and high school sectors and were all thrown together. All of a sudden they were teaching a new pedagogy within the middle years system. In some schools I have visited, as I said earlier in my speech, there are some pockets of gold. But you go to some others and see a lack of discipline and respect from students towards teachers. I thought, ‘We have to start engaging these children; if we can, we will win the war.’ At schools where kids are not engaged, they are getting into mischief.
I take my hat off to the teachers working in the middle years system today. They have a remarkable group of people to deal with. I take my hat off to teachers; I do not think I could be in a classroom all day every day with some of these kids. Some would be fantastic to be around and some would test you to the absolute limit.
We have teachers in this Chamber. Congratulations for taking on such an important role. But they must have a system to work with. Vic has focused on the strategy to get this right and what will make a difference in the classroom.
I commend Vic Zbar, the Department of Education and everyone else who has provided input into this review. Let’s see this strategy become part of the system and make some wonderful changes.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to provide an update on the case of Jock McLeod, a veteran firefighter of more than four decades of dedicated service to the Northern Territory, as firefighters do day-in day-out to protect the lives of Territory families, putting the importance of others before themselves. Jock is a perfect example of that.
Jock is well known to Territorians, apart from the fact he is the father of a very famous footballer, Andrew McLeod, because of his battle with cancer and getting recognition that his cancer was contracted as a result of his employment as a firefighter. Exposure over many years to dangerous chemicals saw Jock diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2013. Furthermore, he is known for seeing his right to have that recognised in legislation, along with other firefighters – as is the case around the country – so he could receive workers’ compensation.
It took two private member’s bills from the member for Fannie Bay, who holds the shadow responsibility for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, to address the legislation that would see firefighters like Jock McLeod receive workers compensation for cancer contracted in the workplace and in the line of duty.
Those bills were rejected not once, but twice by the CLP government. Shame on them. During the delay of legislation being passed, there were Territory firefighters battling cancer who passed away.
Eventually the government brought forward – dragging the chain, I might add – legislation last year. It was passed in this House. At the eleventh hour there were amendments, begrudgingly agreed to by the government, which would see retrospective claims for workers compensation. The original legislation said they would not deal with any claims by firefighters who had contracted cancer during the course of their work prior to the election of 2012. That was absurd and it ruled out many people.
It was thanks to the likes of the union, United Voice, and Tom Lawler, who is also a cancer sufferer – contracted through his work as a firefighter – which saw last minute changes made. That was good. Jock McLeod and other firefighters were happy. They had to wait a while but finally had access to workers compensation as firefighters.
Things took a backward step in December. Jock received a letter from TIO saying his claim had been rejected because:
That letter devastated Jock McLeod. He went publically with this, as you would expect, and had direct contact from TIO to offer their apologies and say they would honour his claim.
I was contacted by Jock McLeod at the beginning of this week via e-mail, saying he wanted to keep me in the loop. I have sought his permission to raise this matter in parliament this evening. This will be of great interest to Territorians and firefighters about the latest setback that Jock has experienced. Jock drafted an e-mail to his union, United Voice, with a suggestion that what he has drafted might be a bulletin that goes out to members. I will read it out:
This is appalling treatment of Jock McLeod. It raises a couple of important issues, not the least of which being Jock McLeod still does not have a claim. He still does not have a payout. He still does not have what he is entitled to.
The first issue is to do with the sale, without a mandate, of the taxpayer-owner asset that was the government-owned Territory Insurance Office. It has clearly not been in the best interests of Territorians like Jock McLeod or property owners living in Katherine, whose premiums have gone through the roof and are now unaffordable.
This goes to the heart of the fact that things within TIO have changed. This is apart from what we heard from the Chief Minister in the lead up to his decision to sell TIO – with an enormous backlash from Territorians. It is not business as usual; things have changed. The fact that a Territory man, under the Territory Insurance Office, now has to go to Adelaide and deal with an Adelaide office is unforgivable. Let us not forget that the sale of TIO did not have the approval of Territorians. The CLP did not go to an election with a mandate.
In debate this afternoon the CLP government had nothing to bring to this House regarding its policies, stimulus package or answers to why crime is out of control in the NT. Instead there was a ridiculous censure motion which was all about blatant and unrelenting union bashing, driven by the CLP members opposite and their mates. It is unforgivable.
Jock McLeod’s case advanced as far as it did in battling for workers compensation because his union supported him. The members of United Voice stood shoulder-to-shoulder and fought for this. Alongside the rubbish and scurrilous attacks on unions this afternoon from this pathetic excuse of a government – it goes to show the CLP has nothing better to talk about and no recognition of the importance of unions not only in the NT, but around the country and the world in supporting workers’ rights and safety in their place of employment.
Jock McLeod’s scenario is unbelievable. Let us remember, his union represents 3000 people who need the support. They need the support of this government, which to date has turned its back on people like Jock McLeod.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, in response to an adjournment speech from Tuesday 15 March by the member for Casuarina, Lauren Moss, I want to correct some mistruths. Some of the items I want to deal with – one question was about what is happening in the north Darwin area, in particular Casuarina. Secondly, she asked about the number of meetings of the Casuarina business advisory group.
The member for Casuarina said she had serious concerns about an alleged rise in alcohol-related antisocial behaviour. I will give you the facts. Alcohol-related assaults for the year ending January 2016, compared to the year ending January 2015, are 9% less in Darwin. There are many operational community-orientated activities being undertaken by the Casuarina police station in relation to antisocial behaviour.
The member for Casuarina said there had been a shutdown of the police shopfront inside Casuarina Square. Casuarina Square and the neighbouring business district are served very well by the closely located Casuarina police station. I think it is about 75 m from the side entrance on Bradshaw Terrace in Casuarina. The police station is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The focus of police in Casuarina is to have very strong community engagement.
The member for Casuarina referred to the police beat group as being shut down in Casuarina and absorbed into general duties. Police operations for the Casuarina district area are now better focused. The Casuarina police station implements targeted operations. The police patrol Casuarina Square on Friday evenings and weekends as part of their operations. Mobile closed-circuit television camera capabilities are under deployment as are mobile CCTV cameras around Casuarina.
The member for Casuarina claimed that police numbers at Casuarina have been reduced. Positions at specific police stations are the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police. There were 112 gazetted positions at Casuarina police station as at 31 January 2016, which is an increase of nine positions from 3 October 2012.
Northern Territory Police operate a 24-hour, seven-day response capability from the Casuarina police station. The member for Casuarina claimed that this government has no strategy and that crime is being driven upwards. The member for Casuarina is telling mistruths. Crime statistics for Darwin for the year ending January 2016 show the Giles Country Liberal government’s law and order strategy is working. House break-ins are down by 23%; motor vehicle theft offences are down by 22%; assault offences are down by 11%; total property offences are down by 11%; total offences are down by 10%; domestic violence assault offences are down by 8%; commercial break-ins are down by 7%; and total offences against the person are down by 6%.
The member for Casuarina claimed this government broke its promise of a 24-hour police station in Nightcliff. This is simply not true. The election commitment of this government was to undertake a scoping study to see if Nightcliff police station would be required to operate on a 24-hour basis. Based on evidence from the scoping study, it was found that the police station was underutilised by the general public. The Nightcliff police station was basically a shop front and largely administrative, but the police Traffic Operations Division and the Major Crash Investigation Unit still continue to operate out of Nightcliff police station.
The member for Casuarina says the CLP has shut down the Nightcliff police beat. The police response to the Nightcliff area was always provided from the Casuarina police station. The closure of the shop front at Nightcliff police station did not change the requirement for Casuarina police to continue providing a strong visible presence in the Nightcliff area. The police continue to be engaged in high-profile operations within the Nightcliff area that are designed to tackle antisocial behaviour.
Further, the member for Casuarina claimed that the government does not have an alcohol and other drugs strategy. I understand the member for Casuarina met with the Casuarina police in February this year. At this meeting she was advised of a number of initiatives being undertaken by Casuarina police, which include the operations being undertaken in reference to strategies relating to alcohol and other drugs.
We know from statistics that there is no evidence of high levels of assault or violence. The member for Casuarina referred to the CLP as having scrapped the Banned Drinker Register. The Banned Drinker Register did not reduce drunken violence on our streets, nor did it stop drunks from accessing alcohol. If you were on the Banned Drinker Register, you could still walk into a bar at any licensed premises in the Territory and drink to excess, provided the staff kept an eye on what you were doing. If they did not realise what you were doing, and you drank rapidly but could still control yourself, once you walked outside and the alcohol hit you would be in a bit of trouble. Drunks on the Banned Drinker Register could still access alcohol through a third party.
The member for Casuarina claims there must be a thorough review of police resources. The opposition is very keen on reviewing everything at once. I do not know how it will get it all done at once. I hate to think how it would run that.
There is no need for another review. Northern Territory Police have instigated policies for their operations in the Darwin region which are working to reduce crime. You just heard the figures I gave, which clearly indicate crime is on the way down. The Casuarina police station has a targeted operations team that focuses on high-visibility engagement, engaging with youth and targeting antisocial behaviour and traffic enforcement in the district.
Crime statistics show that crime rates are going down. The opposition asserted that crime is out of control and the crime stats I was referring to were rubbish. When I asked them to say in this Chamber that the crime stats are wrong, what did I hear? I heard deathly silence. I heard nothing. They know that some of these throw away lines, used to get into the Hansard as interjections, are incorrect.
A recent national survey of community satisfaction with policing showed that community confidence in the Northern Territory Police has increased by 5.3%. This shows that the Country Liberal government law and order policies are working.
The member for Casuarina referred in her speech to a number of meetings held with the Casuarina business advisory group. She said the Casuarina business advisory group had not met since the first meeting in July 2015. That parliamentary statement yesterday was incorrect. There have been two meetings; the second meeting of the group was held on 25 November 2015 and my understanding is they will meet again very soon.
The member for Casuarina seems confused about what she did or did not say in parliament last November in relation to the Casuarina business advisory group. There was no question to be answered in relation to her statement last November about the Casuarina business advisory group. This is a fabrication. This is what she said in November last year:
She was not wrong, so there was no answer required. During Tuesday night’s adjournment in parliament she invented the story that there was no reply required. There was no need, but there certainly is now. She also claimed this week that she had written a letter to me as the Minister for Business and that she has received no response. This mysterious letter was apparently about how many times the Casuarina business advisory group had met.
There was no letter from the member for Casuarina to me about how many times this group had met. It is difficult to respond to a letter that no one has received. If she can produce the record – the government cannot find any record of an incoming letter through the system from the member for Casuarina about this issue.
Also in her speech this week the member for Casuarina mentioned a written question on notice to the parliament that she submitted, regarding how many times the Casuarina business advisory group has met. Member for Casuarina, I have answered that question; it is twice.
It seems to be coming up more often from the opposition. They make things up and try to get it on the Hansard as if it is the truth. When you investigate it, as I have demonstrated tonight, most of it is false.
Motion agreed to, the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 5 classes from Essington Primary School, accompanied by their teachers, Mr Darren Beattie and Mr John Knight. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Committee Membership – Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Committee Membership – Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that Mr Barrett be discharged from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and Mr Westra van Holthe be appointed in his place, and that Mr Westra van Holthe be appointed Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
At the risk of stating the excruciatingly obvious, Mr Barrett is now a minister of the Crown and Mr Westra van Holthe no longer holds that position. We seek to make arrangements on this side to accommodate those changes.
Motion agreed to.
RED TAPE REDUCTION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 157)
(Serial 157)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The Northern Territory government is committed to reducing red tape for all Territorians. Economic growth and a strong society require a continued focus on productivity and a reduction in the administrative burden for individuals, businesses and non-government organisations. For small business and non-government organisations, time is crucial. The time spent on compliance is time lost on growing the business, improving productivity and innovating. Having to resubmit the same information every year to multiple agencies is a significant impost on business.
In June last year the government committed to a red tape reduction strategy with clear objectives about the way it will regulate. First, regulation should minimise imposts on business, maximise productivity and provide incentive for investment and innovation. It should ensure efficient use of administrative resources and be proportionate to the risk being managed.
Government is also committed to regulation being customer focused and minimising costs to individuals, businesses and the non-government organisation sector. Reducing paperwork and the number of contacts clients need to make with government is a key element of the government’s Red Tape Reduction Strategy. To this end, all agencies have been requested to offer one-, three- and five-year licence and permit terms, introduce pre-filled renewal forms and to place all transactions online.
Agencies are also consolidating regulatory functions, including by way of information sharing, collaboration and centralisation of licensing databases. In addition, agencies are exploring ways to reduce reporting requirements and simplify forms. Preparing omnibus legislation to give effect to reforms that will streamline and simplify processes and requirements is demonstration of the government’s commitment to reducing regulatory costs for business.
The bill includes amendments to the Liquor Act, the Commercial and Private Agents Licensing Act and Regulations, the Auctioneers Act, the Agents Licensing Act and Regulations, the Tobacco Control Act and Regulations, and the Water Act.
This bill amends legislation to reduce paperwork and save time for businesses, individuals and non-government organisations by increasing licence and registration terms from 12 months to up to five years, with applicants being able to choose one-, three- and five-year licence terms.
I turn to the amendments in detail. The bill provides new applicants or those renewing their wholesale liquor registration an option to have a registration term of one, three or five years. This reform will save time for approximately 30 registered liquor wholesalers in the Northern Territory.
Commercial agents, private agents, auctioneers, real estate agents and business agents will also now have the option of either a one-, three- or five-year license term. These amendments will provide these professionals, numbering approximately 750, with less paperwork, allowing more time for business.
The tobacco retail licence will be offered for one-, three- and five-year licence terms, benefiting approximately 300 businesses in the retail, tourism and hospitality sectors.
The Department of Land Resource Management identified an opportunity to reduce paperwork and save time by increasing the duration of a bore construction permit from 12 months to two years.
Each year approximately 400 to 480 permits are issued for the construction of bores. Extending the permit from 12 months to two years will benefit those whose construction process needs to extend past 12 months.
Government needs to provide greater customer-focused flexibility for business and individuals in licensing regulations and when dealing with government. We want to make business with government faster and easier. For applicants of agents licences or tobacco retail licences the bill replaces the requirement to provide documentation, showing the Northern Territory’s Commissioner of Police has been given authority to release a criminal history report, with a requirement that a National Police Certificate be lodged with the Director-General of Licensing.
The bill amends the requirements for common expiry dates for agent licensing regulations, for property agents and commercial and private agents. This means licences granted to new applicants will expire on the anniversary date of their granting in accordance with the licence period of one, three or five years chosen by the applicant. This change will enable more efficient use of regulatory resources and will be complemented by new technology in the Department of Business’ Licensing NT division that will greatly improve and automate the compliance task for businesses and individuals.
Implementation of the department’s new licensing and compliance system will mean that licences will receive renewal notices electronically, will be able to renew online and will have prefilled renewal forms. Businesses and individuals will be able to easily keep track of their licences and licence applications.
The Red Tape Reduction (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2016 is removing unnecessary red tape. It is removing the regulatory and administrative burden on businesses and the community, and improving productivity and competitiveness. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
LOCAL COURT (RELATED AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 154)
(Serial 154)
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill before the House and I thank his office for providing me with a briefing last week. That briefing was brief, as will be my contribution to this debate. I understand this bill is part of delivering the government’s broader Local Court reforms, which are not insignificant, and that there has already been debate on the policy side of things. This bill is totally technical and procedural.
The bill provides for some of the amendments to the 156 acts and subordinate legislation consequential to enactment of the Local Court Act 2015, and that debate was had in April last year. At that time the bill had passage.
The amendments in this bill, as detailed in the explanatory statement, see terminology updated and made consistent with the new act and associated acts, along with a raft of other amendments and repeals. Further to the amendments introduced in the February sittings, I was advised during the briefing last week that there would be a further consideration in detail stage amendment, and that amendment would be in relation to section 177 of the Justices Act.
It was explained to me that the amendment addresses an anomaly which exists in Part IV Division 5 under the heading Costs, and is specifically in relation to section 77, which provides for a prescribed scale of costs to apply for failed prosecutions in the lower court only.
Section 177 of the Justices Act is amended through this consideration in detail stage amendment, and this section deals with the procedure and power of Supreme Court on appeal. This amendment allows the Supreme Court – if the circumstances of the case or the legal issues are of an exceptional nature the court may order costs exceeding the prescribed scale. I note the amendment has been developed in consultation with the Chief Justice.
I thank the Attorney-General’s office for sending me this consideration in detail stage amendment, and I note in addition to the consideration in detail amendment relating to costs, including consideration in detail stage amendments which address some of the transitional matters, there are several extra CSAs which pertain to the schedules associated with acts, including the AustralAsia Railway (Third Party Access) Act, the Liquor Act, the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act and the Youth Justice Act.
I can only assume that somehow there were oversights in the original bill and the opportunity has been taken to squeeze them through today whilst addressing the costs matter in the Justices Act. I have no issue with that.
I thank the Attorney-General’s senior adviser for the offer of a further briefing yesterday. I declined that kind offer because the consideration in detail amendments are technical in nature and there is no policy change. This was also supported by the explanatory statement supplied during the second reading.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition has no issues with this bill and we give our support to its passage today.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will also keep my comments relatively brief.
I commend the Attorney-General for the work he has done not only in relation to the passage of this legislation, but also in addressing and dealing with the entire court system across the Northern Territory, bringing it into the future and preparing it for a much larger Northern Territory in decades to come.
The intention of the bill is to provide for minor consequential amendments to the other main acts that apply to the lower courts. These consequential amendments arise from the enactment of the Local Court Act 2015. More substantive consequential amendments of a policy nature are contained in the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015 (Serial 148).
The consequential amendments of a statute law nature arising from new terminology and principles arising from the Local Court Act 2015 and the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015 are key features of the bill. These amendments include reference to Local Court judges rather than magistrates, which effectively means the title ‘magistrate’ will no longer exist. They will all be called judges whether they sit in the new Local Court or the Supreme Court – and referring to the Local Court rather than the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
There are also some Parliamentary Counsel amendments dealing with matters such as the use of the word ‘proceedings’ rather than ‘proceeding’, and ‘registrar’ rather than ‘Registrar’.
This is part of a raft of changes the Attorney-General has made to the court system over the past three years. I suspect they have largely gone unnoticed, but they prepare the Northern Territory court system for the future.
There have been some other changes consequential to this, which are about empowering the NTCAT, providing for many of the minor matters that were ordinarily dealt with in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to be now be dealt with by the NTCAT, freeing up valuable time in the court list for more important matters. I guess there is a slippage of those types of matters from what was the Court of Summary Jurisdiction down to the NTCAT to make our court system more efficient and effective in what it does.
It is worth noting that the Attorney-General has done a power of work over the past three to three-and-a-half years. He should be commended for the amount of work he has put in and the changes he has brought to bear on the court system across the Northern Territory.
Mr STYLES (Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I echo the words of the member for Katherine in relation to the member for Port Darwin in his role as the Attorney-General and the changes he has brought to the legal system in the Northern Territory.
The Westminster system, as everyone in this room knows and as Winston Churchill said, is not the best system in the world but it is the best we have. Along with that system we have a legal system which is unparalleled with any other in the world. We have a very fair system that works well. However, one should never rest on the laurels of those who came before us and brought in a good system.
Changes have occurred in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory is growing and changing, and Darwin is not the city it was when I first came here 35 years ago. Some of the types of offences are changing, the commercial aspect of the courts is changing and what used to happen in the Supreme Court now is able to be shifted to Local Courts. The magistrates court will change. Being a former prosecutor in the courts, I can attest to some of the interesting challenges in relation to court lists and getting through a range of matters that have to go before the Local Court, the magistrates court and various tribunals.
With the NTCAT, the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, we have been able to successfully become more efficient in time and management of what goes before tribunals, and we have become more fiscally responsible in relation to taxpayers’ dollars. When you are part of a wing like there is on our side, I am sure Labor does this as well, and you toss ideas around – the Attorney-General has done an enormous amount of work, not only in his office, but at home and on weekends, ensuring he sets up the courts and the legal system for the Territory for the next 50 years.
It behoves us, as the members of this House, to discuss this issue, talk about what is proposed and look at the amendments to ensure this works well and serves the people of the Northern Territory better than it has been in the past.
The nature of crime changes and people are committing crimes in different ways now. Governments bring in particular laws to shut one loophole, and the criminal element in our community seems to find another way of getting around the laws we bring in. This means one will never be out of a job in politics. Good politicians are required to change the rules and the game plan so that the criminal element does not get on top of the good people.
It is, as one can always say, an ongoing battle of good over evil. There is a saying; ‘When good people lay down, evil rises.’ Our job in this House is to make sure we keep up with current requirements of the law and give the police, courts and court system the flexibility to take the fight to the criminal element in our community, who do not care about you, me, your grandmother, your cat, your dog or your budgerigar. Some people do not realise that.
Look at what we have done through the court system and with the protection that criminals are afforded; there is a debate going on in the community as we speak about the rights of victims. The court system is bogged down at times, so much that the rights of the victims seem to be forgotten over the rights of the criminal. The new prison is a pretty flash place. I had a tour of it to see what is there. People get looked after very well as criminals. People in this House call it the Taj Mahal of prisons.
The court system is there to deter people, as are the laws. We want people to be rehabilitated, but when people do not care it is an interesting conundrum. What do you do about victims? What do you do about the criminals?
As a former police officer and prosecutor, and having interviewed numerous people during my 27 years in the NT Police Force, I know that some people are just different, not in a positive way but a negative way. They do not care. We need a court system that is not rushed. Pressure needs to be taken off the Supreme Court so it can take the time to carefully consider cases that come before it and make sure people have the right information in a timely manner. We need to make sure cases are not delayed. This legislation gives the court the flexibility and freedom to move in this area.
Many people may not understand this or even care, but it behoves us to make sure we care and that we look at all those elements. I am glad the opposition has spoken on this and does not see too many issues with it.
We need to make sure people in the legal system who read the Hansard know we support what is happening. We need to ensure police have our support in relation to matters which go before the lower courts. The detectives and major crime squad detectives, who put everything on the line every day to keep Territorians safe, deserve a court system that backs that up.
As a former police officer and detective I know it is disappointing when you work hard – and many people do not see what goes on – for days on end, 20 hours a day on the trail of criminals for weeks, then you lock them up and get all the paperwork done and can have a few days off, but those days off are not spent fishing or doing your favourite thing; they are spent catching up on sleep. That is going on today. As we speak there will be police officers who have been working flat out on cases for two weeks who are at home sleeping, trying to catch up. It is a tough gig, but then it is not much different to many businesses and people in the community who work hard.
It is important that they have confidence in our court system and know the courts will have time to deal with issues when we are moving things around, like we have with the NTCAT, and changing the structure of the court system.
We are fortunate because crime stats are down across the Territory.
Ms Lawrie: Rubbish!
Ms Walker: Rubbish!
Mr STYLES: I pick up on the interjections. I am trying to contribute to this debate, but they say ‘rubbish’. Members of the opposition, are you saying that police are fudging the figures, that the stats are fudged?
Members interjecting.
Mr STYLES: If you want to interject, please answer the question. Are you saying the Police department is fudging the figures? Crime is down in the figure supplied by police and the system, so are you saying the system is wrong?
I hear silence from the other side. They are very happy to interject and say it is rubbish, but when I ask them if they are saying the figures are wrong, I hear nothing. It is amazing. They understand that they are running a scare campaign in relation to crime overall.
When we came to government, crime levels were up. The Chief Minister quoted figures yesterday from across the Territory. There were serious reductions in crime. Let us talk about Katherine and the court system there. There are fewer people being assaulted in Katherine, and fewer people being confronted by a range of issues there.
It disturbs me when the opposition members make these claims but will not say them in this House. They will not back up their interjections. They are interjecting to try to politically point-score. It happens all the time. I put the questions back to them every time about what is going on.
Let us talk about some of the crime statistics. Seeing that they raised it, I will give you some answers. Since coming to government in August 2012 …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 35: relevance. We are talking about a Local Court bill, not crime statistics. I draw your attention to that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I see a direct relevance between Local Courts and crime in the Northern Territory. There is no point of order.
Mr STYLES: They raised the issue, and when you try to rebut some of the things they are raising because they are incorrect …
Mr Tollner: They do not want to hear it.
Mr STYLES: … they do not want to hear it, because it rebuts exactly what they have raised in interjections.
Let us talk about a couple of issues. Since coming to government in August 2012 – please note that this compares the rates of offences in the 12 months ending August 2015 with the 12 months ending August 2012. These statistics are about to be released and are for the end of last year.
Total crime rates across the Northern Territory are 11% less than three years ago. That is equivalent to a 4% drop per year. The assault rate was down 7% …
Mr Wood: You are stretching it.
Mr STYLES: No, these are the stats.
Mr Wood: I know. You are stretching the relevance.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson!
Mr STYLES: I pick up on the interjection. People listen to this, member for Nelson. The opposition wants to interject. I made a statement about local governance and the Local Court Act, and then those people across the Chamber, when you talk about crime rates, say, ‘Oh, that is all rubbish’. If I was listening to that, I would say, ‘Okay, maybe they have a point, so what should I do?’ This is what the opposition tries to do all through the arguments in this House, make cheap political points by saying something and hoping it sticks. When we try to rebut what they say – and people are listening – they and other people do not want to hear it.
I want to have the right to rebut what people have heard. I go back to where my original contribution was going in relation to Local Courts and the restructuring of the courts. I simply wanted to say a couple of things about crime and how it changes. Now people on the other side say, ‘No, you cannot talk about that’. If you want to raise the issue, at least listen to the rebuttal of the things raised.
Mr Wood: There are standing orders on relevance.
Mr STYLES: You are spending time trying to explain what I am trying to do. The opposition does not want people to hear these stats. Why? Because it is a good news story.
Mr Wood: I do not know how you can keep a straight face.
Mr STYLES: You want to interject. As people say, be careful what you wish for. If you want to raise the issue you will get some pushback. Total crime rates in the Northern Territory …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 35; I know this point of order has been raised. This is about a bill. It is a very technical and procedural bill. There is some room for latitude, but this is way off the mark. The government has so little business today. I have done the job for four years and I think this is way out of order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, please resume your seat. I have already ruled on that point of order.
Ms Walker: You have; maybe you should take advice from the Clerk.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a direct relevance between crime in the Northern Territory and courts in the Northern Territory. If members fail to see that, it is a sad state of affairs. Members have been interjecting; perhaps the Deputy Chief Minister will be able to make his point in a quick manner without the interruptions.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am concerned that the member for Nhulunbuy was reflecting on the Chair. You might like her to withdraw those comments.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear those comments.
Mr Barrett: She asked you to take advice on the decision you made.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will look at the Hansard and the transcript of that. Thank you, member for Drysdale.
Mr STYLES: They fire up when you are about to give good news and then battle every inch of the way to get you to say you cannot give a good story. In relation to those matters raised by the member for Nelson, they raise an issue and they make a statement, and when you go to rebut the statement they do not want you to give the facts.
I will start again and see how we go with interjections. This could have been over; I only have a few of these things to read out, and I could do it quickly. Their debate on whether or not I can have the freedom to stand here and rebut what they are saying is amazing.
Total crime rates in the Northern Territory are 11% lower than they were three years ago. The assault rate is down 7%, house break-ins are down 23%, the commercial break-in rate was 20% lower and the property damage rate was 19% lower.
Since coming to government, the Country Liberals have seen a reduction in alcohol-related offences with an 11% decrease across the Territory, 17% in Alice Springs, 51% in Tennant Creek, 31% in Katherine and 24% in Palmerston. Property offences have dropped 9% across the Territory, 9% in Darwin, 26% in Alice Springs, 23% in Tennant Creek and 16% in Nhulunbuy. In relation to the Country Liberals’ target of a 10% decrease in crime rates per year, that has been met in certain regions in the Territory for certain offences.
Next time the opposition members want to interject, they will know what the facts are. Commercial break-ins in Darwin in this period are down by an average of 12% per year. House break ins in Alice Springs are down by an average of 14% per year. Property damage in Alice Springs is down by an average of 11% per year. Assault rates in Katherine are down by an average of 12% per year. The total crime rate in Tennant Creek is down by an average of 14% per year. These things rebut some of the interjections and claims made by the opposition. These figures are available publicly for all to see. To the people listening or watching today, you can get that information. There are stats on Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy in relation to a range of things.
Sexual assaults in Palmerston are down by 24%. Sexual assaults are down overall by 13%. There are many stats which clearly demonstrate crime is down. The opposition continues to say crime is up and out of control, but the stats tell a different story. I reiterate for those listening that those who interject say that things are out of control and it is terrible. In some instances when itinerants move into town – I remember in opposition talking about these stats being much higher.
In the Wet Season people get stuck in town and that becomes an issue, but we have challenged the member for Casuarina to provide the times and dates when she has phoned the police about the issues with her community room so we can look at those issues.
What a great job the Attorney-General is doing in changing the court system. These amendments will free up time in the Supreme Court, take the pressure of them and allow people to spend time without feeling the need to be rushed. I am sure when solicitors and barristers look at the time they have set aside for a case in the Supreme Court – when I was a police officer going to the Supreme Court, you could not make plans. You would say, ‘Well, it will take five days’, and you had to get in there and get your evidence in. The pressure was on to meet the requirements.
If we take the pressure off the Supreme Court, as the Attorney-General wants to – I assume most members of this House will agree, and I hope they will support it for a host of reasons. That is why we should give people the reasons they should support this legislation.
If you take pressure off the Supreme Court and say to police officers that they have 10 days for a court case, not five, the prosecution has more time to cross-examine witnesses and make sure everyone’s story is told. If you only have five days of the case, you have to ask yourself the value of each witness and what they can contribute. You have a hierarchical structure of witnesses, and you might have five witnesses you do not have time to call. If it is not finished then you have to come another time when the courts can slot you in. Everyone has to front up again at a different time. Interstate witness and people from overseas have to come back.
We want to make sure the cost pressures on the court system are reduced. Some things will move from the magistrates court to the Local Court. When I talk to magistrates socially I do not talk about cases but about workloads and what is happening. They say it is pretty busy, but it has backed off a bit. You always fill the space available, as I am suggesting for the Supreme Court. It means people will always be busy in the courts. Sadly, we will never get down to zero crime. That is utopia. When someone finds utopia – not the one in Central Australia – I will be happy to get the address.
When we shift that load it gives more time and certainty that if they have to come back to Darwin or Alice Springs, or wherever the case is being heard, they have the time. It is about freeing up time and resources for prosecutors and defence counsels. I hope defence counsels in the wider public will see this as very positive and that they will have time to say, ‘I want to bring all these witnesses in and let them have their day in court’. Sadly, some of these people do not get their day in court. It is human nature that when we are aggrieved in relation to witnesses and victims, and if there are multiple victims, we want to have our day in court. We want to tell our story. Not being able to do that because of the pressure that is on the court system is pretty awful. I know this from experience as a prosecutor; I have had people sit for days outside the court.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments and the bill proposed are a credit to the Attorney-General, who has done many great things for the legal system in the Northern Territory. He is a man of innovation. He has introduced this legislation and I am grateful he has done so, because this will set up the Northern Territory for the next 50 years.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I could not resist after that. I would not have said anything, but if we have filibustering I might as well join the chorus. I congratulate the minister for all the hard work he has done and, I imagine, the department. Both these bills before us have taken a heck of a long time to put together.
Mr Elferink: I find it mystifying how they do it.
Mr WOOD: Yes. I was a bit concerned that what the previous speaker was talking about was slightly off the focus of what is proposed, because it is the Local Court (Related Amendments) Bill. At the bottom of the second reading speech it says:
- This bill is an important piece in a set of legislative reforms that will bring greater certainty and clarity to the law, making it easier for courts, lawyers and the public to understand and comply with the legislation concerning the courts.
It goes on to talk about the removal of the word ‘clerk’ and replacing it with ‘registrar’. There is a whole series of changes to existing bills, consequential amendments. Anyone who looks through it would see that to change the words from ‘judge’ or ‘clerk’ requires someone to go through a lot of legislation, which must come through this House.
I thought that is basically what this piece of legislation is about. The member for Nhulunbuy summed it up well by saying the legislation was technical. We moved onto other areas about crime stats and I am not sure how the crime stats relate to this Local Court amendment. Things in parliament are a bit slow at the moment. We are not exactly drowned in bills at present. To fill it out a bit we are doing a bit of professional fluffing, called filibustering.
It is a very legitimate discussion to have if the government wants to talk about law and order. Why not bring on a motion to discuss law and order in the Northern Territory? I think that would have been a good thing to bring on today. Do not use or abuse the system we have on relevance to the bill before us. That is what I was complaining about. I could raise many issues about law and order in the rural area. I have been asking for mobile CCTV cameras for a long time and have gotten nowhere. Yet they are in Darwin and they are going to Palmerston, but when I have asked for them in certain spots in the rural area, zilch.
I have some issues about law and order as well, but I would not want to get charged with irrelevance. It is a terrible thing to be charged with. I thank the Attorney-General and his staff for the wonderful work they have done in bringing these important amendments to the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I fail to see how some honourable members cannot draw a correlation between Local Courts and crime activity in the Northern Territory, considering Local Courts are full of criminals. I think it is highly relevant and some of the interjections have been completely out of order, member for Nelson.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions. I hope when you said the courts were full of criminals that you were not referring to the people at the bar table.
Mr Wood: They are not criminals until proven.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right. I have always been intrigued by the notion of the title ‘criminal lawyer’ as to where you put the punctuation mark.
Mr Wood: A bit like disabled car parking.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right. However, having made those observations I remind members what this is about. This is the tail end of years of work. This work predates me and it came to my attention when I became Attorney-General. I have been very aggressive with law reform in the Northern Territory. The NTCAT is something I wanted to pursue and I said that in opposition. Coming to power I had the support of the government and my colleagues, and I thank them for the establishment of the NTCAT to create a court system which prepares the Territory court system for the next 50 years.
It is important to pause briefly on the overall issues of how a court system will work going forward. I suspect despite my ambition and that of many people in the department and the courts – which have been well consulted on this – we will achieve that 50-year target. I have already travelled to other jurisdictions and observed the future of the court system.
In the Northern Territory we already have flirtations with those notions, and we see that with the emerging information technology which sees evidence being obtained over long distances, with judges sittings in Darwin holding court in remote areas through video conferencing technology. That technology has now reached a stage where the person before the court giving evidence or appearing as a defendant may as well be in the courtroom. A classic example is the video connection between the prison, where remand prisoners have their bail applications and matters dealt with without leaving the prison, and the courtroom, where the lawyer is representing that person in the courtroom whilst that person appears on a television screen.
To take that to the next level, Cook County, which is in Chicago and is the largest court system in the United States, has some interesting technical innovations, not least of which is the ability to have regulatory matters dealt with summarily, essentially by way of e-mail. That is a very intriguing thing to do and I think it is worth visiting. I have spoken to the Chief Magistrate about it – soon to be the Chief Judge – and how we may do those things here.
Cook County, a jurisdiction of some 10 million people – seeing how far it covers the city of Chicago and surrounding areas – enables you, if you receive a traffic ticket generated by electronic means, to dispose of it electronically. Let us say you drive through a red light. It is not a camera still that is taken; it is actually a small GIF or JPEG file, so when you go online and look up your citation number you can see yourself committing the offence in a moving picture. It is electronically generated. The pressure pad under the road feels the weight of the car going past the solid white line. That triggers the camera to take the film. A computer takes film and generates a citation, and you get it in the mail, which is the first time you are aware of it.
But what about circumstances where you feel that you have not committed the crime? A classic example would be when the electronic system was responding to what it considers to be a normal environment but a police officer was waving the person through the red light, an instruction the person was obliged to follow. Under our system in the Northern Territory you would have to go through the process of pleading not guilty, arguing the toss, making an appearance in the courthouse and having the matter disposed of. If you are uncertain about it you may need to get a lawyer. It is unlikely, but that is an example; you could do it by yourself.
In Cook County you go the website where your citation is, log in and explain the reason you are pleading not guilty to the citation. That is packaged electronically and comes before a judge. I have been in a court room – if you could call it that – where three judges were disposing of these matters. They were sitting there in loafers, jeans and a T-shirt, disposing of the matters coming before them on their screens. The courtroom, which held three judges and three different courts, was a little bigger than my office in Parliament House. You were then electronically advised as to whether or not your defence had been accepted and, therefore, an acquittal had been lodged against the matter and the citation had been disposed of, or whether you had been subsequently acquitted and were then required to make payment of a fine or appeal through the normal court process. That is an intriguing way to do it.
The second thing I noticed in Cook County – which would be a long time before we get it here, but it was interesting – was how they processed what you would call summary offences, which are disposed of on a regular basis. What struck me was that the court list for a single judge, if memory serves me, was about 300 matters in one day. If you calculate that over eight hours, I think it gave the magistrate – or the judge, as it was in Cook County – about one minute and 15 seconds to dispose of each matter.
What sort of a hearing can you deal with in one minute and 15 seconds? How the system works is very intriguing. Around the courtroom itself, which is not very big, probably about the size of one our parliamentary lobbies, there is space for a prosecutor, a defendant and defence counsel, plus the public can sit there if they like as there are a number of seats in the back of the courtroom. But around that courtroom there is a series of ante-chambers. In those ante-chambers, when a person came in to have a matter dealt with because they had been summonsed to appear, there was a series of rooms in which negotiations were held by Cook County officials. They would negotiate the outcome with the person who had been summonsed to appear, so by the time the matter was to be disposed of in front of the court, they walked out of the ante-chamber, took a number and the matter was disposed of by the judge.
Because it got to the point where there was an agreed set of facts for particular circumstances and there was nothing in contest, then it was how they disposed of a guilty plea. The judge would then say, ‘Mr so-and-so, do you agree with these facts?’ ‘Yes, I do.’ ‘Does Cook County have anything to add to it?’ ‘No, we do not.’ ‘All right. I find the matter proved. The person is fined $400; have a good day.’ Only if the matter was under contest beyond that would you go to the hearing process.
The capacity for a single judge to dispose of 300 matters in a single day was an extraordinary achievement. Of course, we will never have the volumes – certainly not in my lifetime, I suspect – to replicate that type of court system, but it is indicative of the lateral thinking you can have in how a court system should work.
Coming back to the Northern Territory, we had, when I became the Attorney-General, a functioning court system. Functionality and effectiveness in regard to the administration of the court system may not necessarily be the same thing.
It was clear to me by the representations I received from the department and the magistracy that things needed to change in how the system worked. I was aware that in 50 years’ time, it is not inconceivable that Darwin could be a city of a million people. How does the court system look in 50 years’ time? Those are the questions that impelled me and I started asking for certain work to be done.
I am sad to report that it has not all yet been done. The Justices Act is still somewhere in the Palaeolithic era and needs to be updated. The Criminal Code, which was started by Peter Toyne remains in, for lack of a better word, a schizophrenic state. Half of it is the Griffith model and the other half is the model Criminal Code as adopted by the jurisdictions. At least the work has been done. I have gone to the profession and have asked which one they want. Do we go back to the Griffith model and repeal everything we have done or do we go forward and continue moving over to the model Criminal Code? It is generally accepted amongst the jurists, which is surprising as you do not often get this out of the legal fraternity, but they said to convert to the model Criminal Code.
There are still reams of work that have to be done. To readjust the whole statute book of the Northern Territory – Part IIAA about compliant offences – means a massive amount of work. Even in the Criminal Code there are offences that have not yet been converted to Part IIAA type offences, which is reflective of the model Criminal Code.
I urge any future Attorney-General to press on in this space because, as a part of the legacy I will leave, I have not had the capacity, time or people to go through the statute book and do the massive work of rewriting the whole book. For whoever the next Attorney-General may be whether, they are from the CLP or ALP, there are a couple of things they may want to think about.
Nevertheless, I take comfort in looking at how we have prepared the court system of the Northern Territory to more closely reflect what other jurisdictions do. We are too small a jurisdiction for a three-tier court system. A three-tier court system is what you see in other jurisdictions. They have magistrates courts in New South Wales. There can be county and district courts depending on what jurisdiction you are in. Then there is the Supreme Court.
I will not go over it again in great detail, but by making these changes and expanding the role of the NT Magistrates Court to the Local Court at the lower end of the indictable range means we have been able to relieve the Supreme Court of more of its lower end matters and expand the powers of the Local Court to be more reflective or a county or district court for low-end indictable matters, hence the title change from magistrate to judge because they are straying into an area that is no longer reflective exclusively of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. We have changed the values of the matters that can be heard so criminal offences amounting to losses of $50 000 can now be dealt with by a Local Court, which until yesterday was limited to $5000, and the rats and mice stuff the Court of Summary Jurisdiction has to do has been passed to the NTCAT. The small claims jurisdiction is no longer an irritation for what will become the Local Court.
The best way to describe it is we have a platform for a three-tier court system for the next 50 years, and the NTCAT is Judge Judy, the Local Court will be The Practice and Boston Legal is the Supreme Court. I have to thank my wife for that analogy because I could not come up with something that simple. Every time I say it people understand.
How politically sexy has this been? Not very. This is just the nuts and bolts of government. There have been bucket loads of work, oodles of work needing to be done to pursue this, drafting exercises which would be the perfect vision of hell in going through the statute book to change commas, capitalise R, put lower case J and whatever else we have done. If I die and go to hell I will be taken to the legislative drafting office to do an exercise like this. I am glad there are people who can do this; otherwise, my ADED would kick in way too early.
I thank the staff for the enormous amount of work they have done, especially Mr Robert Bradshaw, who, if he were here, would doubtlessly blush for being acknowledged for the enormous amount of work he does. He is a true soldier for the administration of justice in the Northern Territory. A justice department without him would be a lesser justice department.
In his usual self-deprecating way, Mr Bradshaw has tried his hardest to avoid any form of acknowledgement from the Attorney-General, but he also pointed out that people like Fiona Hardy and Nicky Armstrong have done enormous amounts of work in the conceptual stages of the bill, which dates back a long time, but the bulk of that work was done in 2013-14.
I thank honourable members for going on this rather boring and dull journey with me. I know with great certainty that at the end of it – as well as including things like pre-trial disclosure, which is one of the more controversial elements of my Attorney-Generalship, and paperless arrests, which have gone on to see much safer streets because we have lifted the burden of paperwork from police officers to get them back on the street in a more effective way, which is all these things ever were – we will have made for a more effective court system and police force in the way it performs its duties.
Three-and-a-half years ago I said I wanted to pursue a concept called the Pillars of Justice, the capacity to manage the criminal justice system and, to a lesser extent, the civil court system from the point of arrest to the end of parole, or the point of an action starting to its completion. We made enormous strides across all those areas. The great thing about the Pillars of Justice model is that it enables me to look into the police force, the corrections system, the judicial system and the victim support system and bring all those silos into greater harmony.
This is part of that overall, big-picture change. I expect the Territory and the people living in it, now and for at least the next 40 or 50 years, will be well served by these changes. Something acknowledged by members on this side of this House, the ALP and Independents – and I genuinely believe it – is that the Territory’s criminal and civil justice systems have been substantially enhanced through this long process.
___________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of some special guests. In the open gallery we have a Year 4/5/6 class from Middle Point School, accompanied by their teacher, Narelle Dahl. They have been sitting up there on their best behaviour. A big hello to you guys.
We also have two Year 5 classes from Leanyer Primary School, accompanied by their teachers. Welcome to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________________
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Clauses 1 to 17, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 18:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 50.1, that clause 18 be amended by omitting the reference to section 4(5) in clause 18(3) and replacing it with a reference to section 4(5)(a) to (g). Clause 18(3) deals with amendments to the Criminal Investigation (Extra-Territorial Offences) Act. This amendment has been made by Parliamentary Counsel for drafting purposes. The revised amendment highlights the specific paragraphs of section 45(1) that are being amended.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 26, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New Division 6A:
Mr ELFERINK: I move amendment 50.2 relating to new Division 6A. I move that the new Division 6A be inserted in the bill after clause 26. The new Division 6A provides for clauses 26A through 26C.
Clause 26A seeks to amend the act with the following provision: that a new Division 6A amends the Justices Act.
Clause 26B, section 177 amended. Section 77C of the Justices Act provides for a scale of costs to apply for failed prosecutions in the lower courts; however, the scale only applies where the costs decision is being made by the lower court. Section 177 of the Justices Act provides the Supreme Court with various powers, including powers relating to costs in dealing with appeals in criminal matters from the lower courts.
Clause 26B amends section 177 by providing that a scale prescribed under section 77C applies to the Supreme Court, except where the Supreme Court considers the circumstances of the case are of an exceptional nature. If the court has that view it can award higher costs. This amendment has been developed in conjunction with the Chief Justice. I note that the scale under the current justice’s regulations is being reviewed so the monetary figures in it are contemporary rather than at the time they were originally set in 1994.
This brings me to 26C, Part IX, Division 5, to be inserted. Clause 26C provides for transitional provisions relating to the amendment of section 177 of the Justices Act. Division 5, ‘Transitional matters for the Local Court (Related Amendments) Act 2016’. Section 207, ‘Appeal already commenced’. This new section 207 provides that section 177, as enforced on the date of the commencement of section 207, applies to any appeal lodged prior to that date of commencement; for example, prior to 1 May 2016.
Amendment agreed to.
New Division 6A agreed to.
Clauses 27 and 28, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 29:
Mr ELFERINK: I move amendment 50.3. I move that clause 29(2) be omitted and replaced as set out in the amendments schedule. Clause 29 deals with amendments to the Marine Act. Schedule 2 of that act sets out amendments to the Marine Board and Navigation Act 1881 of South Australia in respect to the continued application in the Northern Territory. Clause 29(2) is being amended so that Schedule 2 is to be amended rather than Schedule 1. This was an incorrect reference. It is being amended by splitting the proposed amendments concerning sections 263 and 265 into separate amendments. This appears necessary because one amendment uses the upper case for ‘Magistrate’ and the other the lower case for ‘magistrate’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 43, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 50.4. I move that the schedule to the Local Court (Related Amendments) Bill 2016 be amended by removing the proposed amendment to the AustralAsia Railway (Third Party Access) Act and replacing it with the amendment set out in the amendment schedule. This new provision makes it clear that the amendment relates to the code contained in the schedule to the AustralAsia Railway (Third Party Access) Act.
I also move amendment 50.5. I move that the schedule to the Local Court (Related Amendments) Bill 2016 be amended by removing the proposed amendment to the Liquor Act and replacing it with the amendments set out in the amendment schedule. The amendment is being made to include an amendment to section 101ZC(2), replacing reference to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction with a reference to a Local Court.
I further move amendment 50.6. I move that the schedule to the Local Court (Related Amendments) Bill 2016 be amended by removing the proposed amendments to sections 5(1)(b) and 11(1) of the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act . These amendments are now unnecessary because of the amendments made by the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vulnerable Witnesses) Act 2016. That bill commenced operation prior to May 2016.
I further move amendment 50.7. I move that the schedule to the Local Court (Related Amendments) Bill be amended by including an amendment to the Youth Justice Act as set out in the amendment schedule. The amendment is being made to remove cross-references to recognizance. These provisions to which these cross-references may have been referring are repealed by the Local Court (Repeals and Related Amendments) Bill 2015.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Congratulations, Attorney-General. It has only taken you an hour, but you have successfully cleared the gallery.
Amendments agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
BUILDING AMENDMENT (OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATION) BILL
(Serial 152)
(Serial 152)
Continued from 10 February 2016.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I thank the advisers and departmental staff who provided the opposition with a briefing on this important bill. The opposition supports this legislation before the House today.
This legislation has been developed over a long time. It is important legislation which provides a way forward in relation to occupancy permits in the Northern Territory. It is not a reward for those who may have ill complied in the past. There are 3000 circumstances in the Northern Territory where buildings do not fully comply. The process of this legislation will amend to allow three tiers of occupancy compliance certificates, which will help address this issue.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Building Act to establish new administrative arrangements to resolve issues relating to the issuing of certificates of occupancy where a building permit has expired, and create two new categories of occupancy certificates in addition to the exiting single category we currently have of occupancy permit.
The situation today – I have spoken before about how we have a significant backlog of unresolved applications for building occupancy permits – has its roots in changes to the building certification process dating back to 1993. At that time there was a shift to building certification services being provided by the private sector in company with the adoption of a National Construction Code in the Northern Territory. This, combined with the continuing growth of the Northern Territory over this period of time and the growth in building works across the Territory, saw the constant challenge of providing building certification across the Territory. It led to a growing number of unresolved building certifications.
As the minister has noted, 2006 saw further changes, when the issuing of an occupancy permit was conditional on full compliance with prescriptive acts and regulations.
This is an important piece of legislation because often a person’s home is the biggest asset they will own. Often, in the case of businesses, the building can be that business’s biggest asset.
Additionally, over time we have seen a concurrent continuing increase in the number of circumstances where building permits for construction activity have expired, further complicating closure of outstanding applications for occupancy permits.
In government, Territory Labor sought to address the problem, which included a continuing moratorium on prosecution of building owners for failure to comply with certification, which was not assisted by the huge growth in demand for building certification services and administrative delays in dealing with applications for occupancy permits.
As I said, I am advised that there are 3000 circumstances across the Northern Territory where buildings do not comply with the requirements for building occupancy. Some of these shortcomings are minor; they might include a window frame that is slightly smaller percentage-wise than it should have been. Other shortcomings could be more serious, for example, door access and emergency exit issues that must be rectified.
Members would agree that it is an administrative issue that needs to be resolved, given the large number of buildings now occupied across the Territory that do not have a full occupancy permit. This is an important issue in terms of ensuring health and safety of all building occupants and visitors. It has strong implications for property owners in regard to the capacity to insure buildings and the market value of properties.
I understand that departmental staff have worked hard with industry, including detailed discussions over the past two years to find an effective way forward to resolve these issues. I take the opportunity to thank them for the briefings they have provided me to understand this complex legislation. As a consequence of their hard work, we have before us amendments to the legislation that aim to establish more options for Territorians to facilitate building certification.
It is essential to the new arrangements that in relation to all categories of occupancy certification the building works must be suitable for occupation. We have been given assurance that essential health and safety requirements will be met. These are critical points that have swayed us not to oppose the legislation through the new arrangements. These are untested in other Australian jurisdictions, as we understand, but these amendments are designed to create pathways to building certification while reflecting the true level of compliance achieved by building works. Where a building permit has expired, that compliance will be assessed against the building standards required at the time of construction as was intended at the time.
Section 38 expands the role of the building certifier to include granting Certificates of Substantial Compliance and Certificates of Existence. The new section 72 provides for an occupancy permit to be made if the building permit is no longer enforced and the building certifier has determined the essential elements have been completed subject to regulations.
A Certificate of Substantial Compliance applies where building works comply substantially with the building permit and legislative requirements, are suitable for occupation and meet relevant technical standards subject to regulations. A Certificate of Existence will only apply to building works completed before the bill commenced, and is also subject to regulations.
It is important to pick up that there has been a continuing moratorium in place, which will finish on June 30 this year. Therefore, this legislation is intended to be enacted on 1 May and will allow a period of a couple of months to allow buildings to be assessed and receive compliance before the moratorium expires. It is also for buildings already caught up in the process, not for new buildings – those which are part of the moratorium.
Conditions include that all building works require building authorisation under a relevant building law in force in the Territory at the time the building work was carried out. An application for this certificate can also be made for unauthorised building works and works that do not substantially comply with the legislative or technical requirements, but ultimate approval will be dependent on the recommendation of the building certifier. This legislation will hand that to the experts in building certification.
I am assured that the regulations referred to in the bill will properly prescribe information relevant to a Certificate of Substantial Compliance and Certificate of Existence.
We have been provided with a copy of the guidelines. These are still in draft form, but it was good to see them. I understand they are being worked through by the relevant department’s staff and industry stakeholders.
Minister, were electricians and plumbers notified regarding post-construction compliance? Obviously building authorities have been heavily involved, but with OH&S issues around plumbing and electricity, has that been taken on board?
For many properties the new certification arrangements will provide a timely opportunity to acknowledge and reflect the level of compliance achieved by existing building works. It is important to note that a key feature of the new arrangement is to harness the market value of a property to provide an incentive for compliance with building regulations. The level of compliance will be reflected when someone goes to sell their property. Hopefully, it will encourage people to go that step further and get their building fully compliant so they can get the full market value.
Owners will have a financial incentive to maximise building compliance to maximise their market value. The new arrangement will also realise an extension on the principle of buyer beware. For the first time the buyer will have a better definition of the level of building certification attached to a property, and, importantly, what further work may be required to achieve a higher level of certification. If an occupancy certificate was not issued previously, or people were unsure of what needed to be done to gain that certificate, this tiered system will give them more understanding and they can be fully informed when purchasing a property. For many people, purchasing a business or a home is one of the biggest financial outlays they will make.
One of the questions we still have is about the insurance sector and how it will respond to the new arrangements, but it is likely that a high level of compliance will, over time, also influence insurance premiums. I understand we are one of the first jurisdictions to take this legislation on board, so it will be interesting to see how the insurance sector responds over time.
Earlier I touched on the safety of electrics and plumbing. When we raised questions on core health and safety, the departmental staff assured us that issues like fire safety would be monitored rigorously.
One of the reasons we are supportive of this legislation is that we are assured of full compliance for public buildings, such as hospitals, schools, emergency shelters and other essential public facilities.
This legislation has been developed over a long time. We urge caution for the minister in the roll-out of it. It is tight time frame; it is mid-March and we are debating the legislation, and I assume it will be passed today. It is intended that this legislation will begin on 1 May and the moratorium will finish on 30 June. We urge the government not to speed ahead for the sake of being able to tick the box, but to have caution, because it is an important, valuable change to legislation.
The industry and community expectations regarding a user-friendly system – it will be interesting to see any bottlenecks while this legislation is put in place. People may jump at the opportunity to make sure their property has one level of compliance. Health and safety requirements will be ongoing and will require monitoring by certifiers and the department.
We will be keeping a close eye on this. We have seen a copy of the draft guidelines, about which there are still a few questions. I understand there will be consideration in detail amendments today, which the department and the minister’s office kept us fully informed of as they stepped out. We look forward to seeing those in the House today.
We support this legislation and look forward to progress in providing adequate protection to building owners and occupiers across the Northern Territory.
Mr HIGGINS (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support the legislation and think it has been a long time coming. However, I would like to – and I know other members are of the same view – see the success or otherwise of these amendments reviewed in two years’ time. It is something we have to keep a close eye on.
I will give you some background of some of the things that happened in the rural area which people might want answers to. The first is that we recently sold the Daly River Mango Farm. One of the things I knew when I purchased the property, and when I sold it, was that all the documentation relating to that property had no buildings because there is no building code there. Basically, if people in these areas want to build, they just go ahead and build. I want to know if we will extend this at some point into those areas and how we would gradually implement it into those areas.
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr HIGGINS: The member for Nelson is rumbling. He has built a few buildings at Daly River. They would never meet any compliance.
Mr Wood: A chook shed. They are exempt.
Mr HIGGINS: Yes. If I go back a few years, I had a property at Howard Springs on which was – this is the best way I can describe it – a horse stable. There were four posts, some tin over the top and the horse lived in it. According to the plans it was a hayshed. Some of the people in the rural area, I am sure, would rely on the definition of a hayshed as opposed to somewhere a horse might stand. I want to know if the legislation picks up on some of that. I am sure it does.
We also had a chook house which was built to cyclone code anyway because it was made out of besser blocks and it was core filled …
Mr Wood: That is not a chook house!
Mr HIGGINS: It had lights, fans and everything in it. We look after our chooks, not like the chook farmer I know from Howard Springs.
Because it was less than 5 ft, it did not need to comply. I want to know whether some of these types of sheds fall into that category.
There is an old rule or exemption regarding garden sheds. People know what I mean by garden sheds. If they were 3 m2 or less you did not need to build those to code, but that was only in certain areas. If you took somewhere like the Howard Springs Hardware …
Mr Wood: When it existed.
Mr HIGGINS: When it existed. It was not allowed to sell them unless they asked where the people would erect these buildings. It had a small area it was selling to and it was controlled. If you were putting one up in the larger rural area or the further out rural area, you did not need it. If you go to Stratco you can buy those exact same sheds that are not to code. They do not need to ask you where you are going to build it. My son built a house in Girraween. He had approval for a shed which did not have any sides. It was a huge shed and was built to code. All they did was fill the inside with cool room panelling. A company in Queensland supplies the cool room panelling, with the doors, windows and everything in it. I am sure that does not comply. How it will in the future, I am not sure.
It is interesting; some of this needs picking up. When we sold a property at Daly and started looking for somewhere closer to Darwin, we did not want to come closer than 100 km and we ended up at 60 km; we did not want to come too close and be corrupted. We found a lot of houses that we liked where the home was fine, but the price was overinflated on the basis that they had a second dwelling down the back, which was not to code and they were renting to people. I came to the conclusion that it was not a good look for a politician to buy a property that had an illegal structure. The cost was such that for me to bulldoze it would build into the cost of purchasing the property. They were basing their price on the fact they were earning an income from this building.
The concern has been raised in regard to insurance and I agree with that. Over the next couple of years we need to keep a close eye on insurance premiums and how this affects those premiums. A lot of this legislation is in so that during cyclones we do not have a lot of rubbish flying around. We are applying these impositions on people with their housing, but are we controlling what people in the rural people leave lying around their blocks? We need to lift our act in that area. There are more pieces of iron and rubbish laying on people’s properties that will create bigger problems than these sheds being blown down.
I support the legislation. There are a couple of questions people in the rural area have concerns about and want answers to. Do they need certification to some level with the old three-by-three shed, the chook houses less than 5 ft or the hayshed for their cattle?
I support the legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly for dobbing in his son for panels on the shed. I am sure the member for Fong Lim has taken note of that …
Mr Higgins: He sold it.
Mr WOOD: He sold it; that is all right. We have a pretty good description of the rural area. In regard to garden sheds – I worked in hardware for a long time – you could buy a standard garden shed as long as it was 20 m from the boundary and was 3 m2. The theory was it would collapse in a cyclone. I do not know if that was tested. There were some exemptions, but whether they still exist I do not know.
Some people might remember another chicken: Red Rooster at Tennant Creek. That is where this started. Madam Speaker would have had something to do with this when she was in opposition, I think, because she mentioned quite a number of government buildings in Tennant Creek that did not come up to scratch. We thank Madam Speaker for bringing that to our attention because from then on they decided to look at every building in the Territory. That has culminated in this legislation today.
From Red Rooster in Tennant Creek we have these amendments today. Chickens have shown …
Mr Higgins: Come home to roost.
Mr WOOD: Yes, they have come home to roost. Very good, member for Daly.
That is where it started, and it has been a difficult road for both governments. There is no doubt, especially in the rural area – that is why I am interested in this legislation. Minister, I support this good legislation and I appreciate it coming back. I raised with certifiers I have spoken to that this should be reviewed in two years. It has taken a long time to get here and I have no doubt there will be issues with it working. It is a good attempt to solve problems with buildings that do not come up to standard but can with a few changes.
It will not cover the hayshed or horse shed. The government needs to use some common sense when it comes to older buildings, especially in the rural area, and not only the Darwin rural area. I imagine that in places like Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek there are some buildings which have been sitting at the back end of blocks for many years and were probably never certified. Time will change things; those buildings will eventually disappear.
People today understand that you have to build a shed to code. You do not see many people putting up a do-it-yourself hayshed or chook shed anymore. Most people buy the materials and have it certified. In the rural area, eventually these building will either fall down or be knocked down by new owners. The practicality of chasing people – I went past Andrews Road the other day and I do not think everything was to standard there, but I do not think that is a big deal. Eventually those buildings will go.
___________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 5 classes from Essington School, accompanied by their teachers, Mrs Kate Kain and Ms Marie Noonan. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________________
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, that is three out of four that you got right today.
We talk about three forms of certification, but we have two new ones we have been asked to discuss today. One is the Certificate of Substantial Compliance. The second reading said about 1000 building permits had been lodged but no occupancy permits. There are many buildings where people have either never bothered to get around to the occupancy permit or there have been changes to the building. Some of those could be minor, as the member for Nightcliff said. Someone might have put in a window or added something to the side of the house. The house has been built to code, but the changes – maybe a new door has gone in. That type of change does not necessarily make a change to the building itself, although it could if it was a major change, but it can be certified. That has to be looked at. It has to comply with the regulations in the act.
It says under 72B:
- (1) A building certifier must not grant a certificate of substantial compliance in relation to building work unless: …
Go down to (e):
- (e) the building work complies with any further criteria prescribed by regulation.
We do not have those regulations yet, minister. I might be wrong. I am interested to see what those regulations are when they are released.
We have been told that the Certificate of Existence, which some of us in the place need, will help in relation to buildings for which:
- (1) An application for a certificate of existence may be made to a building certifier by the owner of a building or by the owner's agent.
(2) An owner or owner's agent may apply for a certificate of existence in relation to building work (existing building work):
- (a) carried out in or on a building of a class prescribed by regulation; and
- (b) completed before the commencement of this Division.
I understand this will help with buildings that have been built but perhaps do not come up to the code. This is an area where someone will have to make a decision as to whether that building does comply. I should quote from the second reading speech to get the right words. It says:
- … these amendments as they introduce some flexibility within the current certification system in order to resolve certification impasses without compromising its integrity. The integrity of the building certification system will not be compromised as, at present, unapproved building works have not undergone any form of assessment. By introducing a mechanism whereby the work can be assessed and determined to be suitable for occupancy, public safety is expected to be enhanced.
One of the issues there is the risk and liability of the certifier. Obviously a certifier will have to make a decision about a building to see whether it will comply with reasonable levels of safety, health and amenity. That will also have to be approved. My understanding is the director will give the final approval, from what I read in relation to this. An application can be made for unauthorised building works. The director can grant or refuse that. The Certificate of Existence will require some risk by the certifiers in ticking off a building. I am interested to know if the government is willing to assist certifiers to reduce that risk. They do not want to get sued for giving a tick to a building that blows over in a cyclone. I am not saying they are that silly, but certifiers have a role to play in making sure a building complies with safety and health. I am interested in the minister’s comments in relation to the liability that could place on a building certifier.
Thank you for your department’s briefing; it was excellent. I went to Master Builders Northern Territory and had a meeting with David Malone. I received some top information and guidance from asset services, Sam Nixon and Mike Hatton, who gave me a rundown of how it will work in practice and some of the issues that would be involved. They gave it support as well. They felt the government had done a good job. Government spent a lot of time getting to this point. They would also support a review. They say this legislation has to be tested and has to go through some trial and error to make sure it works properly. When you have certifiers like those two people saying they believe it is a good piece of legislation, people like me who are not experts in this field feel more comfortable saying it is good legislation.
Government could look at promoting house insurance. People have to understand that if you put a new window in or change something on your house, there is chance that if a cyclone comes and someone finds out that change has not been given the tick of approval by a certifier, your insurance can be challenged. An insurance company might say the house that blew away did not come up to the correct standard and did not have a certificate of occupancy to cover the new door into the laundry, the new window in a wall, or a new addition to the house.
One thing my meeting with the MBA emphasised was that people need to understand that if they have unapproved additions to the house they can risk their insurance. That needed to be said in parliament and perhaps it needs publicity because people may become lackadaisical and think adding something to the house is fine when, in fact, you could risk your household insurance. That would be disastrous after a cyclone.
Minister, I looked at your amendments. Section 166AA is acquisition on just terms. Why is it in the bill? It says:
- If the operation of this Act would, apart from this section, result in an acquisition of property from a person otherwise than on just terms:
(a) the person is entitled to receive from the Territory the compensation necessary to ensure the acquisition is on just terms; and
(b) a court of competent jurisdiction may decide the amount of compensation or make the orders it considers necessary to ensure the acquisition is on just terms.
That applies in many cases; however, why has it been put into this bill? Was it something that should have been in the bill previously? It does not seem to have much of an explanation elsewhere. Why has that been added?
Minister, obviously you will discuss the amendments. I imagine they relate to transitional provisions. You mentioned that if transitional provisions were left unaltered it would lead to an absurd result and that is not the intended outcome of the reform. That has to do with an application in relation to building work approved or commenced before commencement – section 197. I think that is what it refers to.
There are also changes to clause 22, proposed section 195(4). In my understanding it relates to that. I am interested in some clarification on that, minister, when you move the amendments. They came in last night. I do not think there is anything contentious about it, but it would be nice to get a bit more detail on what they mean.
The changes are good. They have taken a long time, and I know this is a case where there has been consultation. The government asked people about this for a long time. It is a good example of why you do not need to rush some legislation. Get it right in the first place, add some time and, as the member for Daly said, in two years come back with a report on how it is going. You will get feedback from the certifiers and builders, and probably the homeowners, as to what they think of this legislation.
It is a bit of a test run, but we cannot wait forever to make these changes. They are needed, and if it was not for Red Rooster in Tennant Creek we probably would not be standing here today congratulating the minister. Minister, you know who to thank.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I add my support as part of the Territory opposition, and I thank the minister for what was a long journey which I was privileged to be part of.
A Labor government inherited the challenge, which started around 2006. Far more than the Red Rooster story, it was a story about the Northern Territory dealing with the built form of modern urbanism and how the challenges relate to – I used to say to the department, as a former Minster for Lands and Planning, and Construction and Infrastructure, that it is overlaying new systems on an old town. That is visible, coming from Tennant Creek, a frontier town where the built form commenced in 1931, which is quite contemporary. But in terms of the Territory it is quite an historic …
Mr Tollner: With a broken down beer truck.
Mr McCARTHY: That is a good comment from the minister, but I will not pick up on it because it will take us on a tangent that would be completely unparliamentary. However, it reflects a frontier town and the circa of that in relation to Territory history.
Let us fast forward to 2006 when Labor took up this massive challenge. That represents the incredible workload undertaken by the previous Department of Lands and Planning, and now the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, as well as the previous Department of Construction and Infrastructure, now the Department of Infrastructure.
I acknowledge those departments and the incredible work of those public servants. As a lay person, a teacher by trade, who was privileged to be given the job as a minister in both of those areas, with no engineering experience and no background in architecture or building certification, being guided and advised by those experts was an incredible experience. The scope of that work was amazing.
I remember being toured through storerooms in Palmerston where building files had been collected and arranged into a workload process that reflected the priority that emerged, which was the certification of public buildings. We had to prioritise. It was a matter of public safety in regard to the Territory constituency accessing public buildings. Those files alone took up an incredible amount of physical space. I remember the looks on the public servants’ faces when they explained to me that this was only the starting point, because layer upon layer of those files would be added to that workload.
The member for Nelson said it took a long time and considerable consultation, and it did, but it took an incredible workload from the department to get us where we are today. I feel privileged to be a part of that journey, and I thank the minister. From a lay perspective, coming from the bush and now living in a frontier town, I asked the department what the answer is in regard to buildings that cannot be certified under the normal processes. So we had to look at a compromise. It related to the initiation of a moratorium and to what we are debating in this House regarding alternative building certification processes.
I acknowledge that because it was a very commonsense approach and it is delivering for the Territory today. It is not always about cyclones. Cyclones are a very dominant weather impact on the Northern Territory. It is about the Territory and all our built form across the Territory – past, present and future. When we talk about the opportunities this legislation will bring, it relates to towns like Pine Creek, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Batchelor and Borroloola. These are our future development potentials for the Northern Territory. We must always be cognisant of holistic development opportunities in the Northern Territory.
Whilst the Top End and the socio-geographic influences of Darwin and Palmerston continue to dominate, any government needs to have a clear focus on development across the Northern Territory.
I extend a big acknowledgement, thanks and comment of enjoyment regarding that incredible learning curve and work I was privileged to participate in with those departments. The new alternative has been developed and completed under the minister and current government. I will take this story home to Tennant Creek, as the member for Nelson highlighted. Tennant Creek has been the initiator of major change in the Territory and the powerhouse of the Northern Territory across decades, producing more gross state product than Darwin. Tennant Creek at one stage had more registered businesses than Darwin.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Broadcast Access
Broadcast Access
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members and the viewing public, I have received some isolated reports associated with our parliamentary broadcast today. To access it you should go to the Department of the Legislative Assembly’s website and click on the broadcast quick link on the left hand side of your screen.
MOTION
Censure of the Leader of the Opposition
Censure of the Leader of the Opposition
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity. I encourage members of the opposition to listen to this because I intend to go through events and deals from the MUA blackmailing on Blacktip, right through to the Power and Water Corporation receiving the gas.
We have heard this week that the Maritime Union of Australia blackmailed $1m from Saipem, a barge company doing work on the Blacktip gas field. Whilst I may have said some not nice things about one NT News journalist, I acknowledge that the NT News broke this story earlier this week and opened a can of worms. As we have started to pick at the facts, more and more things have come to light. I intend to go through that now.
We all read the story in the newspaper about the $1m that had been extracted from Saipem by the MUA. We heard about the Royal Commission findings during Question Time. We did not hear until earlier this week that the $1m went into the Darwin branch of the MUA for training purposes. That was revealed to us by the local secretary, Thomas Mayor. Thomas Mayor said, ‘Nothing was underhanded. There was $1m paid for training. We were simply standing up for our members because we do not like foreign workers on foreign ships and it was all fine.’
You have to then ask the question about $1m in 2008 going into training for the MUA. You have to understand the context of this. The government spends almost $100m on training in the Northern Territory. The vast majority of that, 95%, is tied grants from the Commonwealth so it must go to Charles Darwin University, Batchelor Institute or Group Training NT. The discretionary amount this government has to spend on training is maybe $2m or $3m. It is not a big portion of that money.
In 2008, $1m going into training would have been seen as a fortune. Given the close ties between the MUA and the Labor Party, one would expect that a Labor government would be crowing from the rooftops that they managed to get $1m from this Blacktip deal, which was the biggest deal going in the Northern Territory. I thought the Labor Party would be crowing from the rooftops, saying what a wonderful thing it was to get $1m going into training seafarers and maritime workers in the Northern Territory.
There was not a mention. You can trawl through the media, newspapers and Hansard and not find any mention anywhere from 2008 of where this $1m came from or where it went. We have heard nothing from the MUA about how many people they have trained or the courses they have put them on. One of our members was a member of the MUA. He said, ‘I worked there. I did not get a cent of training money. No one trained me.’ The question is where did that money go?
On top of that, we found out today that not only was this $1m extracted from Saipem but the workers lost entitlements. They received $200 a day as an allowance for living in hard conditions on ships. The MUA, as a result of extracting $1m from Saipem, conceded that hardship allowance and allowed it to be cut back to $30. The first question one has to ask is how is it possible that the union can be arguing against its members for $1m to go into a training fund and then see their workers worse off as a result? It defies logic.
We found out that the minister at the time, Kon Vatskalis, despite the Opposition Leader saying nobody knew anything of this, caught a plane to Perth to meet with Saipem officials. We know this because parliamentary records and his diary show that he met with people from Saipem. You have to wonder what a Labor government minister was doing flying to Perth to meet with Saipem at the same time the MUA was extracting money from that company.
This is where it gets bad for Territorians. At the time, the delays in the Blacktip project cost the Northern Territory government, taxpayers and electricity users millions of dollars in extra diesel. I have a copy of the 2009 annual report, which says energy costs were $60m higher than the previous years, with distillate worth $53m. That $53m was the extra diesel we had to pay for because of the delay in getting gas to our power station. That $53m is picked up by taxpayers, households and businesses that pay for electricity through tariffs. We are not talking small numbers. That is only on the development of the Blacktip deal.
The government then purchased 740 PJ of gas over a 25-year period from Eni. Almost half of that – in excess of 300 PJ is excess to the government’s needs. Over 300 PJ is excess to what the government needed.
Mr Chandler: Why?
Mr TOLLNER: I will get to the why in a minute. You wonder why anyone would buy almost twice as much gas as they need.
So that people understand the magnitude of what we are talking about – I cannot explain the exact numbers for the deal that Power and Water made with Eni on that 740 PJ of gas or how much was extra, but in rough terms it was substantially more than 300 PJ in excess of what was needed. I cannot talk about the price of commercial-in-confidence agreements, but the standard price around the country is about $7 per gigajoule. For 300 PJ of gas, that equates to $2.1bn. That is a standard price that you would find in the marketplace. New South Wales and Queensland are paying substantially more than $7. Let us say the government did an extraordinarily good deal. It did not buy it for less than $4, but it was somewhere between $4 and $7. If it had just paid $4 per gigajoule, it bought in excess of $1.2bn worth of gas.
We live in the Northern Territory. There are 240 000 of us here, and we bought a minimum of $1.2bn more gas than we need. Who pays? Ultimately, the taxpayer and energy users pay. We have gone out on a limb. The previous government bought all this extra gas. It lumbered Territorians with bills for extra gas that we will never need. This is what they call a take or pay contract; use it or lose it. If you do not use it you lose it, but you still pay for it.
We bought excess gas that there is no possible way to use; I say ‘we’, but I mean the previous government. It was to the tune of over $1bn, all to be worn by taxpayers and power users.
Mr Chandler: Same union negotiator.
Mr TOLLNER: We will get to the unions in a minute.
These are the deals that were happening at the time. The Chief Minister today in Question Time, in response to the Opposition Leader’s question about the port, talked about the pipeline deal. What happened with that? The Amadeus Gas Pipeline was constructed 30-odd years ago at considerable cost and, fundamentally, taxpayers and energy users paid for the construction and operation of it. It was a 1500 km pipeline.
At the end of the 25-year period there was a residual amount of about $65m left to be paid. The government at the time made the remarkable decision not to pay that $65m and own the pipeline. Instead it said to its partner APT, Australian Pipeline Trust, ‘You can own it’. Rather than Territorians owning that pipeline, it was to be owned by the Australian Pipeline Trust. It was picked up for $65m – 1500 km of pipeline.
I heard the previous Opposition Leader, when I raised this a couple of years ago in parliament, say, ‘We are not in the business of owning pipelines’. Well, they are in the business of owning power stations, networks, retail businesses and everything else to do with power generation so what is the problem with owning a pipeline? All right, there is a reasonable argument to say governments should not own pipelines and should let the private sector own that pipeline for $65m.
What came after that, though …
Mr Elferink: What is the asset worth?
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, the asset’s worth – it cost $1.5bn to build.
That is garbled logic, but if you live with that you say, ‘Governments are not in the business of owning pipelines’. Fair enough.
What then followed was the gas transportation agreement which the then government negotiated with APT, which became APA. That is what happened; they negotiated a gas transportation agreement. Fundamentally, when it negotiated that gas transportation agreement, the government paid virtually what you would pay to transport gas through a new pipeline, as though it was a new asset. There was no taking into account that Territorians had already paid for that asset over the previous 25 years. We were paying near-new prices.
On top of that gas transportation agreement, Labor agreed to pay uncapped costs for maintenance and any augmentation of that pipeline. If we get a new development and we have to connect into it – we agreed to pay uncapped costs to have that happen. An outrageous deal! And at the same time as all these things happening.
The thought that the government could be negotiating multibillion-dollar deals on gas and building pipelines, and the Opposition Leader, being a senior adviser and chief of staff not knowing a skerrick about it is incomprehensible, quite frankly.
Mr Elferink: It cannot be true.
Mr TOLLNER: I do not know if it cannot be true. If it is true you have to ask the question, is this guy up to the job of running the Territory? For something of that magnitude to pass underneath the Opposition Leader’s nose and for him to not know anything about it is beyond belief.
I have never heard anybody on this side accuse the Opposition Leader of being part of these negotiations, but we all thought he had to be aware of these negotiations and discussions. You have to ask where the unions come in. The member for Nightcliff discussed the motion to suspend standing orders and said the government is a disgrace, that we put up electricity prices and did all sorts of things to Power and Water. What led to all those decisions? Why did we have to do that?
When the gas got to PWC, to the generation business, in 2008 we had the biggest electrical malfunction we have ever had in the Territory. The Casuarina substation blew up. It cost huge amounts of money. It may be coincidence – a report was done, but I have heard from a number of people within the organisation who have said, ‘Do not believe what you read. It was literally a spanner in the works.’ Some person had left a spanner sitting there; it vibrated down into the works and blew up the Casuarina substation.
The view was that it may have been done intentionally. I will not make that allegation one way or the other. When you look at the way PWC operated at the time, and the people involved, you have to start asking questions about what was going on.
PWC had employed a linesman. He was a bit of a lefty, a troublemaker. He joined the union and convinced PWC at the time that under the Labor government he should not be working as a linesman but paid to be the PWC ETU organiser. PWC gave him an office, a car and a mobile phone, and kept paying salary that in today’s dollars would be between $110 000 and $152 000 a year. Nice job being paid to be the union organiser and sit there driving the union’s goals on the PWC worksite.
In 2008 we had this incident then PWC spent a bomb of money. It borrowed $144m from the NT government. It expended another $223m. There were hundreds of millions of dollars for fixing the Casuarina substation blow-up.
PWC also brought in 100 emergency staff from all over the country to work in the organisation and those staff never left; they are still within the organisation. PWC has grown into a mammoth giant with expenditure going everywhere. It had a major blow-up and an onsite union organiser was driving the mission, dictating how it will all work. The name of that organiser is Paul Kirby.
Mr Elferink: That sounds familiar.
Mr TOLLNER: It may sound familiar to some people in this House because when we came into government and put a new CE into the job, John Baskerville, the first thing he said to Paul Kirby was, ‘You are not paid to be a union organiser. You are a linesman. Get out there and do your job.’ At that point Paul Kirby left the organisation and became the secretary of the ETU in Darwin.
The ETU then began lobbying, rallying and carrying on, running scare campaigns about this government trying to sell Power and Water and cut jobs. We were shell-shocked when we came to government at the problems contained within PWC. We had received advice from the board that they needed a massive cash injection to keep going. This came after they borrowed and spent hundreds of millions of dollars after the Casuarina substation blew up and put on an extra 100 staff, then we came into government and were advised that the whole place was about to fall to bits and PWC needed to be put on life support. Without a massive capital injection it would die.
We came to government facing $5.5bn of debt; we had a $1.1bn budget deficit thanks to all the mates over there. We were sitting there wondering how we would pay it. The only thing we could do was allow Power and Water to increase electricity charges. That was the only way we could do it; our hands were tied.
We then started doing the work, bringing in consultancy and determining what we could do to fix this organisation, bearing in mind it was paying for gas it did not use. It was paying exorbitant costs through a pipeline that was – I remember looking at the pipeline deal and wondering how it was possible. Treasury looked at it and said, ‘We cannot work it out’. I said I wanted all the information around the pipeline and they said, ‘We have been to Iron Mountain, the repository of all our information, and we cannot find anything on it’.
The deal was done by a subcommittee of the Power and Water Corporation Board and there were no minutes. There was a great deal of cloudiness and the only person who seemed to know anything about it at the time was the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Karama, who is still the only one who stands up during debate and yells. Fundamentally, she knew what was going on with it.
For a new government, there was very little information. People were warning me by saying, ‘You should not talk in parliament about the pipeline deal. That is a commercial deal so do not worry about it. Look in other places.’ It has always been at the back of my mind that something funny was going on, and now we find this. We were tipped off by the NT News in last weekend’s paper.
Ms Fyles: You like them today.
Mr TOLLNER: There is one journalist I do not like, but I do like the fact the NT News tipped us off on this issue. It has given us that little thread we can start to pull. We are now seeing everything start to unravel. We see the same players involved everywhere.
The ETU secretary at the time, before Paul Kirby got there, was a bloke called Alan Paton. Alan Paton left the ETU and went to work for Paul Henderson as the senior adviser on the Power and Water Corporation, which was his title. Straight out of the ETU, he moved into the Chief Minister’s office, advising the Chief Minister whilst all these deals were being done. The MUA was doing deals, working out what they could extract out of them. No one really cared because there was billions of dollars floating around everywhere.
The member for Nightcliff today said, ‘Nothing new here, look somewhere else. Let us get onto the real business.’ Well, member for Nightcliff, this is the real business. For four years I have been scratching my head, wondering how it is possible that the Power and Water Corporation could be in such a financial mess.
You might recall when we came into government; the first thing we found out was the asset management system of the Power and Water Corporation did not work. It was originally budgeted to cost $15m to put this asset management system in place. It cost $70m, went live in 2012 and had more than 150 major defects in it.
Then we started the structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation. That just ripped the lid off this can of worms. Not only did we find out that the asset management system had problems, but we found out the financial management system was riddled with problems and did not work. The accounts of Power and Water were a scrambled mess. Whilst it was one big monopoly, it was all contained within the organisation. The minute we started pulling it to bits and doing the structural separation, all of these things became apparent.
This was massive mismanagement by the former Labor government and its union mates, all in there on a feeding frenzy on taxpayers’ and electricity users’ money, in deals that were done over 25 years that the government is locked into. It will be almost two decades before we can extract ourselves from these deals. They are binding agreements.
We want to know who was involved. We already know a bunch of them – Kon Vatskalis was involved; he was flying to Perth to talk to Saipem. Paul Henderson was involved. The former Treasurer, the member for Karama, was involved. Alan Paton, the former ETU bloke, moved into the Chief Minister’s office as the senior adviser on PWC, so he was involved. Paul Kirby, ETU secretary, was involved. He is now the candidate for Port Darwin, which is a disgrace.
These are the people Labor cuddles up to and calls comrades. Only a few weeks ago we saw the MUA boasting on its website it is now a sub-branch of the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory and it has 10% of the vote – in your party, member for Nhulunbuy. Are you happy with that? You can rub shoulders with these people happily and accept their votes at party room meetings. To me it is a disgrace.
The Leader of the Opposition, in my honest opinion, knew nothing. He literally knew nothing of this and he has not been lying when he has said he knew nothing. I do not think the Opposition Leader is up to the job. The Opposition Leader is a puppet of the faceless men and women of the Labor Party, the heavyweights of the trade union movement and all the others. I do not think we will see the Opposition Leader shed any light on any of this. I think he knows nothing.
We still have to ask these questions and get to the bottom of this nonsense. If we do not hear answers to questions it is my strong view that the Chief Minister should launch an inquiry into this whole matter, not just the MUA deal on Blacktip but the process that saw Blacktip gas arrive at the PWC, which culminated in the 2008 Casuarina substation blow-up. We need answers to the lot.
I fundamentally believe Labor members may well get their way. We may well end up with a judicial inquiry into this matter. I encourage the Chief Minister to launch that and start scratching around.
It appears the Stella Maris inquiry only scratched the surface of this unholy relationship between Labor and the unions. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence tells an enormous story about his capability to lead the Northern Territory.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am proud to defend unions today, although it is entirely regrettable we are in a censure motion that we do not support. This is clearly a distraction from Government Business. I hope that in Adelaide my 94-year-old mother, Mrs Jess Chambers, is watching this debate. I have left her a message to log on and watch it.
The reason I want my mother to watch this debate is she has been a union member all her working life. She was a career nurse who devoted decades of service to looking after soldiers as an Army theatre nurse, delivering babies, riding her bicycle around the streets of Manchester in the UK, and being the matron in charge of a small country hospital in South Australia.
She has given much advice to my three sisters and me, but the best advice she ever gave us was to make sure we joined a union. ‘The union will look after you, protect your rights and entitlements and advance your role as women and as workers.’ My mother having been a member of the nurses’ union in the UK and Australia for her entire working life, I took that advice. I was a nurse when I left school, so I was a member of the ANMF. I went to university and became a member of the ASU. I became a teacher and a proud member of the AEU, and I am a proud member of the Australian Services Union. I will continue to be a union member. I see paying my dues as a wise investment.
Those who do not join a union still enjoy and benefit from the many workplace conditions that have been fought for, even died for, because of unions. I have had enough of the grubby talk from this government, for years, about unions. Three-and-a-half years ago this government was elected to govern under Chief Minister Terry Mills, who has long since left this parliament after being stabbed in the back by the member for Braitling. Three-and-a-half years down the road they have stopped governing. They have given up and forgotten what their job is. I think the last three days in this parliament is evidence, and after this the parliament sits for a further six days, then two weeks of estimates and one final day, before we go to an election.
Given our proximity to an election, I expect more of this government and expect its members to behave like one – Territorians expect the same – but they do not. This is clearly a distraction strategy to take the spotlight off themselves and the fact they have given up on governing. They do not know how to govern and have lost Territorians’ trust.
Let us look at the facts; these are very serious and scurrilous allegations with no basis towards the member for Fannie Bay, a story that has been cooked up about these Blacktip negotiations. The matter raised by the CLP refers to discussions conducted between Eni, Saipem and the WA branch of the MUA from approximately 15 August 2008 to approximately 7 November 2008. The Royal Commission report corroborates those facts and dates.
Michael Gunner was elected as the member for Fannie Bay on 9 August 2008. He was elected before those negotiations took place. He had no involvement with the negotiations between a WA union official and a subcontractor to Eni – none whatsoever. In the general overview of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption preamble, it states at paragraph 4:
- The case studies examined have revealed widespread misconduct that has taken place in every polity in Australia except for the Northern Territory.
This is the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. That is what it says in black and white.
The CLP is simply trying to conduct a smear campaign because it is so terribly, desperately afraid of losing the August election. Consecutive and very negative polling results are feeding and driving that fear.
The Leader of the Opposition has said in relation to the CLP’s attempt to smear him that he was not involved. It is that simple. He was not involved; he has said so.
That is unlike the member for Katherine, who only last month had to resign because he was involved in a dodgy deal for personal gain. It is also unlike the member Greatorex, who used taxpayers’ money to fund a night out on the drink in a Tokyo with a bar bill of some $5000. Let us call it for what it is …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order! That is incorrect. It was not taxpayers’ money. I ask that you correct the record.
Ms WALKER: I suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, you use standing orders to make a personal explanation. You are the Speaker at the moment; you are not the member for Greatorex.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, I ask that you withdraw that comment. It is incorrect and misleading of the parliament.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I ask that the member withdraw that incorrect information. It has been rebutted time and time again in this parliament, and they continue to try to get people to believe it was taxpayers’ money when, in fact, it was not.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, I ask that you withdraw that comment, please.
Ms Walker: I wish to speak to the point of order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, there is no speaking to the point of order. You can dissent …
Ms Walker: I will speak to the point of order. The reality is the bill was paid on a taxpayer-funded credit card. That is a fact, Mr Deputy Speaker. These comments refer to the member for Greatorex.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, I have asked that you withdraw the comment. You can make a personal explanation at another time if you so desire.
Ms Walker: No, you can make the personal explanation. And I withdraw.
_____________________
Suspension of Member
Member for Nhulunbuy
Member for Nhulunbuy
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, please leave the Chamber for one hour pursuant to Standing Order 49.
_____________________
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was surprised to hear the member for Nhulunbuy raise this issue.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Nhulunbuy is still in the Chamber. I thought you gave her instructions to leave.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member for Nhulunbuy to remove herself immediately.
Mr ELFERINK: I wonder what the member for Nhulunbuy’s mum would think of a Royal Commission that reported the union movement was corrupt in every jurisdiction in Australia except the Northern Territory. I would be shaking my head if I was a long-term serving and faithful union member. I would also be shaking my head if I had heard, as a long-term faithful union member, that a deal had been struck between Saipem and the MUA, which had the effect of reducing allowances paid to staff working on the Blacktip deal from $200 to $30 a day. That would be an unacceptable outcome.
A part of that arrangement was the MUA when it was in the process of extorting $1m of training money from Saipem, which was working in the Northern Territory. We have now heard from the MUA that money found its way into the Northern Territory subsequent to the delivery of that report by the Royal Commission.
Instead of having the Royal Commission exonerating the Northern Territory’s position it now might be the case that the Royal Commission, if it had the power to do so, would revisit the arrangements in the Northern Territory and ask some questions about the $1m training money that has found its way back into the Northern Territory after being extracted from a Northern Territory project. The extraction occurred in Western Australia. That is the difference.
Who was in Western Australia at the time money was being extracted from Saipem? Was it the minister, Kon Vatskalis? Who was the chief of staff to minister Kon Vatskalis? Maybe it was the current Leader of the Opposition. Can you imagine? I ask everybody in this Chamber to think about this and imagine the meeting between Saipem and Kon Vatskalis. Let us pretend the Leader of the Opposition was not there at the time. Kon Vatskalis walks into the room and there is the usual shaking of hands; they sit around the table and have a cup of tea. ‘How is it going?’ says Kon Vatskalis. Saipem, which has just been extorted for $1m, says, ‘It is going fine. We are not going to mention anything.’
That is what we are being asked to believe. If Kon Vatskalis had been told by Saipem in that board room, or wherever it was, that $1m was being extracted from them, the Leader of the Opposition would have known. It would have come back.
We are being asked to believe that this extraction of cash by the MUA from Saipem, a company trying to work in the Northern Territory as a 40% owned subsidiary of Eni which was laying the Blacktip pipeline, one of the biggest projects in the Territory’s history – it will not mention the fact it is being stuffed around by the MUA. If I was in a company the first thing I would say is, ‘Goodness me, minister; you will not believe what is being asked of us by the MUA. If we don’t comply with that process they will slow down the project. You need to know that, minister.’ No, Saipem said, ‘Nice cup of tea, minister? Things are going well.’
From the position of the Saipem board and Eni, I would say, ‘Goodness me, minister; the project is under threat because if we don’t pay $1m to the MUA your project timelines won’t be met and you’ll be spending millions of dollars more on diesel to get your generators running.’ Place yourself in that environment and ask yourself if Saipem would have raised those issues. Of course Saipem raised those issues. Of course it did not want a public fight with the person paying its bill so Saipem would not raise it publicly, but it is not conceivable that Saipem or Eni did not raise the issue with the government of the day. I would have raised it if I was in that position, because it would have cost the government of the day millions and embarrassed the government’s contracts in that construction phase. We hear the Sergeant Schultz defence from the member opposite – ‘I know nothing.’
He is not even here to reply to this. He leaves it for other people because he does not want to answer more questions. Why? Because when you answer questions, as he attempted to do on radio today, and are not being truthful about the process you end up creating more holes for yourself. We have seen it in the witness box and where people try to explain stuff away and all they do is create more trouble for themselves. The only way to deal with that is to zip the lip. Can I hear the Leader of the Opposition? No, I cannot.
The strategy upstairs has been to tell the Leader of the Opposition, ‘Say nothing. Do not go near the issue.’ That has been a consistent approach from the get-go. An intended member of parliament in the form of a candidate for Blain punches out a window – ‘That is very naughty; you shouldn’t do that. You should pay that money back.’ That is it? A bit naughty? Where is the outrage that I expect from the members opposite, and the screaming hysteria about violence in the workplace? It is all right when it is a Labor person.
Is the language of the union finding its way into the Labor Party? Oh, yes it is. We hear it in the use of the term ‘dog’. In this parliament yesterday I heard a number of Labor people call members of this House dogs. That is the language of militant unionism in this country and it is weaving its way through the Labor Party. Now the government of the day’s members are dogs. That is not acceptable. It is deeply offensive, not so much because I am offended receiving it, but I am offended by the intent of the utterance of the word in the first place. It is the language of militant unionism.
The head of the NT POA, Phil Tilbrook, recently tried to obtain money from a trust account which is held in trust by prison officers who settle the money on trust in their own association’s constitution. That constitution makes it clear that the trust money is there for the benefit of the intended beneficiaries, namely the prison officers who pay into the account. It is there for purposes of bereavement, looking after prison officers who may find themselves the subject of legal action or helping prison officers who may have run out of sick leave to give them extra cash.
How much money is in the account? It is in the order of $900 000. Without formally circulating an agenda item, what does the NT Prison Officers Association do? It has its annual general meetings, one in Darwin and one in Alice Springs. Whilst not in a circulated agenda there is suddenly a motion off the floor, magically, while Mr Tilbrook excuses himself from the room to give the appearance of decency and objectivity. He excuses himself and there is a motion off the floor which says we should touch that trust account and spend $5000, which is for bereavement and legal purposes, on Tilbrook’s personal election campaign.
The Darwin branch says, ‘Yeah, we will sort that out’. They ask the people at the Alice Springs branch and they say, ‘Hang on, that is not what the money is for’, and they object.
Subsequent to that time I have received a number of other complaints from prison officers, who I respect. They have come to me with issues, which has given me no option but to refer the matter to the Director-General of Licensing, who oversees the Associations Act. It concerns me that the trust account is being touched in ways which are inappropriate. What do we hear in relation to that from the Leader of the Opposition?
Surely he must condemn the idea that a trust account is being touched by his own candidates. Not a word is uttered. It is excruciating to see a Leader of the Opposition simply ignore that component of what is occurring on his watch.
We have just heard from the Treasurer that the candidate for Port Darwin was on the PWC’s public nipple to the tune of $150 000 a year to look after union interests. When that money is cut, does he go back to being a liney? No, he just fronts up to the ETU. That was money from people who paid it towards their electricity bills and expect them to be paid, and we hear that the union rep who was being paid for by the people paying for their electricity bills could not go back to being a liney. No, he will not sit on the ETU benches until such time as he can find his way in here and become a politician. It is unionist after unionist.
It bothers me that the Leader of the Opposition is not showing any restraint around those things. We just heard the defence from the member for Nhulunbuy, ‘Unions should not be questioned’. That was her opening line. ‘I am proud to be unionist. You cannot question us.’ Well, we do question you because there are things unions do that are, in essence, unlawful.
Let us go through the Stella Maris deal, yet again. Will the Leader of the Opposition condemn what occurred in the Stella Maris deal? He certainly used it to wedge his way into the Leader of the Opposition role to make sure the member for Karama was not only removed from the leadership but cast out of the party. Good. Here is the other point. Where is the inquiry he is demanding into what happened around the deeper issues of Harold Nelson Holdings?
What people do not remember, or conveniently overlook, about the Stella Maris deal is that the unions and the ALP shared similar offices on the union- and ALP-owned premises in Woods Street. The unions were offered a public building rent free for 10 years and were about to move in. The Woods Street site was to be demolished and redeveloped to the advantage of the owners. One of the owners was Harold Nelson Holdings, which is the financial vehicle for which the Labor Party funds its money. There was never an apology for that.
It meant that hundreds of millions of dollars would pour into the Labor Party’s coffers. Where would the unions go? They would sit in a building owned by the public for 10 years, rent free. The Leader of the Opposition says nothing about that either. The militancy of these unions is growing. The Leader of the Opposition should, if he wants to convince Territorians of the integrity he claims to have, say the MUA is no longer or should no longer be part of the Northern Territory Labor Party, and certainly not contain the 10% voting rights it brags about.
The MUA directly threatened the viability of a Territory-run project at the expense of workers on the project and at the threat of having the Territory taxpayer continue to pay for diesel at an inflated cost to gas because the project would be held up. The Leader of the Opposition says nothing. There are inconsistencies about whether he was there or not. He was either on holiday, working as a staffer or, depending on the timeline people are quoting, already a member of the Labor backbench at the time. Those stories are inconsistent.
Let us accept that he knew nothing, that the Sergeant Schultz defence applies; that is easy. The next message to send is, ‘I will not accept a penny of that money that was extorted from Saipem by the MUA’. That is all you have to do, put out a press release to say you will not accept that money. If you were not complicit before, you now are by knowledge. You are complicit going forward because you know the details, Leader of the Opposition. Wash yourself clean of that complicity.
Say to Territorians, ‘I will not accept that the MUA is in my party, and I will not extend the money that was extorted out of Saipem at the risk to the Northern Territory’. That is all he has to do and he will have washed himself clean. But will we hear him support that motion today in the Chamber?
That is one of the reasons I support censuring the Leader of the Opposition. He is not taking the necessary steps to wash himself clean. He is not taking the necessary steps to deal with Labor candidates such as Phil Tilbrook who used government resources to pay for their own campaign.
Phil Tilbrook was on duty, using government e-mail systems to actively promote the interests of the Labor Party. Moreover, he was saying to people within the prison system who received those e-mails, ‘Vote for me at the next election because I will look after your interests’.
If John Elferink, the member for Port Darwin and Attorney-General, sent out an e-mail to the people in Health saying, ‘Vote for the CLP at the next election’, there would be screeching headlines of corruption. The members opposite would be screaming from the rafters for my head, and rightly so, if I was using the government e-mail system to promote the interests of the Country Liberal Party.
No such noise has come from the members opposite regarding their candidate doing this. They think the public’s property is theirs to dispose of as they see fit, whether it is smashing a window with their fist, using government e-mail, touching a trust account, taking money from a government contractor or giving rent-free accommodation to unions. It is all about, ‘What’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine’.
At the heart of this is a Leader of the Opposition who repeatedly says he will run a clean government. I am not seeing much evidence of him running a clean opposition. I have heard the comment that we are behaving like an opposition today; we are, in a very important way.
Since 2012, 23 censure motions have been launched in this parliament. This is the first, if memory serves me correctly, run by government on members opposite. I am opposing unions using other people’s property for their own purposes. I am opposing the Leader of the Opposition, an alternative Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who either lacks the ticker, is shrouded in complicity or does not have the heart to call out things that are wrong. Yes, I oppose those sorts of things and will continue to do so. If after the next election he forms a government and is not capable of resisting the invariable pressure for unions to touch public property as their own, the Territory is in for a very tough time after the election.
It is for that reason I support the censure motion. I realise censuring an opposition is largely symbolic, but it is a message that needs to be sent. You cannot sit there as the Leader of the Opposition, the alternative Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, and not show courage in every measure in protecting the interests of the people of the Territory over all other interests, including the unions’ and the party’s. The silence from the Leader of the Opposition is a disgrace.
Mr BARRETT (Sport and Recreation): Mr Deputy Speaker, when we look at leadership we look for certain qualities. I speak to people about leadership and always say that character is the underpinning thing. It is like a pyramid, the base of which is the largest and strongest part. That needs to be based on character, which must be forthcoming in the way it upholds issues of morality and ethics. Leadership also means recognising the difference between right and wrong, staying on the right path and steering clear of the wrong path. It means deciphering, in regard to capacity and quality, a good and bad way forward for an entity. It requires multiple types of intelligence to do that.
A leader should understand themselves, their team and the context of the problems they are dealing with, and be strong enough to bring that team together to come up with quality solutions to the problems that arise.
To me, this censure is on the grounds of two things. One is the track record of the Leader of the Opposition’s leadership, and the other is the inability to rein in unions.
What will we expect from unions? I was a member of the MUA while I worked at the waterfront, the union in question in this regard. I have a high regard for the locals workers in the MUA. They are members who care about the rights and safety of people who work on the waterfront. I know Thomas Mayor and, on the whole, he does a fine job of representing people on the waterfront in Darwin.
The member for Nhulunbuy spoke eloquently about her mother and that she had been a part of various unions. At the time she was talking about, there were many examples of where union movements corrected some pretty serious wrongs in the community and the workspace. In Australia now we have a fairly solid set of regulations and acts that govern the way industrial relations take place. You cannot do things to workers now that could have been done in the time when the member for Nhulunbuy’s mother was working as a nurse.
My grandmother also worked as a war nurse. She spoke of being a young person in Glasgow and having to walk through the snow in bare feet in the middle of the night because, at 14 years of age, she had to work through the Great Depression. The hours and jobs in which she worked would not be allowed under today’s industrial relations rules and guidelines.
What do we expect from a union? We expect that a union will look after the interests of workers, especially as they pertain to negotiations around wages, conditions and safety. We look at negotiations around wages from two perspectives. What is the job structurally? In relation to the entity, has this job structurally changed and does the wage need to structurally change? We look at the Consumer Price Index and whether the wage should change in line with that.
I have been involved in enterprise bargaining agreements that involved unions. Some of them have gone very well and some not so well. On the whole, workers expect from their unions representation in negotiations that occur between employer and employee.
What we are talking about is not that. We are not talking about how the unions act on the ground with their workers, doing things with workers to alleviate concerns. We are talking about deliberate and illegal activities that unions undertake, which hurt business and do nothing for the workers they represent. They reinforce poor behaviour and go against performance management practice. They work against an employer trying to manage their staff to improve productivity. They create situations where they are not balanced, in check and working with industry. They create circumstances where our industries become uncompetitive.
This is a big problem. I have seen firsthand what happens when companies that are competing with each other – the workers from one of those companies are unionised and the others are not. I have seen situations where companies have lost contracts because of the way unions handle themselves in relation to their workers. The end result was the loss of contracts and jobs because of the way the union was conducting negotiations. It is the ugly truth of the way things go. There needs to be a balance in industrial relations in the way unions and employers interact with each other for the better of everybody concerned.
We are not living 100 years ago where industrialists were riding roughshod over the top of workers. We are in a new age where we can openly talk about equality between races and between men and women. We can understand the structural nature of a job and, therefore, the level of the job and what the wage should be. That is what society expects from a union.
In The Australian dated Thursday 17 March is a story showing that 100 CFMEU members are in court. It comes down to allegations including coercion, unlawful industrial action, intimidation, bullying and breaches of right of entry legislation. We see some serious things here.
I remember being a new person on the wharf and people there not talking to me because I was not a union member yet. ‘You can only talk to me when you become a union member.’ They once threatened me that if I went to work on a day when there might be industrial action they would probably smash my car.
That happened in this day and age and not because the employer was drastically unreasonable. It had nothing to do with our workplace. The industrial relations happening at the time referred to something that was happening in a completely different sphere, but for some reason our guys were going on strike for something unrelated to us. ‘By the way Nathan, if you get a call and turn up for a casual shift we’ll probably smash your car up on the way through the gate.’
This is the type of thing we are talking about. I did not sign something when I became a member of the MUA which said, ‘I think X percent of my union dues need to go towards the Labor Party to run campaigns against the Country Liberal Party in Darwin’. During the Blain by-election, whilst still a member of the MUA, ironically, I was paying union dues and union people were using union resources campaigning against me. I said to this guy, ‘Mate, I pay your wage. What are doing?’ The answer was, ‘Hurry up and lose this election. It’s hot out here.’
When we deal with situations where unions run rampant and unchecked, we end up in a situation with 100 CFMEU workers fronting court. People are being bullied or confronted in an aggressive manner in the workplace, and for what reason? As far as I can see the unions want to maintain control. What do we see in the Labor Party? We see the inability of the Labor Party to distance itself from that. Not only do members not distance themselves from that, many of their candidates and sitting members are powerfully tied up with the union movement. Is that how we want to run the Northern Territory?
Why are we censuring the Leader of the Opposition? It is because he shows an inability to rein in that behaviour. The Attorney-General pointed out several things today – I will not go through them again, where this thuggish, riding roughshod behaviour where the pendulum has swung – it is not industrialists doing this but the unions. This is our reality now, and if they cannot rein that back the Northern Territory will be run by a trade union.
What Bill Shorten is facing at the moment includes the following:
- Thiess John Holland: While Shorten was AWU leader, the union received $300,000 following a workplace agreement that saved the builder tens of millions of dollars on the EastLink tollway. Royal Commission has raised questions around false invoices being paid.
ACI: In June, Royal Commission asked if there was a conflict of interest in the AWU receiving nearly $500,000 from ACI while negotiating a workplace agreement.
Winslow Constructors: Questions raised about an arrangement whereby Winslow paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the AWU for union memberships, including in Shorten's time at the union.
Chiquita Mushrooms: Shorten has already been quizzed about a deal whereby Chiquita made big savings by replacing employees with labour hire workers. In return the union got $4000 a month for education leave.
CleanEvent: The relationship with CleanEvent led to the demise of Shorten's successor at the AWU, now state MP Cesar Melhem, over a deal that cost union members millions. Shorten has been quizzed over a 2004 enterprise agreement.
Unibuilt: Labour hire firm bankrolled Shorten's bid to enter parliament through an in-kind donation of payments for campaign manager. Shorten did not disclose the donation to the Australian Electoral Commission.
We talk about double standards and the fact these candidates are doing things like using the government e-mail system to promote themselves. On the weekend it drove me nuts. I was driving down the road and smack bang in the middle of Temple Terrace there was a massive Luke Gosling sign. It is illegal to put that sign where it was. I know that because the council is forthright in telling us as local members where we can and cannot advertise.
I would not do that because it is illegal. This was up on a Sunday. He knew no one would be at the council, so no one would take it down. He put it up Sunday morning and took it down Sunday afternoon because it is better to ask forgiveness than permission. He did something he knows is illegal. He knows and understands it is illegal. We are talking about nit-picky things, but this in the underlying character of the individuals we are talking about. If they are not honest and forthright in this regard, how can we trust that they will be honest in anything?
We have these connections with Shorten. He is connected to the MUA. Where has the NT Leader of the Opposition come out against this? He has not admitted at any time that he is partly responsible for poor decision-making that cost Territorians millions, as outlined by the Treasurer. He has not taken the higher ground and said that he will not take donations of any sort from the unions – track record of leadership. Everything that went down with Saipem, Eni and the gas pipeline, the agreements that were signed and everything in relation to the Amadeus Gas Pipeline being sold for a drastically low price – something is wrong.
Whenever something seems completely irrational, there are usually a few missing jigsaw pieces. We are asking the Leader of the Opposition to come out and tell us of the missing pieces of this jigsaw puzzle. Show us where the quality leadership and decision-making is. At the time these decisions were being made he was in a position of influence and authority over how these decisions went down.
If you cannot be trusted, are unable to rein in the unions, are unable to make good and solid decisions for the betterment of the Northern Territory and are unable to rein in the behaviour of these union people that are doing the wrong thing – I am not talking about union people who do the right thing. I am not talking about union people who care about the rights and safety of individuals in the workplace, as well all do. What I am talking about is 100 people facing court for thuggish behaviour and the $1m blackmailed from Saipem. I am talking about things as simple as where you put a sign. I am talking about the way unions have continually and consistently made in-kind direct investments into Labor campaigns. I know all about that. Sometimes this is done at the expense of taxpayers and their union members.
I want to know, from the ETU and Paul Kirby, who is a candidate running for the seat of Port Darwin, when we will see some money from the Electrical Trades Union for all the stickers that were stuck on every piece of electricity infrastructure in Darwin saying, ‘Not for sale’. They sit back and say, ‘No, that was not us; we do not know who did that. That was some mob from Queensland.’ It was the Electrical Trades Union. They were wearing Not for Sale shirts. It was their promotion material. They find sneaky, tricky ways to distance themselves legally. No one is fooled. It smacks of what is happening. You are wearing the very thing that is on a sticker stuck on everything.
I would love to go around to every piece of our infrastructure, clean it up then send the Electrical Trades Union the bill. They are defacing public property. Where is the Leader of the Opposition reining this in and saying it is not okay to break the law even if it is a Sunday? It is not okay to deface the living daylights out of every government asset just so you can have a crack at something that is not for sale and that we did not sell. Where is his ability to rein this in? It is not there.
He is not saying they will not take donations from groups of people who, like us, were in unions. We did not sign up to give the Labor Party money. We signed up so people could protect us if we ended up in court for something or in an unsafe situation. I do not pay union dues to the MUA so they can give money to the Labor Party to fly people to Darwin to run against me. That is not their remit.
There are 100 CFMEU members in court. They would sit here and play some line about the people on the ground needing to be in a union so they can have safety. That is not what we are talking about. They sit here with double standards, trying to look innocent while our public infrastructure is defaced. This thuggish action is not good enough. When will the responsibility be taken? When will they come out and say this is not okay? At a national and local level they are not doing that.
There are two reasons we are censuring the Leader of the Opposition, which are a poor track record of leadership and an inability to rein in unions. We are paying for gas that we do not need. Why did they buy so much gas that we did not need? Is there a missing piece of the puzzle? Was there a deal done? Are we paying a lot of money to keep something quiet? I do not know, but it was either a really bad decision or there are a couple of missing pieces which are rotten to the core. Did Labor buy more gas than was needed to sweeten the deal and cover up this blackmail we have been talking about?
The pipeline from the gas field in Mereenie, the Amadeus Gas Pipeline, was sold for $60m. The NEGI was $800m. How much does it cost taxpayers to rent it back? When will the Leader of the Opposition show some leadership and rein in the unions?
The Assembly divided.
- Ayes 12 Noes 7
Mr Barrett Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr McCarthy
Mr Elferink Ms Manison
Mrs Finocchiaro Ms Moss
Mr Giles Mr Vowles
Mr Higgins Ms Walker
Mr Kurrupuwu
Ms Lee
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
BUILDING AMENDMENT (OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATION) BILL
(Serial 152)
(Serial 152)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was talking about Tennant Creek and how it is the powerhouse of the Northern Territory, but I will move on. I think Hansard has captured that part of the story. It related to what is a sensible and pragmatic outcome for building certification in the Northern Territory, which was established and progressed under the Labor government. I have already acknowledged the minister for continuing that good work.
In relation to the two categories, I will quote from the minister’s second reading speech:
- The bill will introduce two new alternative pathways to certification. For works covered by a building permit the certifier will consider the relevant building legislation and standards that were in force at the time of the permit. If all of the conditions and requirements for an occupancy permit are not fulfilled, the building owner will have the ability to seek certification by applying for a Certificate of Substantial Compliance. The certifier must, however, be satisfied that the works comply with all relevant technical standards and were completed under a valid building permit.
- If the certifier is unable to determine that works meet the criteria for a Certificate of Substantial Compliance, the owner may apply for a Certificate of Existence. An application for this certificate may also be made if works are unapproved. The bill enables the issue of a Certificate of Existence by the Director of Building Control on recommendation by a certifier. The certifier must assess that the building works comply with a reasonable level of safety, health and amenity. It is intended that the Director of Building Control will issue guidelines under section 167B of the Building Act that will describe what is considered a reasonable level of safety, health and amenity.
I once again acknowledge the sensible and pragmatic outcome. In Tennant Creek there are many building owners who will now be able to embark on these alternative pathways to have their building certified. Tennant Creek and the Northern Territory are good examples, being a frontier part of Australia, as there are a number of buildings which were built in the 1960s and 1970s which can now be covered and normalised. Their owners will appreciate this as an outcome.
It is representative of trying to normalise this system across the whole of the Northern Territory with other centres, such as Pine Creek, Borroloola and Katherine, which will benefit from this. The members who have contributed to this debate have talked about some of the challenges and the request to review this legislation within two years. Having been part of the Labor government, it was always policy to review legislation. It was part and parcel and was always reviewed at 12 months, but in this case two years.
There needs to be more clarification around the certification process and those trained building certifiers who conduct that process. I remember when the Labor government embarked on this journey and started to work through the issues. As I travelled the Territory it was loud and clear there were not enough certifiers in the Northern Territory. Darwin and Palmerston were challenged by the sheer weight of development numbers.
The Labor land release programs that were founded and established were continued by the CLP. I have acknowledged that in the parliament before. There are no new names out there. They are all the same suburbs that were established under Labor, the master-planned suburbs. They were all started and under construction. This government has claimed them and run its spin and semantics around it.
Be what it may, it was a sheer weight of numbers that reflected the date that appears in the minister’s second reading of 2006. That was when the Territory started to understand that Darwin was the gateway to Asia and is the capital of Northern Australia. The government had to put the pedal down to make sure development reflected that growth.
We are now seeing a downturn. The Territory will pick up again. Coming from a regional area like Tennant Creek, when you look at minerals, resources and energy you know it will pick up again. It has to be acknowledged that the government will have to reflect planning for those future developments.
That 2006 figure was very real. It started then and this is a direct response that goes across the Territory. My point is about certifiers. When we talk about a holistic Territory – certifiers in the bush are difficult to find. At that time the Labor government had incentives in place to support the travel of certifiers. A good example was building certifiers travelling from Alice Springs to Tennant Creek, who were given a significant a subsidy in the form of a travel allowance.
That was an incentive for them to come to Tennant Creek to do the work. It also took care of their business expenses, which were above and beyond what they would normally incur for the same type of work in Alice Springs. But there were not enough certifiers.
In towns like Tennant Creek, and once we expand into further regions, this will become a challenge. This will need to be looked at over the next couple of years. One tip, from an old school teacher, is to look at what will encourage qualified builders and industry participants to retrain, engage in further education and become building certifiers.
The Minister for Employment and Training may want to look at that as another added positive element of this legislation, which is passing through the parliament. We need that level and type of industry and it has to be a regional approach. It cannot just be for the Top End.
This is part of the challenges coming our way. There are lots of ways to address this. As I moved around industry in the Northern Territory I appreciated the amount of mature builders. There are many very established builders across the Territory who have been on the tools for a long time. They could look at this as their next tier in the building industry and their career.
I am interested to hear what plans government has to address this issue. There will need to be a continuation or enhancement of incentives, such as travel and travel allowance, to get building certifiers moving further into the regions. We know the workload is there because the numbers have been identified in the minister’s speech and from other members who have spoken on this bill.
Minister, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. This is a good outcome. As I have said, I was privileged to be part of this process. I acknowledge the public sector employees who have worked diligently on this over many years. The nature of the work has not been easy. The work is very methodical and mundane in some respects, but they have conducted themselves as professionally as we expect, which I got to learn as a previous minister working with our public sector employees.
It has all come together; it represents the regions and a holistic picture of the Northern Territory. I agree with my colleagues and thank the member for Nightcliff and staff for doing their research and preparing our main contribution to debate. I now look forward to learning about the amendments that will be put forward by the minister.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also support the bill. I congratulate minister Tollner for getting this through parliament tonight after a long journey, which I know of as the former Minister for Lands and Planning.
One of the first files that turned up on my desk was this, and the difficulties people had across the Territory with certifying. We have talked about how we first became involved whilst in opposition, learning about what was occurring in Tennant Creek with Red Rooster. I promised a group yesterday that I would not bring any zingers into this, or mention KFC or any other chicken shop in this debate. I will not promote KFC, although I might have eaten it occasionally. Red Rooster is okay too, but it is good if they have buildings you can occupy with proper certificates.
There is an issue, so what do we do about it? I listened to the former Labor minister for Lands and Planning, the member for Barkly, and I am sure he was also frustrated with the process and the situation they were left in as a government. It is easy to point fingers, but he rightfully pointed out that in 2006 the place went through a rapid time of change and lots of building was occurring.
One issue raised with me was the fact a builder may start a project, especially an owner-builder, and have not complete it in the time expected. They are then left in a position where perfectly good work could not be certified because it was outside the time frame of the original permit. It is simple things like that. Many buildings have been built over the years and not been certified, for many reasons, and we were left with a system that did not allow them to be certified. We had a problem.
A lot of time and effort was spent by departmental staff. They did a fabulous job. They threw up ideas on what we could do. In the end we settled with a process similar to the current process where you need a building occupancy certificate provided for new builds. You needed them to have a system in place to allow people to certify buildings that have been around for a while.
I think minister Tollner said earlier that this does not mean an unsafe building will be certified. It will not happen under this system or any other system. We still expect a level of compliance and safety.
Mr Tollner: For people living in dongers in the rural area?
Mr CHANDLER: That may well be. If the certifier is willing to put their name on a certificate to say, ‘Yes, this building complies because it has withstood the last 30 to 40 years of Wet Seasons, does not look like it will fall down and is structurally sound’, there is a good chance that building will get a certificate. At the end of the day, there had to be a process in place that could catch up.
The problem I had when I was the Lands and Planning minister was what to do with the moratorium. At the time, the moratorium did not provide a carrot; there was nothing they could do under the old system. The former minister would have felt the same way, frustrated. We did not have a system that could allow some of these issues to be addressed. All the people involved in putting this together have applied some rational thought and pragmatism, and even some level of common sense. Good legislation should always include common sense.
I have a lot of information here, but I will only go over what other people have said. I do not want to speak just to get my voice on the record. At the end of the day, the minister should be commended for following through with this. We are here today, passing legislation that will provide for the first time an opportunity for many people to do what they have wanted to do for a long time, that is, get their buildings certified. It will clear up the industry and make it better for people who are selling and buying property. It is fantastic that we are here today and will get this legislation passed.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the opposition and the Independent who spoke in support of this legislation, as well as my colleagues on this side of the Chamber. I acknowledge the work put in by the former government. It saw a problem in the marketplace; however, it saw it pretty late and it took a while to act, after a lot of spurring on by the opposition. But it acted eventually so you cannot knock it too much for that.
A number of questions were raised in the debate. I have extensive answers, which I will go through quickly in response to those questions raised about the bill and, more broadly, the potential impact of these reforms.
These reforms provide a pathway for buildings that would otherwise not be able to be covered by occupancy certification to achieve compliance. The bill does not exempt, as the Education minister just said, particular classes of buildings from the requirements, nor does it require compliance from buildings that previously did not need to comply. The sheds and outbuildings the member for Daly referred to need to comply and there is no paperwork. This bill will enable two new levels of certification, which will provide a pathway for owners to comply.
Another comment was made in relation to the alteration of a large open-roof area. Where buildings are altered, for example, you have a large open-roof area and you enclose it with walls; those walls would add wind load to the structure and, therefore, require building approval.
In relation to the comment around certain exemptions, the member for Daly was correct. The building regulations exempt certain buildings if they meet minimum setback requirements. In regard to buildings constructed outside of the building control areas, there is no impact on those buildings or those areas as a result of these reforms. That will make you happy, member for Barkly.
If the government policy changed and more areas were declared to be within building control, they would be subject to some of the provisions in the act, for example, provisions around building notices and orders if there were safety issues. They would not be required to obtain certification retrospectively.
Over time declared building control areas have expanded. The existing buildings will be treated as compliant unless there are safety issues.
Regarding the question from the member for Nelson around the potential liability of certifiers, the Building Act already contains a provision limiting the liability of certifiers in section 153(2), where the certifier acts in good faith. When considering applications for new level certification, the expectation on what the certifier should do to demonstrate they have acted in good faith would be the same as it is now. That is, the certifier should clearly document how they reached a certain decision. The certifier also has existing limitations on liability when relying on a certificate issued under section 40. This could be a certificate issued by a registered structural engineer, for example.
For Certificates of Existence, the responsibility of who makes the decision rests with the Director of Building Control. Certifiers are responsible for making a recommendation to the director. However, the responsibility for granting those certificates is shared.
Plumbing and electrical installations are an integral part of buildings and the building certification process. That was a matter raised by the member for Nightcliff. They have been considered as part of these reforms. Plumbers and electricians will be consulted as part of the development of the guidelines. For assessments made about electrical and plumbing components, appropriately licensed people must undertake that work.
I will address the matter of insurance for the member for Nightcliff around the potential impact of these reforms on insurance. Insurers have their own risk policies which will affect the price and structure of the insurance they offer. Under the new system, building works undergo technical assessment and an appropriate level of occupancy certification will be granted accordingly. This should give insurers much greater confidence when insuring buildings. It enables them to more accurately price insurance on the basis of potential risk.
Acquisition on just terms, in section 166AA, provides for the acquisition of property on just terms and was inserted because the proposed new provision at 198 addresses buildings covered by Home Building Certification Fund cover.
The bill applies the 10-year Home Building Certification Fund cover to building works covered by the fund policy when the works are granted with a Certificate of Substantial Compliance in addition to the existing cover for works granted with an occupancy permit. Building works finalised by a Certificate of Existence will not be covered by that fund, as it covers only for the rectification of works that did not comply with the technical standards at the time they were built.
To ensure the Home Building Certification Fund does not inadvertently cover old works, it was essential that proposed section 198 be included, which makes it clear that the period of cover commences from the date the builder-certifier determines physical works were completed, but no later than two years from the date of grant of the initial building permit. This is because without that provision there could have been an argument made that a building that is 30 years old, or older, has a building permit and fund cover, but has not been granted an occupancy permit. It could have its cover activated on issue of the occupancy permit or Certificate of Substantial Compliance.
Because this provision is proposed to be included, the acquisition on just terms provision was recommended by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. It safeguards a new provision at 198. The provision enables the court to determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not the proposed provision constitutes an acquisition of property.
The member for Nelson asked about the regulations. They are in the drafting process. Broadly they cover the classifications of buildings to which the three levels can apply, as well as documentation that is required to make an application, and further criteria that may be prescribed for Certificates of Existence. It is proposed that all classifications of buildings are able to obtain any level of certification. However, buildings that are categorised as importance levels three and four, such as hospitals, schools, emergency shelters and buildings that accommodate a large number of people, are not able to apply for a Certificate of Existence.
The regulations are proposed to specify that, for Certificates of Existence, the building work must meet a reasonable level of safety, health and amenity. What is reasonable is proposed to be defined through guidelines, and one of the key elements of that test will be that the structure would need to meet current wind loading and fire safety standards.
In relation to Certificates of Substantial Compliance applications, the ability to make regulations in 72B(1)(e) was inserted to provide flexibility in the event that additional criteria needed to be specified in the regulations. For this level of certification the regulations specify the same documentation as is required for an occupancy permit. However, if there is missing documentation the proposed regulations specify that other documentation that demonstrates the building work to which the application relates complies with the relevant technical standards, and it will be deemed appropriate.
In relation to the review of the legislation, members also raised the possibility of ensuring the legislation is reviewed within two years. It is always imperative that government reviews legislative reforms to ensure they have been and continue to be effective and appropriate to the jurisdiction in which they operate. These reforms are no different and in that respect will be monitored from commencement and reviewed on a regular basis.
I hope that has answered many of the questions honourable members have raised on this bill. I thank you all for your contributions. They have been heard and I hope I have answered some of that. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Clauses 1 to 8, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 9:
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment 51.1.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 21, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 22:
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendments 51.2 and 51.3.
Mr WOOD: Will you put an explanation on record?
Mr TOLLNER: I am more than happy to, member for Nelson.
Amendment 51.2 is in relation to proposed section 195(4) of the bill. This proposed section relates to work carried out or approved under the 1983 Building Act. The amendment will make it clearer that it is the legislative requirements and technical standards in force at the time the building work was approved and/or commenced that will apply.
The Building Act and Regulations have been amended on several occasions and technical standards have changed almost annually. If the transitional provision was left unaltered this would lead to an absurd result which was not the intended outcome of the reforms, nor would it accord with the content in the explanatory statement.
To ensure the intent of the reforms is accurately reflected in the bill, a consideration in detail stage amendment is required. It is also necessary that the legislation is able to be modified in the event that changes to the procedure for occupancy certification applications are required. The legislation also needs to be clear as to which provisions apply and at what time. To address this, a table has been inserted which makes it clear whether a reference to the legislative requirement is at the time the building works were carried out or from time to time.
The second amendment for clause 22 is 51.3, as shown in the schedule. Amendment 51.3 is in relation to the proposed section 197 of the bill, which relates to work carried out under the Building Act of 1993.
The proposed section 197 in the bill is a transitional provision inserted to deal with applications for an occupancy permit made prior to amending legislation, but not yet decided. The intent was to enable an owner to elect to apply for any of the three levels of occupancy certification the bill will create, without the need to resubmit the application once the bill commences. Currently an owner may only apply for an occupancy permit.
As the provision is drafted, building work carried out after September 1993 and before the commencement date of the bill, would be required to comply with current standards and not the standards of the time of the approval or commencement of the work. This was not the intent.
The Building Act and Regulations have been amended on several occasions and technical standards have changed almost annually. If the transitional provision was left unaltered this would lead to an absurd result which was not the intended outcome of the reforms, nor would it accord with the content in the explanatory statement.
To ensure the intent of the reforms is accurately reflected, a consideration in detail amendment is required. The CSA provides clarity and ensures the standards that apply to the work being considered for an application are the standards applied at the time the work was approved or commenced.
It is also necessary that the legislation is able to be modified in the event that changes to the procedure for occupancy certification applications are required. The legislation also needs to be clear as to which provisions apply and at what time. To address this, a table has been inserted which makes it clear whether a reference to the legislative requirement is at the time the building works were carried out or from time to time.
I hope that answers your question, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I possibly should have asked this question during the second reading debate, but do you have any idea how many government buildings would fall into this category? You can take that on notice if you like. One of the reasons we are bringing this forward is due to issues with government buildings.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, we started with 2200 government buildings that we did not have proper certifications for. In the intervening years, and during the Labor years, a big effort was made to reduce that number. We are down into the low hundreds. I do not have an exact number on hand, but I am happy to chase that for you. I am assured they are all in the low-risk category.
The priority was the highest-risk buildings when the previous government started the work. The department has been methodical in going through those priorities so we are now down to the low hundreds.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPERS
Annual Report of Member Travel and Telephone Expenses 2015
Annual Report of Member Travel and Telephone Expenses 2015
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to the requirements of clauses 6.3 and 8.9 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2013, which applied to 2015 member travel and telephone expenses, I table the annual report to the Assembly on those matters.
Members’ Use of Fuel Cards October to December 2015 Quarterly Report
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to the Auditor-General’s recommendations, I table a quarterly report on the use of fuel cards by members for the final quarter of 2015.
Report to Assembly on a Proposal to Table Members’ Interests
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise today in my role as the Chair of the Standing Orders Committee in relation to the tabling statement regarding members’ interests. Pursuant to Standing Order 200, I table a report and the minutes of the February 2016 meeting of the Committee of Members’ Interests.
MOTION
Publish Paper – Report to Assembly on a Proposal to Table Members’ Interests
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the paper be made available in an accessible format.
Motion agreed to; paper published.
MOTION
Adopt Report – Report to Assembly on a Proposal to Table members’ Interests
Adopt Report – Report to Assembly on a Proposal to Table members’ Interests
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposal before the Assembly is that the Assembly agrees that the Register of Members’ Interests, which is compiled pursuant to the Legislative Assembly (Disclosure of Interests) Act 2008, will be tabled annually in the Assembly and subsequently made available on the Assembly’s website. Section 5 of that article states that the Clerk must keep a register of interests disclosed under this act. The register is to be kept as directed by the Committee of Members’ Interests. The register is to be available for inspection under reasonable conditions to be laid down by the Committee of Members’ Interests, as occurs from time to time.
In determining the conditions for inspection, the Committee of Members’ Interests must give effect to the principle that the information recorded in the register should be generally available to the public unless there is a good reason to restrict availability.
Given the statutory ability of the committee to make determination about reasonable conditions for inspection of the register, it is arguable that this can occur under a statute without the need for approval of the Assembly. However, in exercising its statutory power the committee members wish to avail themselves of the views of the Assembly members and have the opportunity to provide the views of the committee to facilitate the final decision.
The proposal of tabling the Register of Member’s Interests would also occur during the second sittings period, approximately March, of each year and the register would be available as a tabled paper with the notion that on the Assembly’s website subsequent updates prior to the next required annual tabling may be viewed in the office of the register. As the tabled document is a report of interests at the moment and the legislation requires members to ensure it is consistently updated, the procedure for inspecting updates will continue to occur as it does now.
The committee has considered options for the inspections of the register, such as maintaining a constantly updated document on the website or another appropriate option, which is an annually tabled document allowing the interested parties to examine the register as of March in the given year and attend the Office of the Clerk to view updates. This procedure reflects what occurs in a number of Australian jurisdictions. The committee prefers this proposal as an option because it will increase transparency and ensure the register is accurate at any time and can be viewed in situ.
The proposal will make it easier to inspect the register to note updates as annually tabled documents will be the starting point of each year. Tabled papers are publically available documents and work is underway for e-tabling to become a routine, as per a resolution in the Assembly in 2013. This proposal will result in the tabled document being specifically earmarked and easy to find on the website. When considering the proposal, the committee took note of the practice of all Australian jurisdictions, which disclosed that the proposed approach is similar to what occurs in New South Wales, Tasmania, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia.
Queensland and the Australian parliament are major jurisdictions that have constant updates on their websites rather than annual returns. The committee therefore recommends to the Assembly that an annual return of registered members’ interests be placed on the Legislative Assembly’s website after tabling during the second sitting period in each year, commencing 2017.
I thank the committee for the consideration and suggestions concerning this proposal, and I commend the report to the Assembly.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Standing Orders Committee Report to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory on Matters of Question Time Reform, Infant Care and Right of Reply
Standing Orders Committee Report to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory on Matters of Question Time Reform, Infant Care and Right of Reply
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 200, I table a report on the minutes of the February and March meeting of the Standing Orders Committee.
MOTION
Publish Paper – Standing Orders Committee Report to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory on Matters of Question Time Reform, Infant Care and Right of Reply
Publish Paper – Standing Orders Committee Report to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory on Matters of Question Time Reform, Infant Care and Right of Reply
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be made available in an accessible format.
Motion agreed to; paper published.
MOTION
Note Paper – Standing Orders Committee Report to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory on Matters of Question Time Reform, Infant Care and Right of Reply
Note Paper – Standing Orders Committee Report to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory on Matters of Question Time Reform, Infant Care and Right of Reply
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.
The committee reports that at its February and March meetings it considered a proposal to reform the procedure for Question Time as referred by resolution of the Assembly on the motion of the member for Nelson, 18 November 2015, and a request for a right of reply by Ms Margaret Clinch, pursuant to procedures outlined in sessional orders applying to the 12th Assembly.
I will now briefly update the House on the content of the report. On 18 November 2015 the member for Nelson, Mr Wood, moved a motion agreed to by the Assembly. He proposed that the Assembly considers a new model for ministerial reports to allow ministers to have three-minute oral reports in lieu of so-called Dorothy Dixer questions, and to reserve oral questions for opposition and non-government members to ask questions of ministers.
The report provides a detailed analysis of the proposals. At the meeting of the committee in February, as members will be aware, the committee determined not to proceed with the member’s proposal; the member for Nelson is a participating member. The reason not to proceed is that the committee takes the view that the 13th Assembly will be the best place to deal with such a procedural proposal. It would be unfair of this Assembly to bind the next Assembly with procedures and standing orders that the next Assembly may not want.
The second aspect of the tabled report is the citizens’ right of reply submission received by the Speaker from Ms Margaret Clinch. The submission was sent to the Speaker by Ms Clinch on 5 December 2015. The Speaker subsequently wrote to the Standing Orders Committee by letter dated 15 December 2015 advising that she was satisfied the matter was not obviously trivial, frivolous, vexatious or offensive and that it was practical for the committee to consider this submission under prescribed procedure. Therefore, the Speaker was obliged to refer the matter to the Standing Orders Committee.
The committee has considered another matter which remains on the committee’s agenda for further consideration. The matter is mentioned in passing, but I was hoping to report on it today. The matter is subject to a letter I have written to the secretary of the committee. It is attached to this report in the form of a dissenting report from the committee. I thank the committee for its work.
The issue is implied in the title of the committee report, which says the Standing Orders Committee Report to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory on Matters of Question Time Reform – which I have referred to already – Infant Care and Right of Reply.
The speech I made today referred to reform and right of reply, not infant care. The reason for that is the committee turned its mind to the matter raised by the member for Drysdale who, in January this year, wrote to the committee seeking guidance on the rights of women breastfeeding in the workplace, namely the parliament. The committee turned its mind to the issue and I found myself at a point of difference. Minutes were prepared from a former committee meeting which matched my memory, but it was not consistent with the memory of others. That is not a major issue.
In relation to the issue of breastfeeding in the workplace by women, we should, as a committee, at least pass a motion of in-principal support. The committee declined to do so, hence the source of my dissenting report to this committee. I will quote from my letter to the committee in regard to the dissent:
- Members of the Committee objected to that proposal on the grounds that it did not reflect earlier committee deliberations. Whilst that does reflect my memory it isn't of consequence as it is not central to my dissent.
What is central to my dissent is that I then recommended that the committee should allow, subject to certain rules yet to be established, that we as a Committee should pass a resolution that at least ‘in principle’ endorsed the notion that a woman who was breastfeeding should be allowed to do so in her workplace, in this case the Parliament.
It was the resolution of the committee that no such, ‘in-principle’ endorsement should be made and that the matter should be deferred until the Speaker had a chance to consult more widely on the matter and that the issue should be removed from the current report.
Nothing prevented the committee from supporting the right ‘in principle’, and then consulting more widely.
I dissent from the majority decision to remove the issue from this report and to defer discussion to a later date as the committee has not attended to this matter in a timely fashion, as the Member for Drysdale, who raised this matter with us three months ago, has the right to expect.
It is the committee equivalent to stuffing the issue into a ‘too hard basket’.
Since writing that letter of dissent I have had the opportunity to speak to a couple of members. I suspect they are starting to see it through the lens which I see it; therefore, I look forward to the continuing debate and the resolution of this matter to the satisfaction of the member for Drysdale and, I imagine, other women who wish to have that matter addressed in their workplace.
I thank the committee for its work on this report and I commend the report to the Assembly.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, on the issue of Question Time, I certainly hope it comes back to the next Assembly. Whether I am here or not is not in my hands. The idea of changing the process to allow the minister to give reports before Question Time should get rid of Dorothy Dixers and allow the rest of the parliament to ask questions relevant to their electorates or government policy.
It is good that Margaret Clinch’s issue has been raised, looked at by the committee and brought back so it can be incorporated into the Hansard. It is important that citizens have a right of reply which can be incorporated into the Assembly’s record when they feel that their character has been blemished by what someone has said in the parliament.
In relation to breastfeeding, it is an issue we need to ensure is handled appropriately. I understand that the member for Drysdale has raised the issue, which is good. I appreciate that it is not that far for the member for Drysdale to travel to her office, but it does not just apply to the member for Drysdale. For any member who comes into this parliament, who has a child, we need to sort out some kind of protocol.
Although the member for Port Darwin made a dissenting report, I do not think any member of the committee is trying to delay this for silly reasons. The difference is how we go about it. The Speaker has put an alternative proposal and hopefully that will sort the matter out to the satisfaction of everyone. I cannot speak on behalf of other members of the committee. I do not have a problem with setting up a protocol for breastfeeding. It has to be done appropriately in keeping with the House and in consultation with the women of this parliament.
I thank all members of the committee for their work on these areas. I support the committee’s report.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Health and Community Services Complaints Commission – Final Investigation Report
Health and Community Services Complaints Commission – Final Investigation Report
Mr ELFERINK (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I present to the House the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission’s final investigation report, the investigation into the prison health service of Darwin Correctional Centre, which is identified and dated 26 February 2016.
MOTION
Note Paper – Health and Community Services Complaints Commission Final Investigation Report
Note Paper – Health and Community Services Complaints Commission Final Investigation Report
Mr ELFERINK (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker I move that the Assembly takes note of this report.
I have chosen to table this report with a tabling statement rather than dispose of the report by way of deeming. There are a number of issues in this report that need to be addressed. The most concerning component of this report is the operation of an undetected pregnancy in 2014 which entered the prison system. That matter can be read about in the report.
The purpose of this report is to provide the House with a report into the investigation of the Health and Community Services Complaints Commission into two complaints from female prisoners relating to access to primary healthcare services in the Darwin correction facility. The report was finalised on 26 February 2016.
The prison health services – operated by the Top End Health Service – and the Top End Health Service have been working cooperatively with the Darwin correction facility and the commission throughout this investigation. All the recommendations have been accepted by the Top End Health Service and acknowledge that prisoners are entitled to expect a high standard of healthcare like other individuals in the community.
The recommendations provide for the Top End Health Service and the Darwin correction facility to work together on strategies to improve access for female and male prisoners to primary healthcare services as well as to improve the standard of care, provided it meets the health and wellbeing needs of prisoners. The Deputy Chief Executive of the Department of Health, the Chief Operating Officer of the Top End Health Service and the Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services have met and agreed to co-host a workshop to review the model health system of service provisions of correctional facilities. It is scheduled for Tuesday 12 April 2016.
The Top End Health Service, the Department of Health and the Department of Correctional Services have established a panel comprising key senior office and staff from each agency, including clinical staff.
This panel has devised an action plan to address the recommendations for improvement in the following areas:
policy and processes of managing requests for access to health services to ensure timeliness of treatment
Prison health services and the commissioner have agreed on processes to encourage inmates to raise concerns directly with the health service to achieve resolution through internal mechanisms. This has been operating effectively for the last four months.
A number of recommendations have arisen from this report, as there should have been. We have continued to roll out those recommendations. When I became aware of this matter not so long ago, I was concerned that some of these issues had not been raised with me. They have now been raised with me and I am making sure the matters raised in the report have been responded to.
I move that the Assembly takes note of this report.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee Report – Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct – consideration adjourned.
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee Report into Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation – consideration adjourned.
Note Paper – Northern Territory’s Energy Future Committee Key Challenges and Opportunities Issues Paper – consideration adjourned.
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly –consideration adjourned.
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly – consideration adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to Rachel Fosdick, Palmerston’s 2016 Citizen of the Year. On 26 January this year I had the pleasure of attending the Palmerston citizenship and flag raising ceremony at the Palmerston Recreation Centre.
At this ceremony each year, Palmerston’s Citizen of the Year is announced. It is a highly prestigious acknowledgement bestowed on a member of our community who works tirelessly to enhance our community spirit and way of life. As the finalists’ names were read out I was extremely impressed with the line-up. We are fortunate to have so many wonderful, generous and enthusiastic members of our community, all of whom are worthy of the Citizen of the Year status.
I know Rachel through her tireless support of the Palmerston Power Basketball Club and the Palmerston and Regional Basketball Association. When her name was announced as being the 2016 Citizen of the Year I happily let out a little cheer and burst into applause. Rachel is very worthy of this honour. Unfortunately she was an apology at the event. In true Rachel style she was extremely busy fundraising that day and, due to an unforseen consequence of her efforts, could not attend the ceremony. Knowing this I immediately sent her a text message saying, ‘You won!’ She could not believe it. We had a very short but excited text message exchange.
I later met with Rachel to transcribe her story in detail so this Assembly will forever record her contribution to Palmerston and its community.
Rachel Fosdick is a lovely girl from Lismore. A qualified psychologist, she spent the 1980s working tirelessly for the Queensland AIDS Council to raise awareness of this devastating disease. As you can imagine, this is a field of work that held a very heavy burden, and Rachel started to explore a sea change.
Rachel moved to the Territory in 1994 from central Queensland. In a drastic change from her life at the AIDS Council she bought a kebab shop at the bottom of the stairs at Casuarina Square, which I frequented as a teenager, which, memorably, opened the week before McDonald’s opened. Long-term Territorians will remember the Territory’s frenzy with the opening of McDonald’s. The lines when it opened ran far past Rachel’s kebab shop, much to her dismay. Moving to Darwin and running a kebab shop was an enormous sea change and it made Rachel realise just how much she loved psychology, and the reality of being a retailer was that it was a hard slog with very long hours.
Rachel then made another career change and became the manager of Jingili Pizza Hut. This is where she met her husband, Tim. Rachel laughed as she recalled this story for me of how they met. One evening when Rachel was working, Tim came into the store. He immediately fancied Rachel. As he stood at the counter Tim made his big pick-up line, which was, ‘Can I have a Coke?’ He knew full well that Pizza Hut only sold Pepsi. Rachel knew exactly what Tim was up to and promptly replied with, ‘Don’t be cheeky’. Tim had sparked her attention though and she knew where he worked. One night after work she delivered him a pizza, accompanied by a six pack of beer, and they have been together ever since.
Tim and Rachel had their first child, Josh, in 1997. It was very clear to Rachel that she wanted to stay home with her new baby and be the best mum she could be to little Josh. Rachel reflected on how things can change so much in someone’s life. She laughed when she reminded herself that she had cried when in 1997 Tim proposed that they build a house in Palmerston. Josh was only six months old at the time. In the end, building their home in Palmerston was the best thing they ever did. At that time, all their neighbours were building and starting families. As a result, their street had a wonderful sense of community. It is now the only place they call home and she could not imagine living anywhere else.
Tim and Rachel married at Marlow Lagoon in a beautiful ceremony under the trees. Her children now tease her and raise their eyebrows about marrying Tim at Marlow Lagoon, but it was a beautiful day and Rachel would not have it any other way. Rachel and Tim had their second child, Jemma, in 1999. Rachel was still at home raising Josh, and Jemma was a welcome addition to the family home.
When Josh turned three, Rachel started her home-based day-care business where she cared for the children of their friends, and it very quickly grew from there. When Josh was old enough to go to school Rachel started volunteering. She joined the preschool committee at Bakewell Primary School and absolutely loved it. Rachel felt part of such a nice community. It was friendly, comforting, supportive and nourishing. Rachel was involved in making decisions around setting up the school, which at the time was brand new. She fondly remembered how enjoyable this experience was.
This was Rachel’s first real taste at volunteering, aside from the work she undertook as a volunteer while working at the AIDS Council in the 1980s. It was so enjoyable being part of her children’s school community that it whet her appetite for volunteering for the next two decades. Rachel’s third child, Ben, was born in 2005, perfectly completing their family of five. During Rachel’s time volunteering at Bakewell Primary School, Palmerston was rapidly growing and there was so much opportunity. Rachel recalled that everyone was looking to start new things for people in Palmerston and for children to participate in, like craft groups and mothers groups.
Rachel spent two years on the Bakewell Preschool committee then six years on school council – eight years in total serving her community. She laughed with me at the end of her comments that she had spent six years on the school council. She quipped, ‘And then you have to step down’. Rachel was chair for two years and vice chair for two years.
Some of Rachel’s biggest achievements were successfully securing funding for the special education unit, writing funding applications for additional school resources, employing senior teaching staff, working behind the scenes and getting things done. The school council’s aim was to create a sense of community. It was the most important thing to them. They knew even though it was a big school it needed to feel like a small one. Rachel is proud they achieved this and acknowledges that she learnt as much as she gave in the process.
While Rachel was enjoying immersing herself in the school community, her children were growing up. They started hockey, calisthenics and swimming. One day Josh came home from a come-and-try day and said he wanted to start basketball. Young Josh was 5 foot 9 inches when he was 10 years old. Rachel felt he was definitely big enough to play basketball.
This started Rachel’s new love, new endeavour and new chapter of volunteering commitment to basketball in Palmerston. Palmerston Power Basketball Club started in 1999 with just five teams. In Josh’s first year playing for the club, Rachel joined the committee, ‘just to write the newsletter’, she laughed. She was hooked and loved it. The sense of community was there. Rachel could not help herself but get more involved. The environment was perfect, the people were great and the opportunity presented itself.
Rachel soon became club secretary and the following year she became the registrar. She felt she was not busy enough and added fundraising coordinator on top of that. The woman is addicted. Rachel spent the next eight years devoted to Palmerston Power Basketball Club. It was a lovely committee of 12 people where everyone was on the same page, had the same focus and the same philosophy.
Damon, the club president, was strong on club culture so it was a lovely committee to be a part of. There was a strong focus on new committee member inductions so the strong community club culture was always there. It was really important to all of them.
Rachel went to an AGM four years ago with past president of Palmerston Power, Brian. He said to Rachel, ‘One day we will have the numbers to run something of our own in Palmerston’. Brian’s comments resonated with Rachel and really struck a chord with her. Rachel’s goal for the next four years became to build Palmerston Power up to a point where they could run a basketball association in Palmerston.
In those four years, Palmerston Power doubled in size and senior basketball was introduced. They also introduced coach mentoring, which meant they were generating their own coaches, which in turn meant they could support the growth in numbers.
Palmerston Power had a strong volunteer base, as well as strong player numbers and governance structures. This led Rachel to see 2014 as the opportunity she had been waiting for. There was growth in the Palmerston and rural area, and the opportunity to increase participation in sport and active healthy pathways for kids was compelling.
Damon and Rachel created a strategic plan to generate interest in creating a Palmerston basketball association. Rachel gave the analogy that Rachel and Damon were like a duck. Rachel was the frantic legs peddling underneath the water and Damon was the duck steering the ships.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will continue my remarks about Rachel during the next sittings.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I premise my adjournment remarks today on the annual acknowledgment of closing the gap – a very powerful term to try to address significant disadvantage amongst Australia’s Indigenous communities.
The national partnership on remote health clinics was signed in 2010. This agreement was to build new remote clinics in Elliott, Canteen Creek, Robinson River, Ntaria, Galiwinku, Numbulwar and Ngukurr.
This agreement also committed to upgrades at clinics at Titjikala, Papunya, Kaltukatjara and Maningrida. This agreement was reinforced with signatures of the federal and Territory health ministers in 2014, both Coalition governments. What eventuated was six years of frustration in communities eager to receive a new or upgraded health facility, which is often the most important infrastructure in a remote community.
Upgraded facilities contribute to staff attraction and retention, improvement and modern services like tele-health. All we have from this disappointing CLP government is delays and inaction.
According to the public record, only two clinics have been officially opened, being in Ntaria and Maningrida. Every milestone has been missed. They have let down remote, mostly Indigenous, Territorians very badly.
The Papunya clinic was due to be concluded in April 2015. The tender was only awarded in December 2014. The Docker River clinic was due to be completed by April 2015, but the tender was only awarded in April 2015. The clinic in Elliott was due to be completed in April 2015, but the tender was only awarded in January 2015. The clinic at Canteen Creek was due to be completed in April 2015, but the tender was only awarded in January 2015. The Canteen Creek clinic has been completed, but clinicians are still operating in a rundown clinic from the 1980s. The Titjikala clinic was due to be completed in April 2015, but the tender for the clinic was only awarded in March. The Ngukurr clinic was due for completion in November 2015, but the tender for the clinic was only awarded in June.
The Numbulwar clinic was due to be completed in November 2015, but it is still out to tender. The Galiwinku clinic was due to be completed in November 2015, but tenders only closed two weeks ago. As for the Robinson River clinic, due to commence construction in July 2015, a design consultancy only went out in October and I have not seen any tenders released for that important clinic.
This government is without passion for government services or delivering improved health services in the bush, where they are needed more than anywhere. I am advised that for the clinics being rebuilt or refurbished in my electorate, there is no provisional funding for furniture and other fittings.
It is a very sad story on the annual acknowledgement of closing the gap. If there is one thing we can do together, it is to make every effort possible to improve the health standards of some of the most disadvantaged Territorians. This litany of failure is incredible. The government has now reverted to a stimulus strategy that has been called for in the NT for a number of years. These clinics, in partnership with federal government, should have been part of this stimulus ongoing over the last three years.
There are more important concerns. Two clinics in the Barkly, at Canteen Creek and Elliott, have been completed. Today they stand idle. Worse than standing idle, there are some significant defects appearing in the Elliott clinic. The laminate in the waiting room and the foyer is starting to peel off the walls. In the construction business, this defect period is critical to be addressed by the contractors before a period runs through. The air conditioners in both those clinics, as I have seen when I walked around the boundary fence, are running. I suggest trying to climate control those buildings in this oppressively hot Wet Season we are going through. There could be more damage to the facilities.
There is considerable expense being borne by the taxpayer whilst those most disadvantaged Territorians have no access to those clinics. The clinicians in those areas are operating and they deserve acknowledgment and credit for the incredible work they do 24/7. They were mystified as to why there have been no announcements about openings. The Robinson River community is extremely disappointed that no work has started and we cannot identify any tender processes that give us an indication of plans for the future.
With Elliott and Canteen Creek receiving no official opening dates, it has come to my attention that there are no plans for establishment grants relating to furniture and fittings. These two buildings are superb. They have been provided by the Commonwealth and constructed in the Territory by Territory companies, and they are ready to start business. It would be a terrible shame if we saw clinicians moving furniture from what was originally a preschool building, a tin building built in the early 1980s; I remember it well. At Canteen Creek that has subsequently been their clinic ever since.
One could only imagine the level of amenity inside that tin building, and the standard of the furniture and fittings. It would be very sad to think that would be relocated to the new clinic. There are no identifiable establishment grants. To add insult to injury, it was drawn to my attention that the grant for Elliott was noted and then withdrawn.
Minister, I am not sure what you are doing in this area. The constituency has grave concerns. Our clinicians are doing a wonderful job, but they are getting disillusioned with purpose-built new infrastructure sitting idle with no plans to progress the establishment, set up and running of those clinics. This is not only a Barkly story, but right across the Northern Territory. If you are looking for a stimulus strategy, we can revisit what should be money in the bank. We can look at the areas of promise for new buildings and refurbishments that have not taken place. This is something that will deliver a closing-the-gap outcome. This will deliver jobs and provide an incentive for Australians to go to these areas, work in these fields and provide serious outcomes for closing the gap in Indigenous health.
Minister, I hope you respond to this. There are two clinics awaiting occupation. They can be great celebrations within the town of Elliott and the community at Canteen Creek. I ask urgently that you revisit Robinson River, and that you get some advice on what is happening in the other areas of the Northern Territory that represent remote areas and deliver services for Aboriginal health, and a commitment to closing the gap by the CLP government.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to talk about middle years schooling in the Northern Territory. I am excited to announce that today I launched the Work Like the Best – Middle Years Teaching and Learning Strategy 2016-2018 at Sanderson Middle School with my good friend and colleague, the Deputy Chief Minister, minister Styles.
This is a fantastic strategy that aims to ensure middle years education throughout the Northern Territory is delivering quality programs and teaching. This strategy will see the Country Liberal government continue to focus on education reform that promotes best practice, quality programs and teaching, and strong engagement with the local community.
This focus is critical to the success of our middle schools and their teachers and, most importantly, the success of middle schools and the students. That is what we should be focusing on. The Work Like the Best – Middle Years Teaching and Learning Strategy is guided by the work of independent education consultant, Vic Zbar, following his review of middle years education in the Northern Territory. I commissioned the review of middle years schooling in the Northern Territory in 2014, eight years after initial introduction of middle years schooling in the Northern Territory by the Labor government.
You might ask why a review of the effectiveness of these programs and facilities was necessary. Those of us who can cast our minds back may remember that Territory Labor’s ill-considered and hastily implemented middle years schooling program failed in its most necessary requirement to provide a classroom for the students. This was the program where many students spent the first months of their middle schooling experience in their primary school classroom.
There was the strategy where Labor’s union mate, AEUNT head Matthew Cranitch, said that the introduction of middle schooling in 2008 had been a debacle and education levels had gone backwards. Under this strategy there was limited systematic direction for the middle years. It lacked a clear focus on the most fundamental aspect of schooling, that is, teaching and learning. It was a rushed strategy which greatly focused on the physical movement of students to a different location, yet still struggled to get that right. That is why the review was necessary. We are building on a system that was implemented poorly. It was necessary to ensure we delivered a clearly-defined program that aligns with the government’s plans to improve the educational outcomes of all Territory students.
The report found some excellent pockets of teaching and learning within Territory schools, which outlined the need for a strategy to spread this practice consistently. The Work Like the Best – Middle Years Teaching and Learning Strategy is a three-year strategy that is aimed at driving policy and programs in the areas identified as having the greatest positive impact on the quality of middle school education.
This strategy invests in the skills of teachers through targeted professional development and training. It will provide leadership coaching to principals and leadership teams. This strategy will drive policy and programs that will have a positive impact on the quality of education throughout the middle years of a student’s educational journey.
This government made history, with a record 1338 Northern Territory Year 12 students graduating with their Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training. Under this government we saw an increase in the number of Indigenous students completing the Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training. Under this government we have more students achieving A+ merits, with a total of 44 gained by 35 students.
That is proof that this Country Liberal government invests in education reform that produces results, and those results will continue to improve. I am confident that, like our other investments in education, the Work Like the Best – Middle Years Teaching and Learning Strategy will work. We are positioning students for success as they enter their last stage of secondary education.
I am proud to be the Education minister and was thrilled to announce a well-considered, research-based strategy that focuses on the heart of educational institutions, the delivery of quality programs, quality teaching and strong engagement by the school community.
I also take this opportunity to raise awareness of the National Day of Action against Bullying and Violence, which is tomorrow. There are 77 schools across the NT that are registered to participate in the National Day of Action against Bullying and Violence. I hope they have not been watching parliament this week. This is the highest number of NT schools to engage in the six years of the event’s operation. Well done.
I look forward to spending tomorrow morning with students at Centralian Middle School, participating in anti-bullying activities at the school. It is important that we promote these messages within our communities and schools, and support the wellbeing of young people within our communities.
I met the previous minister, Syd Stirling, when middle schools were his baby. I remember him saying that we have to focus on that age group of children. I agreed; I knew that age group was causing some concern. I think the previous government spent a lot of money on infrastructure. Rosebery Middle School is one of the best pieces of middle school infrastructure I have seen in the Territory. Some money was invested in education. If it was let down it was because there was not a great focus on what would be taught and who would teach it in those schools.
From my understanding, many teachers came from the primary school and high school sectors and were all thrown together. All of a sudden they were teaching a new pedagogy within the middle years system. In some schools I have visited, as I said earlier in my speech, there are some pockets of gold. But you go to some others and see a lack of discipline and respect from students towards teachers. I thought, ‘We have to start engaging these children; if we can, we will win the war.’ At schools where kids are not engaged, they are getting into mischief.
I take my hat off to the teachers working in the middle years system today. They have a remarkable group of people to deal with. I take my hat off to teachers; I do not think I could be in a classroom all day every day with some of these kids. Some would be fantastic to be around and some would test you to the absolute limit.
We have teachers in this Chamber. Congratulations for taking on such an important role. But they must have a system to work with. Vic has focused on the strategy to get this right and what will make a difference in the classroom.
I commend Vic Zbar, the Department of Education and everyone else who has provided input into this review. Let’s see this strategy become part of the system and make some wonderful changes.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to provide an update on the case of Jock McLeod, a veteran firefighter of more than four decades of dedicated service to the Northern Territory, as firefighters do day-in day-out to protect the lives of Territory families, putting the importance of others before themselves. Jock is a perfect example of that.
Jock is well known to Territorians, apart from the fact he is the father of a very famous footballer, Andrew McLeod, because of his battle with cancer and getting recognition that his cancer was contracted as a result of his employment as a firefighter. Exposure over many years to dangerous chemicals saw Jock diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2013. Furthermore, he is known for seeing his right to have that recognised in legislation, along with other firefighters – as is the case around the country – so he could receive workers’ compensation.
It took two private member’s bills from the member for Fannie Bay, who holds the shadow responsibility for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, to address the legislation that would see firefighters like Jock McLeod receive workers compensation for cancer contracted in the workplace and in the line of duty.
Those bills were rejected not once, but twice by the CLP government. Shame on them. During the delay of legislation being passed, there were Territory firefighters battling cancer who passed away.
Eventually the government brought forward – dragging the chain, I might add – legislation last year. It was passed in this House. At the eleventh hour there were amendments, begrudgingly agreed to by the government, which would see retrospective claims for workers compensation. The original legislation said they would not deal with any claims by firefighters who had contracted cancer during the course of their work prior to the election of 2012. That was absurd and it ruled out many people.
It was thanks to the likes of the union, United Voice, and Tom Lawler, who is also a cancer sufferer – contracted through his work as a firefighter – which saw last minute changes made. That was good. Jock McLeod and other firefighters were happy. They had to wait a while but finally had access to workers compensation as firefighters.
Things took a backward step in December. Jock received a letter from TIO saying his claim had been rejected because:
- 1. You have not sustained an injury out of or in the course of employment with the Northern Territory Government;
- 2. If you did sustain an injury (which has been disputed) then your employment with the Northern Territory Government was not the real, proximate or effective cause of the alleged injury.
That letter devastated Jock McLeod. He went publically with this, as you would expect, and had direct contact from TIO to offer their apologies and say they would honour his claim.
I was contacted by Jock McLeod at the beginning of this week via e-mail, saying he wanted to keep me in the loop. I have sought his permission to raise this matter in parliament this evening. This will be of great interest to Territorians and firefighters about the latest setback that Jock has experienced. Jock drafted an e-mail to his union, United Voice, with a suggestion that what he has drafted might be a bulletin that goes out to members. I will read it out:
- Hi there Jock McLeod here just filling you in as to the progress or lack of progress of my claim, it’s now three months since TIO accepted my claim for workers compensation. We had an initial meeting with TIO and our HR reps where I was introduced to TIO’s claims manager. We discussed how we would move forward with the claim.
At this stage I handed over all my records on this case, along with all the records from my general practitioner and signed off on TIO having access to my private healthcare and Medicare information. After this initial meeting everything has turned to crap, TIO have lost all my records their apparent incompetence in losing my documentation has caused unnecessary stress is another example of their unprofessional conduct.
The thing to remember here is that I’m not looking for a big pay day to be a millionaire, all I want is to be reimbursed for why I’m owed. The cumulative effect this process has had on my mental and physical health is overwhelming. It has caused and continues to cause unnecessary stress. Their treatment of you is repugnant, immoral and cruel. It is bullying.
I have just found out that TIO have appointed a new case manager assigned to look after my stuff. She is based at the Allianz office in Adelaide. Give me a break – moving my claim interstate it’s going to be the never ending story. They also require me to go to Adelaide to be examined by one of their ‘doctors’ to find out my level of impairment, I thought that they had accepted my claim.
This is appalling treatment of Jock McLeod. It raises a couple of important issues, not the least of which being Jock McLeod still does not have a claim. He still does not have a payout. He still does not have what he is entitled to.
The first issue is to do with the sale, without a mandate, of the taxpayer-owner asset that was the government-owned Territory Insurance Office. It has clearly not been in the best interests of Territorians like Jock McLeod or property owners living in Katherine, whose premiums have gone through the roof and are now unaffordable.
This goes to the heart of the fact that things within TIO have changed. This is apart from what we heard from the Chief Minister in the lead up to his decision to sell TIO – with an enormous backlash from Territorians. It is not business as usual; things have changed. The fact that a Territory man, under the Territory Insurance Office, now has to go to Adelaide and deal with an Adelaide office is unforgivable. Let us not forget that the sale of TIO did not have the approval of Territorians. The CLP did not go to an election with a mandate.
In debate this afternoon the CLP government had nothing to bring to this House regarding its policies, stimulus package or answers to why crime is out of control in the NT. Instead there was a ridiculous censure motion which was all about blatant and unrelenting union bashing, driven by the CLP members opposite and their mates. It is unforgivable.
Jock McLeod’s case advanced as far as it did in battling for workers compensation because his union supported him. The members of United Voice stood shoulder-to-shoulder and fought for this. Alongside the rubbish and scurrilous attacks on unions this afternoon from this pathetic excuse of a government – it goes to show the CLP has nothing better to talk about and no recognition of the importance of unions not only in the NT, but around the country and the world in supporting workers’ rights and safety in their place of employment.
Jock McLeod’s scenario is unbelievable. Let us remember, his union represents 3000 people who need the support. They need the support of this government, which to date has turned its back on people like Jock McLeod.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, in response to an adjournment speech from Tuesday 15 March by the member for Casuarina, Lauren Moss, I want to correct some mistruths. Some of the items I want to deal with – one question was about what is happening in the north Darwin area, in particular Casuarina. Secondly, she asked about the number of meetings of the Casuarina business advisory group.
The member for Casuarina said she had serious concerns about an alleged rise in alcohol-related antisocial behaviour. I will give you the facts. Alcohol-related assaults for the year ending January 2016, compared to the year ending January 2015, are 9% less in Darwin. There are many operational community-orientated activities being undertaken by the Casuarina police station in relation to antisocial behaviour.
The member for Casuarina said there had been a shutdown of the police shopfront inside Casuarina Square. Casuarina Square and the neighbouring business district are served very well by the closely located Casuarina police station. I think it is about 75 m from the side entrance on Bradshaw Terrace in Casuarina. The police station is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The focus of police in Casuarina is to have very strong community engagement.
The member for Casuarina referred to the police beat group as being shut down in Casuarina and absorbed into general duties. Police operations for the Casuarina district area are now better focused. The Casuarina police station implements targeted operations. The police patrol Casuarina Square on Friday evenings and weekends as part of their operations. Mobile closed-circuit television camera capabilities are under deployment as are mobile CCTV cameras around Casuarina.
The member for Casuarina claimed that police numbers at Casuarina have been reduced. Positions at specific police stations are the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police. There were 112 gazetted positions at Casuarina police station as at 31 January 2016, which is an increase of nine positions from 3 October 2012.
Northern Territory Police operate a 24-hour, seven-day response capability from the Casuarina police station. The member for Casuarina claimed that this government has no strategy and that crime is being driven upwards. The member for Casuarina is telling mistruths. Crime statistics for Darwin for the year ending January 2016 show the Giles Country Liberal government’s law and order strategy is working. House break-ins are down by 23%; motor vehicle theft offences are down by 22%; assault offences are down by 11%; total property offences are down by 11%; total offences are down by 10%; domestic violence assault offences are down by 8%; commercial break-ins are down by 7%; and total offences against the person are down by 6%.
The member for Casuarina claimed this government broke its promise of a 24-hour police station in Nightcliff. This is simply not true. The election commitment of this government was to undertake a scoping study to see if Nightcliff police station would be required to operate on a 24-hour basis. Based on evidence from the scoping study, it was found that the police station was underutilised by the general public. The Nightcliff police station was basically a shop front and largely administrative, but the police Traffic Operations Division and the Major Crash Investigation Unit still continue to operate out of Nightcliff police station.
The member for Casuarina says the CLP has shut down the Nightcliff police beat. The police response to the Nightcliff area was always provided from the Casuarina police station. The closure of the shop front at Nightcliff police station did not change the requirement for Casuarina police to continue providing a strong visible presence in the Nightcliff area. The police continue to be engaged in high-profile operations within the Nightcliff area that are designed to tackle antisocial behaviour.
Further, the member for Casuarina claimed that the government does not have an alcohol and other drugs strategy. I understand the member for Casuarina met with the Casuarina police in February this year. At this meeting she was advised of a number of initiatives being undertaken by Casuarina police, which include the operations being undertaken in reference to strategies relating to alcohol and other drugs.
We know from statistics that there is no evidence of high levels of assault or violence. The member for Casuarina referred to the CLP as having scrapped the Banned Drinker Register. The Banned Drinker Register did not reduce drunken violence on our streets, nor did it stop drunks from accessing alcohol. If you were on the Banned Drinker Register, you could still walk into a bar at any licensed premises in the Territory and drink to excess, provided the staff kept an eye on what you were doing. If they did not realise what you were doing, and you drank rapidly but could still control yourself, once you walked outside and the alcohol hit you would be in a bit of trouble. Drunks on the Banned Drinker Register could still access alcohol through a third party.
The member for Casuarina claims there must be a thorough review of police resources. The opposition is very keen on reviewing everything at once. I do not know how it will get it all done at once. I hate to think how it would run that.
There is no need for another review. Northern Territory Police have instigated policies for their operations in the Darwin region which are working to reduce crime. You just heard the figures I gave, which clearly indicate crime is on the way down. The Casuarina police station has a targeted operations team that focuses on high-visibility engagement, engaging with youth and targeting antisocial behaviour and traffic enforcement in the district.
Crime statistics show that crime rates are going down. The opposition asserted that crime is out of control and the crime stats I was referring to were rubbish. When I asked them to say in this Chamber that the crime stats are wrong, what did I hear? I heard deathly silence. I heard nothing. They know that some of these throw away lines, used to get into the Hansard as interjections, are incorrect.
A recent national survey of community satisfaction with policing showed that community confidence in the Northern Territory Police has increased by 5.3%. This shows that the Country Liberal government law and order policies are working.
The member for Casuarina referred in her speech to a number of meetings held with the Casuarina business advisory group. She said the Casuarina business advisory group had not met since the first meeting in July 2015. That parliamentary statement yesterday was incorrect. There have been two meetings; the second meeting of the group was held on 25 November 2015 and my understanding is they will meet again very soon.
The member for Casuarina seems confused about what she did or did not say in parliament last November in relation to the Casuarina business advisory group. There was no question to be answered in relation to her statement last November about the Casuarina business advisory group. This is a fabrication. This is what she said in November last year:
- The Minister for Business can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that group has met again since July.
She was not wrong, so there was no answer required. During Tuesday night’s adjournment in parliament she invented the story that there was no reply required. There was no need, but there certainly is now. She also claimed this week that she had written a letter to me as the Minister for Business and that she has received no response. This mysterious letter was apparently about how many times the Casuarina business advisory group had met.
There was no letter from the member for Casuarina to me about how many times this group had met. It is difficult to respond to a letter that no one has received. If she can produce the record – the government cannot find any record of an incoming letter through the system from the member for Casuarina about this issue.
Also in her speech this week the member for Casuarina mentioned a written question on notice to the parliament that she submitted, regarding how many times the Casuarina business advisory group has met. Member for Casuarina, I have answered that question; it is twice.
It seems to be coming up more often from the opposition. They make things up and try to get it on the Hansard as if it is the truth. When you investigate it, as I have demonstrated tonight, most of it is false.
Motion agreed to, the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016