2014-11-26
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of the Intensive English Unit from Darwin High School accompanied by Peter Stretton and Jeany Feeney. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also advise of the presence in the gallery of the Palmerston Senior College Special Education Centre accompanied by Eleonore Simpson. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here as well.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: The electorate officers from the government benches are also here. Welcome back. You must have enjoyed yourselves yesterday; you have come for a second round.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Amendment Bill 2014 is to amend the act to strengthen and increase the referral pathways to alcohol mandatory treatment, repeal the absconding offence and improve the timeliness of referral to assessment.
Currently there are people who would benefit immensely from inclusion in the alcohol mandatory treatment scheme but who are excluded from it because of low-level alcohol-related offences. It is for this reason that I have asked the House to allow this bill to be passed on urgency.
The alcohol mandatory treatment program is targeted at those who most need help getting off the grog. In doing this, we are finding that these people, some of the most marginalised in our society, have a range of other health problems.
When we know this program is working and helping people who cannot help themselves, it is wrong to wait for three or more months to pass this amendment. The hardship caused to these people by excluding them from treatment is not good government. This amendment directly addresses the issue of people who need help but are currently excluded. For example, people whose offence arises through a breach of an Alcohol Protection Order. It is important that this group of people be eligible for treatment because these types of offences arise solely through misuse of alcohol. Treatment will assist them to address their misuse of alcohol and keep them out of the criminal justice system in the future.
The proposed amendment ensures the people who can benefit most from alcohol mandatory treatment – chronic misusers of alcohol – are eligible for it. It does this by removing the current blanket exclusion from alcohol mandatory treatment for people who are charged with committing an offence for which the maximum penalty is, or includes, a period of imprisonment. Instead, people will only have an automatic exclusion for offences with a maximum penalty for imprisonment for more than seven years.
Referrals to assessment for alcohol mandatory treatment are currently made by police. Health professionals and police have told us there are many people with chronic alcohol misuse problems who interact with the health system on a regular basis and there would be great benefits in allowing health professionals like emergency department clinicians to refer people to assessment for alcohol mandatory treatment.
The proposed amendments allow for an additional pathway to alcohol mandatory treatment for people with chronic alcohol misuse problems who interact with the health system on a regular basis. This new pathway will help reduce the pressure on the hospital system and provide for people with chronic alcohol misuse problems to receive treatment without having to interact with the police.
The Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act has been in force for almost 18 months. Attitudes towards alcohol mandatory treatment have changed, and clients participating in the program see treatment as a valuable health service.
In addition to improving the health of clients, alcohol mandatory treatment is helping to reconnect people with families and communities, as well as providing opportunities for training and employment. Clients are treated in three very secure treatment centres in Darwin, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, with a fourth facility planned for Katherine clients. People are embracing the opportunity to get well and make healthy choices for themselves and families. This is validated by the significant decline in absconding incidents that have occurred in recent times.
The repeal of the offence for absconding responds to the enhancements made to the alcohol mandatory treatment scheme since it commenced. Rather than it being an offence, the bill ‘stops the clock’ for a person who absconds from a mandatory treatment facility when under an order, and adds the days of their absence to the duration of their treatment.
The bill amends the Police Administration Act to help ensure the safety of a person by enabling their early transfer to an assessment facility – even when a person is intoxicated – to a centre that offers specialised medical and withdrawal services and a high standard of care to intoxicated and withdrawing persons.
It is government’s intention to pass these bills through all stages of these sittings and I seek urgency pursuant to Standing Order 179 on the basis that later passage would result in hardship being caused for reasons I have previously outlined.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement accompanying the bill.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition does not support this bill on urgency, but as we know, government will have its way. It has the numbers in this House and it will pass through all stages tomorrow. That said, we stand firm on the introduction of bills on urgency. Unless there is clearly a demonstrated need for it bills should not be put through on urgency.
We saw a classic example in this House yesterday with bills that will see the sale of TIO. What is it about this government that it shies away from open and transparent consultation with stakeholders?
Yes, I was advised last week through the minister’s office that the bill would be going through on urgency. We were at least given the heads-up about the contents of the bill, and I was able to receive a briefing, albeit ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, at the moment we have had the second reading speech, so that should be adjourned. The next motion is about urgency.
Debate adjourned.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Amendment Bill 2014 (Serial 107) passing through all stages at these sittings.
I cast members’ minds back to this time last year. We had commenced the operation of the alcohol mandatory treatment program six months before on 1 July 2013. Under significant pressure from a range of interest groups we agreed to review the legislation pertaining to alcohol mandatory treatment, which we did. This review commenced around this time last year in December.
In hindsight, this was a premature review. It was a review that did not need to happen at that point in time. However, we relented and agreed to appease the very vocal critics of alcohol mandatory treatment, and the review was undertaken. It came at some cost to Northern Territory taxpayers. The outcomes of the review were wide-ranging, but for the most part, quite predictable.
The main message we received from that review was that the absconding provision should be changed. People felt that having the absconding offence in place criminalised drunks. There was a range of other recommendations, including opening pathways for referral. We now have that document in the public arena, including a range of recommendations which are reflected in these amendments to the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act.
We delayed releasing that review, and have spent the last seven or eight months contemplating how to use it. It was premature to come up with such conclusive recommendations six months into the operation of this program, so we took our time to contemplate how to use these recommendations.
The consultation has been done. These amendments reflect several of those recommendations. The review cost us all money and time; people were taken off the process of rolling out the AMT program and were focused on providing this review to appease the interest groups, as I said.
We delayed its release, thought about it and now we are ready to make these amendments to the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act as recommended in that review, pushed by, mainly, our critics. Not many people outside the predictable group of stakeholders and interest groups who are very critical of AMT – or have been in the past – contributed to the review.
The timing is right now to move on this. One of the main reasons, apart from the fact the timing is right generally regarding the review, the contemplation and the amendment to the act which follows a natural succession, is we know that heavy drinking in the Northern Territory, for the most part, is seasonal, particularly in Central Australia. The date is 26 November and this marks a very clear change in behaviour. At this point in time every year you start to see a spike in the misuse of alcohol in Central Australia, accompanied by antisocial behaviour and a lift in crime rates. It is seasonal. It is as predictable as night follows day. It is a trend that has been recognised throughout the Northern Territory for a long time – decades.
We are on the cusp of the spike in increased misuse of alcohol, particularly in Central Australia, so the timing is critical. From this point on, the emergency departments will see an increase in alcohol-related presentations as they always do. The time is right to make these changes, particularly the change of opening up the pathways for referral.
The other issue which has inspired me to put this through on urgency is not just recognising that more people will be in hardship because there is a seasonal increase in the misuse of alcohol throughout the Northern Territory, but in recent times I have been approached by clinicians working in two of the emergency departments in the Northern Territory. They feel a great sense of frustration that because of the very serious ill health of most of the people who would normally go straight into alcohol mandatory treatment, they are first brought to the hospital rather than taken into protective custody in the police system.
There is a group of people which is continually bypassing the possibility of being referred to alcohol mandatory treatment because they are too sick. The police responsibly bring them to the emergency departments of our hospitals because they are too concerned about the health of these sick people and the fact they could be in serious strife health-wise if they do not seek immediate medical attention. These people are bypassing the protective custody system we have in place which would normally trigger a referral to alcohol mandatory treatment after being picked up three times. I have listened to the recent concerns brought to my attention by clinicians working in the emergency department. That is another reason we need to deal with this as soon as possible.
There is a range of scenarios that have been brought to my attention in recent times which make me now feel these changes have to be brought through on urgency. We need to get it up and running. As I said, the consultation was done less than 12 months ago in the early part of this year. There is no need to delay these changes.
I cannot imagine who the members of the opposition or the Independents would want to consult with beyond those who were consulted in January/February this year when we did the review of the legislation. We have ticked all the boxes.
To delay these amendments going through parliament today means we would continue to exclude people from this program which is achieving results, changing people’s lives and giving an opportunity for these very sick alcohol-affected people to get better for a period of time within a residential rehabilitation program. To continue to exclude people in need of alcohol mandatory treatment will cause hardship.
I encourage members of the other side of the Chamber – the opposition and Independents – to join with me in getting these amendments through today. I know the principle of urgency does not go down particularly well. Yesterday we passed the TIO bill on urgency. This is a slightly different scenario in that there is no great capital gain and no loss of an asset that people believe is particularly close to their hearts. This is just about making sure we include as many people into this alcohol mandatory treatment program as possible. The timing is right. It is about a seasonal moment in time where we have a responsibility as a government to offer alcohol mandatory treatment to as many people as we can.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I impress on people in this Chamber that they support this bill going through on urgency.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, thanks for the clarification. The reason I started talking to the motion on urgency was when the minister concluded her second reading she went straight to move the motion that it go to urgency.
In accordance with Standing Order 179 which refers to urgent bills, the Speaker can, on application of the Chief Minister or the minister in this case – perhaps the Minister for Health acting on the Chief Minister’s behalf – declare a bill to be urgent if satisfied the delay of one month provided by Standing Order 178 could result in hardship being caused. I am checking it has gone through that process and the Speaker has said yes to that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it has not gone through that standing order process. It should not be referenced, and that is why the motion is to suspend standing orders so it can go through on urgency. Standing Order 179 does not require the suspension of standing orders. The motion at the moment is whether we suspend standing orders so the bill can be progressed through.
Ms WALKER: Okay. I am talking to whether or not we should be suspending standing orders to talk about the urgency of the bill?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, that is correct.
Ms WALKER: I do not believe there is a case for hardship, in a whole sense, which the Minister for Health is referring to. Bills on urgency are something we will have to get used to in this House because this government is not particularly interested in fulsome consultation and review of legislation, but rather in ramming things through on urgency.
Whilst I may appreciate the position, to an extent, of the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation’s case, I do not believe it warrants pushing through on urgency. She has said this review has ticked all the boxes. I do not believe it does by a long shot. We are talking about a review of the act. She said the main feedback was around absconding, pathways, and getting through those legislative changes on urgency. She just made passing reference to many other recommendations out of the review of the act.
Let us be serious. There were 48 recommendations made in the review, five of which did not require any changes. That would take it to 43 recommendations, three of which are going through on urgency in legislation through the bill presented today.
That is still 40 recommendations that are outstanding from a review of legislation that went through about 18 months ago that was poorly consulted on at the time. We warned against some of the pitfalls of that alcohol mandatory treatment legislation that we were informed of by stakeholders in that sector who raised these concerns. Lo and behold, what do we see today? The three things that were highlighted to the minister around criminalisation, pathways and people being held in custody are the very things this act is setting out to correct.
That in itself is okay, but there are other things that need to be addressed. I am stunned that the minister has been silent on a death in care, tragically, that occurred at some time in October, at a time when the minister must have been aware of taking through this bill on urgency. This is why the opposition, again working with stakeholders, had called for a wholesale review of the alcohol mandatory treatment program and its results, not just the legislation.
We are at risk of hardship when we know, as the minister has referred to, we have people in this system who have serious health issues. The risk of death in care is a very real one, as highlighted by the passing of an individual in October. In this debate about wanting to review AMT and hardship, and to make it more workable, the minister is silent on this and has been silent on the calls for a clinical review to be held into the results of alcohol mandatory treatment.
She said in this debate a few minutes ago that it is achieving results. What results? Every few months we get to see a couple of pages that provide us with some kind of results, but that data is not made available to anybody other than those within the Health bureaucracy. This is why we have called for an independent clinical review whereby that data can be made available and a rigorous assessment done to measure the successes, pitfalls and risks associated with it.
How do we know, for instance, those providers of services – who I have no doubt are doing their very best within the resources allocated to them and are genuinely committed to providing that service – are adequately resourced? How do we know there are processes and procedures in place if someone is seriously ill around their access to the best medical care?
This is not a criticism of the providers, this is a criticism of a government which put through legislation last year, dismissive of anybody who wanted to offer an alternative view. We are talking about legal experts, justice experts, lawyers and social justice advocates who were dismissed in the most appalling language, we recall, by the Chief Minister who referred to them as ‘lefties who thrived on the misery of others’. He used some four-letter language in that as well.
I note also the demeanour, the language, or the tone of the minister in referring to the review, which was a good review of the act commenced late last year or perhaps in January and made available in March 2013. She made the passing reference ‘at a cost to Territory taxpayers’. Yes, these consultancies come at a cost; that is the reality.
I could not help but hear some begrudging sense at that ‘cost’ that the Health minister had to fork out for to have this review undertaken. Is that why she is reluctant to move to an independent clinical review of the system that would allow access for independent clinicians and experts to have access to all of the data? If it is the cost she begrudges then shame on her. However, I suspect it is more related to the fact she does not want people to see the data. She knows people will see it is not working, not achieving results and is an incredibly costly system, when we know money is tight in the Health budget, in delivering results.
She also made reference to it having cost us time and money to appease the interest groups. How demeaning is that language – ‘appeasing the interest groups’? We know this minister does not have broad shoulders and does not like taking criticism from others.
Going back to the issue of urgency, this is a good report with 48 recommendations, a review into the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act – just the legislation. She said they sat on it and thought about it. She sat on it for six months before doing anything with it, then suddenly it has become urgent and needs to come through this House. People will not buy that.
The fact we have had this death, and there is the risk of further deaths of people in care in this system, is frightening. To push this through on urgency when there are many other aspects to alcohol mandatory treatment – not just the act itself. Being able to shine a spotlight on the results, have some accountability and transparency around the system and the ability to measure whether it is working is what is really called for here.
I also note the minister differentiates between when something is urgent and when it is not. We heard her speak yesterday – for the first time, I add – on the Medical Services Act and the fact it is long overdue for review. This review will take time. At the same time, we have calls from a certain sector of our community. I attended a forum at Charles Darwin University on Monday afternoon about the legal aspects of reproductive health pertaining to access to termination of pregnancy for women and girls in the Northern Territory. The minister is not interested in stepping into that space, but rather hiding behind a review of the whole act, which will take time.
This is at odds with a review of the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act. It is not just the act, but the whole system and data that goes with it. She is not prepared to do that, but she is prepared to rush in on urgency with a case for hardship for those people going through alcohol mandatory treatment. We understand it is because of the woeful legislation they presented – the errors that were obvious to everybody except the CLP government: the inherent risks associated with absconding and the fact it criminalised people and got them into the Corrections systems. Yes, there is a need to open up pathways for greater access. It does not quite stack up.
Mr Deputy Speaker, without a doubt this will go through on urgency. We will see the passage of the bill tomorrow. Given the numbers this government has it will get through. I object to the case for urgency, but we will head into the debate tomorrow and see where we go from there.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for allowing me a recent briefing on this bill. I forewarned the minister I would not support urgency. That is not to do with the debate about the bill itself. The minister knows I have supported alcohol mandatory rehabilitation. That does not mean I have not had a number of questions about how that policy has functioned. I had some criticisms at the beginning, and some of those criticisms have been addressed in these changes. I am very pleased to see that.
We will debate this tomorrow because we do not have the numbers to stop this going through on urgency. It is disappointing. Alcohol mandatory rehabilitation has been around for quite a while now; there has been a review. We are debating whether it should be passed as a matter of urgency. The main reason, I understand, the minister would like this to go through quickly is we are getting close to the new year, and there will be many people who will probably drink more than they should. This will be a good opportunity to bring in these changes because it is that time of year.
I remember a similar discussion in relation to Alcohol Protection Orders. I might be wrong, but that may have been rushed through also on the basis that new year celebrations were coming up and it would have been good to have that legislation during that period.
We can argue whether it is good to have legislation available at a certain time of year, but where is the planning? The government has departments and offices full of people on the fifth floor. Surely someone could have planned well enough for these changes, which need fulsome debate, so they do not have to go through as a matter of urgency.
If we have a review, people have feedback. The department has had feedback on problems in relation to alcohol mandatory treatment. They should have put these matters before parliament at the last sittings. Then we could have had time for a full debate. We rushed legislation through yesterday, which was wrong. You can give all the reasons in the world, but it did not need to happen.
Things have to be fair dinkum urgent. We have passed and I have supported urgent bills. I remember a bill in the last government where some legal advice showed that if there were not some changes to the Water Act in regard to discharge licences, Power and Water would not have been able to discharge waste or sewage into the harbour, simply because there was a mistake in the act. Of course, that had to be done on urgency, which made sense. There have been other cases.
But this case highlights to me a lack of forward planning in relation to bringing forward amendments to this bill. The minister knows I support just about all the amendments she is presenting, although I will debate some of those and might have some queries in relation to them. However, that is not the issue. I am not trying to denigrate positive changes to the act, I am just saying this does not quite fit into the case of having to have it done by tomorrow otherwise the whole thing will collapse. It is basically saying we need to do this because at a certain time of year it would be better if we had this legislation up and running. That may or may not be the case, but it should have been done a lot better, from the point of view of giving people in this parliament an opportunity to (1) think about the legislation and (2) go to the relative people who are involved.
I sent an e-mail to the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Medical Association. Obviously, they are also very busy people. I know Robert Parker and he is pretty flat out. I sent him an e-mail asking for comment. I only have this little window of opportunity to get a second opinion on some of these issues. If we are to have a good debate backed up by experts in this field, then we cannot do it in such a short time.
I understand, minister, and I appreciate we had a briefing. But there is also a stack of other legislation and we had to deal with the TIO issue, which was a very big and important issue in this parliament. If we had had a little more time, I am sure we would not be in this situation where we are passing a bill on urgency.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope the minister understands I am not against what she is trying to do here, which I generally support. In this case it should not be rushed. I would have liked to have heard other opinions from people in the field to ensure when I spoke tomorrow on this debate it was not just me saying these things, but it was supported by – or in some cases not supported by – those who deal with people who use our alcohol mandatory treatment facilities. We could then have had a more enlightened debate than one rushed through.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the members for Nhulunbuy and Nelson for their contributions to the debate on the suspension of standing orders to allow the amendments to the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act I propose to put through today on urgency.
If we do not put it through today, 26 November, it will not be until mid-February at the earliest, which in my mind is too long. That is three months away. This program, as I said earlier, has only been functioning for 17 months and a lot has happened. We have had a complete review of the legislation within six months of it being in operation – unprecedented and premature. I am not hiding anything, but you have to allow time for these complicated, very complex programs to fully roll out before you start to put the measuring tape on them and pull them apart and analyse them.
We are providing quarterly statistics on our figures of the number of people coming through alcohol mandatory treatment, giving a range of variables in those statistics. We are adequately informing people of what is happening. At some point next year when the program has been, for the most part, rolled out across the Northern Territory we will do a full review and all will be revealed.
Do not forget when we started this program we were under no illusion. Residential alcohol rehabilitation programs have been in existence around the world for many years. This program is no different from any other. It is no different from Banyan House or from other programs around the Northern Territory, except it is mandatory.
We have always measured our expectations and success on the same measures other alcohol residential programs measure theirs. We have always said if between 10% to 20% of people going through alcohol mandatory treatment change their drinking habits, abstain if they choose, then that is a success. There will be other successes. Without pre-empting a review that will probably take place towards the end of next year, the Attorney-General mentioned the fact that crime has significantly reduced across the Northern Territory. That is a measure of the success of alcohol mandatory treatment and of a number of other programs we have initiated in the two years we have been in government.
We have pushed along this alcohol mandatory treatment program. We passed legislation very quickly, as the member for Nhulunbuy outlined earlier. We pushed it through because it was an election commitment and we wanted to get on with it. People voted us in on the premise we would get this up and running, and we have. Within six months we agreed to a review of the legislation. I do not withdraw my comment earlier that it was done mainly to appease the critics who were jumping down our throats. There is a chorus of people out there who, no matter what we do, will find fault and continue to criticise us, whether we implement the 47 recommendations of the review into the AMT legislation or not. There will always be something wrong with it because they are philosophically opposed to the mandatory side of this treatment. I get that. That is up to them, that is their prerogative. However, I do not intend to appease too many more people in the community who continue to criticise rather that provide constructive, assisting, supportive feedback.
The consultations around these amendments were done 12 months ago. The review into the legislation included extensive consultation. We received 12 submissions from stakeholder groups across the Northern Territory representing the medical fraternity, the legal fraternity, and various other interest groups. We do not need to consult anymore. I am sure if the member for Nelson grabbed a copy of the review of the legislation that was made public in about March or April this year, he can reflect on the consultation that was done.
We need to move this along. We moved it along from day one. We passed the legislation, we have the programs up and running, reviewed the legislation in record time and we reflected on that review for the last six months, which in the scheme of things is not a huge period of time.
Now we want to implement a few of those priority recommendations. These are the top three, member for Nhulunbuy. The main recommendation of that review was to withdraw the absconding offence. That is one of the amendments we will put through today; we will drop that. That was one of the main criticisms people had of the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act. We have listened and we are implementing the changes to the legislation today. We do not want to wait another three months because it means that over summer, a critical period, particularly in Central Australia – Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, all the remote communities around Central Australia and you could almost include Katherine in that although its climate is more tropical. This is the danger period for us in the misuse of alcohol and all the associated crime and antisocial behaviour that goes with it.
I do not want to wait until February to put these amendments through; we should do it now. We will save and improve people’s lives. We will give more people an opportunity to get off the grog and feel, for the first time in years, what it is like to be healthy.
The member for Nhulunbuy on the other side of the Chamber said it is not a success, it is a waste of money. Member for Nhulunbuy, please come to Alice Springs and visit CAAAPU, meet the people who are managing this program and listen to their stories. Okay, there is no empirical evidence to counter your specific concerns but there will be in the future. Take the time to listen to the people providing this service. In Tennant Creek and Darwin we have converted great critics of AMT to come on board. An Aboriginal man came up to me when we opened the Stringy Bark facility in Darwin and said, ‘Robyn, I have been a very strong critic of alcohol mandatory treatment. I now work here and see the change it can make to people’s lives.’ Those third-party endorsements are worth more weight than the criticisms levelled at us from our critics that appear in the media on a regular basis. But we live in a democracy, criticise all you like. We know we are doing some amazing things.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing, I take up a point the member Nhulunbuy raised in her debate earlier: the death of the woman at CAAAPU. CAAAPU, like any other health facility in the Northern Territory, is just that – a health facility. It is like a hospital or a clinic; it is a health facility. We fund CAAAPU to provide a health service to people with chronic alcohol problems.
A woman died in that facility. We notified her next of kin. We did not stand on the top of Mount Gillen and tell the world this woman died. This woman died for reasons that will be identified by the Coroner. I cannot talk about why this woman died. I did not think it appropriate for the Health minister of the Northern Territory to treat this death differently than any other death in a health service in the Northern Territory. I respected the rights of the family. I know I am being criticised because I did not make it public and did not issue a media release. How irresponsible and inappropriate would that have been for the Health minister to go to the Centralian Advocate, the NT News, the ABC and God knows who else to say, ‘A woman has died in alcohol mandatory treatment’?
I do not do it for people who die in the Alice Springs Hospital, the Darwin hospital or any other hospital in the Northern Territory. I do not do it for any other death. It is not appropriate, particularly given this was an Aboriginal woman, and there are cultural ways of dealing with this. We were hiding nothing ...
Ms Walker interjecting.
Mr Elferink: Which gutter would you have had her die in, Lynne? Which gutter?
Mr Gunner: So she was going to die, no matter what?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I do not think it is appropriate for the opposition party of the Northern Territory …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can people stop yelling across the Chamber or I will put a few more out for a while!
Mrs LAMBLEY: I have broad shoulders, member for Nhulunbuy. The last two years for me have been the most character building of my entire life. If you want to throw rocks at me for not going to the media and making a spectacle of this woman’s death, then so be it. I will take that as I have taken many other criticisms levelled at me …
Mr Elferink: You do not have an answer. All you have is noise and whinging.
Ms Walker: You missed your call in the debate.
Mrs LAMBLEY: … by the media and the opposition of the Northern Territory. I stand by my decision to treat that death as I would any other death in a health facility of the Northern Territory.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business and member for Nhulunbuy, you are both already on warnings, and I will send you out – one more.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I stand by my decision to treat the death of that woman at CAAAPU, a health facility funded by the Northern Territory government, as I would any other death in any other health facility funded by the Northern Territory government …
Ms Walker interjecting.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I will not make a media spectacle out of it. I am hiding nothing, but it would have been irresponsible …
Ms Walker interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, you were warned. You can leave the Chamber for one hour, pursuant to Standing Order 240A. I have had enough!
Mrs LAMBLEY: It would have been irresponsible and insensitive of me to make a media spectacle of that woman’s death. It is a Coroner’s case now. It will be investigated by the Coroner, and the Coroner will inform the public of the Northern Territory in good time why that poor woman passed away.
The Assembly divided:
Motion agreed to.
The Assembly suspended.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of the participants in the Learning on Country Program from Maningrida College, accompanied by Shane Bailey. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome and hope you enjoy your visit to Parliament House today.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from 25 November 2014.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Darwin Rates Amendment Bill 2014. The Speaker read His Honour the Administrator’s message recommending an amendment set out in the schedule distributed to members. Committee discussion will be confined to the matter contained in His Honour’s recommended amendment. Members are reminded there is no opportunity to debate the content, desirability or policy intent of the original bill.
Clause 2:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move an amendment to clause 2 of the bill. The Darwin Rates Amendment Bill 2014 seeks to amend the Darwin Rates Act. The key features of the bill modernise the language in the legislation, align rating procedures with those of the Local Government Act and allow for the possibility, in the future, for other areas to be covered by the act. The bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly during the March 2014 sittings.
Clause 2 provides that the bill takes effect from 1 July 2014. Due to an administrative oversight, the commencement date was not changed to prevent retrospectivity and the bill was passed by the Assembly during the August 2014 sittings.
As a result, the Administrator has recommended that the bill be returned to the Assembly with an amendment to the commencement clause to avoid the bill operating retrospectively. The new commencement clause provides that the amendments contained in the bill are to commence on the date to be fixed by the Administrator by Gazette notice. I support the Administrator’s recommendation and I thank him for his contribution.
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Chair, I thank the Chief Minister for his letter of explanation. To refresh everybody’s memory of this bill, it was debated on 20 August 2014. I believe, from your letter, Chief Minister – and I have looked at this matter – that clause 2 of the bill debated on that day had a commencement date of 1 July 2014. There seems to be an irregularity; I assume this is why we are here. The Administrator returned the bill proposing an amendment that the commencement date of 1 July 2014 be changed to be – and I ask you Chief Minister to advise me – ‘a day fixed by the Administrator by Gazette notice’. Is that correct?
Mr GILES: Yes.
Mr McCARTHY: How does that work and why does it need to be changed?
Mr GILES: How it works is when the Gazette is printed. Why does it need to be changed? As I explained, the original bill asked for it to take effect from 1 July 2014, but the bill was not heard in the June proceedings, it was heard in the August proceedings. There needs to be a change of the date for when it can start as it cannot be done retrospectively.
Mr McCARTHY: Chief Minister, thank you for informing the opposition. Were there any other problems with assent of this bill determined by the Administrator?
Mr GILES: No.
Mr McCARTHY: Then it was not in relation to any of the aspects that arose out of debate? I will quote from Hansard from the member for Daly:
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, I point out again that members were reminded there is no opportunity to debate the content, desirability or policy intent of the original bill.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr Chair, I heard that. These comments are in relation to the amendment. I have asked the Chief Minister if that was not a complicating factor in this bill.
Mr CHAIR: I do not see that it relates to this amendment. The amendment is purely the date of assent of the bill. The indication you have given there from the member for Daly had nothing to do with the date of the assent of the bill.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for answering that query. This relates to the amendments because, once again, we have some serious issues.
We are back in this House in a Committee of the Whole looking at legislation that obviously was defective. The member for Blain has clearly articulated a matter that I was privileged to be part of in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. It was a very good learning curve as a parliamentarian, to understand and participate in the process to protect government from possible liability and court action. This goes to the subject of indemnity.
My question last night in a committee stage was about indemnity. Chief Minister, I honestly believe you should take more time to listen than to attack, ridicule and spin. Last night I was talking about indemnity as well, looking after our government on behalf of Territorians. We have the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. We now have legislation being rushed through this House on urgency. We have a defective bill, picked up by the Administrator, sent back to the government to be corrected, and I am being told that this is trivial?
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, I have just checked again with the Clerk and we are getting way off what the committee stage is about. There was one recommendation from the Administrator, purely in regard to the date – nothing else. We are now getting into indemnity and everything around that. I want the debate restricted to the one clause and the date, otherwise I will put the motion.
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Chair, the Chief Minister might like to comment on what is going on with his government, because I have just outlined a number of serious issues about the passage of legislation ...
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, I have had enough, be seated.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, so I can be clear: we are not selecting the date on which this bill will now become official? We are leaving that up to the Administrator. Will the Administrator have any guidance as to what day this act will commence from?
Mr GILES: All we are debating is the clause 2 amendment, as discussed by the Chair. The reason this has come forward is because it was originally to be debated in June, so it would have been okay for 1 July. However, because we held the bill over until August the date was wrong. That is all it is. The gazettal date will be fixed in time for the next financial year.
Mr WOOD: The date will be fixed. It says on the amendment, ‘Insert the day fixed by the Administrator by Gazette notice’. There will be a date before the beginning of next financial year? This act will not happen until that date is fixed, and it will be fixed before the next financial year?
Mr GILES: That is right.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.
Continued from 23 October 2014.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I start I thank the minister and his office. I became the shadow minister responsible for this only a few weeks ago. They have been very accommodating in my requests for briefings and in providing additional information they have perhaps already provided to the opposition. I appreciate there were numerous e-mails back and forth between me and the minister’s office with people helping me on this. Before we get into the debate I wanted to acknowledge that and the departmental staff who made themselves available to provide briefings at short notice. I thank the minister and his team.
The government’s unit titles bill seeks to amend the legal framework for the redevelopment of unit complexes when not all owners are in agreement. In 2009 the Labor government introduced the first legal framework for the termination of unit titles by the majority of owners. This legislation allowed for the termination of units based on 90% of agreement for schemes at least 20 years of age and for new schemes established from 2009. This provided certainty for purchasers buying after the commencement of a unit development and for owners after that date. This scheme was not applied retrospectively, as at the time this could instead go to court for 100% agreement by owners.
The former Labor government held a strong record of leading redevelopment and providing economic foundation for investors to invest here. We had examples of that with the Wirrina redevelopment in Parap which was the first redevelopment of a large public housing complex resulting in a mix of public, affordable and private units.
Again, I point to the record of the previous Labor government in supporting development to provide the Territory’s housing needs. Looking around our CBD, there has been considerable redevelopment in the past 15 years.
In November 2011, there were over 2000 units with approved development status across Darwin, and the majority were in the CBD pending finance and construction. By December 2012, over 600 units were under construction across Darwin CBD and suburbs. In the five or so years before 2012, about 5000 new units were built in Darwin CBD, the equivalent of a new suburb of homes, including the number of units built at the waterfront, which is now becoming a feature of Darwin city.
We also identified and made election commitments to redevelop aged public housing complexes in a process that would involve private developers providing a mix of housing options on these sites. I notice the current government has adopted some of these projects, but it feels as if this commitment has been reshaped at the expense of public housing. We have not seen that obligation met.
On this side of the House we are pro-development and redevelopment, but it needs to be in strong consultation with our communities. We need to bring our communities with us. We recognise there are unit schemes currently which will soon arrive at the end of their economic life. On Mitchell Street is a key example of an old building on a valuable piece of land. The challenges in achieving redevelopment at that site due to the owners’ inability to reach unanimous agreement are very much understood on this side of the House. A solution is required.
However, we feel this legislation does not provide the solution in a sound and equitable legal framework for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it lacks adequate safeguards and is poorly framed, exposing both homeowners and developers. We feel in developing this bill the government has failed to consult with the people – Territory homeowners who will be directly affected.
There is considerable tension between the concept of redeveloping land – particularly to prevent ghettos – and the rights of the property owners who would like to enjoy their property without interference. We want to see a balance between redevelopment and those rights. It is extremely important to get the balance right.
The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech, referred to this legislation being the first of its kind in the nation. I know he understands legislation very well, but I feel he should understand that legislation of that significance should be underpinned by robust and very thorough consultation to get the balance right.
While the process of consultation has been lengthy, the extent of the consultation has been considerably inaccurate. As a result, this legislation has some flaws and does not provide safeguards for homeowners and proponents to avoid costly legal wrangling in the future. Obviously the government has a large amount of resources at its disposal, and we feel it is unacceptable to present legislation of this complexity without a sincere effort to consult with all affected parties.
I question whether the government, in making the determination about the age of the units which can be redeveloped without unanimous agreement, identified all the unit complexes which will be affected by this bill. The government’s Integrated Land Management System can identify the age of properties in the Territory and provide the government with this type of information, so they could have spoken to owners to try to get the message out regarding their proposal. Did the government write to every homeowner possibly affected by this bill, particularly owners of units aged 15 years and over across the Territory, which this legislation will impact on? Did you even consider, given the controversy this legislation was likely to attract, that a greater effort should be made to consult with the large body of people affected by the legislation – homeowners – particularly as you point out in your legislation that this bill is leading the nation?
We feel it is not acceptable that the consultation process did not provide extensively advertised public forums with targeted advertising for homeowners, including writing to them directly to properly inform them of the proposals. To many of us our home is our castle. No matter if it is a small one-bedroom studio unit or a larger house, it is still the most important property in a person’s life.
You pointed out that the topic was incorporated in the Attorney-General’s department’s general law reforms, but it is questionable whether that is adequate consideration given the complexity and sensitivity of this bill. Attorney-General, do you know how many members of the public – not stakeholder organisations or lawyers – attended these law reform meetings across the Territory compared to the number of homeowners affected? It is a topic deserving of considered and comprehensive public forums to ensure that arguments can be put to the public to properly inform stakeholders of the proposed changes and seek their feedback.
For example, when the New South Wales government flagged changes in its legislative regime around unit title reforms, it announced a two-year process to ensure all stakeholders were aware of the proposed changes and were consulted. This included an online discussion forum which attracted over 1200 comments, resulting in 600 proposed law changes. They also held round table meetings with various stakeholders.
Has the government engaged with the New South Wales government to understand its draft outcomes on unit terminations, ages and percentages? Its findings might have benefitted the Territory in weighing up to get the balance right, which is the key of this bill. Other jurisdictions are treading carefully due to the complexity and social issues affected by such change.
This legislation might seem straightforward but it is very complex. It appears the government did not engage with NT Shelter, which advocates for housing provision and home ownership for Territorians. Did you approach Territory-based community legal services? They all play a role in advising and assisting everyday Territorians?
The timing of the release of the discussion paper in November 2012, with submissions closing on 31 January – falling over the Christmas holiday period when many Territorians are away and businesses close, not necessarily following normal routine – is not an ideal time to undertake public consultation.
I am also curious about any private discussions with stakeholders about the discussion paper prior and post the report dated September 2013 which summarised the submissions and the government’s proposed direction at the time.
This bill proposes the required percentages to support termination of a current unit title. We are talking about 95% for a development aged 15 years or more but less than 20 years. Fifteen years is not an extremely long time. In fact, the first unit I bought would probably be nearly 15 years old. To me, it is still a new complex. I was lucky enough to move in when it was brand new, so 15 years is not a long time. We are talking about 90% for a development aged 20 or more years but less than 30 years, and only 80% of agreement for a building aged 30 years or more. We are talking about relatively young buildings.
The economic life of a building is generally 25 to 30 years, yet this bill proposes redevelopment at 15 years. While any redevelopment would have to stack up financially, the average unit owner would understand the need for legislation to redevelop older units, particularly those built pre-Cyclone Tracy, because we want to prevent ghettos from developing. However, one of the main questions is whether 15 years of age is consistent with that.
I understand the proposals received included redevelopment at one to five years with a 95% agreement. There is still a balance to be struck that requires conversation with all stakeholders affected.
I note the NT Property Council’s submission suggested linking this reform with specific town planning zones such as Central Business, High Density or Medium Density to ensure facilitation of required urban renewal without affecting the majority of smaller suburban units where, in their view, redevelopment is not imperative.
We are wondering why the government has ignored this recommendation, particularly when our urban planning is in such a mess and there is so much community angst and concern about spot rezoning.
A number of submissions pointed to the risk of vulnerable people being adversely affected by this bill. We could all point to homeowners who purchased lower-cost housing many years ago which has now become valuable due to its location. Tenants of Territory Housing who might have purchased the property if offered the opportunity, or people who bought older buildings because that is all they could afford, are often low-income earners and their home is their nest egg, their future.
Redevelopment of older housing often results in additional ongoing costs with higher body corporate fees. A smaller property would have less maintenance issues with a lift, a swimming pool or a gym than a newer complex which has those amenities which attract fees. This bill is silent on compensation for people in these situations. A bill of this significance could establish a compensation model to assist homeowners and developers to negotiate appropriate compensations so homeowners are not worse off.
This bill also fails to require the body corporate and homeowners to consider independent financial advice before making decisions on proposals, something we feel strongly about. You are talking about valuable land and developers who obviously have access to financial planners and lawyers. They have fantastic ideas, but we need to ensure the rights of everyday Territorians who own their homes are protected. We could be dealing with people who are a little more vulnerable and might not seek adequate financial advice on the proposed redevelopment. Is it right for them? Sure, they might get a couple of hundred thousand dollars payout, but if they are unable to afford to buy back into the property, or pay the ongoing body corporate fees, that is a huge issue of concern.
A homeowner in a complex that is redeveloped under this scheme could end up in a situation where the new units are out of their financial reach and are pushed out of the community where they have lived for many years, established networks and are close to support. The bill could provide safeguards by establishing affordable entry points – which is back to the mixed developments or affordable and high-end units – to facilitate the original owners remaining in their homes where they are connected with their community.
Without provisions like this, particularly in larger sites that will provide considerable yield opportunities, over time affordable units will become less and less available as more and more sites are redeveloped into high-cost housing. This was a concern raised by NT Shelter. This will result in the circumstance of people being asset rich, but cash poor. People who have invested in these properties that were of less value are potentially being disadvantaged simply because the land cost has risen and zoning allows for more intensive use of the site. I feel that with the legislation we need to look at these situations and protect them.
Taking this policy position would go towards addressing the situation where a homeowner is happy to live in an older unit and does not want to move or take on additional costs by upgrading their home. Those issues for individuals could be reasonable grounds to object in a particular circumstance, yet they could be addressed by affordable housing measures that ensure homeowners are not worse off.
Everyone has a different point of view about what they want for their home. Some people want brand new, others are happy as they are. We need to take into account that everyone has a different standard of living and ensure by pushing this legislation people are not in a circumstance where they cannot afford to live where they want to.
In Parap Village, the Wirrina public housing development is a great demonstration of mixed housing. It has maintained public housing, but has some affordable rentals and private unit accommodation so you have that balance and blend.
The second reading speech identified that there has been no science applied to the provisions of the age at which buildings with more than 10 units can be redeveloped. Instead of being a matter of judgment, it started at 15 years. I mentioned before that 15 years for a building seems extremely young. Many people take on a home loan of between 20 to 30 years. Potentially, someone who planned on living there for a very long time after receiving their home loan and is meeting their repayments can be forced out of that property by this legislation.
I am curious about the considerations Cabinet gave in identifying the appropriate age for redevelopment in this legislation, particularly regarding some older sites in Darwin. I think straightaway of Mitchell Street. There are some buildings in my electorate people think of as appropriate which are far older – 30, 40 or even 50 years. It is concerning. I wonder what the considerations were. People who bought their unit off the plan 15 years ago and are still paying off their mortgage could be faced with taking on additional borrowings to live in a newer unit in the same location, when their original unit may not necessarily be in such a poor state as to require redevelopment. However, the land value makes it attractive for investors. This issue goes to balance and protections, and was raised in discussions I had with NT Shelter.
I know you will say if it is a newer building of course it will not be redeveloped. What about the situation where a piece of land could have duplexes right through to 10, 15 or 20 units, which could now see a tower of tens of units? Even though the building could be quite new and suitable for people, we feel the age issue has not been addressed completely.
I acknowledge that a range of views was submitted. Stakeholders who should have been consulted are the large number of affected homeowners. As I pointed out, there was nothing stopping the government from letting people know about this. I spoke to some people who were concerned this legislation would affect them. When we think about redevelopment they are not in those typical buildings seen around Darwin and perhaps Alice Springs. These are people in quite adequate housing, but who know their land has value. They are quite concerned about this legislation, the lack of consultation and the age and percentage ratios. Territorians who will be affected by the change could have been more adequately consulted about this bill. It could have provided more protections and balances that the community would expect from such significant legislation that affects the fundamental right of home ownership.
We all know deciding on home ownership is probably one of the most important decisions you will make in your life. This bill goes too far and affects too many people without providing the consultation needed for sound legislation. In briefings we talked about measures in place to protect individuals. Developers who are obviously looking at developing are able to get sound legal and financial advice. Individuals might not be able to seek that, and might be excited at the prospect of change but need to be supported in that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we feel this legislation has gone too far. There could have been other ways of dealing with some of the significant sites that possibly need to be redeveloped. I have a number of questions I will raise in the committee stage. The opposition will be opposing this bill today on a number of points I have made.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for allowing me some very good briefings from his department. I will be supporting this bill. I will explain why and raise some concerns at the same time. I hope the minister will take note of those concerns. I have weighed up the concerns and advantages. In looking at the bill overall, I see there are safeguards in it regarding some of the concerns the shadow minister just raised. They are some of the concerns I also have. I hope the government will be reviewing this on a continual basis to make sure some of those issues do not occur.
I thank the minister’s office for sending me a list of all those people who had been a part of the discussion paper. I agree with the shadow minister; there could have been more people involved. You might say there is a limit on the number of people we can ask. Except for a few individuals – although PLan is included – I am not sure who those other people represent. Maybe they represent COTA because many people you will deal with in these units will be seniors. One of these people might represent COTA, but I do not know as it is not marked here.
The other group I raise is local government, because local government is also mentioned as a group involved in this bill. For instance, clause 17(3) says:
Mr Elferink: It is the vibe.
Mr WOOD: It is. It is a great movie. I remember debating a caravan park which used to be in my electorate, the Sundowner Caravan Park, when they were given orders to move within a month in the Wet Season. It is not there now. One of the terrible things about the move to get rid of that caravan park – not the greatest caravan park in the world by the way – is if you go past that block of land today there is nothing growing on it but weeds. They were being kicked out so the land could be redeveloped. There were people who had lived there for at least 15 years.
The member for Fong Lim laughed at me when I said that a caravan with an annexe on it and a little garden was someone’s home. That is why we fought so hard to get an extension of time for those people to find another place to move to. One of the issues all of us will agree is important in this debate is it is not a bricks and mortar issue. A home is a place of security for many people. It is a place where a family exists and there is love and laughter and all the things that occur around a family. It is part of a street, that street is part of a neighbourhood and that neighbourhood is part of a community which is part of a place where people find that security and want to belong. When that is broken, you not only remove the person’s physical home, you interrupt part of their being in that community.
I am not discussing this purely in relation to a block of flats, I am relating it to a community where there will be disruption. I hope government will do its best to make sure that disruption is minimal for those people who do not want to leave or be part of this redevelopment, and that we look after them as best as possible. We have to operate in that philosophy.
It is like some of the other bills we have discussed. I have said many times that when I give my support for alcohol mandatory rehabilitation, it has to be done for certain reasons, one of which is compassion. If we take away someone’s right to live in a house because of these changes to the law, then we need to be compassionate and make sure the people who are disrupted are treated fairly and with dignity.
With that in mind, I will comment on an issue raised by the shadow minister. I was approached by someone from Stuart Park and had meetings with him at the Gardens Park Golf Course. It was very nice. I do not get down there too often. We had a chat about issues I raised, thankfully, minister, with your staff. The good thing was he was willing to sit down with your department staff, and face-to-face deal with the issues he had raised with me which I could not answer. He had an hour’s meeting. I rang him the other day and said, ‘How did the meeting go?’ My impression was he was satisfied with what he was told.
His concern was raised here earlier. I am not going to verbal him, just talk about this in general. He owns a one-bedroom unit and a developer came along and said, ‘I want to knock down these two-storey units and put up eight-story units. I will offer you some money if you want to go.’
He obviously is not keen to go; he is happy in the unit he is in. He can afford to pay the strata title fees. The money he is being offered would not enable him to buy a new unit in that area. My concern is that person should be allowed to stay there and pay the same strata title fees. An eight-storey block of flats would have a lift, probably a pool and, of course, the strata title fees will rise. He cannot afford that and probably does not even want that. There needs to be a way for that person’s rights to be protected.
I asked in my briefings if we could put that into the legislation. Could we say if a person who does not want to leave and objects, they can retain the same strata title fees and conditions they have now, and when they die or sell the premises that agreement ceases? It would be only for those people who object. On the other side of it, as we discussed, the problem is nobody would knock the place down because they would all want the same arrangement. We then have to rely on the tribunal.
I keep thinking of The Castle movie and the judge who agreed with the people about their home. Clause 17(1) of the bill says:
I am sure the member for Port Darwin will have a field day telling me the history of the words ‘just’ and ‘equitable’ …
Mr Elferink: No, but I will have a field day with ‘equity’.
Mr WOOD: I am sure those books in front of us would cover half the number of debates we have had over the centuries about what is just and equitable. By now we should understand the commonsense approach is this is fair and treats the objector with compassion. Clause 17(1) continues:
Perhaps in the regulations, which we do not have, some of the issues raised today might be covered.
We will rely a lot on the tribunal. That will be part of what has to be reviewed. I do not expect much of this to happen. There are some places in Darwin where people have probably been dying to do this for years. Possibly it will happen quickly. However, the government needs to come back, perhaps even in a statement, report on how this has worked in fact and what the tribunal has recommended if there were cases where people objected.
Clause17(2) says:
The regulations are important. It would be good if we could see what will be in the regulations because that might relate to the just and equitable approach to this.
What concerns me the most is if you have a block of flats and the owner wants to knock it all down and put in a non-residential development; he wants to build a sausage factory, a block of shops, or something that is not residential. The first example was the person who will knock all the flats down will at least build some more flats. That is one argument. In this case, that person will not be able to have a house in that area. This is hard. That person will lose the sense of identity I was talking about in the beginning. Unless there is a place right next door, they may have to leave the town, the suburb, or that community. That will be a real issue for the tribunal.
If it was a building 30 years or more old and 80% of people need to approve it, you might find that there is quite a reasonable number of people who will not have a house in the vicinity. It will be interesting to see how the tribunal will deal with this issue because it could be argued the tribunal would say, ‘Sorry, mate, this development is detrimental to people far more than would be reasonable and just, or equitable and just’, and that person simply cannot develop that land in that way.
But if the tribunal was to make a decision that this development could occur, then what will happen to those people? I know they could theoretically apply to the Supreme Court, but as I said earlier, many of these people would be older and probably could not afford to go to the Supreme Court. It could only go to the Supreme Court on a matter of law. This is what I am worried about. It may not happen, or in only very few cases. However, it does not matter if it is only very few cases, we need to ensure those people are given a fair hearing and that their future is a top priority when decisions are being made about redevelopment of an area.
I have put in my notes that I hope the government, maybe every 12 months, will report back to this parliament. It does not have to be a big report. It would give us an indication if such a development occurred under this act. I do not think it would hurt that there was some report, maybe every 12 months over the next couple of years, to give us an indication about where this act applied and what the results of the notices were. For instance, what were the results of the draft notice of proposed termination? Once that proposed termination certificate had been issued and people were asked what they wanted to do, what were the results of the decision made by the tribunal to allow that development to occur?
We do not need to know names of people, but we could find out the results of objections so we knew how they were dealt with in a practical way. If there were issues that needed to be sorted, then this bill could be refined. If you read the second reading – and I have heard the Attorney-General talk about this – it is groundbreaking legislation in Australia.
The minister mentioned Singapore, and I gather in some parts of the United States it occurs. However, I do not think the form in which this legislation comes before us applies anywhere else in Australia. That is why I am being a little particular. If we are going down this path no other state has, we need to make sure we have plenty of checks and balances in place.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I go back to the issue I started with. This is about a person’s home – or more than one person’s home. It could be a family or a number of people. It is about community and change that could affect people quite seriously, so it is legislation that has to be dealt with sensitively. The bricks and mortar are not the real issue here; it is the people who live in the bricks and mortar. As a parliament we should make sure we give them due respect when making this type of legislation.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, it has been interesting listening to the debate this afternoon. I listened very closely to the member for Nightcliff and her view there has been a lack of consultation on the Attorney-General’s bill. Again, she has it so wrong.
I believe the media release on this was issued on 30 September. From that media release it was clear that a discussion paper concerning unit titles terminations was released in November 2012 – we are now in 2014 – with comments required by 31 January 2013. Subsequently, a report on that consultation was published in September 2013. An explanatory document and draft bill was then able to be viewed on the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice website. The draft Termination of Units Plans and Unit Title Schemes Bill was then available for public comment from 1 October. At that stage it was expected to be tabled and debated in the House in the October sittings. We are now in the November sittings, the last sittings of the year. The Attorney-General has done a tremendous job in consulting with the community on something that has been a bugbear for many people for many years.
I recall listening to a positive story only recently. I have not had a chance to speak to the Attorney-General about this. There was a gentleman – let us call him John Smith. John lived in East Brunswick in Victoria. In, I believe, 1983, a townhouse he had been living in opposite a lovely park and the tram stop was purchased from him by developers – he had a terrace house at that stage – for the cost of a replacement unit in a new block of units being constructed in 1983. From the old townhouse he had lived in since the 1950s he went to live in a lovely new, modern unit, for 1983 standards.
I know this story because only a matter of a few months ago I learned that last year those nice units he moved into in 1983 were bought by new developers who wanted to redevelop the area again. Mr John Smith now lives in a sub-penthouse unit complex overlooking the same park opposite where had lived since, I think, 1953. In 1983 he moved into a brand-new unit constructed after a demolition job was done on old terrace houses in the area. This gentleman had been able to live in the exact same place for many years but, through developments, upgraded quite successfully. He now lives in a very modern building that meets his every need as he is now quite aged. For him it has been a remarkable journey to be able to live in the same place he did many years ago.
Residential units requiring major costly repairs and maintenance, or those which pose a health and safety threat, could be a thing of the past. We are hoping with the passage of this legislation today that will be true. Under this proposed legislation, a unit complex of 10 or more may be redeveloped if the required majority of owners agree to the plans, and the compensation offered by a developer to dissenting owners is accepted.
I recall when the Attorney-General was speaking about this months and months ago. He said this legislation will put an end to a small number of unit owners purposely blocking development for unreasonable financial gain against the wishes of the majority of owners.
This legislation is aimed at those who constantly undermine the wishes of the majority of property owners in an old and devalued unit block. Under current legislation in the Northern Territory, a complex cannot, except under an order of the Supreme Court, be sold or redeveloped if just one of the owners refuses to accept an offer from a property group, even if the remainder of the owners all agree to the plans.
With the appropriate number of approvals by owners, the proposed legislation could see obsolete buildings developed to cater for Darwin’s growing population. Small minorities that object to the proposed development will have access through the appeals process, providing owners with the necessary safeguards, and all parties with a fair and transparent process.
The member for Nelson raised safeguards. Safeguards will be in place for anybody who strongly objects to any change to an existing structure, and their concerns will be heard by the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NTCAT).
I recall – without going into too much detail – that was one of the areas we spent more time discussing how we could ensure we protect everybody and are doing the right thing for the majority of people with this legislation. You have to remember this legislation only affects unit blocks of 10 units or more. Of course there are other processes available for people in smaller unit blocks.
One area we need to focus on is the rationale behind the intent of this legislation. The way I see it, this bill will see improved housing developments and increase the amount of housing available. The reality is – and I have said this repeatedly in this place – the former Labor government left us in a housing crisis. We have been working across the board to increase housing across the Northern Territory. To give you an idea of some of the other areas we have been focusing on with land release, since the start the start of the year we have released land to support 2100 homes in Palmerston, 3000 homes at Berrimah Farm, 200 homes in Katherine East, 47 homes in Alice Springs on top of the 33 already released, and 23 homes in Tennant Creek, just to name a few.
Releasing land is one thing, but the government has also been reducing red tape to allow this land to be turned off quicker. This legislation the Attorney-General is debating today in this House is also a measure of reducing community red tape when it comes to developing land.
The mess the former government left us in when it came to the amount of land being released and the resulting house prices, land prices and rentals going through the roof in the Northern Territory was on the back of how they drip-fed the market. If you read and analyse the member for Nightcliff’s comments earlier, you will understand why things were so slow to happen under a Labor government.
So far in 2014 – and we still have about five weeks to go – we have issued titles for 671 dwellings, tracking for an improvement on last year’s 677. Labor’s legacy was an average of 410 titles issued over its last five years in government. That means around 520 more Territorians have a home because of the measures this government has taken to turn around Labor’s housing crisis.
It should also be mentioned – and I have undertaken research in the last couple of years on efficiencies – wearing my environmental hat at the moment, even the most green advocate will tell you the worst way to grow a city is through urban sprawl, and if we are looking for efficiencies we should be looking at densification.
This legislation will allow that to occur. We have some amazing older style unit developments across the Northern Territory, including in Darwin, which are on ideal locations next to transport hubs, close to schools, infrastructure and all the things required. Under the current legislation these sit idle and are unable to be developed. This legislation will assist in reinvigorating those older sites.
Let us talk about what a new, modern and efficient building can do compared to an older building. One might have less leaks and be more efficient when it comes to air conditioning and energy use; newer buildings are far more energy efficient than some of the older unit complexes, particularly those built with the old standard core-fill Besser blocks with no big eaves or verandas on them. Many of them were built in the 1960s, and the ones that withstood Cyclone Tracy are still here today. Those buildings are what people refer to as ‘hot boxes’. With modern building techniques and more efficiency built into buildings, a couple of things happen for residents. One is their energy consumption drops dramatically so their bills are cheaper. We can densify the land we have today which reduces the cost of living and the cost of land. The cost savings in a development building 20 units on a place where there were 10 are passed on to the consumer.
Something else this will do is improve the aesthetics of the Territory’s older eyesore buildings; they will be torn down and replaced with far better looking developments. We have some beautiful old buildings and some not so beautiful. Some are in good condition and have been kept in good repair and we should, from a heritage point of view, be looking after them. However, some of the older unit developments are well past their use-by date and the land, through a new development, can serve Territorians well into the future if they can be redeveloped.
The Attorney-General has spelt out very well that consumers’ rights will be protected by NTCAT, where they will have a right of appeal. Decent processes are built in; the numbers are right in this case. One of the biggest things a little left field with a new development is it is a bit like slapping paint on a building. I often think, when I visit many of our schools, there are some where the infrastructure is fantastic but others need a slap of paint. It changes the environment, both physically and mentally.
When a place is dressed up people feel happier and better. They have the opportunity, through this legislation, and a real chance of changing the atmosphere around some of the older, grottier unit complexes in these suburbs. The whole dynamics can change over time if you allow it to grow and develop.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Attorney-General for presenting this legislation. This has been a tough one because it is not easy to get the balance right. The way this legislation has been drafted, we have the balance about as good as you are going to get it. I welcome the opportunity this legislation will bring for Territorians. Let us see our city develop and grow into what it really has the potential to do.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we move on there is a matter I want to raise.
Many years ago in this House, there was a member by the name of Neil Bell who was a member from Alice Springs. The Speaker did not give him the call, which went on for a couple of days until he finally asked the Speaker why he was not getting the call. He was told he was not appropriately attired because he was wearing a pair of jeans.
I know the Speaker is very strict on the attire in this House. It has come to my attention that someone in this House has not been completely attired. Members must ensure they have shoes on at all times, both men and women. I just wish to point that out. I know the Speaker would be pointing that out very clearly.
Mr Elferink: That is me. Guilty as charged.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business I thought you would like that history story, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am fully aware of the history of Mr Bell not being given the call because he was wearing jeans. I subordinate myself happily and fulsomely to your sage guidance on this important issue.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank all honourable members for their contributions and I particularly acknowledge the concern the member for Nelson has brought into this House. I seek to assure the member for Nelson that I tread very timidly in this place ...
Mr Vowles: In your socks.
Mr ELFERINK: In my socks, absolutely. I was so scared to even put my shiny shoes on; I wanted to softly-softly walk through here.
I assure all honourable members that I am a passionate believer in property rights. People should have the right to own property. If anybody ever studies the philosophy surrounding the concepts of property, it is a more nebulous thought or concept than we instinctively know. Nevertheless, without going into the background of the history of property and its philosophical constructs, it is fairly well defined in our western world – certainly sufficiently well – for all of us to know what we are talking about and share a common understanding of what property is.
Property is protected by the law and should be protected by the law. I raise this because this represents a diminution, to a small degree, of people’s property rights. It is a diminution nevertheless, but a diminution of property rights on behalf of one person, or inflicted on one person because it creates property rights for another person.
The member for Nightcliff raised the issue of where I came up with these numbers. Why these particular thresholds? I will be the first to admit to members of this House that the thresholds are, essentially, arbitrary. But the law is full of arbitrary thresholds. Sometimes you have to apply arbitrary thresholds simply because there is no other way to do it.
Of course, you rely on what information you have to set these arbitrary thresholds, so it is a form of informed arbitrariness. Nevertheless, arbitrary it is. For example, if you look at traffic offences, if you travel at a certain speed you are either exceeding the speed limit or you are not. If you are travelling with a certain amount of alcohol in your blood, you are either exceeding the limit of alcohol or not.
In truth some people could probably drive at 65 km/h, 5 km/h above what is normally the speed limit and be quite safe. Other people could drive at 40 km/h and represent a danger to the community. Of course, with an arbitrary speed limit you are nevertheless well under the legislative speed limit because legislation, as I have often said in this House, is a clumsy tool. It is a net we cast into the future hoping to catch only one type of fish.
The real world is a lot more complex than that. These numbers are, essentially, arbitrary, but they are informed by a number of submissions that have been received across the board. These submissions have gone from what I would call downright aggressive to timid to the point of being pointless. We need to find a balance.
I am so concerned about this that I am more than happy to commit right now to the member for Nelson that we will review this. I imagine you will find the review in the annual report of NTCAT in any instance. Even if it does not find its way into the annual report of NTCAT, I will make sure there is some sort of review back to this House.
I want to address the issue of consultation. I am not sure how much more we could have reasonably consulted. I heard the statement from the member for Nightcliff that I should have written to every landowner potentially affected by this. I am somewhat unconvinced that is reasonable. We have made strident efforts to consult since we started consulting in November 2012. Indeed, the process of consultation in relation to these types of issues more generally dates back to 2011 under the former government. The consultations were extensive indeed.
We wanted to talk widely, and when the idea was originally mooted there were a number of articles in newspapers, particularly regarding the class of person I was worried about, the quintessential little old lady who was at risk of being pushed out of her home. We heard reference to that type of person from the member for Nelson, who said a home is more than just bricks and mortar; it is the experiences, the shared love and the tragedies. All of those things make bricks and mortar a home. I am excruciatingly aware of that reality.
Sadly, I have also become aware of another series of realities. These realities involve people coming to me saying, ‘My friends and I, or my business partners and I, own a group of units in a strata title block, and one or two are holding out. They do not even live there; they are absentee landlords who live in Victoria. Basically, they are screwing us for the penthouse on a redevelopment we would carry out.’ There is no problem with the property title being wound up; it is just that they are haggling over the price. That is essentially where it comes to.
In that instance, the strata title ceases to be a shield, which is what it is intended to be – a shield to protect the owner’s property rights. It becomes a sword in negotiations which can be wielded in an unreasonable fashion. That is the difficulty we are dealing with in this legislative instrument.
The statute book of the Northern Territory, under the Justices Act if memory serves me – under one of the legislative instruments – already allows for making an application to the Supreme Court to have a matter like this heard. It has never been used in a titles act – I have just had somebody whisper Unit Titles Act to me.
The capacity has always existed, but so nebulously or inaccurately described that it did not provide any useful pathway forward. By the time everybody gets lawyered up to take a matter to the Supreme Court, you are invariably in a place where you are spending lots of money without a clear or certain pathway in front of you. Consequently, that is how this legislative instrument came about.
I will take people through the consultation process. The bill was introduced in parliament on 23 October 2014. That has lain on the Table since that time. In actual fact, it goes back to December 2011 when a draft discussion paper was considered by the Property Law Task Group established under the former government, and that is the reference I made earlier. In November 2012 a discussion paper was released and it was advertised through the Northern Territory News, Centralian Advocate, Tennant Creek & District Times, Katherine Times and Arafura Times. Comments were sought by 31 January 2013.
Also during November 2012, the Department of Attorney-General and Justice conducted general law sessions for the public and legal professions in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. Unit titles cancellation was listed on the public advertisements for these sessions as one of the topics open for discussion. There was, however, relatively little interest in the topic despite the newspaper articles published during that time.
I have made no secret of the government’s intention to go down this path historically, and have referred to it on a number of occasions in a number of fora in the Northern Territory.
Copies of the discussion paper were also sent to the Chief Executive Officer of the Real Estate Institute; the Chief Executive Officer of the Chamber of Commerce; the Chief Executive Officer of the Law Society; the Chief Executive of Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment; the Chief Executive Officer of Engineers Australia; Raina McCarthy; Chief Executive Property Council of the Northern Territory Property Division; the Chief Executive of Planning Institute of Australia Northern Territory Division; the Chairman of the Development Consent Authority; the Chief Executive Officer Strata Title Australia; the President of the Australian College of Community Association Lawyers; the National President of the Institute of Building Surveyors; and the President of the Australian Institute of Conveyancers. Responses to the discussion papers were received from Graham Jackson, Jonathon Pollock, John and Tess, Stuart Paech and Margaret Clinch.
There were also confidential submissions: Carinya Redevelopment Committee – which is 79 Mitchell Street and I will return back to that address shortly; Julie Lewis of Strata Community Australia; Graeme Suckling from the Urban Development Institute of Australia; REINT through Quentin Kilian; and the Property Council of Australia Northern Territory Division.
Copies of most of the submissions were published on the department’s Internet site. They remain on that site now. A report on the outcomes of the consultation was finalised in 2013 and subsequently published on the department’s Internet site.
On 26 November 2013, copies of the report were provided to most persons who had commented on the issues paper. Inadvertently, that did not find its way to the Property Council at that time. However, I can assure members in this House that we have since spoken to the Property Council at length, and spoken to its very public meeting recently, and received its approval at that meeting.
On 30 September we also announced the proposed legislation with a media release entitled ‘Fairer unit title legislation’. The media release noted the intention to introduce the bill in the October sittings. We have stepped through this and have also gone to organisations which generally would tend to favour or are biased towards looking after tenants. That sufficiently covers the field. To say we have not been out and about talking about this would be a stretch.
The member for Nightcliff is quite right, we did not write to every individual property owner who may be affected by this legislative instrument. Frankly, there are bounds to what government can do. Once again, I return to the concept of reasonableness in dealing with how you try to work your way through these things. We have been out there enough. By any reasonable measure we have come to that point.
This, then, takes us to the issue of what this bill actually does. We all know already the parameters of this bill. As I said, the parameters enter in the environment some pretty arbitrary numbers: up to 15 years old – 100% of the people have to agree; from 15 to 20 years – 95%; from 20 to 30 years – 90%; 30 years and older – 80%. Yes, they are arbitrary. We could have set them at 85% or 75% or 50%, but we were very careful to make one other distinction between unit titles of greater than 10 and fewer than 10 individual titles. We have done that because many of the people affected by these things – the little-old-lady effect the member for Nelson referred to – tend to, do or have traditionally lived in smaller unit complexes.
The blocks of flats on Trower Road near Casuarina are a case in point – those older ones with the six flats. Some have recently been done up ...
Mr Wood: Six packs.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, the six packs, they are the ones. The corner of Styles Street and Trower Road is another one that springs to mind, and Alawa Crescent and Trower Road as well. There is a number of those types of units.
There is a presumption against proceeding down that path built into legislation, whereas for above 10 units the presumption is essentially in favour, if you fall within those parameters. Once again, that is a fairly arbitrary set of numbers, but we think that is where the point of balance should be.
Anybody who reads this legislation – I have spoken to the the President of NTCAT, Mr Bruxner about this – understands what it implies. It implies, by being so prescriptive, that in unit blocks of greater than 10 where those percentages I described operate, you create a presumption in favour of the proponent getting what they want. The proponent then jumps through all the other hoops in this legislation, which includes the list of about 20 boxes they have to tick, to satisfy the scheme supervisor that this is a serious bid.
You were concerned with the Sundowner Caravan Park issue where everybody was pushed out and then, all of a sudden, a vacant block was left. For a proponent to come to NTCAT seeking a direction which is in accordance with those parameters we have set down, they have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops, which means they have to spend some real dough up front to demonstrate there is a real plan. The scheme supervisor will not go, ‘Tick, this is a great thing’, until such time as there is a demonstration this is a serious thing.
It is not five guys standing around a barbecue who happen to own 85% of a 30-year-old block of units who think it is a great idea, ‘We will toss the others out and make an application’. It has to be a real application. It has to be identifiable, and a whole bunch of hoops have to be jumped through. At that point the scheme supervisor says, ‘Yes, tick, that looks serious’.
Beyond that you have to go to NTCAT, get a direction or an order, then you can activate the components about the fair value compensation to the person who suffers the loss. That person who suffers the loss should be dealt with, and NTCAT will encourage a mediated result every step of the way in any instance.
However, being a presumption in favour does not automatically mean it will get the big tick anyhow, because a presumption in law must always be rebutted. There may be a set of 12 units or 20 units where a little old lady is living who can make out such a strong argument that the presumption can be rebutted within the principles of justice and equity. I will return to that in a second.
For units in blocks of less than 10, there is no figure. It could be less than 80%, but the presumption is, therefore, against it. Whoever proposes the development has to describe why the presumption against such an order should be defeated and an order be made anyhow.
The classic example of that was an individual who walked into my office about a year-and-a-half ago and said, ‘I own four out of five units in a very popular beachfront area in town. I desperately want the last guy to sell me his unit and I am happy to pay 150% of the value of the unit to buy the person out. I am happy to give him a new unit in a new block of units I will redevelop. The bloke is an absentee landlord and he says point blank he will not give me the go ahead unless I give him the penthouse.’ Unless the person gets a $1m unit in return for a unit worth about $300 000, they will hold out.
This is the point where the strata title does not become a shield, it becomes a sword and is used as a way of inflicting an injury on another person who is trying to exert also legitimate property rights. This is the balance between the two property rights we are talking about. In those circumstances I would expect NTCAT to say the presumptions have been successfully rebutted and issue the order anyhow. It is obviously a fight over money, and is just a matter of one person extorting an unreasonable amount from another.
I was very clear when I discussed this with the legislative draftsman that I wanted the principles of equity to flow through this legislative instrument. The member for Nelson, quite rightly, picked up on the terms ‘justice’ and ‘equity’. I will take the member for Nelson to the word ‘equity’ as a concept in law.
Equity was a system of legal consideration which was built to support the common law when a decision produced a result that, whilst lawful, was so unjust in its result that some structure had to be created to enable that unjust quality to be obnubilated. As a consequence, the principles of equity grew over time and are described as being intermeshed with the common law to such a point that some judicial officers would now argue that they are essentially part of the common law.
But equity comes with a series of maxims attached, which are important to consider. Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. That is the reference regarding a wrong in the common law producing a result which is lawful, but not necessarily just. Equity stands up to interfere. Equity follows the law. The law happens first, equity follows and, if need be, corrects the wrong that has been done.
Where all the equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail, and where there is equal equity the law shall prevail. I do not want to dwell on that because it does not quite fall on point. However, here are the ones that do matter for the consideration of NTCAT.
One who seeks equity must do equity. As a consequence, a person may walk into NTCAT saying, ‘I have done everything I possibly can to find a negotiated outcome which is fair, just and reasonable, and every time we try to talk to this person they just say, “No, get stuffed, I am just going to rent the flat out until such time as you guys yield”’. Clearly the person making the application could say, ‘I have done everything I can that is reasonable, right and equitable and the other party is causing me grief’. That is the flavour of equity. This is well-established legal practice, not some nebulous idea. Equity has been around for 800 years.
One who comes to equity must do so with clean hands. You cannot try to screw over a unit title holder, jam it to them, make their life difficult, etcetera, then walk into NTCAT saying, ‘I am now going to exercise my right in the law’. You must be walking into the NTCAT saying, ‘I have done everything that I can reasonably do’.
Let us say there is a little old lady in a group of 20 flats who says, ‘I just want to live in my flat. I have tried to negotiate with these people and they are just monstering me and stomping me. I now come to NTCAT for protection.’ So long as that little old lady in a group of 20, where there is a presumption in favour – she is the one holding out against 19 and the building is 35 years old – she may well defeat the rebuttable presumption saying, ‘I have done everything right and tried really hard to find a way through this’. Equity will favour that person who comes to equity with clean hands.
Delay defeats equity, which means if somebody uses this process to delay a consideration or a result and it is clearly demonstrated this person is using the NTCAT process, or whatever processes are available to them, to avoid a result, then that diminishes the quality of equity to the point it does not operate anymore. Delay is a variation on this theme that you do not really operate with clear hands. It is about conscience.
There are other equitable maxims. One of them is, ‘Equity will not assist a volunteer’. I will not go into too much detail. I hope I am able to impress upon this House that the use of the term ‘equity’ in the legislation is very deliberate and well-considered. It is supported by a system of law that goes back a long way. One of the equitable principles we have tried to introduce with NTCAT is not binding it to the rules of evidence and strictly to the systems of law available. It directs them, quite clearly, that equitable principles will apply.
I hope that will address the injustices the members for Nelson and Nightcliff have been quite careful to point out, particularly the member for Nelson.
Each one of these cases will have so many variations that it will be difficult to effectively describe, through a legislative instrument, an arbitrary way forward. These things will be as individual as court cases in any other court. Therefore, all we can do is describe parameters and create, within those parameters, certain presumptions. That is what this legislation seeks to do. It creates a number of protections and the equitable provisions are very important in those protections.
There is the need for a proponent of a redevelopment to go through a bunch of hoops that have to be independently assessed by the scheme supervisor before getting the tick to even end up in front of NTCAT. Bear in mind that NTCAT will encourage people who come before it to mediate and come to a conciliated result, rather than necessarily having the tribunal rule. This legislative instrument places – only as the last backdrop of a series of potential solutions – a result which means a direction can be given. That is essentially what this legislative instrument attempts to do.
This instrument attempts to say property ownership does not exist in a vacuum. Property ownership diminishes and advances, and advances and retards, the quality of property rights owned by other property holders who have property adjacent to a property in question. Through this legislation we seek to get the balance right.
One of the areas I was particularly focused on was 79 Mitchell Street. I said I would return to this because I have seen 79 Mitchell Street, situated opposite the cinema in Darwin. It was consideration of what was going on at 79 Mitchell Street which impelled me to go down this path because it is in my electorate.
I understand that on a number of occasions they have been close to having a resolution for the very old, tired and dilapidated unit title scheme at that location so the building could be knocked over and redeveloped. On a number of occasions, but for a handful, if not for one or two, property owners in that unit block – I think there are about 80 or 90 units there – that unit title scheme would have been wound up, terminated and a redevelopment would have occurred. As it stands, they continue, at this stage, to be an eyesore pretty much in the heart of the Darwin CBD. However, it is not the only group of units to which I have turned my mind; it is merely the most prominent example of this issue.
As a consequence of that, I hope we have this balance right. Am I certain we have this balance exactly right? That is a matter which is very subjective in nature. My subjectivity is not necessarily another person’s subjectivity. It is for that reason we need to maintain a close, careful and thoughtful eye upon how this moves forward. For that very reason, I will expect this to be reviewed and I am more than happy to publish the review process into the future.
I expect there will be a number of proponents who will come forward in the short term, then the matters will peter out very quickly to a few matters every year. That would be my anticipation. Whether that happens or not is yet to be discovered. In any instance, this is novel legislation. I am aware this government has brought a number of Australia firsts – in fact possibly even a world first with alcohol mandatory treatment – into this parliament because we are not afraid of trying new things.
One of the greatest criticisms I have of other jurisdictions, particularly one in the United States, which I think is Oregon, which says that unless you have an evidence base …
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank honourable members.
There is a jurisdiction in the United States, which I think is Oregon, which will not allow a legislative instrument to be brought forward unless there is some evidence basis for it. I do not subscribe to that because that stultifies originality and thinking. Sometimes there are things that governments do that do not have an evidence base. Sentenced to a Job, by way of example, is one of them.
I thank honourable members for their sober debate in relation to this. This is an issue that could easily engender fear. Equitable principles are not easy to explain in a seven-second grab on the media. The legislation is constructed in such a fashion as to give as much comfort as we possibly can to all the proponents. It is a way forward for development, yet creates protections for those people who would be unnecessarily adversely affected by the operation of this legislation.
Madam Speaker, NTCAT will find itself in circumstances where it has to exercise the wisdom of Solomon, but that is why the members are paid the big bucks.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: The committee has before it the Termination of Units Plans and Unit Title Schemes Bill 2014 (Serial 104) together with Schedule of Amendments No 30 circulated by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. Before I commence on clauses 1 to 3, are there any general questions?
Ms FYLES: Attorney-General, how does the bill provide for non-financial unit owners to have voting rights on application for unit terminations?
Mr ELFERINK: The bill, as far as I know, does not make any specific arrangements for that. Are you talking about tenants?
Ms FYLES: No. If you are the owner of a property and have not been paying your strata fees for one term or many years – I am not sure.
Mr ELFERINK: My immediate response is your name is still on the title. It is not like you are dealing with the body corporate where you are seeking voting rights and there is a constitutional restraint. Whilst your name is on the title, that is what is at the core of this legislative instrument.
Ms FYLES: Because it goes to the tribunal, if you are in arrears with fees is there any measure to take in that?
Mr ELFERINK: No, the heart of this legislation is an attempt to make sure that people’s property rights are protected. A third-party interest, like a body corporate outstanding fee, is not within the contemplation of this bill and I suspect would have scant attention paid to it by the NTCAT if it was considering the bigger picture.
Ms FYLES: Part 3 refers to unit scheme terminations by unanimous resolution. The section does not provide any detail as to what information a proponent has to provide to the body corporate and associated consultation and submission processes, due diligence and independent oversight, in order to inform a unanimous decision.
Is there a reason the requirement specified in Part 4 for majority agreed unit scheme terminations that go to the information processes and issues I have just spoken about to make an informed decision as a unit owner do not apply in Part 3 for unanimous agreed terminations? Would ensuring consistency not provide safeguards and legal protection for unit owners and developers alike?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, when everybody agrees you do not need to put parameters around it. Imagine a bunch of people in a two-year-old block of units, 20 units tall. It does not apply to this legislation, and everybody agrees to knock the thing over and build a 40-storey tower block. That is a risk anybody takes in the normal world. We do not seek to intrude into people’s rights to engage in free contract. Where there is a meeting of the minds, which is a term in the law of contract that everybody agrees, you do not have to stick parameters around it; they can stick their own parameters around unanimity.
Ms FYLES: On page 8 of the bill in Part 4, what protections are there for unit owners in the situation of unit owners agreeing to termination of the unit title based on a redevelopment proposal and that proposal being modified during the DCA process?
Mr ELFERINK: If a person has agreed they are not subject to this legislation. If a person has agreed to undergo a proposal to redevelop something – that is a contractual risk I would take if I was redeveloping my own house block, or whatever. I enter into contracts all the time for all types of reasons.
The law covers that field particularly well. I could run up and get you my Contracts Law text book from my office and give you a document close on five inches thick dealing with all the problems with variations of terms of contracts, what is a term of a contract, what is an implied term of a contract and all those types of things. That is the law of contract.
Where people agree to engage in a redevelopment, this legislation has scant impact. Where people do not agree and the acquisition of their title right is then in question under NTCAT is where this legislation covers the field.
Ms FYLES: Does the bill provide protection for owners who believe they are signing up to one proposed development which could change into something completely different, potentially having a significant change in the nature of the development? This was an issue identified by PLan.
Mr ELFERINK: No. That is what the law of contract is for. Let us say you sign up to purchase a Rembrandt painting – good for you if you can afford it – and all of a sudden you get a Van Gogh from the vendor. What you say at that point is, ‘That is not what I signed up to’, and that is a contractual fight. It has nothing to do with the operation of this legislation.
In that instance, just as an aside, you would attract the law of specific performance. Specific performance is an equitable proposition where damages will not do because you are after a unique thing. That very unique thing must be imposed, or the court must impose an order.
As a general principle, the purchase of land excites the concept of specific performance, and if you sign up to one thing, and do so voluntarily, then are subsequently misled, then the contractual principles of misrepresentation would apply. If the misleading is so profound then the principles of fraud in criminal law may extend to it.
Ms FYLES: These questions are probably in the same vein of questioning, but does the Unit Title Schemes Act provide adequate protection, and has it been reviewed in consideration of this bill? Did the Development Consent Authority contribute to the development of this bill or make a submission?
Mr ELFERINK: They were told, but I am not sure if we got much back from them. The DCA is like the referee in a soccer match if I want to develop something, either within or outside the boundaries of what the Planning Act and the Unit Title Schemes Act permit. We informed them, and if they had anything to speak to us about, it would have been very unlikely to be a policy issue, it would have been a refinement issue only. As far as I know, we received nothing from them.
Ms FYLES: What about the situation where a strata title was extinguished then a proposal fell over? What protections for individuals are there with that?
Mr ELFERINK: That is a very good question. We turned our minds to it when putting this legislation together. That is the reason you have to settle the matter of the compensatory outcome prior to the development going ahead.
You cannot force a person into a contractual environment. If they absolutely refuse to go down that path, you are then looking at a result in damages. If there is an environment where you suffer a loss, and that loss needs to compensated, then that comes in the form of damages. No project will go ahead until that element of damages has been dealt with and the people who have had the decision made against them are tout of the picture. They are compensated and they move on, then the development goes ahead.
That development is entirely a commercial enterprise which the government has no interest in. If it goes toes up or belly up, that is a matter for the developers. By that stage, a person affected by the operation of this legislation would no longer be involved in the development and would have been compensated for any loss they suffered through the payment of damages.
Ms FYLES: In the same line of questioning, I know you compare this process to buying a home off the plan, where you sign a contract knowing the cost, the finishes and the completion date, including if completion is delayed. How does it impact on somebody? I guess you are saying that is a separate contractual arrangement. I guess there is a grey area if somebody elects to take a new property or a new unit in the new property. How does that come into play?
Mr ELFERINK: In practical terms, let us say there is a group of people who are seeking to exercise the operation of this legislation. We are talking about a block of 20 units in a unit complex which is 40 years old and there is one person saying ‘No, I do not want to go down that path’. They then go to NTCAT. NTCAT applies the laws of equity, as I described in my second reading response. If, however, during the conversation a person changes their mind and says, ‘Do you know what? If you can give me this guarantee and this guarantee, I will be prepared to sign up.’ The moment they do so, they do so voluntarily.
NTCAT would have to be extremely careful that this person was a volunteer and not suffering duress of the system. Mr Bruxner, or any person in the process, would be very alive to that reality. In the law of contract, voluntariness is an important component.
The concept of duress in contract is also a very important component. As a consequence of that, if a person who was in NTCAT then allowed mediation to go ahead and voluntarily signed up to an arrangement, this legislation would stop operating and the law of contract would be immediately enlivened because that person was there as a volunteer. They would then be taking the risk.
NTCAT’s last duty in this space would be to say to the person, ‘All right, you are now signing up for this. This is now your risk as somebody who has now become a proponent of the development.’
Ms FYLES: Just to clarify, I understand what you were saying then, with this legislation, if you own a property and you do not want to partake, but it goes to NTCAT and it thinks it is fair and reasonable, will they force a monetary offer or will they force a spot in a new property? Is that defined?
Mr ELFERINK: It is not, but I would be astonished if it was anything other than monetary compensation. You cannot force a person into a contractual arrangement. This matter would have to be acquitted, dealt with and off the books before the development went ahead. It is as simple as that.
Ms FYLES: Is there a reason why it is not in the legislation?
Mr ELFERINK: It is because you cannot force a person into a contractual arrangement. If you are not a volunteer in a contract it is, by definition, not a contract. As a consequence, we are dealing with some absolute concepts. This legislation deals with a person who is not a volunteer.
It is coercive, and it comes to a result where they are paid out, for fair value, for whatever they lose. If at any point in that conversation they say, ‘I will sign into the redevelopment’, they become a volunteer, which is a different. That has nothing to do with this legislation.
Ms FYLES: Because we are looking at this from the perspective of everyone who currently owns a unit that may be affected, is there any requirement for the proponent to provide an estimated cost of the proposed development, sufficient information for a unit owner to make an informed decision?
Mr ELFERINK: It would be settled on fair value of what exists there. I draw your attention back to the legislation, where there is a large list of hoops to jump through.
If a proponent was to go to a person holding out and say, ‘I will give you the eighth-storey sub-penthouse for this’, and it is valued at, let us say, $800 000, where the fair value of the existing unit is $500 000 or $300 000, the advantage to the person receiving that would be a substantial monetary gain. We heard the minister for Planning describe exactly such a circumstance in his response.
Once again, this is an absolute. Once you buy into the idea that there is a unit waiting for you in the final product, you are in the area of contract and you have volunteered to occupy that space. The law will be quite clear. You are either being coerced or you are a volunteer. I could not imagine, in any real context, somebody who is a little-bitish or might be a volunteerish, coerce-ty sort of person – good luck with that, Hansard.
Ms FYLES: I will move on. The bill does not require the same level of financial transparency and certainty when requiring a homeowner to sell their title based on a proposal. How does a homeowner identify if the redevelopment is a good decision for them, particularly when they are intending to buy into the development?
Mr ELFERINK: Once again, it comes back to this one issue: they are either paid out and are out of the scheme entirely, or they are in. Being in is a commercial development which has a commercial consideration, nothing at all to do with the operation of this legislation.
Ms FYLES: Thank you, Attorney-General. Given the complexity of this bill, has the government considered the development of practical tools like a basic contractual agreement template that can be embedded in regulations to assist the everyday Territorian if they find themselves in this situation and are trying to deal with it?
Mr ELFERINK: The short answer is that already exists, but not in regulation. REINT has template contracts for these sorts of things all the time. Again, I point out this is a straight fair-value compensation. The valuer, by the way, will be independent of both the proponent and the person affected or subject to an application under this legislation. Once again, it would not attract a contract if they are still operating under this legislation.
If, however, a person is considering going down the path of buying into a redevelopment, I am sure that person would be able to get a very quick valuation on the proposed unit in that environment. There would be a number of standard contracts available either through REINT, which I would recommend a person go to because of their experience in the Northern Territory – I bet you London to a brick if I looked on the Internet I would find a number of those contracts available to me in a general guide.
I understand what you are doing. You are asking a series of general principle questions and I get that entirely. It is just as convenient to go through this path.
Ms FYLES: Around identifying the meeting requirements to vote on a proposal, I noted the changes on it we received today might cover this. To vote on a proposal, the meeting must be held not earlier than three months or later than 12 months. Are there specifications for the level of consultation and discussion required between the proponent and the unit owners prior to that meeting to vote on a proposal?
Mr ELFERINK: That would probably be subject to regulation. Even without regulation operating, bearing in mind what I said before about the principles of equity, those who seek equity must do equity. If you are seeking a decision from NTCA you will have to be able to demonstrate to NTCAT you have done all the right things, because if you ain’t you are going to get chucked out of there.
Ms FYLES: In addition to the submission, are there to be presentations where, in a managed and transparent way, unit owners can ask questions of the proponents? I probably can second guess your answer.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, and you will be entirely right.
Ms FYLES: Around the timing, where unit owners vote on a proposal and the required majority is not achieved, the proponent can resubmit the same proposal at six months. That seems to me a short time period. I would have thought 12 months. Are you able to …
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. As I said before, this legislation is full of arbitrary time limits. It is arbitrary; this is law. The whole of the statute book has a bunch of arbitrary numbers in it. You and I could argue subjectively about the merits of those time limits until the sun expands and we are sucked up into a red giant in five billion years’ time. We have settled on six months. It is arbitrary, but we have been guided by the submissions we have received.
Once again, if a proponent was to use the six-month time limit almost as a hammer to beat the little old lady, if you like, then you would find that NTCAT would be quite critical of that and you would be doing yourself a disservice if you use that legislation in that fashion.
Ms FYLES: Thank you, Attorney-General. That six months seems like you just got through one process and you are facing another, particularly if people are genuinely thinking about it. They may be incurring legal and financial costs. That time frame seemed a little short.
There seems to be no limit on the number of attempts which can be made. Do you think it may be appropriate to place limitations on the process so we do not see this continue almost to the point of harassment?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, that is pretty much what I described before. I can also say the cost component is very much at the heart of NTCAT. An application to NTCAT will cost you $49; that is it. You do not need a lawyer to walk into NTCAT.
NTCAT will make sure those equitable ideas are followed through, so you are on pretty safe ground in that environment. NTCAT will chuck you out the door if you are using this legislation as a weapon. Moreover, you would have to come up with something new. The application would not even see the light of day if it was an unchanged application just rolling out every six months.
Ms FYLES: I had a couple more questions but I will save them. Thank you.
Mr CHAIR: There are a fair few amendments so we will go through these reasonably quickly.
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr ELFERINK: I move amendment 30.1, that clause 12(1)(c) be omitted from the definition of ‘prescribed number of days’ in clause 4 and it be replaced by clause 12(2)(b)(i).
The first effect of this amendment is that under clause 12 an objector to a proposed termination will have 28 days rather than six months – 182 days – in which to make a decision to either agree to the termination to sell the unit to the proponent, sell the unit to a third party or make an application. The 28-day period starts from the day the body corporate makes a resolution in favour of the termination.
The period of 182 days was originally set to make sure the person seeking to sell the unit on the open market would have sufficient time to do this. This issue is now covered by clause 12(2)(b).
The second effect is that the owner who makes the decision to sell on the open market will have 182 days from the date of the resolution of the body corporate to provide a copy of the contract to the proponent.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 11, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 12:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.2 that the words ‘accompanied by a copy of a binding accepted offer to purchase the unit’ be omitted from clause 12(1)(c)(ii).
This is a technical amendment consequential to changing the time periods as described by the amendment to clause 4 in which various decisions must be made by an objecting owner.
Clause 12(1)(c) will deal with decisions that must be made within 28 days of the termination resolution. The words being omitted by this amendment are being moved to replace clause 12(2)(b).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.3, that the words set out in clause 12(2)(b) be omitted and replaced by the new clause 12(2)(b)(i) and (ii) as set out in the amendment schedule.
The new clause 12(2)(b) sets out the obligations of an objecting owner if the objecting owner gives notice under section 12(1)(c)(ii) that he or she wishes to sell the unit on the open market. If so, the objecting owner must enter into the binding contract within 182 days of termination resolution and must have the property sold by no later than 42 days after providing a copy of the binding accepted offer.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I move amendment 30.4 that the words ‘subsection (2)’ be omitted from clause 12(3) and replaced with the words ‘subsection 2(a) or (c) if applicable’.
The effect of this amendment is to remove the current reference in clause 12(3) to clause 12(2)(b). This will mean the time period referred to in clause 12(2)(b), as provided for in amendment 30.3, is not relevant under the subclause for determining the date by when an application can be lodged by a proponent to the Northern Territory Civil Administrative Tribunal, or NTCAT, concerning an objecting owner’s failure to comply with clause 12(2) and the new section 12(3)(a) which deals with this issue.
I also note that the new subsection uses the terminology ‘binding contract’, rather than ‘binding accepted offer’. The replacement terminology has been used because it is easier to understand.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I amove amendment 30.5. I move that the new clause 12(3A) as set out in the amendment schedule be inserted after clause 12(3).
This new clause sets out what a proponent may do if an objecting owner, having made an election to sell the property on the open market under clause 12(1)(c)(ii), fails to either provide a contract within the prescribed time – 182 days of the date of the commencement of the termination resolution – or having done, fails to complete the contract within 42 days after providing it to the proponent.
The proponent can apply to NTCAT for an order for the sale of the unit at a price fixed by NTCAT after NTCAT has received the report referred to in clause 12(4), being a written report from the valuer. The sale is on terms and conditions determined by NTCAT which must comply with the requirement set out in the regulations.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.6, that the words ‘of a unit in the development’ be removed from clause 12(5)(b)(ii) and replaced with the words, ‘of the objecting owner’s unit’.
Clause 12(5)(b) sets out that a person must be served with a copy of an application to NTCAT under clause 12. One of those is each mortgagee.
Currently, clause 12(5)(a)(iii) is drafted so each mortgagee of the units must be served. The intention is, however, that the only mortgagees who need to be served are those holding a mortgage over a unit owned by an objecting owner.
Amendment 30.6 provides for this change and that is described as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.7, that the words ‘entered in the record of administrative interests’ be removed and replaced with the word, ‘registered’.
The Office of the Registrar-General has indicated a preference that the resolution mentioned in clause 12(7) be registered in the Land Titles Register rather than be recorded in the Record of Administrative Interests. The main reason for supporting this suggested change is that currently the Registrar-General has a warning attached to the Record of Administrative Interests to the effect that the Northern Territory of Australia does not guarantee the accuracy of the information contained in the record. It is not appropriate that a clause 12 resolution be subject of such a warning and the amendment 30.7 is as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.8.
I move that the word, ‘proponent’ be omitted from clause 12(8)(a) and replaced by the words, ‘the body corporate’.
The effect of this amendment is that it is the role of the body corporate, rather than the proponent, to provide details to the Registrar-General for the purposes of the Registrar-General entering details of the proposed termination in the Land Titles Register.
This is an issue raised by the Law Society of the Northern Territory. The change reflects the view that formal changes regarding the body corporate’s title should be the responsibility of the body corporate rather than the proponent, and that is reflected, as circulated, in proposed amendment 30.8.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.9, that all words from and including ‘enter’ to ‘section 38’ be removed and replaced by the words set out in the schedule of amendments.
The amendment is consequential to the amendment to clause 12(7) regarding the registration of the termination resolution on the land title, rather than the less formal Record of Administrative Interests. Amendment 30.9 has been circulated to reflect this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.10, that the words after ‘information’ in clause 12(8)(c) be omitted and replaced by the words set out in the schedule of amendments.
This amendment is consequential to the amendment made to clause 12(5)(b)(ii). The effect is that the reference in clause 12(8)(c) to the Record of Administrative Interests is replaced by reference to the Land Titles Register. The wording of clause 30.10, namely clause 12(8)(c), has been circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.11, that the new paragraph (d), as set out in the schedule of amendments, be inserted into clause 12(8) after clause 12(8)(c).
This clause makes it clear that the proponent is responsible for paying any fees the body corporate may incur for the purposes of registering the termination resolution with the Registrar-General.
Amendment 30.11 has been circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.12, that the word ‘proponent’ be removed from clause 12(9) and be replaced by the words ‘body corporate’.
This amendment is consequential to the amendment to clause 12(8)(a). If there is a need to seek an extension of time for the lodgement of a resolution by the body corporate with the Registrar-General, it should be the responsibility of the body corporate to seek the extension. That is reflected in amendment 30.12, as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 14, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 15:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.13, that the words in clause 15(a) be omitted and replaced by clause 15(a) as set out in the amended schedule.
This amendment arose from briefings provided by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice and my office to the shadow Attorney-General and the member for Nelson. The amendment makes it plainer that under clauses 15(a) and 16(1), applications for the termination, can be made to NTCAT concerning developments for which there are less than 10 units. It also spells out that applications can be made concerning other developments not subject to Part 4. These other developments include developments having 10 or more units that are less than 15 years old. This amendment does not change the meaning of the current clause 15(a).
Mr Chair, I understand that the amendment 30.13 has been circulated and does not require me to read it out.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Ms FYLES: Attorney-General, I have a couple of questions on clause 17 but I am happy for you to make amendments first.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. This is the replacement of a semicolon I think.
Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.14. I move that the word ‘appropriate.’ be omitted and replaced with the word ‘appropriate;’.
This is a drafting change to accommodate the new section 17(2)(e) as outlined in amendment 30.15.
Ms FYLES: Is there any reason why the factors a tribunal has to take into account in making an order are not prescribed in this bill, rather than regulation, which is obviously subject for debate? Perhaps you could give a little more detail on what constitutes ‘unreasonable’, as referred to in clause 17(1)(b).
Mr ELFERINK: I know where you are going with this. Without being too pedantic about saying we are only discussing a semi-colon in this particular case, I get the question.
Reasonableness is a concept at law which fills textbooks. It first found its life as an expression of law, I think in about the 1920s or 1930s,
Mr Conlan: Oh, here we go.
Mr ELFERINK: She asked, mate, she will cop it.
Mr Conlan: I am surprised it is only 1900s. I thought it was going to be the 1600s.
Mr ELFERINK: I will give you the condensed version.
Reasonableness is a concept that found itself out of the law lords in the 1920s or 1930s and was described as ‘the man on the clock at Clapham omnibus’. The man on the Clapham omnibus is, if you like, a perfectly reasonable human being, utterly fictional in truth other than the fact that this is a person who sees the world through a completely reasonable lens.
The reasonable person was adopted in Australian law in about the 1950s and was described in Australian law as ‘the man on the Bondi tram’. In the modern world it would be ‘the person on the Bondi tram’ but it does not rhyme quite as well.
Reasonableness is well-guided by many court cases discussing the concept, both directly and in obiter. It is never a perfectly-defined idea but it is now generally a well-understood principle of law.
Ms FYLES: Thank you. I have a copy of the September report into this act which proposes that in the general principles of any order being determined by the main criteria of an economic necessity for the redevelopment – for example, the cost of repairs that reasonable owners would not incur for the health, safety or amenity of the building – planners are concerned that the emphasis is not enough on the age and the condition of the building. I am not sure if you have a comment on that.
Mr ELFERINK: It comes back to that same issue of reasonableness. Once again, I am talking about a building I do not even know about. I have cited a couple of examples here, but in truth this legislation will refer to buildings I do not even know exist. If it stays on the statute books for another 30 years it might refer to buildings that do not exist yet.
We leave it for another body such as NTCAT to make that review. Of course, the test of reasonableness, which is well understood by NTCAT, as well as the principles of equity, will apply. Consequently, on a case-for-case basis they will come to a resolution that makes sense in all the circumstances.
Ms FYLES: Clause 17(2)(c) states that the tribunal must consider the financial benefits and risks of the proposed termination, and if applicable the proposed redevelopment. Does this clause address the general principle of economic necessity? What expertise will the tribunal have to make this determination? Can they seek independent advice to inform their decision?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes and yes.
Ms FYLES: Thank you.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.15 that clause 17(2)(e), as set out in the amendment schedule, be added after clause 17(2)(d).
The new 17(2)(e) provides that additional matters can be prescribed by regulation, being matters that must be taken into account when termination is being considered by NTCAT or the Supreme Court.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide greater flexibility to the matters that must be taken into account when considering a termination. That amendment is as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 28, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 29:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.16, that clause 29(1) be omitted and replaced with a new clause 29(1) as set out in the amendment schedule.
The substantive change made by the amendment is that the words providing for the payment of a prescribed fee of the Registrar-General are included. This change removes doubts as to whether fees are payable for the registration of terminations under section 72 of the Unit Title Schemes Act. The amendment, as circulated, refers to these amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.17, that in clause 30, after the word ‘Act’ in section 54G(1) of the Land Title Act the words, ‘the prescribed fee must be paid to the Registrar-General, and’ be inserted.
The purpose of the amendment is removing doubt as to whether fees are payable for terminations. This is in accordance with amendments circulated to all members.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Before I finish, I thank Mr Robert Bradshaw of the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. Were he in parliament today he would have been receiving accolades of gratitude from me for the enormous work he has put into this bill under trying circumstances. That truth is not lost on me. Mr Bradshaw is a dedicated, faithful and loyal public servant of the people of the Northern Territory, and I place on the record my thanks and commendations to him for managing this particularly difficult legislation in such a professional manner.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): As shadow minister, I also acknowledge and thank Mr Bradshaw for his efforts in briefing me and getting me up to date in a very short period of time, and I thank the minister.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 22 October 2014.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, this is my first bill in relation to police since taking on the shadow responsibility a few weeks ago. I place on the record my thanks to the member for Fannie Bay, who has held this portfolio responsibility in the Labor opposition for the past two years and done an excellent job. I also acknowledge that this bill is sponsored by the Attorney-General and not the Chief Minister as minister for Police.
Discussions on our side arrived at not only workload but looking at responsibilities. It was decided that I would respond in the second reading to this bill.
I recognise the vital role our police have in keeping our families and communities safe and the often dangerous work they do in law enforcement. The Attorney-General knows that only too well. I also recognise the need for contemporary legislation which best supports Territory police, men and women, to do their jobs.
I thank the police for their briefing on this bill. It was standing room only in my parliamentary suite office a couple of weeks ago with three senior members of the police force, two lawyers, the Chief Minister’s police adviser, me and an adviser from the Leader of the Opposition’s office. I thank them for the briefing on the bill. They are clearly, and not surprisingly, of the view that the two amendments to the Police Administration Act are both reasonable and logical.
However, the more I have spoken to people about this the more concerns have been raised. It is appropriate to highlight these concerns in my contribution today, in the hope that the Attorney-General can address these issues – as I am sure he will – in his reply later in this debate.
The amendments today contain two very different and unrelated elements of the Police Administration Act, and both deserve close scrutiny. I also need to add that concerns have been raised – and they are reasonable – about an overall review of the Police Administration Act and the need to understand what exactly the government’s priorities are in reviewing the act. Why is it that these two amendments come before the House today, in the midst of – I understand from the Northern Territory Police Association – a current review already afoot into other parts of the act, including Parts IV, V and VI?
The first amendment I will speak to amends Part VII of the act, which pertains to police powers, and inserts a new Division 4AA, ‘Taking person into custody for infringement notice offence’. This amendment enables the so-called paperless arrest. The legislation gives police the power to take someone into custody for a period of up to four hours before they commit an offence, if the police think it is in the best interest of the individual or the public to do so. Police may take the person into custody for a period longer than four hours if the person is intoxicated. The rationale behind this – and the examples that were given during the briefing – is if someone is drunk, as I have just mentioned, but not extremely intoxicated, or agitated, or at risk of committing an assault on anyone, then the police can bring this individual into custody to ‘cool off’ – was the language used – or have ‘time out’ for minor offences. Once the individual has cooled off an infringement notice can be issued and they do not have to go through the police or court system, hence the term ‘paperless arrest’.
The example talked about was that the police can intervene before the individual goes too far and commits more serious offences – nipping things in the bud, you might say. On top of this, the rationale is that it will free up the courts and police resources from a lot of paperwork that would tie up the courts and police with things that would just be fineable offences anyway.
It was pointed out during the briefing that this amendment only covers infringements such as acting in a disorderly manner and intoxicated people, but not traffic infringements. It is focused more on the public nuisance scale of public drunkenness and situations where violence could occur or might be expected if the individual was allowed to continue with their behaviour.
On the surface this might seem like a reasonable amendment; it gives police an extra tool in their tool box to keep criminal acts down. It frees up courts and keeps police on the street, not behind a desk. It is perhaps not unlike the extra tool which was once the Banned Drinker Register, which went a long way to dealing with so many problem drinkers as a liquor supply and harm reduction measure. It was a tool police are on the record as saying was very effective in their line of work, before the Attorney-General gagged them from offering further commentary.
Members on this side might initially support the principle of reducing paperwork. I hear the CLP’s mantra of reducing red tape in the background. However, in discussing this legislation with stakeholders such as the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory and NAAJA, it is clear there are some concerns. I raise those concerns with the Attorney-General now and hope to get some assurances and answers to the very valid questions they have raised, as well as the concerns we on this side of the House share.
As I said, the Criminal Lawyers Association and NAAJA are concerned by the paperless arrest amendment. The Criminal Lawyers Association said the paperless arrest bill is appalling, in their words, and that it gives carte blanche for police to apprehend and retain people for four hours on trivial matters.
It raises the question, what rights do these people have to put their case when detained under this proposed amendment for paperless arrest? What of a person who is, for instance, not intoxicated and has not even been drinking, but who may give the outward appearance of displaying behaviours similar to an intoxicated person because they are perhaps unwell or have a mental health issue? What if the individual is on medication for a condition – let us say this person has not taken or been able to take prescribed medication and, as a result, we see some unusual behaviour?
There are no nurses deployed to our remote police stations, such as where I come from in Nhulunbuy, nor at places like Galiwinku, Gapuwiyak and other communities where police stations, through federal funding, have been constructed. What avenues are there to assess the health and wellbeing of these individuals detained on the strength of a paperless arrest?
It was made plain in the briefing I had that the problem in instigating the paperless arrest and taking an individual into custody is the behaviour itself.
The Criminal Lawyers Association claims this is being misleadingly marketed as a scheme to reduce bureaucracy, rather than for what it is. They talk about, ‘Legislation which will, in effect, give police the power to impose serious punishment …’ – we are talking about deprivation of liberty – ‘… on people suspected of committing minor offences, with none of the protections of the conventional criminal justice system’.
With the news a couple of weeks ago about the cessation of the Return to Country program, axed by government and, until recently, administered by Larrakia Nation, I am concerned we will see more people stranded in Darwin, unable to get back to their family and community, who will potentially feature amongst these new paperless arrests.
CLANT and NAAJA do not raise their misgivings lightly. Perhaps the minister can address these concerns. The fact that CLANT did not even see this legislation for input before it was introduced into the parliament is also of some concern. CLANT has said the Department of Justice, quite appropriately, always consults before legislation is introduced. This way, quite rightly, their concerns can be addressed or met or, in some instances, amendments put to proposed legislation. I will be grateful if the Attorney-General could advise which stakeholders were consulted on this bill.
Could the Attorney-General give the people of the Territory assurances that the deprivation of liberty that comes with this change will be addressed in a proper manner and what that manner will be? Can the Attorney-General explain if there will be systems in place for people to use if they believe they are being unfairly targeted by this law? Can the Attorney-General commit or explain if there will be an independent review of the system, such as the Ombudsman for example, to ensure this law is being used correctly? By virtue of being a paperless arrest, what systems will be in place to monitor who has been arrested for whatever infringement? Will the Attorney-General commit to a review of this law in 12 months to see if it is doing what it is intended to, and to enable scrutiny to ensure there is no misuse of this provision or no adverse incidents that arise as a result?
While this amendment may have more cons than pros, there are some questions that need to be answered to give Territorians assurances that there are checks and balances in place to ensure this bill and this intended law does not change what it is intended to do.
I note the Northern Territory Police Association advised it had no issue with this amendment. To a large degree that does not surprise me. We know they are really strapped for time, busy on their feet in their day-to-day work. Anything that would streamline things for them in doing their job obviously would be welcomed by their members.
I move to the second part of the bill which deals with an entirely separate matter. It is what makes it difficult to provide wholesale support or opposition for a bill when such diverse and entirely unrelated matters come before this House for consideration. But at the same time, I recognise this is part and parcel of the parliamentary and legislative process, namely that we are presented with one bill, elements of which we might find difficult to support or necessarily reject.
The second amendment pertains to Part IV of the act, ‘Discipline’, specifically section 76, ‘Breaches of Discipline’ and section 79, ‘Service of notice for alleged breaches of discipline. I understand these amendments are about strengthening the power of the Commissioner of Police to require a police officer and member to answer questions under lawful direction in relation to an internal disciplinary investigation into the officer or perhaps another officer.
I was advised during the briefing with police that it is about giving clarity to the Police Commissioner during a process known as directed interviews, and when questioning a police member about an internal disciplinary matter, they must answer the question or questions put to them.
I am advised this amendment seeks to close a loophole following a decision in 2013 in the New South Wales Supreme Court which determined the New South Wales Police Commissioner did not have the powers under the New South Wales Police Act to direct an officer to answer questions after claiming the privilege against self-incrimination in criminal matters.
I understand it is putting into legislation what has been accepted as the common law principle when it comes to police dealing with their internal investigations. This amendment provides for the requirement of answers and removes the protection against claiming a privilege of self-incrimination, something which exists for employees in any other workplace.
On the surface this might appear to be a reasonable amendment. Joe Public might reasonably except that police should, when under internal investigation, answer questions truthfully so as to keep the integrity of the police force at the highest order.
It is also worth noting that this amendment does not have universal adoption into all state and territory laws. In fact, I am advised the Northern Territory will be the first to adopt this law, while other jurisdictions are looking at the result of the NSW decision in 2013.
My question to the Attorney-General is, why is the Northern Territory moving so quickly towards this amendment to the Police Administration Act when there are still many other amendments the NTPA has been calling for, and when there is already a broader view afoot of Part IV of the Police Administration Act?
The Northern Territory Police Association does not support this amendment, and is critical of the amendment and the lack of consultation around disciplinary investigations which will give the commissioner the power to direct a police officer to answer questions during a disciplinary investigation and remove the protection to claim the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid answering such questions.
During my meeting with Mr Vince Kelly, President of the NT Police Association, which was immediately after my briefing on this bill, I was made aware of the NTPA’s disappointment with the lack of any discussion or issues paper as to why the proposed amendment we are discussing had been drafted, it would seem, in the absence of fulsome and genuine engagement.
In his second reading speech the minister thanked:
This is a claim the NTPA describes as inaccurate. The NTPA, in representing its members, has provided me with its position on removal of these protections. It is a position I understand has been made very clear to the Attorney-General. Rather than paraphrase, in the interests of accuracy I will place on the record a couple of paragraphs from the correspondence sent to me by Vince Kelly:
The Northern Territory Police Association is on the record about the government’s priorities in holding them to account about their failure to commit to progressing blood testing legislation, or dealing with the NTPA’s call for reinstatement of welfare officers as a chaplaincy program.
These are very important reforms which go to important matters of health and wellbeing for police men and women. As an aside, we know the member for Fong Lim, when he held the portfolio, and then the Chief Minister, in rejecting not one, but two, private member’s bills introduced by the member for Fannie Bay – the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Fire-Fighters Bill – said they would introduce their own bill in October sittings to look after firefighters who are overdue in their bid to adequately be compensated for cancer contracted through their work. Regrettably, the Chief Minister has done nothing of the sort. He is also the Police minister.
Presumably he is too busy with his own fire sale of public assets like TIO. At the eleventh hour, a ministerial statement on workers compensation was circulated yesterday which we will be debating today. While reference is made to compensation for firefighters and what the government will do, it is not a bill. We are talking about a bill which is yet to be delivered and is now long overdue. Obviously I am talking about firefighters, but we are talking about the same minister who has responsibility for police understanding the priorities.
The issues of blood testing and the need for the return of a chaplaincy program were both raised quite publicly at the NTPA AGM in outgoing President Vince Kelly’s address. He did not spare the Chief Minister any pain in holding him to account about keeping his promises on the commitments he has made to police. Mr Vince Kelly was also critical of the Chief Minister’s broken promise over extra police.
This is why I place on the record these questions. It seems that the priorities around policing, as far as the government is concerned, are at odds with members of the police who work tirelessly day in and day out to serve and protect the community in ways that often risk their own personal safety and wellbeing so they can uphold law and order, and in doing so, do their best to work with the government of the day in a manner which is positive and constructive.
Mr Kelly said in his address at the August conference, ‘It is our view that government of any political persuasion will make better policy decisions by listening to all viewpoints on each issue, in our case the well-informed voice of operational police on the front line’.
The CLP claims to be a friend of the police but has done nothing except break promises to them in areas they see as desperately needed. Why is it the government sees the need to clarify this part of the act around disciplinary matters as a priority when other vital legislation, such as the promised amendments to the act giving a member powers to obtain blood samples from offenders taken into custody who have exposed that or another member to risks of bodily fluid transferred infection – the blood legislation – remains outstanding? This, along with more police and welfare officers, are promises that are well overdue.
When it comes to police, we have a government that will talk tough. When you look closer at it they are not friends of the frontline police, making them glorified bouncers at bottle shops, not giving them the support they need and expecting them to work harder for it. Although, I daresay the Attorney-General in his response will tell us they are supporting police with measures such as paperless arrests.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to hearing what others have to say during the second reading debate.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not be voting on this, not because I do not want to, but because I was not able to get to the briefing. The briefing was at a certain time and it was impossible for me to get there. I would still like to contribute to the debate because I did get some correspondence from Vince Kelly, who is someone I respect as a fine member of our community and a hard-working President of the NT Police Association.
When a bill like this comes through, it obviously needs a good deal of discussion. From reading what the Police Association has said, it has concerns about the adequacy of consultation. I also get a little frustrated when we start talking about police; I hear many things said.
People might have seen some photographs in the NT News of some lads having to clean up some rubber on somebody’s driveway. My area has rubber everywhere; it is all over the roads. If you look at the new road to the prison, there is more rubber than bitumen. I have asked the Chief Minister to try to do something in the form of CCTV cameras; I was told to dob them in. If you live in the rural area, you know how difficult it is to dob people in.
We need more police on the beat in those areas. That is where I would like to see a little more emphasis. I am before parliament talking about some amendments in relation to people being picked up if they look like they may commit a regulatory offence – I think that is the correct title; I will check. They may commit a prescribed offence that would attract an infringement notice.
These people cause many people in my rural area a lot of heartburn, yet I do not see any real action by the government in trying to do something about it. I asked for CCTV cameras because it is impossible to dob these people in. Their actions last about 20 seconds, and flying out of your house to try to get a number plate is simply impossible.
Perhaps police could follow a couple of cars around and put people away for four hours until they calm down. That might be one way of trying to do something about it. I get so frustrated when I see nothing or very little being done. I receive continual complaints about hooning in the rural area. If somebody from the government would like to come to the rural area I will take them on a tour of the doughnuts. Just about every intersection in the rural area is covered in doughnut marks yet it is so difficult to get this government to do something practical about that issue, which has been ongoing.
However, I am here today to discuss an amendment to provide members of the Northern Territory Police Force with an alternative post-arrest option, where a person who has committed certain prescribed offences may be held by police for up to four hours. Whether that is a good or a bad thing I am not sure.
We can talk about these things, yet when I see matters that need to be addressed and which have been raised in this parliament many times, I am so frustrated there is no real attempt of trying to do something. If the government wants to spend some of the money from TIO, may I ask they spend it on some CCTV cameras in the rural area, and maybe other places like the industrial area of Palmerston where those gentlemen at least nabbed a few fellows and made them clean up the mess.
Some of these things are overlooked in the bigger picture of crime, but they are matters which get the goat of many people in my area. Yet nothing seems to be done. Police can go there for an hour and you might not see them for another week or so. They try their best and probably do not have the number of people they would like to have to do something about it. When you see ATVs driven by people without helmets on, unlicensed, unregistered, running along the edge of the road, sometimes with two or three people on them, you know it is dangerous. You phone and ask for something to be done, but nothing is.
I am not knocking the police, they do the best they can. But it seems that sometimes they concentrate on some of the issues that are before us today. Whilst I am not saying they are not important issues, they are the sort of thing that would worry most people in my area or be regarded as major issues. The issue for them is trying to do something about people misbehaving on our roads.
Now I have that off my chest, member for Port Darwin, as sometimes you have to, I read the letter from the Police Association. Obviously I am interested to hear your response to that. I will not repeat it all because the member for Nhulunbuy has quoted a fair bit of that letter.
I do not believe I should vote on the bill because I have a lot of respect for the Police Association, especially Vince Kelly, and I have not received a briefing in relation to it which could at least give me the ability to balance this debate. Simply, I have not heard the other side of the story except what you have written in your second reading speech.
The other thing I wonder about is this being a paperless arrest. I have never seen anything paperless yet. What I normally see is a government department sends you an e-mail and you print it ...
Mr Elferink: I will explain it to you later. It is not quite that way.
Mr WOOD: Not quite that way? You are paperless and I am the one who gets the paper …
Mr Elferink: No, no, do not panic.
Mr WOOD: Yes. I wonder about the concept of paperless arrest – whether in fact there will be a piece of paper somewhere that records this.
I will not go on any longer. I felt I needed to say something about what is happening in my area because we make a big fuss over these changes. The Police Association is not overly happy that many of the things they wanted to happen have not happened, yet some of these other things, which I do not think they believe have been fully consulted about, are being rushed through.
Whilst this is important, some of the material that hits my desk in the rural area is far more important, but unfortunately nothing happens. I hope the government will make an effort to take up some of these issues. I am sure the member for Goyder knows certain roads in her area that are burn-out pads. She will know about people at the back of Taylor Road who ride ATVs and motorbikes in a dangerous fashion. I am not against off-road vehicles, but in the right place and the right time – no trouble at all. There is behaviour about which the government needs to say enough is enough. People will lose their lives. People will also take the law into their hands if they feel their amenity of living in the rural area is being affected by hoons who have no respect for other people’s property, quiet or lifestyle.
Madam Speaker, I will leave it at that, thank you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support the amendment brought to the House by the Attorney-General this afternoon to bring about legislative changes that will embrace paperless policing as a part of moves to improve efficiency in the Northern Territory Police Force.
This amendment does not necessarily create an entirely paperless arrest, but it does allow for an improvement or an increase to police powers which, in effect, makes two things. First of all it makes sense, and it allows for police officers to spend more time on the road and less time tied up in police stations filling out paperwork.
I have 21 years’ experience as a police officer in the Northern Territory so I can fully understand the exact paradigm this amendment fits into, what has gone before and what has happened in more recent years. I remember when, in years gone by, as an arresting police officer one used to be able to knock over an arrest file in about 30 minutes. In fact, you could probably do it in less time if it did not involve putting someone on a breathalyser. I remember the good days when you could bring a suspect in …
Mr Wood: Those were the days!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: They were the days, member for Nelson, indeed. You could bring a suspect in, have that person breathalysed, one police officer would do the prcis and the other partner would do the apprehension report and, lo and behold, 30 minutes after you could be free and clear and hand over your arrested offender to the watch house staff who would then process and look after that individual.
Times have changed with the advent of computerised policing. The introduction of the PROMIS system in the early 1990s changed things a lot. The police force moved from a simplistic modus operandi to a more complicated and complex scenario where much more statistical information was gathered and held by the police force. This necessitated entries onto a computer system. That, I assure you, added an enormous amount of time to what was a very simple process for making an arrest.
Not so much in answer to that, but to improve policing powers throughout the years, we saw sections 137 and 138 of the PAA brought into being which allowed police officers to arrest people and hold them for specified lengths of time. This allowed for certain things to occur around the investigation of an offence: being able to conduct interviews, find prisoners’ friends and do a whole range of things. That took care of the top end of offending where serious offenders could be held in custody under those circumstances.
Throughout the course of time protective custody was often used as a simple mechanism to remove people who were causing a problem from the streets. Sometimes that protective custody led to the issuing of a summary infringement notice after that person was released.
I understand that, over time, the courts found there are some issues with holding people in protective custody, then issuing some punitive order at the end of it. It makes sense to provide police with an alternative power and, in effect, this is what this change of legislation is. It will allow police officers to arrest people for relatively minor offending, and for that person to be held in custody for four hours at which time, quite legitimately, an infringement notice or some other action could be issued against that person.
In effect, that does a number of things. One is it allows that offender to be removed from an offending situation. For example, that person might be involved in a fracas on the main street of Katherine. They might not be drunk, therefore not invoking the powers of section 128, but may have offended in a way which, if the police officer did not arrest that person, the offending might well continue or that situation escalate.
That person can be removed under arrest and placed into custody. Then, without the need for a police officer to sit for what might end up being a couple of hours to go through a normal arrest procedure of completing a file, that person would be held in custody until they could be issued with an infringement notice. That is a much simpler way of dealing with an offender from an administrative point of view.
Again, it is a mechanism whereby police officers can remove offenders from a situation and not be tied up doing oodles of paperwork, allowing them to get back out on the street as quickly as possible, which is critical in this day and age, as it always has been. This is a sensible, pragmatic way of dealing with those types of offences and situations as I have described them.
I can assure you that had this legislation been around when I was in the police force, I would have made quite hefty use of it. I worked very hard as a police officer. I remember in those very early days that arrest rates for me were very high because I loved my job. It was good fun to protect the community, but at the same time we took that job very seriously. I can only imagine the number of hours this type of provision would have saved us in paperwork over the course of the 21 years I served as a police officer.
Madam Speaker, I will not belabour this too long. It is good, sensible legislation. I know it is not necessarily supported by some quarters. I understand that the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency has publicly criticised this. That is what you would expect from a justice agency such as NAAJA. Nonetheless, this provision provides police officers with sensible powers and I am very pleased to support it today.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, as the Attorney-General, I wrap this up as I introduced the bill. Whilst it deals with police powers, it has come under the umbrella of the Pillars of Justice framework, which I have carriage of on behalf of the Northern Territory government.
There are a couple of things I need to address at the outset. I will deal with the Vince Kelly response first. I have not seen that letter from Vince Kelly. I understand he has sent it to other members, and conceivably sent it to me, but for some reason it has not found its way to me.
If I understood correctly what was read into the record by the member for Nhulunbuy, there was concern whether or not material evidence retrieved from a police officer in an interview which arose out of a breach of discipline could be used in a subsequent tortious action against the member. If I understood that correctly, then my reply is to draw the attention of the honourable member for Nhulunbuy to the proposed sections 79A(3) and (4), found in clause 6 of the bill. Those sections read as follows:
Civil or criminal proceedings in court:
The answers given by a member in such an interview can be used in a tortious action against the police force, but not in reverse, as seems to be suggested by the member for Nhulunbuy.
The commissioner has asked us for clarification around this uncertainty. This bill will restore the legislation to operate in a fashion that everybody always expected it to operate but for the decisions that I referred to in my second reading speech. I hope that helps the member for Nhulunbuy in relation to her inquiry. I also hope it helps the Police Association because it is not conceivable, under the interpretation of my reading of this legislation, for a tortious action to be brought against a member using the material extracted under the provision of the operation of this act.
Putting that to one side, I refer back to what this is about: the control of the streets. It is nothing more complex than that. I listened very carefully to the member for Katherine, who well remembers the day when processing a simple street offence was a very simple process. I obviously am a complete dinosaur because the PROMIS system post-dates me. All I remember is the simple act of arrest, doing your AP or a prcis, the file going in, then you could go back on the street. If you and your partner were really quick and pretty good, you could knock it over in about 20 to 25 minutes pretty comfortably.
The PROMIS system came along, then the requirements for things like notebook entries, which I always had anyhow – I was always very particular and meticulous in keeping my notebook up to date – were introduced. As time passed, greater and greater impositions were made.
The IJIS system was introduced and created certain expectations on police officers, particularly in the days of unmanned watch houses which Alice Springs had. We used to keep 150 people under protective custody in Alice Springs – before the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody – without the watch house being manned. Those were risky days, but that is how the system used to operate. Nobody thought too much about it.
The problem nowadays is that the process of arresting a person is laborious; it is hard. I want to paint a mental picture for members to provide an understanding of why I want to go down this path. The police will generally deny this, but on a quiet day, many will confess to it. On a Friday or Saturday night in Mitchell Street or in Alice Springs you will have X number of patrols. Let us just say you have three patrols in Mitchell Street on a Friday night, and there are a lot of drunken yobbos walking about committing offences. The offences they are committing are section 47 breaches of the Summary Offences Act – this is the old riotous, offensive, indecent language, disorderly behaviour or fighting section. I think that was the list from section 47.
A police officer would see this going on, stop the car or walk up to these people and tell them to cut it out, or they may go down the path of telling that person they will get a SIN – a summary infringement notice. Believe it or not, I pre-date summary infringement notices. I actually entered parliament in 1997 when these things were introduced. I remember saying to the then Police minister who introduced them that they were not a good idea. I am not really that warm towards summary infringement notices because of what the Summary Offences Act enabled police to do. It was a clean-up act. It was an act that enabled police officers to arrest a person and take them into custody and out of circulation.
Taking a person out of circulation was really important because every single copper out there will know this truth: the moron standing on a street corner being a foul-mouthed git at 9.30 pm at night is nearly always the person you are arresting at 2 am for a serious assault, sexual assault or something worse. If you take them out of circulation nice and early you are already well in advance of cutting off a lot of problems down the track.
This is where the problem arises. An arrest now generates, I am told, close on two hours of paperwork – let us accept one-and-a-half hours for the sake of conversation – and there are three units working on a Friday night. A police officer brings that person back to the watch house, and I understand they have to stand there and wait for the person to be processed. They then do the paperwork, which means updating a PROMIS job, generating an apprehension report, updating the IJIS system where necessary, as well as doing a prcis of evidence. That takes a couple of hours.
I tell you what happens in the real world. The shift sergeant will be poking these coppers in the back of the head the whole time they are in the police station saying, ‘Get out on the road, we need you out on the bloody road. There are jobs piling up.’ Two units are out of commission doing an arrest, and that is really problematic. Police try to deal with the matter by moving people on and dishing out a sinny, but they do not take these people out of commission. They do not remove them from the streets. They become – this is the part they will only whisper to you behind their hands – arrest averse, because they want to (1) avoid the aggravation of the shift sergeant yelling at them to get back out on the road and (2) make sure they do the right thing and stay on the streets as long as possible.
The arrest rate is not high, even when Mitchell Street has many problem people on the street. This robs the police of the power of control. I heard, of course, the complaints from lawyers who say this is arrest without trial and those sorts of things. It is not arrest without trial because there is capacity to have the matter heard through the normal hearing processes as described on the summary infringement notice.
Second, we already have a form of arbitrary arrest without a court appearance which you can find in section 128 of the Police Administration Act. We take people out of circulation for up to six hours, and if we have got them past midnight, we keep them until the morning. It is appealable. You can apply to a magistrate to have your condition reviewed.
This legislation does not create a circumstance which is not already in the contemplation of the law. I will give you an example. If a police officer does arrest somebody for a street offence and takes them into custody and places them in the watch house and they have been charged with that offence, bail may be set. If you read the Bail Act you will see it can take up to six hours – I think it is six hours, somebody remind me. Not too sure? Six hours, I am pretty sure of it. I will have to double check it. For six hours you can hold a person in custody before you determine bail. Even if it was four hours – and I will have to double check it – the effect is the same. If you have four hours to determine bail, the shift sergeant says, ‘I will get around to it in the next two hours because I am busy at the moment’, and that person is still sitting in custody.
People talk about the rights of citizens to be unmolested by their police forces unless they have reasonable grounds. Of course, you have the right to be brought before a court at the next practicable opportunity. In truth, the law has always accepted a time of deprivation of liberty as described by the member for Nhulunbuy, which has always operated under the law and continues to operate to this day.
This system simply restores a simple idea that when a police officer arrests a person for a street offence, they have taken that person out of commission. They bring them to the watch house, drop them off at the watch house, write out the summary infringement notice – so it is not entirely paperless – which goes into the property bag of the person who is then placed in the cells for the next four hours. In four hours’ time, they come out, collect their property, collect their summary infringement notice, and if they wish to contest the allegations in the summary infringement notice, then there are processes for that to occur. Those processes are explained on the back of the summary infringement notice.
This means the police will no longer become arrest averse. It will actually say to the police that if these clowns are playing up, arrest them, take them into custody, get them out of circulation. I will bet you London to a brick serious assaults later on in the evening will substantially drop. Moreover, I will bet you London to a brick the police will feel a much greater level of control over the environment they police.
Police want to have a level of control, not because they are thugs and bullies, but because they believe in standing up for the integrity of social order in our community. In fact, that is what we ask them as members of parliament and as citizens of the Northern Territory do every day. We want them to do these sorts of things. We want them to respond.
I heard the member for Nelson say he wants the police to respond in this circumstance, in that circumstance, and to his needs. Part of the problem is that many of the police he wants to respond are sitting in police stations pumping out arrest files – at two hours each – and dealing with the logjam of paperwork which diminishes their capacity to respond.
That is what this legislation is. If you like, to a degree it is back to the future. We are doing it because at some time in the past, certainly within my memory and I have just heard the member for Katherine describe it within his memory – I am glad to see the member for Sanderson, who predates both member for Katherine and I; he is the stegosaur and we are from the Jurassic. Modern policing can look back to us reptiles and know we remember a time when we used to arrest people regularly, put them in cells and control the streets effectively.
This legislation is about restoring the concept of effective control back to the hands of the police force. I do not doubt the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory will be highly critical of this because, of course, it represents criminals. That is not true, they are only criminals after they are convicted. Their predisposition will be one of absolute liberty rather than any form of custody. It is the default position they have.
Whilst I understand that default position, having studied law and political science I get the concept of liberty. But in the practical, real world of Mitchell Street when people are standing on street corners with their pants around their ankles blaring out expletives or baring their buttocks to passing cars, expectorating, fornicating, urinating, defecating and doing all the other things they do when they have a skin full of juba juice, we can now say to the police, ‘Go out, lift them, pull them out of circulation’. You may be doing them a favour because whilst they are sitting in the cells they are not getting drunker still and committing, later in the evening, indictable offences.
That is basically what this power will be for the police: to quickly and efficiently deal with individuals who present themselves as offending generally against the Summary Offences Act. It will give police a vehicle by which to remove them, contain them and then release them. It is a form of catch and release. If a person wishes to object, they still have all the systems of appeal available to them, either through the courts, the internal police investigation process, the Ombudsman’s Office or the civil courts. The remedies are there and the time spent in custody by a person does not exceed the contemplation of the Bail Act in any instance.
This no more an imposition on the good citizenry or burghers of the Northern Territory than any other legislative instrument has contained before. It represents efficiency and a capacity for the police to respond to minor street offences before they decay into indictable ones.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
I am mindful there are seven minutes to go before General Business. I do not think it is worth bringing on business at this stage, so I will finish with some observations in the third reading stage to get us through to General Business.
As I said before, the amendments we are seeking to provide to the police force in the Northern Territory are welcome. I have spoken to a number of rank and file police officers in the street who, in many instances, do not know who I am. I do not recognise most police officers nowadays as I have been out of circulation for too long. When I introduce myself I talk to them about this idea of a paperless arrest. To a person, they understand exactly what I am proposing. From a rank and file perspective, the police officers of the Northern Territory have indicated to me they very much welcome these amendments. I understand the NT Police Association also has welcomed these amendments for similar reasons.
Operational police have a tough job in our community. They try very hard to maintain law and order on the streets, and they must be given the means by which to do it. This idea is not unique to the member for Port Darwin, as much as I would like to claim it as an original. In truth, this was mentioned to me by the Commissioner of Police in passing some months ago. My mind immediately seized upon it, and because I was in charge of the Pillars of Justice policy on behalf of government, I was able to intrude into the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services’ domain and have this legislation drafted up by the police. It has been brought before this House, and will, I suggest, pass in this House in about five minutes, and be sent off to the Administrator for passage into law.
I encourage the police, as soon as this becomes law, to establish a general order as soon as possible. I encourage rank and file police officers to begin using this as soon as this legislation passes into law. I want people to be safe on our streets. I want police to be able to clearly demonstrate to the people of the Northern Territory that they are in control of the streets. Whilst I sound like somebody who wants a police state, I certainly do not. But that is not to say I believe the streets should be abandoned to those who think any behaviour is proper behaviour, and the rat-baggery described by the Summary Offences Act is something you should aspire to rather than something you should be ashamed of.
Clearly the police have to deal with drunken morons. This is a young jurisdiction with many people in it who behave like young people. That makes them 10 foot tall, bullet proof, and in many instances, utterly irresponsible.
I cannot begin to count the number of times I arrested people for summary offences many moons ago. In 1983, this was a much younger jurisdiction, in the sense of self-government having only been brought to the Northern Territory five years earlier. That was the year I joined the Northern Territory Police Force. I was operational and up and about as a constable by 1985, regularly patrolling the streets of what was then called the A Sector, the Darwin CBD; I presume it still is.
The A Sector presented police with a very particular problem. The nightclubs at the time were Fannies in Edmonds Street and I think it was still Crystals or Darby’s in the old casino site. There was Dicks as well in my old patrol district. There was any number of those pubs …
A member: The Dolphin.
Mr ELFERINK: The Dolphin in Nightcliff was a spectacular hole, as was Lim’s The Cage Bar. Goodness, gracious me, I would hate to think how many square inches of my skin are on the floors and car parks of some of these public houses because of having to control the wayward behaviour of some of these individuals. That was in a time when we were easily able to arrest these people and drag them out.
Now, because of the systems that have been put in place – and I understand the need for systems like PROMIS and IJIS – I am always mindful of the fact you do not necessarily want or need public servants, whether they be police officers or otherwise, to become slaves to a computer system. Computers, like everything else, should be tools which enhance the quality of the work done by public servants.
When a system becomes so onerous that it becomes an impediment to a public servant doing their work – including an operational police officer at three o’clock in the morning in front of a nightclub – then it is an impediment, not only for them but to the community as a whole. I could not think of a better way to remove red tape from operational police officers. I look forward to the police officers using this legislation, but them using it with discretion – the common law powers of discretion they have – and within the spirit of the law, not just necessarily the letter of the law.
I am sure a general order will be created to instruct police on how to use this system, but I encourage police to pick up the cudgels of this new power and use it for the proper maintenance in law and order and for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that this Legislative Assembly condemns the Chief Minister and the government for their actions to rush through a sale of TIO:
without a mandate
without going to the Public Accounts Committee
and that the Legislative Assembly asserts that future insurance protections for Territorians are at risk.
I gave notice of this yesterday in the hope we would be debating TIO tomorrow, and would have had a little time in between. That is obviously not the case, but that does not mean some of these issues cannot be revisited.
Two things happened yesterday. The government was trying to convince us there was a good reason to sell TIO, and there was a rally around Parliament House of people saying not to sell TIO. That reflected the gap between Territorians and the government.
The government said it had a good reason to sell the TIO. As I have said before, that may be the case. I have heard some quite reasonable debate in this parliament, but it has not convinced the people of the Northern Territory. One of the main reasons the government has not convinced people selling TIO is something they should embrace is because it has not spoken to them.
The first item in this motion states that government has acted without a mandate. The Chief Minister has said a number of times that this debate has been going a lot longer than just the last couple of months. Many of us cannot believe that. There were rumours and the odd comment made, but the only real time I felt the government was fair dinkum about selling TIO was on about 1 October. That is probably when most people also realised the government would become serious about this sale.
If the government had been looking at it for a long time it was obviously before the election. It would have been worthy of the government, which was making promises about all sorts of things before the election, to at least say it was considering selling TIO, but would not do it without a proper consultation process with the people. It did not happen. Even though the Chief Minister has said that Labor had posters before the last election and at the show, I had no real idea and I do not think many members of the public did. Except for Labor using it as political advertising there was no real evidence the government would sell TIO.
Unfortunately, I do not think most people believed the government would sell TIO; there was no mention of it during the election campaign. Whilst the government might say it has tough decisions to make – I am not denying governments have to make tough decisions – there is a fine line between leadership and arrogance. Leadership is what has been missing here.
Leadership would have meant taking people with you. What has happened here has been more of a case of, ‘We are going to do it, we are tough. We do not really care what criticism we get, we will live with that, but we are going to do it.’ In some ways that shows a gutsy attitude. If you had a real case, you would not need to go down that painful path; you would have convinced Territorians this is a good deal. From the rally yesterday, one could presume you have not convinced people.
The challenge for the government between now and the next election is to convince people that things will be okay. That will take a fair bit of work, especially if people see changes in their insurance fees. The government has said that things will carry on as if TIO was still TIO. Obviously there will be some changes, but will there be more changes than TIO said there would be?
The consultation process is the key for me. This is not trying to put myself up as high and mighty, but I tried to do something, along with two business people. They came to see me and were concerned about their businesses. I would say they were probably pretty good CLP supporters with a small business. I said, ‘Let us see if we can find out what the real story is about insurance, about selling TIO’.
We booked Mal Nairn Auditorium at Charles Darwin University. We put ads in the NT News. I think from memory we put ads on the radio – not cheap. You pay $250 for a 30-second ad on Mix 104.9. You pay about $695 for a reasonable-size ad in the public notices. The three of us – and we did get some help from another person later – had to fund that campaign, not for any political reasons but because we felt there was no debate occurring in the community regarding why we should sell TIO.
When we held the public meeting I was hoping it could be a reasonable meeting where I could listen to the people’s concerns, the people could hear the views of TIO, the Chief Minister and the opposition, so they could hear a reasoned debate, and at the same time question the people taking part in that debate. That is the way to have a two-way consultation process.
Unfortunately it did not happen. The meeting occurred and a little over 100 people attended. The Leader of the Opposition and Richard Harding, who I have a great deal of respect for, attended, but the Chief Minister did not. I heard last night, and my understanding is, the Chief Minister was somewhere else in the sense that he was not available, or was at some function interstate or intrastate. I do not know. The impression I got when I mentioned this to the Chief Minister was he simply would not be around so he was not coming. I e-mailed one of his deputy chiefs of staff and asked if someone else could come, presuming the Chief Minister was not available. That did not happen either. I was told, ‘No, there will not be anyone coming because this meeting has been hijacked by the Labor Party and the unions’.
Then, to hear last night from the member for Nhulunbuy – I do not know whether the member for Nhulunbuy was in Hanuman ...
Ms Walker interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Oh, the member for Nhulunbuy was in Hanuman. The Chief Minister was having a meal while we were having a public meeting to discuss this important issue.
I do not care about the flack I might get for not supporting this TIO sale. You can try to give the people an opportunity to hear about an important issue. When the Chief Minister turns up, do you blame me for saying, ‘Well, blow this. If you are not interested in trying to convince people that it is a good idea, do not ask for my support because I do not know, I have not been part of this discussion either’.
Richard Harding gave a terrific talk and gave TIO’s point of view. What we did not hear was other people who might have a different point of view. I received a phone call last Friday from an insurance broker who had operated in the Northern Territory for 25 years. He did not agree. Why could we not have had him as part of the debate? Was there another side to this story? I have heard the story now from the government through the debates in parliament, but the people have not heard that except through the media. We need to have the mature debate with experts.
Wayne Wood – no relation of mine so I am not plugging a member of the Wood family – wrote to the paper the other day. He has lived in Darwin for many years. He was questioning whether there were any alternatives. I mentioned one alternative in the last debate, which was whether you could have a public meeting. The Chief Minister said, ‘No, we looked at that. We are probably a bit small for that.’ I had people ask me exactly the same question. If we had had a more fulsome debate some of those issues could have been looked at.
I will give you another example. I raised some issues about a major transport company in the Territory which had obtained workers compensation quotes from TIO, a range of other companies and Allianz. The member for Sanderson saw me yesterday – thank you, member for Sanderson, I appreciate that. He explained that perhaps I had it wrong and that TIO insurance would stay the same and Allianz does not work in this area. That might be right – and I appreciate the comments from the minister – but how will the public know that? A major company got some quotes and sent them to me. They do not understand if that is the case because the implication of what the government was trying to do has not reached the public. If it is the case this company should stay with TIO because it is $55 000 cheaper – the price Allianz is charging is not related to what TIO is charging because they will operate as two separate companies even though TIO is owned by Allianz.
It highlighted to me that this important debate had not gone to the lengths it needed to go. If the government had really wanted people to come along with it, it needed to set this debate back a lot further and not do it from October to now. That is why people said they were not with it. That is sad because there was an opportunity for the government to get on the right foot, but it did not and it suffered.
I recommended we take this to the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee could have been asked to look at this six months ago. The member for Port Darwin said we will trash the brand. There is no way I would trash TIO. We would be taking it out to people saying, ‘We have a good company but there is an option to improve the company. We want to hear from you.’
I do not know if we could do it with that committee; we were able to do it on the Council of Territory Cooperation. You could have brought people before the committee who are experts in the insurance field. I am not an expert in the insurance field, but the committee could have brought experts before it to discuss it around the Territory, because it is not just about Darwin and Katherine. The company I am talking about does not operate in Darwin or Katherine. We are thinking of cyclones and flood surges, but TIO insure you for lots of other things.
We do not want to get stuck on those matters. We should have looked at the Public Accounts Committee as a way of developing this issue. After all, why have a Public Accounts Committee? It is meant to look at government finances and would have been an opportunity.
The motion also mentions deception and the amount it will get from the sale of TIO. I have looked for figures in a media release from 24 November 2014. The only figure mentioned is in the the first sentence:
A journalist raced up to me outside Parliament House saying, ‘Do you know how much they are selling it for?’ I said, ‘I did not quite catch it’. He said, ‘They are saying $424m, but we asked a couple of questions and they are not selling it for that much. They are moving money from MAC into that amount which makes it look big, but it is not the amount we are getting for the insurance part of the Territory Insurance Office.’ So whilst it might be ‘correct’, it led people to believe the sale of the insurance company and the banking was $424m, which it was not.
That is what is annoying. Why was it not up-front that this is how much the insurance company cost, this is how much the bank cost and this how much we are moving from the MAC Scheme to help build up – I am not saying is not a good idea – an infrastructure development fund. You get the impression someone does not want to tell the whole story. That is why people start to wonder what is going on.
The other issue was the Senate inquiry. I have heard comments that it is run by Labor. Senate inquiries are run by many people. If the government had waited for the Senate inquiry – I do not know whether it was going to come here – it would have been an opportunity for it to put its good, strong case that it needs to sell. It would also have been an opportunity for the public to hear about it – they are public hearings, I presume – and for the government to be questioned about the asset sales.
In the previous debate, many people talked about asset sales. The Liberal government in Tasmania decided it would only sell one asset and would not sell the rest of its assets. It was a promise made at election time. It understood there were sweeteners put out by the federal government, but it decided that it would only sell one asset. I do not have that paper in front of me, but I clearly remember that debate ...
Mr Giles: It only has one asset that it can sell, by the way.
Mr WOOD: It did not say that when …
Mr Giles: That is the truth.
Mr WOOD: Well, that is not what they said. I remember reading the debate. They said, ‘We are not going to sell the other asset’. There was one asset they did sell. They said, ‘No, we promised in the election we would not sell them’. That is an issue that is probably a bit broader than this debate today.
We will not have many assets left. The printing office is gone, the bus company is gone and the insurance company is gone. We have the port, and the way it is going we will not have it for much longer, or at least we will not have the real ownership of it, it will be leased out. I am not getting into that at the moment as we are talking about the TIO. We will not have any assets left except for this House. You could get a few badminton courts in here; look at the height. I reckon that is not a bad idea. I reckon the badminton club would reckon this is a great place: air conditioned, soundproof, just across the road from the Deck Bar – perfect. But I am sure that will not happen. It just goes to show you we will not have many assets left by the time this government is finished its term in office.
Also on this motion is the concept of ‘the basis of securing reward payments from the federal government’s recycling program’. I heard the Chief Minister say we will get 15% on top of the price we sell our assets for. In a media release on 4 October he said:
I am an outsider, I believe we are going to get 15%.
A media release on 20 October stated:
Anyone reading that media release would believe that asset recycling initiative is a goer, something that is happening right now. Lo and behold, I did not realise it was not until someone sent me an e-mail to say it has not been passed. An outsider would have accepted the Chief Minister’s words that we would receive an extra 15%. I do not know whether we will get it on top of $424m. What will we get it on top of? Will it be the $424m or will we get it on what the insurance company and bank are worth? We will only get that 15% if it is passed through the Senate. The impression I got was it is happening now and we would expect a 15% incentive payment. Again, people are having trouble trusting the government when it says something which is not exactly accurate.
The end of this motion says that the Legislative Assembly asserts that future insurance protections for Territorians are at risk. That is the area most ordinary people would have liked to have seen in black and white: ‘What is my insurance now? How much can I expect it to go up by? What changes will it make?’
A transport company sent me an e-mail which talked about $107 000 for workers compensation, and Allianz charging $171 000, or something like that. People are really concerned about what will happen to their insurance premiums. The Chief Minister said they will not go up. They will go up to some extent because Richard Harding has already said they will do spot pricing. I accept that, and it makes a lot of sense.
People do not know, and even I do not know. I cannot tell you what will happen. My concern is people did not receive the message you are trying to sell. You did not take the time to explain to ordinary people. Most of the 15 000 people who signed the petition were ordinary Northern Territory people – and that was up and down the Northern Territory. At that stage we had a little more time to run the campaign. There were ordinary Territorians in Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Mataranka – I think we might have left one at Renner Springs or even Three Ways as well. We did not get out to Borroloola, but someone may have taken some copies there and to Timber Creek. In that period we got 15 000 signatures and no one was forced to sign. I got nearly 1100 signatures in two weeks. Nobody asked them to sign it. It just sat on a table with a sign, ‘Do you think TIO should be sold?’ and people signed it.
I have organised petitions before. Sometimes petitions are a waste of time because the government does not take any notice of them. I know when there is a feeling in what people are thinking when the pages tick over each day. I collect them and there are three or four pages. I could go back the next day and there would be three or four pages full again. I have put out petitions before which sometimes have comments written across them telling me what they think of my petition. I did not get it in this case; many people signed.
Chief Minister, I know the deal is done. From a government’s point of view you have a lot of work to do to convince people this is a good move, which it may be. I hope if you spend this money we do not waste it, because people would expect you to invest it in projects that will make money.
I have heard many suggestions in this debate, and it becomes confusing. There was an equestrian centre and a swimming pool. Someone said to me, ‘We could get a swimming pool in your area’. The idea of a swimming pool has not surfaced since the last election, so I was a bit surprised to hear that. There was also a suggestion of a rectangular sporting field. The debate about what we should use the money for is serious.
TIO is a profitable organisation, at least over the last five years. I admit it was struggling before. If you are to use money from selling a company that showed a profit, then people expect it to be invested into something that will help grow the economy and show some returns so we can keep reinvesting money into the Territory. That is a good idea. But when things are suggested such as rectangular football fields, equestrian infrastructure and other things, they are what I expect to be part of government’s normal budgetary items. If we are to have an infrastructure development fund then there needs to be a few smart brains in a room working out the best way to invest this money.
We are here to debate what has happened. We all have concerns about it. However, I am also a realist and know we have to move on. The deal is done. Whether I like it or not, it is done. I would like to see the money you get used for projects that will definitely benefit the Territory, and hopefully get some financial returns back to the Territory to keep this infrastructure development fund alive. We should not just spend it and say, ‘That is great’, but target it to make sure we get the best value for money.
I hope, Chief Minister, if you are responding to this, you might give us some more details of exactly how this money will be spent so we get best value for dollar. That is important.
At times I am concerned with the way money is spent. It is difficult for government sometimes. We spent millions on Tiger Brennan Drive. The Labor Party spent millions on the overpass, and you are spending millions on duplicating it. If I was coming from the member of Arnhem’s electorate and I was having to travel up the Central Arnhem Highway, I would say, ‘What about us?’ I did it about two months ago. You need a good vehicle, put it that way. It is a 50:50 road: 50% good and 50% terrible. If I was a pastoralist – I know they are going to do up some of the road on the Plenty Highway past Mount Riddock. I have been on that road around Mount Riddock and there is a lot of traffic in that area. It can be as corrugated as blazes. Do we spend the money on those areas? You are looking at developing a new port. There is no road there. Do you spend some money in that area?
I am not saying that is where you will spend the money. However, wherever we spend the money it has to be well considered, not just wasted or something that is good for the next election. We have to think a bit broader than that in this debate. We have to say, ‘We have this pot of money; what is the best use for it?’
I raised these issues as an epilogue to a debate that is obviously something many people have heard many times. Some things need to be put on the record about the way in which TIO was sold and I have tried to do that tonight. It has been sold. We might not like it. The people might have said this was a bad move. The government has made a decision and that is the right of any government.
What I would like to hear now is what you will do now you have sold TIO. You also need to come back to parliament and say, ‘This is the state of affairs for TIO now’. Give us some idea how we compare with our premiums – some of what ordinary people like to hear. What are the premiums now? Is someone doing a control on premiums of TIO for car insurance, workers compensation, fire, theft, flood, cyclone, storm surge – whatever? Do we have a record of what it is for TIO today?
We know those things will not stay the same, but can we look over the next three years to see what changes and whether the benefits the government claimed have occurred? If you believe this government, it has said we have to reinsure at a higher cost than other insurance companies, and by having Allianz take that up, those costs, in theory, will be less. Will the lesser costs we will supposedly have for reinsurance be reflected in lower premiums? We need a report from the government saying, ‘This is what it was, this is what we claimed it would be and here is the proof of the pudding’, or not. We need to take this debate a lot further along in the years to come to see whether the claims the government made occur. That would be a positive thing to show the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I will answer a couple of questions. To answer the last point on risk rating, it is very hard to provide analysis on the comparison because every policy is different. Every house in the Territory would have its own risk rating based on the age and condition of the building, geographical location, topography and a range of other things. Combined with that is the risk rating every individual has with that property. You could have someone under the age of 25, male, employed and a smoker – a whole lot of other risk factors go into that. Insurance companies combine all those individual risk factors with others, put it through a formula, and that gets a risk rating which applies to a premium, depending on the level of insurance you take.
You could have all those risk profiles combined, and then determine that you want to insure your house for $400 000 and the next person, if they had exactly the same risk profiles – which would never happen – may want to insure their place for $500 000, for example. That is the challenge. Plus each year the value of homes changes with the fluctuation of the market. We now have CPI going up by 2.5%, land values might go up by 4% and property prices might go up by 1.5%. There are many contributing factors. If you did an analysis of two years to five years, everything would be different. You have to take it pretty much on the law of averages to provide a cost analysis. You would have to look at averages and identify reinsurance components within a premium to see the difference in reinsurance components, but you would not be able to specifically do individuals, their properties or otherwise.
The same goes for motor vehicles. For example, some motor vehicles have higher risk ratings than others for theft. Some last longer than others and they all have different profiles. If you combine that with the different age of a person and a person’s driving record, they all change. It has to be done on the law of averages. Are we looking at that? Yes, we are so we can monitor that into the future with a high degree of scrutiny.
I will not get into the politics of the game you are playing in this motion, but I point out the debate on TIO has been going on for a long time. Despite the misleading comments by the opposition, this was discussed well before the Casuarina by-election. They were running petitions at their booths at the by-election with signs everywhere, so to say that was not the case is false.
Let us talk about the port. Already the lies have started about the port. We have been talking about how we expand the port – the quay line, the hardstand areas, whether there is dredging, tug pens, building new areas for the port, rail loops, all of that sort of stuff – for a long time. The earliest media release I issued was in February this year talking about a long-term lease for the port. We have always said we will not sell it. Anyone who understands the port in this Chamber, which probably would not be too many people in the opposition, knows there is not a huge regulatory environment for ports around the Northern Territory outside Darwin.
I challenge you to write this date down because no doubt you will say you have never heard of any of this before. We have been talking about how to get more capital investment into the port. Anything you do at the port costs a lot of money: a new conveyer at the port for bulk goods costs $35m, roughly speaking; hardstand areas – $40m easy for ponds; and rail spurs, hundreds of millions of dollars. This is money the government does not have, with major debt thanks to Labor.
If we want to see expansion there, we need major capital investment. We cannot afford to do it – fundamental. If we want to grow northern Australia you need to have a higher level of capacity at the port. If you want to do things such as reduce the cost of living from imported goods, you must have a greater level of economy to scale, which means more containers, bigger ships and the like have to come over the port, which is what we are negotiating now. Do the people at the port do a good job? They do a fantastic job. The staff, the management team of Terry O’Connor and Melissa Reiter – everybody there does a great job.
However, we need a capital injection. There are a couple of ways that can be done. One is we can sell it and the other is we could long-term lease it, which is generally the way things are done these days. It used to be sold. We could find a capital equity partner for a cash injection or sell bits and pieces off and use the money. There are different things going on with things like the marine infrastructure park. You could do what Labor did with the Marine Supply Base with a long-term lease – I think 25 years for the MSB – and the rate of return in that area, which is another asset sell-off in a partnership model. There are a range of different things.
We have talked about a long-term lease of the port all year – in this Chamber, publically, on radio and all over the place. We had the CEO and the deputy CEO of the port give a briefing to port staff this morning – or maybe it was yesterday. Labor this morning asked questions about the port and a long-term lease and started attacking us about asset sales, fire sales, carrying on like crazy.
When you talk about a mature debate, this is the start of one right now. The difference with the port and a long-term lease, as opposed to TIO, is we are trying to get in front of the game, which, politically, will probably be the wrong thing. We should do it the same way we have done TIO.
Tomorrow, two pieces of legislation will be tabled. I am not sure if I am doing them cognate or separately, but there will be two tabled. One is about the regulatory environment and the other is about the future operations of the port. We have said flatly we are not selling the port.
That will sit on the Table for three months. If anyone wants to refer it to committee, go ahead and do all that. It will be there for public debate and we will be talking to the port and everybody, consumers and otherwise.
Already today the very poor-performing member for Nightcliff has issued a slanderous media release saying we are selling the port, already misleading the public. I get politics, I understand it, but this is the situation you find yourself in. She knows we are not selling the port. She has probably never been to the port, but that is beside the point. This is the challenge of getting the message out. As a mature democracy you should be able to have the debate right and not just lie to people. It is a flat lie ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr Giles: I have not said or talked about lying in the Chamber, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, you were very clear with your previous rulings.
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw the reference to lies and lying please.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I would like a point of clarification. If someone deliberately tells a mistruth outside of this Chamber, surely I have a right to call that a lie?
Madam SPEAKER: No, not in the Chamber. It is the language that is not accepted in the Chamber, Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: I withdraw. I am not reflecting on the Chair, but I find even more outrageous that someone can say something completely untrue out of this Chamber and we cannot even reflect on the untruth. It is outrageous.
We are trying to start a mature debate. We are bringing the legislation forward early, and you cannot even get it right because of the mistruth being told today publicly …
Ms Lawrie: A little sensitive.
Mr GILES: No, it is not sensitive at all. We know how you operate.
I rest my case, Gerry.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister, given an opportunity to defend the condemnation in this General Business Day motion does not because he knows he would be trying to defend the indefensible. He knows the points laid out here by the Independent member for Nelson are correct.
The CLP has sold TIO without a mandate. The CLP has sold TIO without a proper two-way consultation process with Territorians. The CLP sold TIO without taking it to the Public Accounts Committee. The CLP has been deceptive about the amount it will get from the sale of TIO. Before public hearings are held in the Territory early next year by the Senate inquiry into asset sales, the CLP sold TIO. The CLP said the sale would include securing reward payments from the federal government’s asset recycling program, but it is a scheme that has not even been enacted. Future insurance protections for Territorians are at risk because the CLP failed to put any legal guarantees in either the legislation or the conditions of sale.
That is why the Chief Minister gave his view on risk analysis in the insurance industry, then went straight to the port. He did not even try to defend and make a case that any of the points in this General Business Day motion are wrong, because they are correct in fact. Every point in this motion is an undeniable fact. That is why this Assembly seeks to condemn the Chief Minister.
We have a Chief Minister who was not elected by the people of the Northern Territory, who took the mantle of Chief Minister after he knifed the previous Chief Minister who won the election when that man was on an overseas trade mission, which embarrassed us with a trade partner. The man who is now the Chief Minister has not stood before the Territory public and said, ‘You can trust me to lead the Territory’; he worked the numbers in his party room and knifed the elected Chief Minister, who was tested by the electorate.
As Chief Minister he pretends that somehow he has been bestowed a mandate, when we know in fact there is no mandate to sell TIO. Why? It was very clear. In previous considerations of the sale of TIO when Labor was in government there was an overwhelming view from the Territory community, supported by CLP policy, not to sell TIO. Understandably, when people went to the 2012 election and government and opposition parties put their policies to seek mandates on those policies, not one policy came from either party to sell TIO. In fact, quite understandably, the Territory public viewed both parties as having the policy of protecting our public insurer TIO as a public asset. There is no mandate.
The Chief Minister in debate yesterday tried to pretend the sale issue has been going on for years and questioned why everyone is saying it has been rushed. What arrant nonsense! Last sittings the Chief Minister admitted that Cabinet began consideration of the sale of TIO in March. In the October sittings of parliament we found out that consideration of the sale of TIO commenced in March. That was not publicly announced. There was no media release from the Chief Minister saying, ‘What do people think about the idea of selling TIO? We are going to embark on community consultation, we are going to put the pros and cons and consider it all, engaging our community, engaging the stakeholders of TIO’ – who are the public – ‘and then make a considered decision.’ That would have been a mature conversation, but that did not happen.
The two-way consultation process contained within this GBD motion did not occur, in fact, it was quite the opposite. There was the spin machine engaged after the Casuarina by-election, commencing with the announcement by the Chief Minister that they were considering the sale of TIO – full-page advertisements, a website with, ‘What are your ideas and suggestions on how we could spend the money from the sale of TIO?’ Nowhere in any of that did the government ask the people of the Territory for a mandate. Nowhere in any of that spin did the government say, ‘Are you for or against?’, having a presented a case for it they wanted to present. That did not occur.
The public, not wanting to be treated like fools by this government, set about putting their own views forward. They did so through the media, talkback radio, the NT News and by contacting the media stations and TV channels. Overwhelmingly through those media polls, 90% were opposed to the sale of TIO. We in opposition thought, ‘Why do we not poll CLP members’ seats to find out what their own constituents think about the sale; surely they will be representing their constituents in any debate on TIO because they are elected to represent their constituents.’
Unsurprisingly, given the 90%-odd opposed to TIO through the media straw polls – as I will describe them – a legitimate poll showed over 80% consistently opposed the poll across all those eight seats. Did that matter to the CLP members in their arrogance? No. Did they then say, ‘Hang on. We could hold forums and consultations across the community. We could invite people who are clients of TIO directly affected by any decision to sell to meetings and forums, and we could present information and receive their feedback, and that would help us consider it’? That did not happen.
The member for Katherine, notably separate to his colleagues, undertook consultation in Katherine. After that consultation, we will not forget the coverage of the member for Katherine saying, ‘I have serious concerns’. Well he changed his mind at some stage because yesterday he stood in this Chamber and went on to defend the sale of TIO. But they were not two-way consultations with Territorians.
Then there is the point of the terms of reference to the Public Accounts Committee. The member for Nelson is correct; it is within the remit of government to refer matters to the Public Accounts Committee. It could have referred it months ago – March, for example, or prior to March if it saw fit. It could have made a reference to the Public Accounts Committee as to whether or not TIO should remain a public insurer or should be a private insurance model – not damaging a brand, but looking at the business case for and against public insurance/private insurer. It was never ever anyone’s view, desire or intent in the Territory parliament, let alone the members of the Public Accounts Committee, to consider brand trashing. But that is what you are accusing people of.
You would not make a reference to the Public Accounts Committee to allow for a mature conversation whereby an inquiry is held, submissions are sought and meetings occur across the Territory – because there are TIO account holders right across the Territory – that would allow insurance experts to express views on whether it should be a public or private model. It would allow members of the public to attend public hearings and put views of whether it should be a public or private model. It would allow everyone who needed to have their say to have their say. Then the weight of evidence for or against a public or private model of insurance in the Territory could have been considered by a Public Accounts Committee which has a majority of members of government, then a recommendation put to government.
If the majority of members of government held the view, after all the weight of evidence, that no, they think a private insurance model is the way to go, they would have made those recommendations. If the other members of the Public Accounts Committee had a view that, on the weight of evidence, they thought a public insurance model was still needed in the Northern Territory, given the serious concerns people hold as a result of the catastrophic private market failure in Queensland, and given we are subject to similar conditions, such as floods, storm surge and cyclone, then minority members of the committee could have put a dissenting report forward giving reasons for a public model. None of that happened. That is not about the TIO brand or the value of its sale. That is a mature debate about private versus public models of insurance. None of that happened. At the very least it could have.
The member for Nelson, when he first became aware in October that you were genuinely on the path of considering TIO for sale, called for it then. You had the opportunity to refer it in October. You ignored all the opportunities to engage Territorians and experts who would have come forth because they are very good at providing expert evidence to Public Accounts Committee inquiries.
Then we had the deception in the sale price. If it is a good price and a good sale, why did the Chief Minister not say in his media release, ‘We have sold banking and insurance of TIO for $284m’? Why were we told it was sold for $424m when it had been sold for $284m? If you deduct the $9m in fees, you are left with $275m from the sale. But you could be accurate in saying you sold it for $284m and deducting the fees from the sale price. He was not honest enough to say that. That is why we are condemning the Chief Minister in this point. The $140m from the drawdown from MAC could occur with a change to legislation, with or without sale. It was not pertinent to the sale. Why could, even on sale price, the Chief Minister not be honest? You had to explain, because it is a public asset, what the sale price was. You had to explain that People’s Choice had bought banking for $48m. You had to explain that Allianz bought insurance for $236m. People did their sums; they sold it for $284m not $424m as announced by the Chief Minister. It was extraordinary to see yet another deception in this when it goes to fact.
One of the concerns is because there was no referral to the Public Accounts Committee, no community consultations, and because of the magnitude of the potential impact of the loss of a public insurer in our Territory where we are subject to cyclone, flood and storm surge, people wanted to test the concerns about the issues of a sale of a public asset as an issue in and of itself. Do we keep our assets public? Do we keep the opportunities, revenue and profits public, for example, the $10m the CLP received as a dividend? How is TIO placed as a public asset? The chair of the board described it as strong, viable and sustainable. It has come through a five-year period of operating profits of $305m. All of that could have been, and should have been, taken into account before public hearings at a Senate inquiry into asset sales early next year. No, the CLP had to rush the sale.
If it stacks up it would have stacked up at the public hearing, surely? But it does not stack up. We know that. It is not a wise decision to take for Territorians. You are selling a profitable asset that people need as an insurance safety net. That is not wise. It would not have stacked up before the public hearing, so quickly sell it before that happens.
On the basis of securing reward payments from the federal government assets recycling program – oh my goodness. I do not know if members of parliament have seen the videos of the Prime Minister committing not to cut ABC and SBS on the eve of the election, then in Question Time in parliament saying he did not. Compare and contrast the fact that he is lying about lying. I do not know if people have seen those videos. There could be a classic one in this situation because we have the Chief Minister who in the public domain, the media conferences, in this parliament, all of those places, said ‘We are going to get 15% from the recycling of public assets scheme’. But the scheme does not exist and it is an incentive scheme so you do not get …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing order 62: offensive and unbecoming words in relation to a member of another parliament. Calling the Prime Minister a liar is a breach of that order.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. Yes, I agree. Opposition Leader, if you can withdraw those comments in regard to the Prime Minister of Australia.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw the comments in regard to the Prime Minister of Australia, and I will rephrase it. I do not know if anyone has seen all of the public clips of the Prime Minister’s commitment not to cut the budget of ABC and SBS on the eve of the election, then his answer in Question Time in parliament where he said he did not say that. It is a classic.
The correlation here is we have a Chief Minister who has said consistently on the public record in and out of parliament, ‘If we sell TIO we can attract the 15% incentive payment from the recycling scheme for the sale of public assets’. Yesterday in parliament he pretended he did not say that. It was one of those classic clanger moments this Chief Minister keeps making. It was gobsmacking. We could run those spoofs of him. We do not have to, because if anyone has gone anywhere near social media in the Northern Territory, you would see what everyone is saying. You cannot get the 15%; that is not true.
Finally, the assertion that future insurance protections for Territorians are at risk is real and present. That is what households and businesses are living with now because you ignored the overwhelming will of Territorians not to sell the public asset, their public insurer, TIO. For families and businesses across the Territory, premiums can go up significantly, potentially 200%-plus, because there are no guarantees in the conditions of sale or the legislation to prevent that. Also, there are no guarantees the coverage they have today will continue into the future. Affordable insurance coverage cuts to the core of what people need – hence the role of TIO – but also getting any coverage, and that is what is at risk now.
Madam Speaker, that is why Labor supports this motion. This has been a grand betrayal of Territorians and it is a disgrace.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I heard the same comments today that I did yesterday.
I said yesterday in this House – and I will say it again for the benefit of those opposite – that insurance is about risk management. Boards are required to consider risk management in their deliberations about where companies are going. I listened to the member for Karama and I am struggling to understand what part of risk management she does not understand.
There is a fiduciary duty required of directors of companies – in this case the Board of TIO – to take into consideration current and future predicted situations, make assessments from their experience, perform the due diligence and then go to their shareholders to say, ‘This is where we are at and this is where we think we will be. This is what we believe and are advising you to do.’ That is exactly what has happened with TIO.
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition and some other members might like to do the company directors’ course the Australian Institute of Company Directors runs. Then they might understand what fiduciary duty is about, what their obligations are and what the Board of TIO’s obligations are in relation to how they manage that company. I do not see any of that. I mentioned yesterday that if you do that, you will have an understanding. Sadly, those opposite do not understand what they do not know. They are making all sorts of assumptions that might suit the political argument they are trying to run to say this is a bad deal, etcetera.
This is a very good deal for the Territory. I note the Leader of the Opposition said that 90% of Territorians are against the sale of TIO. Yesterday I heard the figure of 80%. There is a bit of creep there and perhaps overnight another 10%, in her world, decided they did not want to support TIO. When you split 90% of Territorians into 25 seats, that is a lot of people. They have not been coming to my office. A couple of people have phoned me to say they do not agree with it. Interestingly enough, I have spoken to those people, and at the end of those conversations they said, ‘Okay, we understand’. I said yesterday that some of the people involved in running the roadside campaign, with the corflutes saying ‘TIO is ours, not yours, Mr Giles’, came to see me. They walked out quite happy with the explanation I gave them. Once it was explained, they understood.
When you look at the reality of some of the situations, you would think the opposition first would have come for some briefings, but they chose not to. After the sale was announced last Monday, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Opposition Leader chose to get some sort of a briefing about what the announcement was all about, but not before. This was after the event, and they claim to have come for a briefing. I want to ensure that everyone listening to and reading this understands that prior to the sale, they did not get a briefing. How do you represent your constituents in a responsible manner when you do not bother to get a briefing? You espouse all sorts of things. If you had actually had a briefing from the people we had a briefing from, which was available to you if you had asked, you might understand. It is not such a difficult decision when you start to expose Territorians to a massive amount of risk.
I spoke yesterday about statehood. How would it look and what would I say to my kids if there was a catastrophic event and the Territory government was bankrupt and the federal government had to come in to save us? I wonder what they would say to me? I wonder what the Prime Minister would say to me? ‘Mr Styles, we have a debt of $667bn the Labor government left us with. We are struggling here to cope with a debt that we were left’, as we are with the $5.5bn debt we were looking at when we came into government. What would the Prime Minister say to me? ‘Mr Styles, you are pretty dumb because you have exposed the taxpayers of Australia to a catastrophic event.’ That would not be very smart. I firmly believe in my heart, having looked at all the evidence and gone to all the briefings – there were plenty of briefings and lots of information available – that this was the right thing to do.
The opposition claims that everybody is up in arms. I have not seen that. I saw 28 cars driving around yesterday. I have had a few phone calls and some text messages. Some of the text messages and some of the phone calls I have had are very similar in wording. They start off the same way. I am not saying they are scripted; there are some very genuine people who have very genuine concerns. However, when you explain it to them they understand.
The member for Barkly said yesterday that there are a couple of hundred thousand Territorians looking for an answer. That is interesting because that means so many of those people do not even care about TIO because they do not have an insurance policy with them. There are about 30 000 policies with TIO. It is the smallest insurance company in Australia. If my notes are correct, it has 0.6% of the total Australian market. They have a good insurance book in the Territory but they only have 0.6%. I do not know where all these people are. I would love to meet 200 000 of them that is claimed.
Let us look at some of the other things that are being peddled from the other side. ‘We sold TIO without a mandate.’ It is very interesting when you look at what happened in 2006 when the then Labor government tried to sell TIO. They said, ‘We have to sell TIO’. I will not go through all of the reasons they gave, but they did so without a mandate. I am happy to be corrected but we have done some research, and we cannot find where the then ALP government in the Northern Territory said in 2005, ‘We are going to election and we will sell TIO’. If you can find it I am happy to be corrected. We cannot find where you won the 2005 election with a mandate. It is hypocrisy for someone who was in that government to say, ‘You did not have a mandate’. If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. Why did they not go to the 2008 election with a mandate to sell TIO?
I imagine Cabinet probably said, ‘We were elected to govern. We want to sell TIO; we will take it out there.’ The problem the ALP government of the day had was that the board was not supportive, nor was its management. That is interesting because when you talk to them now – and we asked all of these questions because we received briefings, which you could have had if you had asked. We received the briefings and were told the board and the management was not supportive; it was the wrong time to sell it, even though it was costing government, and in the GFC I think they lost $50m. In 2002 there was an injection by the then ALP government of $20m. The TIO has returned in dividends to the government $18.3m over the last 35 years. $18.3m was wiped out by the 2002 injection of $20m.
The member for Nelson said he is not an expert when he was talking about this earlier in this House. He said he has to take the advice of experts. I agree with him. We took the advice of experts; we listened to the members of the board. The members of the board are experts in various areas which is why they are on that board. We listened to them, got advice of our own and they came back and gave us information. We said we had gone to get some independent advice and Cabinet considered all of that.
I do not know where the Leader of the Opposition got her advice from, but it is totally opposite to all the good advice we have had from TIO and other independent sources.
I will quote the good Mr Jan van der Schalk. He is with stockbroking firm CLSA, which is Credit Linares Securities Asia. This is a major independent insurance analyst and stockbroking firm in Asia. When you google it – and I encourage you to do so to see its credentials – you will see it is one of the largest firms of that kind and has an impeccable record with its integrity firmly intact. This is what they say, because they are the experts the member for Nelson is talking about:
Further:
There are three pages of the news item and I will quote a little more:
Further he said:
The opposition claims we have been irresponsible, we should have done this, we should have done that and 90% of people are against the sale of TIO. I do not believe that. Irrespective of the figure, sometimes being in government is about doing the right thing. Integrity in leadership is about doing the right thing even when no one is looking. That is the definition of leadership and integrity. As a government we looked at all the facts, and as we say each day, we are here for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. I take that seriously. My children and my grandchildren live here and they will continue to live here because we are not going anywhere. I want them to have a bright future.
I take what the Leader of the Opposition says with a grain of salt because I do not think she knows what she is talking about, given she has not consulted experts and not attended the briefings all of us are required to have.
The Leader of the Opposition was part of a government that, in 2006, wanted to sell TIO when the board and management did not want to sell. The board approached the government last year and said, ‘We have a problem. You are massively exposed to a very high level of risk.’ We said, ‘Okay, we better get some information’, so we did. The board is supportive of selling TIO and has a management supportive of selling the brand to allow it to grow otherwise it will wither. They gave us all the information and we undertook due diligence and got independent advice from some very good people. We did some research about what other people and experts in Asia were saying about it and we made a decision.
In 2006 the ALP wanted to do it against the wishes of everyone. People said to us, ‘You need to do this’. That was the advice from the board and we took that advice. We have a totally opposite situation. Now, in opposition, the ALP says you cannot do that.
I go back to what has happened in the late 1980s and 1990s. Those opposite knew then it was the last government-owned insurer and banker in Australia. Other states had privatised in the late 1980s and the 1990s. New South Wales sold its government insurance office in 1992, Victoria sold in 1992, Tasmania sold in 1993, Western Australia sold in 1994, South Australia sold in 1995 and Queensland sold to Suncorp in 1997. Those jurisdictions clearly saw the writing on the wall – in the case of New South Wales, over 20 years ago. They undertook due diligence. They looked at what was going on and said, ‘We need to get out of this business because we are exposed as taxpayers’. State governments realised many years ago that insurance companies and banks are best run by the private sector, and the most efficient policy approach is ensuring effective regulatory frameworks are in place to protect the interests of customers.
I look at what the ALP did and recall a presentation in this House by the member for Fong Lim on who the party of privatisation is. It is actually the Australian Labor Party. It has privatised far more, and taken more steps to get rid of public assets, than the Coalition has. I am happy to be corrected, but my understanding, from my experience, is that is the case.
Irrespective that we have done the right thing, I encourage those opposite to get some information. For future representation of their constituents, I suggest they consider doing the Australian Company Directors course because it is really good. It gives you information you can use to make some of these assessments. You should have made some of these assessments.
The opposition members have not given us their business case, they have simply said they and everybody else want to own TIO. When people realise that the sky is not going to fall in, that their premiums are not going to go up by 200% to 300% – they may not go up now once we put the flood mitigation works in place – you will find, as in Roma in Queensland, those premiums may go down.
I heard yesterday from the Chief Minister that 24% of people in Katherine may have their premiums increased. Allianz has said that TIO will be a standalone entity. It is a good company. Probably the only thing I agree with the member for Barkly on in this debate is the fact that TIO is now in an excellent position. But if it is not allowed to grow and continue, then it will wither on the vine.
In the meantime, Territory taxpayers are exposed to an enormous risk. That is something I am not prepared to put my children through. In fact, even though it is a difficult political decision, I am not prepared to put the children of those members of the opposition through it because they may not understand what is going on. If you have a catastrophic event, then it will be their children and grandchildren who will be paying for many years to come – that is if the Australian government does not step in and take over as it is doing in Norfolk Island. It will take over the Northern Territory and simply reabsorb it. We will lose self-government and the prospect of becoming a state. It is about being responsible and doing the right thing.
I had a conversation last night with the member for Nelson. He used an example of a company which came to see him and said it is looking for workers compensation policy. I think the figure he used was that TIO quoted $106 000, some other companies quoted $108 000 and $115 000 and Allianz was $161 000. He asked, ‘Why would Allianz not just put the price of TIO policies up to $161 000?’ Again, I spoke about trashing the brand ...
Mr VOWLES: Madam Speaker, I seek an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77, for the member for Sanderson.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, member for Johnston; it is very kind of you.
After we had finished debating the issue I spoke to the member for Nelson. I explained to him that Allianz has 1% of the insurance market in the Northern Territory and TIO has 39%. Allianz wants to buy market share and that is what it has done. It has paid a lot of money to buy that market share. I said ‘Tell your people to take the TIO quote for $106 000 as opposed to the Allianz for $161 000’. Tonight in this debate the member for Nelson acknowledged that we had that conversation and he then realised TIO is not going anywhere; it is staying the same. It is a good company and the people who now own and underwrite TIO accept they want to keep that brand. We have had plenty of examples and metaphors in here about what you do not do to trash the brand of TIO. Nothing will change. The staff will not change and everything will stay the same.
At some stage, CPI rises will mean that people’s insurance will rise. My insurance has gone up over the last few years. I am with TIO; everything I have is with them. I will stay with TIO because I like the people there. There are plenty of Territorians employed there, so I will continue to support the company I have a relationship with.
Moving on to a couple of other issues, I reassure those who might be reading this or listening that nothing will change with TIO. We can look at other things that have happened around the country. I recall saying earlier in this debate that if this was so good, and those opposite believed this was so good, why did they not, through the ALP in Australia – for young people listening, the ALP stands for the Australian Labor Party. The branch of the ALP here is a sub-branch of the ALP. They take their policies from the ALP and are required to implement those policies. When you folks had control of the Australian government and most of the states around Australia, as well as the Territory, why did you not reintroduce state government insurance offices? If it is so good, as you say – I do not believe that – why did you not bring back state government insurance policies so everyone around Australia could benefit from whatever you believe the benefits are of government being in the insurance business?
Perhaps I could answer that question for you: it is because your colleagues around the country understand what is happening in that we are the last place in Australia to do this. To quote Dr Neil Conn when he addressed the House in 1997 – this was read by my colleague, the member for Port Darwin last night:
We need to get out of that business. The Territory Insurance Office, on 2 January, will be in the hands of the world’s largest general insurer. If we have a catastrophic event, which I hope we never do, in relation to my first statement tonight when I said insurance is about risk management, it will need to manage the risk. It will spread reinsurance around the world. That is why it can reinsure for about 6% to 8% of its income, as opposed to 30% like TIO.
I am struggling to understand that the opposition would be prepared to put their children and grandchildren into a massive amount of debt. Once you get over $700m, we are all paying for that. On 2 January, we do not have to pay for that. Allianz, if there is a massive event, will pay for it and its reinsurance around the world will cover whatever happens here. We will not have to go cap in hand to the Prime Minister and say, ‘Excuse me, Prime Minister, but we were really dumb and we have just cost you $25bn’. That is what I am suggesting the Labor Party and the Labor opposition wants us to do if we have an event. The cycle is 36 years; we are four years overdue. On 2 January I can say, on behalf of the constituents of my electorate, I am not prepared to expose them to a massive amount of debt. I am not prepared to expose them to losing self-government or statehood.
TIO is not an issue in my electorate for the majority of the constituents I speak to when I am at my shopping centres or holding barbecues. Some people are concerned, and I talk to those people. I have people calling me, and I talk to them on a one-to-one basis to explain it to them. Generally, when I am finished, they understand. They might not like it, but they understand why it has to be sold. You just have to tell the right story. But to get the right story, you have to understand what is going on. To understand that, you have to receive briefings.
Given the sale has gone through and on 2 January 2015 Allianz will take over, perhaps you guys might like to get a briefing on some of the issues now. I would not want you to go forward believing in something that is a bit misconstrued. The government will be very happy to give briefings to anyone on your side who would like to come and talk to us. We will get the experts in to give you the information.
I understand you might have been playing politics and you want to stir it all up, but that is scaremongering. When you look at the facts – and I would love it if you would come to some briefings so we know you have the full story – and you still believe what you believe today, I would be very surprised. If you still believed after these briefings what you believe today, I would have serious concerns about your ability to make assessments and understand risk management. It is as simple as that. It is not hard; it is something we on this side had to do.
I will reiterate a couple of things. In the briefings we received, it became very clear to us that we had a responsibility to the taxpayers of the Northern Territory. We have taken care of the policyholders – and there are 30 000 policies – and the sky is not going to fall in; everyone’s policies will not double or triple, as some people opposite have said. TIO is a good company. Allianz is a well-respected company around the world. You will always find someone who has had an argument with Allianz. I have had an argument with TIO, my own insurance company. I remain with them but I had some pretty good discussions with them over something that happened a number of years ago. It is about understanding what is going on.
Given the fact we were required, on behalf of the Northern Territory taxpayers, to ensure they were covered, you have to look at what we will get out of this. We have some money, some infrastructure funds. What will come out of that? When you are left with a $5.5bn debt, it is very important that if you get some money you use it for economic development.
The members for Karama and Nelson asked what we are going to do with that. Well, member for Nelson, I can assure you the panels that will be put together to determine where this money will be spent will include experts in economic development. We will put that money where it will do the entire Territory the best in relation to economic development and get the best value for money we can on behalf of Territory taxpayers.
Madam Speaker, I will end with a statement that sometimes doing the right things is not popular. If you study leadership – and I have been very fortunate where I have been able to do that at a master’s level and also with the Australian Rural Leadership Foundation – you learn that sometimes doing the right thing is unpopular. The majority of people in the Territory understand why we had to do what we did. If you want to be leaders you have to do what is right, not necessarily what is popular. As articulated in this House last night, most people on the other side were saying if we do this we will lose our seats. We have done the right thing and at the next election people will understand and respect us.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I contribute to the debate and support the member for Nelson. Unfortunately, I have to agree with him that the horse has bolted, the deal has been done.
I reiterate to the member for Sanderson that we are in the Northern Territory, in northern Australia, and I refer you for a briefing to Warren Entsch who described the unique nature and specific challenges of the development of northern Australia. He made very important comments about looking at and evaluating state-owned insurance because it delivers specific products for the Northern Territory and northern Australia. It is not about all the southern states you rattled off in your contribution; it is about northern Australia. That is where we are, and is what we are talking about. It was – past tense – our TIO.
In relation to briefings, I am a Territorian who covered about 7000 km in the last month across four different electorates. I was being briefed regularly by the first minister, the Chief Minister, as I was a citizen listening to the leader driving this debate. I was being briefed almost daily by the Chief Minister, but the conversation was not a mature one. It became very immature and reactionary, started to twist and turn and came to be a very immature position of trying to make excuses for a sale. I had my briefing every day. I had a briefing in Parliament House and I still believe this was a bad deal. I support the Northern Territory Labor opposition in its promise to tail you every step of the way. The horse has bolted, but we will track the horse and continue to dialogue with Territorians.
The member for Sanderson wants to quote hundreds and thousands of Territorians. I used the figure of 200 000-odd because it is a Territory debate, whether you are a policyholder or not. The Chief Minister took a dividend of $10m this financial year for the Territory public, the Territory community, for the Territory’s community development, so I figure we are all in this together and should be proud of it and that is why we are debating it.
There were newspaper polls, radio polls and a petition from over 4000 petitioners organised by the Territory opposition. The member for Nelson had a petition running with over 1000 petitioners. The member for Goyder presented a very comprehensive petition from the people of the rural area she represents. That was all done in a matter of weeks. If you want to talk numbers, Territorians were involved in this debate. They were making their voices heard.
The fundamental problem and why the CLP is chasing its tail, why the horse has bolted, is because they refused to listen. They had an opportunity to use smart politics to gain a mandate for their so-called wonderful decision, but they chose to ignore it, hide from Territorians and drive this through.
A resounding theme that emerged yesterday in this debate was about the CLP not being frightened to make hard decisions, but a hard decision does not mean a good decision. That resounding theme emerged when I challenged them on the percentages by which they hold their seats. The member for Sanderson is reiterating that theme. I hope I have not caused him any loss of sleep and nervous tension.
However, I will continually cut to the bone on this debate because it is such an important one. Unfortunately, the debate is over and the CLP will reap what it sows. It chose a politically nave strategy not to engage Territorians and will pay the consequences. Territorians and businesses wanted a matured conversation and did not get it.
The Motor Trades Association warned that some of its members could go out of business. Katherine businesses voiced concerns about huge premium hikes and the effect they will have on their business. The CLP did not listen to them. The CLP arrogantly continued to ignore the wishes of Territorians and rode roughshod over the constituents of the Northern Territory.
Allianz has said premiums will rise, and some will rise steeply. Chief Minister, do you have any analysis that you could provide to this Chamber about insurance premium hikes that, in your public comments, range from between 30% and 200%? That was part of your briefing. I heard that on the road and when I was at home. Where is the business case analysis? Why have you not provided that for Territorians, or was it just immature one liners in a one-sided conversation?
Then we heard the rubbery figures about the sale. The debate really then dropped to a low level of excuses and quite paranoid behaviour, with the Chief Minister trying a snake-oil sale for Territorians over a very elaborate spin machine with a budget of $33m. The sale price was inflated to include the MAC $140m drawdown. None of it comes close to funding the wish list that was published in media releases, was talked about on radio, and was put out to Territorians.
The 6 November media release wish list noted a netball stadium, bridge to Mandorah, Nightcliff oval, water play and pool, Tanami road seal, rodeo arena, Indigenous arts and museum, basketball courts, medical facilities, golf course resort and clay target range upgrades at a conservative $570m. If we add the $215m infrastructure development fund, $50m for flood mitigation, and $9m on the sale fees, all up we get to about $844m. Even with this pretend sale price of $424m – and that has been exposed – the media is now reporting the accuracies around the true sale price, not this $424m spin. How does the CLP defend any credibility on the sale of TIO when Territorians know you are selling them a crock? These were daily briefings from the first minister of the Northern Territory, the Chief Minister.
The CLP had no mandate to sell TIO. It should have taken its privatisation plans to the next Territory election or a referendum, or it could have had alternatives that were proposed by the Independent member and the opposition members. It arrogantly rushed through this sale behind closed doors, ignoring advice and ignoring consultation. It now risks skyrocketing premiums. It is not sure what that future holds.
The Chief Minister has participated, once again, in his mature conversation in this House, in the Government Business Day opportunity to present an alternative – eight minutes. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the first minister, must be all talked out. I listened to briefings over a month but he is all talked out. Eight minutes was all he could afford Territorians now that he has slipped the chain on the gate, the horse has bolted, and it is all going to be a bed of roses, if you believe the Liberals.
Chief Minister, the trouble is you have force-fed Territorians. That was the sentiment I picked up at the rally. Anybody there who wants to sit and spin more figures – 28 cars – what a lot of rot! You should have been at Mindil Beach and counted those cars. The sentiment at Mindil Beach was, ‘Chief Minister, do not force feed us. We are Territorians and we are proud of it. Do not treat us like immature, ill-informed individuals. We are rock solid Territorians; we want a say. We demand our say.’ Now it has turned into an aggressive position of, ‘We will take you down’.
That is the Chief Minister’s fault and everybody in this House who supported him yesterday better stand shoulder to shoulder with him because Territorians will now demand accountability. They have been treated improperly and will demand accountability. Hard decisions indeed. Hard decisions really need to be good decisions.
The Chief Minister continued with the spin with his newsletter, his weekly message. I will quote from the Chief Minister’s weekly message e-mail I picked up on Wednesday 26 November. It is to Territorians. The Chief Minister, Adam Giles, opened with:
He continued to spin this rubbish, even as late as this afternoon. I do not know where he thinks he will get any credibility in this whole tardy episode of this bill on urgency. I do not understand where he is coming from and all those members who are supporting him.
Quite an interesting irony emerged. I loved the member for Port Darwin’s debate. I give him credit as a Crown prosecutor, but he is a lousy defence lawyer. I honestly advise him after politics to go for the DPP job as Crown prosecutor; I will not be paying for you as a defence lawyer. Member for Port Darwin, you always add very interesting debate. That is what this House is about. However, your debate triggered a number of your other more junior members and they tried to run the theme that TIO is risky, bad business. He named it as needing life support, it had heart attacks, it was a tardy business and a threat to the Territory economy. He influenced many of the other junior members of the CLP, those being led by the nose, to trash the brand. The media reported it was nine hours of debate. I reckon at least for three hours of that debate CLP members were trashing the brand of TIO in this House. It was led by the member for Port Darwin and the other members followed.
The irony was that after trashing the TIO brand and telling us how sick, ill-performing and risky that business was, a global giant – a very intelligent insurance company – has rushed across global borders to buy it. It is such a risky business and poor-performing entity that this German multinational has roared across global borders to buy it.
I do not get it. I was totally confused with that level of debate. What is it? Maybe it is just more spin. Maybe the Chief Minister could better explain it to us, if you can believe it. This is an emerging theme, Chief Minister. Today in Question Time, once again we heard many questions, but very few answers.
With the sale of TIO Territorians now have no guarantees and no insurance safety net; they have been left vulnerable. Can you please explain your position? Allianz has admitted that premiums for Territorians will rise, but cannot confirm how much or when. We asked the Chief Minister about Territorians in Coconut Grove, Alice Springs, Beswick, Daly River, Cullen Bay, Ludmilla, Nightcliff, Djilkminggan, Fannie Bay, Bayview, Gunbalanya, Palumpa, Docker River – those are just some places. What happens to the exposure of all those other areas in the Northern Territory that you have ignored in your flood mitigation plans? You chose not to answer. Do you not care?
Not only did Territorians lose guarantees on insurance, but now we see there is plan to cut back workers compensation entitlements for some of our most vulnerable Territorians. That line of questioning will continue, as the opposition is very concerned. We have received correspondence from doctors who state that issue. Chief Minister, you chose to ignore it.
The Leader of the Opposition raised a very good point, and I asked the Chief Minister about it in Question Time, looking for some answers. Once again, it was my 6000 km briefing, where the Chief Minister continued to tell Territorians the CLP government would attract 15% on the investment of the sale of the TIO from the federal government’s infrastructure recycling scheme. It has already been established – it is quite logical – that there is no such scheme. We do not know if the scheme will pass through the Senate. How will the Chief Minister present a business case for the 15% when there is no scheme? Is it, once again, just, ‘Trust me’, Chief Minister?
It has come out in the dialogue over the last day-and-a-half that the TIO annual financial report revealed that on the 30 June this year the ownership of 24 Mitchell Street was changed from 25% allocated to TIO insurance to 100% allocated to the MAC fund. That was in June, months before the Chief Minister admitted in his full-page advertisement after the Casuarina by-election that the sale of TIO was on the agenda. Then last night the Chief Minister said the change of ownership was part of the sale transaction.
Chief Minister, you have to come clean. What is the real story? You can tell us now the horse has bolted and you have the legislation through. How many months have you been working on the sale of TIO? Did you hide critical information from Territorians while working out your TIO sell-out plan? These are all questions that will continue to hound you, Chief Minister, because of the way this whole tardy episode has been conducted ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, just a minute. If people want to conduct a conversation in here can they please go to the corner. I cannot hear the member talking.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will conclude with the last part of the debate I picked up. I cannot remember if I was in Lajamanu or the Tiwi Islands. It could have been Limmen River, Borroloola, maybe home in Tennant Creek. It could have been on the Sandover. Anyway, it was a very interesting part of the debate where the member for Port Darwin, once again, sensed the urgency of trying to get a new element to the story. I will quote from an article by Neda Vanovac on national news. This is from an AAP release on 23 November 2014:
The member for Port Darwin used the example of Norfolk Island.
I quickly place on the record why we have the legendary tale of Tennant Creek as the town with a heart of gold. Tennant Creek, as the powerhouse of the Northern Territory, is known for its gold and copper. But Tennant Creek’s heart of gold legend came from the support it gave to the victims of Cyclone Tracy. It was a very wealthy town in those days. The people of Darwin had suffered a major tragedy and the people of Tennant Creek stepped up with not only financial assistance but also offering their homes and family hospitality to shelter those people who had lost everything in Darwin. That is one example.
If I deconstruct that last story the member for Port Darwin used to try to assist the Chief Minister’s immature conversation, then we can talk about tropical Cyclone Monica, New South Wales floods in 2010, the Victorian bushfires in January/February 2009, the Queensland floods. You could see then the direct relationship with the federal government and the support it provides in natural disasters. We are all Australians, and I figure we should celebrate that.
We have clear points of difference and I mentioned those in the debate. People on the other side choose to ignore them. The most immature act the Chief Minister tried today was when he tried to twist the story about indemnity. When I asked positive, reinforcing questions last night about the absence of any indemnity clause to protect the government, which a purchaser would also look at in a contract, it was treated with disdain.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have lost all confidence in our first minister, our Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who is now totally focused on spinning his way into the next election.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, TIO has been sold. That is the context in which we have this debate today. We spoke yesterday to the passage of the bills around the rushed sale of TIO. Last sittings we had some limited debate about referring TIO to the Public Accounts Committee. There has been some limited debate in this House about the sale of TIO. Unfortunately, a bit like everything to do with this process, there has not been enough conversation about what to do with the public asset.
A public asset that is much loved is a rare thing, and it is odd for an insurance company to be loved. Pete Davies spoke about it well the other day when he said he was a bit shocked that people love an insurance company and it feels like the CLP has taken a favourite dog into the back yard and shot it.
The goodwill Territorians have for TIO is remarkable. It has come about through action and deed and has been earned by TIO. It is not just a vague love, it is an affection Territorians have developed over the years based on the actions of TIO.
As we said yesterday, we believe in affordable insurance which recognises the special conditions of the Territory and is there for you when you need it. We have discovered, just as Entsch discovered it in the PIVOT NORTH Inquiry into the Development of Northern Australia: Final Report, that the TIO model is a good way of delivering that. That is why people support TIO. That is why we have supported TIO, and that is why people are disappointed to see the Country Liberals sell TIO. It provides affordable insurance, it recognises the Territory’s special conditions and it has been there for many years when people needed it.
The motion today from the member for Nelson condemns the government for how it has gone about this process and for rushing through the sale. The first point is that it is without a mandate. That has been explored by both sides. Do you need a mandate to sell TIO? Does the government have a mandate to sell TIO? I am not sure if anyone on that side has said they do not have a mandate, but they have been quite up front in saying they did not campaign on this in the last election.
The Chief Minister at the time, who has now been replaced – Terry Mills has gone and Adam Giles is in – as Opposition Leader going into the last election, said clearly the CLP stood firmly opposed to the sale of TIO and would fight to see it retained. Obviously in the change of leadership we have had a change of approach. Territorians had a certain expectation with the CLP going into the last election and that has been betrayed. The position of the CLP has been, ‘Do we need a mandate? We have been elected to govern so we can do this.’ Of course you can. You have the numbers; you can make whatever decisions you like. This is a unicameral House; you have the numbers, you can push it through. But is that good? To reference somebody who represents the other side, Prime Minister Howard, who I had many disagreements with in a policy sense, was repeatedly returned to office because he was consistent.
People generally vote a party in because they believe they know how that party will act in certain circumstances. People going into the last election felt they knew what the Country Liberals would do if certain circumstances presented. They have been consistently betrayed by the actions the CLP has taken. This goes to trust. We have had the trust debate in this House through a few different vehicles like cost of living, alcohol and other policy arguments. Often it comes back to trust. People’s trust in the CLP has been damaged through a variety of issues and the latest one, the one we are debating this week, is TIO. Territorians trusted the CLP to have a certain position, voted for the CLP thinking they knew what that position was, and have been betrayed by what the CLP has done two years in.
The elected Chief Minister, who is now no longer in the role, said the CLP stood firmly opposed to the sale of TIO and would fight to see it retained. More specifically than that he said you should not do this type of thing at Christmas time. He said, ‘Now there are 250 employees, most of them families of the Top End and particularly in Katherine, who know how important TIO is. It appears, under the cover of the Christmas period, when we are all going to our Christmas drinks, going to Casuarina and buying plastic hammers and things like that, he is already at work preparing to sell our TIO. I reckon there is something he needs to understand: this is something that belongs to all Territorians. He needs to come out and explain to us why on earth would you want to sell TIO.’
Quite specifically, the former Chief Minister not only said not to sell TIO, and his position was to fight to retain it, but not to do it at Christmas time. This Country Liberals government is moving rapidly, rushing through the sale of TIO yesterday, and it is a complete betrayal of the position the CLP took to the last election. You can argue the question of whether you need a mandate or not to sell TIO. Let us not get caught up with that point, let us just say, quite clearly, Territorians thought you would do one thing and you have done another. When people do not think they can trust you or guess your actions, that is when they think, ‘The CLP is going to say this, but we know now, on form, that just because it said it, does not mean it is going to do it’.
You have broken trust with Territorians. You can argue all you want about whether you needed a mandate or not to do this and you had the right to do it, or needed just to be a government and do what government does. Without doubt, the people of the Territory thought you were going to do one thing and you have done another. Right at the heart of it, you failed them and that is where you have broken the trust with Territorians.
The very fact that you went into the last election with a very clear position, and have decided not to honour that position is why Territorians are upset about that mandate question. You can vacillate all you want around it, or you can cut straight through like some of you have, ‘No, we can just do this’, but at the end of the day, one of the reasons Territorians are angry with you is because they felt they knew very clearly where the CLP stood and have been shocked and betrayed by the fact that you have changed your position. You did not do it in a way that was very clearly explained to Territorians. You did not engage in a two-way consultation.
As the member for Nelson said yesterday, you cannot talk back to an ad in the paper. It has been cited that the member for Katherine held a public meeting. My understanding is that at that public meeting he said he would honour the constituent’s wishes that were expressed at the meeting, which was to keep TIO. That public meeting has happened. But, by and large, the Country Liberals did not engage in a two-way consultation.
In fact, the majority of what they put out on TIO was, ‘How would you spend the money?’ Not, ‘This is why we are selling, this is why we should not sell. What do you think?’ but, ‘Tell us how you would spend the the proceeds from the sale of TIO?’ We will get to this later in the debate.
Obviously the proceeds are much lower than people expected and will buy much less than people might have hoped. This will not change our children’s and grandchildren’s futures, as the Chief Minister promised. It is a fraction of what the annual infrastructure budget of the Territory already is. If you cannot change the Territory for our children and grandchildren with the current Territory’s infrastructure budget, the sale price of TIO will not make much difference. As I said yesterday, what we received for the sale of TIO is less than the amount we spend on repairs and maintenance for our infrastructure budget. It was quite a bad deal – not much money at all, really.
We have not had two-way consultation with the Territory public, and that has been made quite clear by the public. They do not feel they have been engaged properly on this process. There have been three or four attempts to gauge Territorians’ thoughts on this, and 80%-plus have not agreed with the sale. Who knows? If you had engaged properly and had a proper conversation with Territorians over a period of time, maybe you could get that 80% figure down. But as it stands, because of the way you have gone about trying to explain – or not explain – to Territorians what you want to do, that figure is, conservatively, 80%. The NT News had it at 89% against the sale of TIO.
One way you could have had a two-way consultation process with Territorians – I do not think this is by any means the only way you could have done this or it would have been sufficient in and of itself – was the suggestion made last Assembly that we have a committee, like the Public Accounts Committee, look at the merits of a sale and explore the arguments. That was knocked back.
If you look at the Pivot North report and what Warren Entsch did, maybe you can understand why. It was clearly found in that report that you need an insurance company like TIO. That model provides a competitive advantage to the Territory, and other people are envious of it. Maybe there was a real fear amongst the CLP that if you engage in a conversation like that, explore it publicly through the Public Accounts Committee process or a process like that, properly hear from people about the merits of retaining or selling TIO, they would find, just as Warren Entsch and his committee did, that you should keep it. Perhaps that is why they did not want to get into a proper process or go through the detail, and why they did not want people to be questioned and put evidence on the table about why we should keep or sell TIO, because they know from the Entsch committee that the response could be to keep it.
Entsch said we have a damn good model and other people should be looking to replicate it. He said that TIO helps in developing the north in the Territory, and the lack of a TIO in other parts of Australia is an impediment to development and holds them back. Maybe the CLP did not want to engage in that consultative, informative, deliberative approach that would have seen evidence taken from a wide variety of people who would have engaged in proper two-way conversations with statements made, questions asked and things put on the table, because it would have come back in favour of retaining TIO.
This real absence of substance is another thing that has hurt the CLP in this process and lack of engagement and consultation around TIO. There was a spurious argument that a committee like that would have hurt the sale price of TIO. I find that very hard to believe. All the people who have spoken about TIO have explained why they think it is a valuable product. The Territorians who are saying not to sell TIO are not bagging it or trashing it, they are saying they think it is a valuable product.
The government said this committee would scare people off. It was going to be very scary for a company to say, ‘Do we want to buy this product called TIO which everyone loves and has had witness after witness say it is a really valuable asset and a good thing?’ The government said, ‘No, let us not do that. Let us not engage with Territorians.’ The only people who have really been talking down the TIO are the ones opposite who want to sell it, ‘We have to sell the TIO. It is a risky prospect. We are exposed.’
All that nonsense is countered by the TIO’s annual report. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s guidelines are what it keeps to. It is all in here. It is as if the CLP has not read the Chief Executive’s statement in the annual report, the numbers in it, how it reinsures and the guidelines it sticks to. It is a real head-in-the-sand attitude. It is quite surprising that they think they can say these empty words that are defeated and rebutted by the TIO’s annual report.
It is disappointing that they would not engage in a two-way consultation process. It is disappointing that they would not let the Public Accounts Committee have a deliberative, consultative, lengthy approach to this that would allow expert after expert to appear, and could go into in camera hearings if there was any risk of commercial-in-confidence information being shared or TIO being damaged, which I do not think was a risk. You could have a series of people come before the committee to explain why TIO is important, what it does, why we should keep it, etcetera. That would have been incredibly helpful.
The CLP has been deceptive about the price. You do not have to drill too far to realise that the way they spruiked the deal was misleading. It does not take much. It was not going to take a sales pitch from Labor to say this deal was not as good as it looks on paper. It was a $280m purchase price. When you put it into the context of the profits TIO has delivered to the government over the last five years and the Territory’s infrastructure budget, what will this deliver? They were deceptive in how they described the sale amount. When you spin like the CLP is doing you continue to damage the trust of, and your relationship with, Territorians.
I am not a member of the CLP but I feel a bit sorry for you in what you have done to your relationship with Territorians over the last couple of years. You have engaged in practices that have led to a break in your relationship with Territorians, because you have said one thing and done another. Whether you think you have the right to do it or not, you have to acknowledge you have said one thing to Territorians and done another, and have done it in a way that has not engaged or consulted with, or properly explained yourselves to, Territorians. That is fine from our point of view. Who cares if the CLP damages its relationship with Territorians? However, you are the government and there will be times when you want the people to trust you, and you have lost that. That is bad for government and the Territory.
The other point is about the public hearings that will be held by the Senate inquiring into asset sales next year. I do not think that will be as good as the Public Accounts Committee process would have been, or a committee process run by Territorians. There will be an opportunity at this Senate inquiry for the kind of hearings and evidence we would have received through a Public Accounts Committee process. It is a shame that it is too late, after the horse has bolted.
Through that Senate committee open process, Territorians will get to hear people put questions and the answers, the merits of TIO, why we needed it, and all the conclusions the Warren Entsch-led committee came to. I am sure all the evidence that went to that will go to the Senate committee as well.
That will happen, be public and have a level of engagement with Territorians – but not enough and too late. It is not the same as having a Territory-led process. It is such a shame that did not happen. The government had many ways it could have consulted and engaged. That was an option, but even if it took up that option, it should not have been the only thing that was done. From our point of view, that would have been a good process for Territorians. Who knows? Maybe it would have found the evidence the Chief Minister is saying is out of there for the sale, but I believe it is highly unlikely.
One of the things the Chief Minister has consistently said about the thinking behind the possible or prospective sale of TIO is, ‘We are not going to rule it out but if we do it, isn’t it great that the federal government will throw 15% at us?’ Now they are trying to pretend that was never said and it was never quite an incentive for sale. The policy intention behind the Abbott government’s 15% recycling initiative is to create an incentive to sell a public asset. If you have already sold that asset, why does it need to provide that incentive? Obviously that 15% is still not through the Senate; it is not there yet and might not be there at all. In the CLP’s rush to sell TIO it has possibly lost $40m-plus in that 15%. There is every chance that 15% does not happen at all. In rushing this they have run the real risk of not getting that $40m at all.
As I said yesterday, there are two ways to approach this deal. Should you sell TIO or not? We obviously fell on the ‘do not sell’ side of the equation, as did the majority of Territorians – community leaders, business leaders and the Entsch inquiry. If you are to sell TIO, then surely you should try to do a good deal. This sale price is a fraction of the Territory’s annual infrastructure budget. By rushing it through you have run the real risk of losing the 15% that is part of the asset recycling scheme. The $40m would be quite handy. The $200m going into infrastructure is good money but is a fraction of the Territory’s annual infrastructure budget.
In the context of this sale and the $0.5bn-plus the Chief Minister talked about at one stage for the sale price, that does not reflect well when you think about the profits TIO has made for the Territory government, compared with the Territory’s infrastructure and annual R&M budget.
The Chief Minister said earlier this month on 6 November:
Those are great statements in theory, but the money we have from this sale is a fraction of the Territory’s infrastructure budget. If you could not change the Territory’s future and carry out projects that benefit our children and grandchildren with the $1.1bn budget last year, how will you going do it with $210m? That is just a fraction – a drop in the water really – compared to the annual amount of money we spend on infrastructure in the Territory.
It is a great motherhood statement, but when stacked up to what we have here, it is just not going to deliver what the Chief Minister has promised: this grand changing of our children’s and grandchildren’s futures from the sale of TIO …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fannie Bay, your time has expired and no one asked for an extension. I am sorry.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the member for Nelson in his motion that this Legislative Assembly condemns the Chief Minister and the government for their actions to rush through the sale of TIO.
Yesterday in this parliament was a bizarre day in many ways, and also a sad day for the Territory. It was sad to see TIO sold, despite the overwhelming number of Territorians telling the government not to sell it. They sent a message loudly and clearly to the government from across the Territory saying it was not its asset to sell and it should not sell it. They do not trust the government and the promises it has made to them about TIO and its future, especially after the track record of the CLP government since coming to power in 2012. People did not trust them.
The government did not listen and we saw a Territory asset owned by the people sold, gone forever to a German multinational insurance company and out of the hands of Territorians, based on goodwill apparently. People have been told, ‘She will be right, do not worry. TIO, with Allianz, will do the right thing by you for many years to come’, but with no guarantees at all. Despite what happened in other jurisdictions such as Queensland, particularly what happened with north Queensland’s insurance premiums, the government sold TIO and it is now gone forever.
The other bizarre thing about yesterday was the process we saw this parliament undertake to give passage to the legislation to sell TIO, which was disgraceful even in this parliament. It was a shameful event in this parliament to see the process followed in the sale of TIO. I have said before the reason we have processes around legislation and ensuring there is due time between introduction and passage of legislation is to ensure appropriate scrutiny can be given to the legislation and appropriate consultation can be undertaken so there is informed debate around the changes that legislation will make.
In the history books of the Northern Territory, the sale of TIO will go down as a shameful day because it was rammed through with no mandate from the people of the Northern Territory and with minimal scrutiny of the legislation. The government did not follow due process or allow appropriate and proper scrutiny of the Territory’s asset, TIO. Instead, it wanted to ram it through as quickly as possible so, in its view, it could suffer the least amount of pain possible and talk about matters other than TIO for the next few days of parliament. However, people have seen through that and think your act of selling TIO is disgraceful. They think the way you went about selling TIO and the process of pushing legislation through this House in one day is something you should be ashamed of, and rightfully so. To completely ignore sound parliamentary processes for something as big as the sale of TIO and ram it through in one day is a disgrace.
We debated the sale in this Chamber yesterday, and granted you made the announcement of the sale of TIO – I think media got word of it on Sunday night. The full details were given in a media conference at about 10 am on Monday. Then you came into parliament on Tuesday and introduced legislation to sell TIO with cognate bills so it would go through as swiftly as possible. You do not have the grace to leave it until February to allow for the proper time you are meant to give legislation for passage. You did not give it that time for Territorians to get more data and figures and ask more questions about the legislation so they had the full facts and figures in front of them before that legislation was passed. You did not give Territorians that grace by waiting until February.
You did not even wait a few days. You introduced it on Tuesday and passed that legislation the same day. You did not even wait until the Wednesday or Thursday. You gave people the bare minimum time you could for them to appropriately scrutinise those bills. That is not something to be proud of. There are those here who respect parliamentary processes and the system we work in, and who value and believe in it and democracy – and there are members in the government who are far more across parliamentary processes than I am and have been in this Chamber for a very long time – who were forced to push this bill through in one day. It is not a good look; it is a terrible look. To pass it on urgency was bad enough, but to do it in one day was terrible and you should be ashamed of that.
Another reason people were not happy with the government pushing forward with the sale of TIO was because they had no mandate to do it. People were not asked the question in the election of 2012, the Blain by-election or the Casuarina by-election when the government could have had feedback. ‘Do you actually want to see TIO sold? Yes or no?’ They were not asked that question; the government just pushed their agenda, without engaging in appropriate debate and consultation with Territorians.
People were very upset with the government and the lack of consultation about the sale of TIO; that has been very loud and clear. There has been a huge amount of anger in the community about the way the government went about selling TIO and the lack of information people had with regard to it. They did not ask the question: ‘Would you like to see TIO sold? Yes or no?’ The first thing you should have done was ask the question.
TIO is a huge organisation in the Territory which has stuck by people, through thick and thin, since 1979 and has done a fantastic job. People are very attached to TIO. I understand that governments have to make tough decisions and do heavy lifting, and not all of their decisions will be popular; however, in this case, you went about it in the worst way. It was such a wrong way of communicating your desire to sell TIO with Territorians. You did not ask the question in the first place. Instead you arrogantly said to Territorians, ‘If we are to sell TIO, what would you like to spend the money on?’ People see right through that; that is a terrible way to consult with people. They could see exactly what you were doing and thought it was disgraceful.
You kept saying in this parliament that this was necessary for the future of TIO; that you must sell it, it had to happen and people did not appreciate or understand how dire the situation was that TIO must be sold. You failed to put your case to Territorians – completely failed from day one. You were not open, accountable or transparent. Instead we just saw your advertising campaign, your website saying ‘Click on this website. We are keen to develop the north. Tell us what you would like to spend the money on from selling TIO. Here are some of our ideas, we would love to hear yours.’
You did not even put the argument about why you felt TIO should be sold. You had some good opportunities to do that and to put a really thorough communications plan out across the Territory to engage people on a meaningful level, in a two-way process of communication. Rather than speaking at them, you could have listened to Territorians. But you did not do that. You wanted to ram this through as quickly as possible and not listen to Territorians at all.
You could have held a roadshow. You could have gone across the Territory to speak to people about the sale of TIO and to put your case to them. You did that in Katherine, and good work to the member of Katherine for managing to get that over the line. Clearly there is still a lot of fury in Katherine about the sale of TIO. There was a huge amount of worry there, and rightfully so because we saw what happened in 1998 with the Katherine floods. We saw what happened in the mid-2000s when the water levels rose in Katherine again. We know it is a place where many people’s houses flood.
You could have spoken to the people in Alice Springs where there are people whose houses are subject to flooding as well. We know in Darwin there are many residents who have homes that will be subject to storm surge. We are all at the mercy of cyclones from time to time. It is the reality of living in the Territory; we have some fairly extreme weather conditions.
You could have gone up and down the track and spoken to the people who were concerned about the sale of TIO, but you did not do that. You just ran a one-way communications strategy that did not have the right message in the first place. It was an absolute fail, and it was very arrogant of the government to think that was the right way to communicate with people. It was wrong, and they told you that very loudly and clearly.
We saw that through the media. There was very strong commentary coming through texts to editors, vox pops, letters to the editor in the NT News and in social media comments. People were not afraid to have a go and tell you exactly what they thought about the sale of TIO.
Mix 104.9 talkback has run hot on this topic, because people have been ringing in to say, ‘Do not sell TIO. It is not on, and the government has not gone the right way about it.’ We have also seen plenty of commentary through Nine News and its social media, with people also making very similar comments.
There is no doubt this has been a very unpopular decision the government has made. People might have had a bit more respect for the government and the decision had it appropriately communicated with Territorians about it in the first place and tried to put its case, rather than arrogantly ramming it through in a very short period of time without engaging in any meaningful conversation with Territorians about it.
We know, thanks to the Chief Minister in Question Time during the last sittings, that the government, at a Cabinet level, had been discussing the possible sale of TIO since March this year. It is December next week. The government only came clean with its plans about the sale of TIO two days after the Casuarina by-election, even though it had been talking about it for some time. It has refused to answer questions the opposition has put to it in this Chamber about selling TIO. Nothing was on the table or off the table. That was not a very clear answer and was not being up front with Territorians.
We have seen the process it has followed, and yesterday it successfully executed it in one of the most disgraceful processes seen in this parliament. The way it went about it was a shocker, to say the least.
In the debate yesterday many members spoke of this, but I noticed not all members of the government spoke. It clearly tells me of the concerns of other members behind the scenes; they did not want to go on the record to outline and argue why they would support this. There is no doubt people are well aware of how unpopular the decision to sell TIO is, and they will go down in history as being part of that decision, which was made despite the evidence and what they have seen happen on the east coast, particularly in northern Queensland.
I come back to the Pivot North report which looked into the development of northern Australia. Part of the recommendations suggested looking at the insurance market in northern Australia, particularly in Queensland after the market failure they have seen. Recommendation 5.30 of the Pivot North report says:
It saw TIO as a good model and a good business.
You could have allowed for further scrutiny of the sale of TIO through the Public Accounts Committee. That was something the member for Nelson pushed very hard for, and the opposition fully supported. It would have been a very good process and an opportunity for the government to argue their case of why they felt TIO should be sold. Through the processes of the PAC you could have held some hearings, put the case very clearly, received a lot of media attention about it, and seen the information that came out of that process. However, you did not do it; you just wanted to ram it through as quickly as possible. That process, unfortunately, did not happen. It could have added to the debate and made it far more robust. It could have helped Territorians understand a bit more why the government made this decision. You could have put your case but you chose not to use the Public Accounts Committee for that process. It could have benefitted the government.
We also know there will be public hearings held in the Territory as part of a Senate inquiry into asset sales. That is another forum in which the government could have put its case with regard to the sale of TIO. The government’s agenda into public asset sales is continuing. In the Chamber today we heard that moves are now on the way for the port and the future of it. Serious questions have been put to the government again today. We know we will be hearing some more detail about its plans for the port. I am just hoping there is a deeper level of consultation such as two-way communication in its work in the future. Let us see what happens. I hope government has learnt a lesson from the process it followed with TIO.
There are also questions around its desire to sell TIO. There has been a lot of talk about the federal government’s plans and what they will be doing with the asset recycling program, which has not been enacted yet. You have sold TIO without that commencing. We know the problems the Abbott government is having in Canberra at this point in time. It was a very sad day yesterday in this parliament. We have observed a shocking process for the sale of something as big as TIO.
This will be a legacy issue for the Giles government and something you will all be remembered for: when TIO was sold in the Northern Territory. This will not leave people’s memories; they will long remember how this happened just as they remember 2012 when you came to government on your promise to reduce their cost of living. Then you rammed the prices of power, water and sewerage through the roof. They will not forget very quickly. They are certainly not going to forget in 2016, even though, I am sure, you will be hoping they will.
You will be using the money you have raised through the sale of TIO to try to help people forget, there is no doubt about that. Territorians see through it. They have seen through this process and the actions you have taken to rush through the sale of TIO from day one. If you were really genuine you would have engaged in a far more meaningful level of conversation with Territorians about it, rather than so arrogantly ramming through the legislation to sell TIO in one day, and not coming clean with Territorians far earlier, since you have been discussing this since March. You only came clean with them after the Casuarina by-election. Then you rammed through this legislation in one day without having the grace to allow for proper scrutiny of this process and to at least leave it until March. It has been a disgrace and a shameful part of this Territory’s parliament history.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion by the member for Nelson. He feels the betrayal more than anybody. We all feel it, but the member for Nelson is a very generous individual in trying to work with whoever is in government. He is probably reaching the end of his tether in trying to work with the CLP because time after time it commits to and promise him things, then when it suits them, bang, they drop him and do incredible backflips. It is not only the member for Nelson who is being betrayed here; it is the whole of the Northern Territory. It is incredible to see the backlash launched across the Territory with this very sneaky move by the CLP which never came clean about what it was doing until it was all too late.
Yesterday will go down in the history of the Territory as a pretty sad day for democracy, for our parliament and for the government elected to govern because it brought into the parliament a motion for the sale of the last government-owned insurance company in the nation. The reason it was the last one is because of the unique circumstances we find in the Northern Territory, given the unique geography and the weather conditions we are subject to.
We heard there was a late night meeting of Cabinet on Sunday. Of course, the upshot of that Cabinet decision – I would like to have been a fly on the wall because we know some members on that side were not comfortable with it. They could see not only the political fallout, but the fallout in their electorates. One person who has done it toughest would be the member for Katherine. He represents a community which is incredibly vulnerable to floods and has been subject to terrible flooding.
After the 1998 floods that inundated Katherine the only people whose insurance policies were honoured were those insured with TIO. It was a real turning point for people in Katherine and for the government-owned corporation that was the Territory Insurance Office. It is TIO support heartland in Katherine, so it is tough for the member for Katherine.
I would like to know what sort of a deal the Chief Minister struck with the member for Katherine to get his vote and prevent him from abstaining or crossing the floor. They must have worked hard on that because it would only have taken the member for Katherine and one other member from that side and the motion would not have passed and the sale would not have gone through.
Time and history will tell, but Territorians are pretty unforgiving. I have been amazed in the last few weeks to see the outpouring of public sentiment from people around the Territory. Our media outlets and our social media networks generally provide a good litmus test as to what people are thinking and how they are feeling, depending on the issue. Sometimes you get a balance with those who support and those who do not. Unequivocally, people did not support it. Polls demonstrated 80% to 90% of people did not support the sale of TIO. That is not just from looking at the letters to the editor, texts online, the social media messages, but at some polling that was done as well. That confirmed that was how Territorians were feeling, with 80% to 90% of Territorians not wanting to see the sale of TIO go through.
What did that mean to the Northern Territorian government, to the CLP? Nothing, not a thing. What it demonstrated, yet again, but in one of the biggest ways we have ever seen – even though the CLP of old was pretty bad; this contemporary lot are worse – is they did not care what Territorians thought because their messages constantly were, ‘Believe us, we know what is best for you. Selling off the government owned asset owned by you, the Territorian taxpayers, will be good for you. Believe us.’ I would love to see – and I guess we will find out when estimates comes around – what the CLP government campaign cost with full-page advertisements, mail-outs, brochures, advertising on air and all of that.
There was one key part of their platform in communicating with Territorians that has really cost them dearly, and I talked about this last night. They have ignored everybody’s protests. They closed their eyes and ears, ‘We know what is best for you’. That real test will come around in August 2016 when people go the polls at a general election, cast their vote and send a message to the CLP. Accumulatively, the sale of TIO has tipped the people over the edge.
I had an interesting e-mail today from someone – I will not reveal their identify but it is a former member of the CLP – telling me that people on this side of the House have to keep up the campaign against the government because it is simply atrocious. What has also really annoyed people with the sale of TIO is that the government likes to think it has engaged with people, consulted and put out its story, but it has never engaged in any meaningful two-way, open communication process.
The member for Katherine is the exception. He is smart enough to realise – over a week or so ago he called the forum in Katherine – that if he did nothing then that would be far worse. Good on him for calling that forum in Katherine and getting Richard Harding, the CEO of TIO, there. He seems to think the people were placated by what they were told. I am not so sure about that, not from what I have heard from friends of mine in Katherine who attended that meeting. But at least he did it. In the estimation of the eyes of the people he represents there that counts for something. Perhaps part of his broader political strategy was him sending a message to his constituency, ‘I am listening to you, I hear you’. He publicly said, ‘I have major concerns about this’. Somehow, by the weekend, things had magically changed and he came out of the Cabinet meeting on Sunday night, we presume on side with his Cabinet colleagues. That was definitely confirmed with the vote yesterday.
As for the unelected Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, he would not commit to any sort of public forum. He does not like doing it; I know that. Even when he slips into Nhulunbuy from time to time, he only ever uses a charter plane. The people in Nhulunbuy are pretty good, decent people like the rest of the people in the Territory. They go along to a public meeting. They respect the fact that elected representatives come along. They know they may not always get what they want out of those meetings in any commitments, let alone a backflip on a decision that has been made, but they appreciate when people will at least front up to those forums.
The Chief Minister does not often front these forums in Nhulunbuy. If he does, it is in and out pretty quickly, with a tightly controlled audience, and a, ‘Sorry, I have to go, my charter plane is ready to go’. If he cannot do that in Nhulunbuy, it is no surprise he could not do it Darwin. He could have done it with some of his Cabinet ministers standing around him, such as the members for Brennan, Sanderson and Port Darwin. All of those people put hands on hearts yesterday and said, ‘This is the best thing to do, we are on the right track here’. If they are so convinced to sell TIO, why could they not go to a meeting? That is what you put yourself out for when you are in public life; it is not all pats on the back to say you are doing a great job.
There are times we have to go along to a community consultation whether or not it is uncomfortable. I have been through it myself within a matter of weeks of becoming the local member, with some policy changes around homelands and Indigenous affairs. It was a baptism of fire, but it is what we do.
The one thing that really grated with Territorians is the Chief Minister would not front up to a meeting. He is so incredibly arrogant. As we know, that evening – I just confirmed it for the member for Nelson when he mentioned it – the Chief Minister was at the Hanuman Restaurant having dinner. He was …
Mr Chandler: He was at a LGANT meeting.
Ms WALKER: I was there attending a LGANT meeting with the member for Barkly, who has recently taken over the Local Government portfolio as a shadow responsibility.
Member for Brennan, you might want to say to me, ‘Member for Nhulunbuy, why were you not at the CDU meeting?’ We planned, within our ranks, who would be where. I do not know what was in your diary that night, member for Brennan, but there were members of our Caucus who attended the forum at CDU. The Leader of the Opposition was there, and we wanted to show our support. I was part of a handover with LGANT, introducing my colleague, the member for Barkly, to stakeholders within LGANT. I was sitting there when I saw the Chief Minister arrive at the same time there was a forum on at CDU.
The Chief Minister could have easily attended both. He has one of those nice, white cars downstairs that pulls up at the front of wherever he is. People would have appreciated it, even if he had turned up to CDU perhaps for the last 20 minutes or so. Nobody expects ministers, least of all the Chief Minister, to sit through two hours of a forum, but he did not go. He did not want to because he knew what he would hear from people. That is cowardly. That is not a sign of strong leadership and is not a sign of having the convictions …
Mr Chandler: How many times did you guys front rallies out the front?
Ms WALKER: What about you, member for Brennan? Why did you not go to the forum at CDU? Why did the member for Drysdale not go to the forum at CDU? She was quite anxious ...
Mr Chandler: You are hypocritical to the core.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No yelling across the Chamber!
Ms WALKER: She said in her contribution to debate last night that she was uncomfortable. She probably got a bit hammered through her electorate office with constituents coming to see her. She did the right thing in sticking up for her constituents. I reckon they were knocking on your door too, member for Brennan. I think you have had some sleepless nights. You are a different kettle of fish to the Chief Minister; you have a bit of heart and soul about you and are sensitive to when people are unhappy with you. I sense that about you in the way I see you operate, but not the Chief Minister. He does not care.
It was a great phrase from you, member for Nelson, that it was all about ego-nomics and not economics. That is what it comes down to: ego. The Chief Minister has an ego the size of the Territory. He is determined – I have heard this from a few sources – that he will leave a legacy in the Northern Territory as being a great economic reformer and someone who has done amazing things for the Territory.
History will tell the story, but the Chief Minister will go down as somebody who has trashed the Territory, and the only way he could find money to spend on important infrastructure projects and commitments, election commitments – a lot of those out in the bush – was by selling public assets.
The figures do not stack up either. Perhaps trying to look after 13 portfolios, including the Treasurer since August when the member for Fong Lim was dumped from Cabinet, is just too much. Those figures just do not stack up. What is coming into the coffers of Northern Territory Treasury is nowhere near what Territorians were promised. To be honest, it is nowhere near going to fill that list of potential projects. When he asked people, ‘Tell us what you want. Tell us what you want us to spend money on’, he was like Santa Claus with a big bag of lollies. You tally up all of those projects that were put forward by Territorians and it comes into millions and millions of dollars – way more than the sale of poor old TIO could ever possibly fund.
People see it for what it is. Territorians are not fools. But even during that debate last night there were still Territorians hoping there would be members on the other side who would cross the floor. There were people who genuinely believed it was such a terrible decision and terrible legislation to be ramming though this parliament in one day. I believe in the history of our parliament it has only ever happened on one occasion where legislation has been introduced, debated and passed. It was nothing as significant as this. People will remember it. They are unforgiving and it must be causing enormous angst within the ranks of the current CLP government for their backbenchers and Cabinet.
Of course, there is a bit of jostling going on. There is a vacant space in Cabinet, and has been since August. One wonders whether that is because we are waiting to see the member for Fong Lim serve out his six-months’ penance. The member for Brennan stated that publicly when he was on ABC one evening as the new Deputy Chief Minister, saying that, ‘Yes, six months out of Cabinet would be about right for Dave before we would even consider having him back in’.
There must be other people on the backbench who would be jockeying by saying, ‘Come on, I have worked hard for a couple of years, it must be my turn now’. I reckon the member for Drysdale might be at the front of that queue. She is a very competent individual and she is wasted sitting on the backbench. One wonders what kind of plans are afoot that the Chief Minister, since August, has held onto all of these portfolios and not elevated somebody into Cabinet. Who knows what is going on there.
The impact of this sale has been talked about enormously. I simply do not buy the yarns the Chief Minister tells us about how everything will be okay. We are really concerned – I spoke about this yesterday evening in the debate – about what this will mean to our regions. I will talk again, because I love talking about my electorate, of Nhulunbuy, where we have lost 1100 jobs and a major employer that contributed through its operations just a shave under 2% of the annual gross state product in the Northern Territory. That is wiping millions off the books of the Northern Territory government, money that would otherwise be coming into Treasury to help us fund important infrastructure projects such as bridges, roads, hospitals and schools. Nhulunbuy, as we all know, is going through a pretty bad time. The community is not going to disappear; it will not become a ghost town.
We know there has been work afoot to try to attract new investment. One of the key things pointed out by the insurance analyst yesterday who was interviewed on ABC radio was that, without the guarantee of insurance coverage and premiums at an affordable price for these extreme weather conditions of floods, cyclones and inundation, people will not invest in the Territory. If they can invest their money somewhere else in the country rather than the Northern Territory – and with a government, I might add, you cannot trust; they do one thing and say another – why would people invest here?
I am concerned about businesses and insurance coverage for people’s homes because affordability will be beyond their means. As if we have not already been hit hard enough by massive hikes in power and water prices, there will be another 5% increase in January. It will be really tough.
Mr Deputy Speaker, time will tell, but we condemn the CLP government for this move. I am pleased to be speaking in support of this motion this evening, and I do not think it is the last we will be hearing of it.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion condemning the Chief Minister and the government for rushing the sale of TIO put forward by the member for Nelson today.
This legislation was introduced and passed in one day, two days after the decision was made. The way this process has unfolded showed no respect to the voices of Territorians we were elected to represent, and introducing such important legislation in one day showed a lack of regard and respect for full debate and a level of scrutiny that should be given to a major business decision.
We are being told by the members of the CLP government that this is a business decision. It is a huge business decision, but apparently it is not open for scrutiny. That is really concerning. Apparently it is not okay for it to go through the Public Accounts Committee because if we debate this further it will cause damage to the TIO brand. That is untrue. This is a business decision that should have full debate and full scrutiny, and that is what we are here for.
The member for Wanguri hit the nail on the head when she said yesterday was a bizarre and sad day for the Territory. I completely agree with her. I left here yesterday completely overwhelmed by what had happened in just one day in parliament. I remember talking to members of this Chamber about how the first constituent through my door as the local member for Casuarina was somebody who wanted to talk about the potential sale of TIO and their concerns about it. My first phone call was from a constituent in Alice Springs who was concerned about the potential sale of TIO and wanted every member of this Chamber to know people in Alice Springs were concerned.
The CLP government told us in October it had been discussing this since March. The time frame for Territorians to wrap their heads around this decision has been incredibly short, much shorter than since March. The mechanisms for Territorians to have a two-way conversation with the government about their concerns, questions and views on this sale have been pretty much non-existent. Yet Territorians have still managed to make themselves exceptionally clear on their views on the sale of TIO. Despite being given minimal forums to do so by the CLP government, people did what they could to voice their concerns and to be explicit that they were not convinced about the sale. This was happening when the government would not confirm whether the sale was on or off the table, when the government flagged the sale was a real possibility and when the government announced in this House it was considering final offers and would move quickly.
Warren Entsch made his voice heard through the Pivot North report. Despite advice that this model should be expanded across northern Australia, the CLP government did not listen. People were making their concerns known and voices heard through petitions in shopping centres, outside our offices and by asking the member for Goyder whether they could access a petition at her office, which she obliged and got a huge number of signatures on. They were making themselves heard when they visited, called and e-mailed our offices as recently as today. People have been in my office today asking which way members voted yesterday.
The member for Sanderson might have said he has not had many visits from his constituents, but I am sure I am not the only person on this side of the House who has been contacted by constituents from Sanderson. They were making themselves heard when they erected signs which are still around my electorate today. They were making themselves heard when they contacted media outlets and hopped in their cars yesterday, even after the announcement was made of the sale. And it was not 35 cars. I do not know who was out there counting. There was a huge number of people who participated in the rally yesterday, even though the announcement of the sale had already been made. They were there to show the CLP government that they were not happy with the way it went about this decision.
This sale has been made without a mandate. The CLP had the opportunity to take its plans to an election; it did not campaign on it in the election. It did not take the plans to the Blain by-election or the Casuarina by-election. It was not up front about the conversations it was having about selling this public asset. It did not let Territorians know in April it was starting to discuss this sale.
There was an opportunity for members of the CLP government to attend a public forum that was held in my electorate, facilitated by the member for Nelson. However, no CLP government member came to present a case for the sale. I attended that forum. I was very interested to hear what a number of people had to say. That is why the member for Nelson held that forum in the first place; to listen and to make his mind up about what members of the public were saying about this sale. Business owners, families – lots of families who brought their kids – everyday mums and dads, and seniors attended; everybody was there. They wanted to talk about their concerns. They wanted to hear from both sides of this House about the pros and cons of the potential sale.
They wanted to hear Richard Harding’s views on the sale. I commend him for attending that meeting when he had no CLP member of the government – who were making this decision – there to support him. That is shameful. Good on him; he did an excellent job and people appreciated him being there.
People commented on the absence of CLP government members. I have been thinking about this. Perhaps it was the case that they were not convinced then. A number of members of the CLP government had expressed their concerns. Maybe at that point they were not convinced enough to attend and present a case for the sale. No CLP government member came to counter the concerns of Territorians, despite polls taken by a range of outlets and organisations which were interested in what Territorians wanted to say, indicating between 80% to 90% were against the sale. Let us not forget these same concerns were held by members of the CLP government only weeks ago. Perhaps it was even later than that, up until Sunday. Who knows? The decision was not made until Sunday. If members on the other side of the Chamber believe that Territorians would have changed their minds with more information, then you should and could have facilitated those discussions.
I remember the ABC headline about the public forum held at Charles Darwin University: ‘Giles tells TIO opponents to steer clear of sale meeting’. I point out that is not exactly how debate or a mature conversation works. You need to be willing to listen to the opposition that comes as a result of the decisions you are making – huge decisions with huge impacts on Territorians – and to respect it and to include it in your decision-making. You have refused to do so.
It was a proposal, and now a sale, that raised a good number of questions and angst amongst a number of sectors of our community. It is not a small level of angst, but a huge level. It is extremely disappointing that no concerted effort was made by the CLP government, not just to present information through the newspaper – which came thick and fast in full-page ads – but to engage in conversation and debate with Territory residents and business owners.
The only local member of the CLP government to hold a public forum was the member for Katherine, and he must be given credit for that. It is unfortunate that others did not see fit to follow suit. Whether the member for Katherine’s constituents see that he acted in their best interests, I have no doubt will be revealed in time.
It seems that the 15% from the asset recycling scheme was discussed as part of the package for selling TIO – it was certainly put out to the public that way – despite the fact this legislation has not yet passed in the Senate and the CLP government has no idea whether this would be issued retrospectively. This has not been secured or agreed to.
Guarantees discussed by the CLP government about coverage, premiums and community support are not captured in the contractual agreements, nor can anyone seem to agree on how long these verbal agreements are in place for.
The $424m sale price is not all that it seems either, with $140m of that coming from the MAC Scheme, leaving a $284m sale price. Is it any wonder that Territorians are concerned, wanting more information and to clarify what exactly this sale is about?
Territorians wanted to have a say in this process; they made that very clear. The level of anger is perfectly understandable and reasonable. Territorians do not feel they have engaged in a two-way consultation process in which they would have an opportunity to freely provide you with feedback, concerns and ideas, and have an opportunity to hear from you. That would have helped you form the basis for your decision for sale, but that did not occur. That is not a process that would trash the brand of our insurance company. However, it is about keeping the trust of Territorians and being open and transparent.
When somebody phones you and asks how you would use the profits from the sale of a public asset, what are you supposed to think? Is answering the question providing indirect agreement to a question that was never asked, whether or not you want the sale to go ahead? Territorians saw through it, just as they saw through the language change from ‘sale’ to ‘transferring ownership’.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am proud to support this motion moved by the member for Nelson. I also condemn the actions of the Chief Minister and the government.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind you there are only 30 minutes left.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you. I will give some time for the member for Nelson to wrap if I do not get too carried away. I will try not to. I do not want to be the new member for Greatorex in this Chamber. I will leave that up to him.
I support the member for Nelson’s general business motion about the rush of the sale of TIO. I will get to the first point, which talks about a sale without a mandate. My colleagues have spoken about this many times over the last couple of months, but I do not get sick of it. I do not get sick of standing up for Territorians, hearing their concerns and delivering their messages through to this arrogant government. I do not get sick of always standing up for what is right, which is giving Territorians – the people who voted us in as local members and you as government – an opportunity to have their voices heard. I will never get sick of that. It is what we are here for. You, as a government, have not given Territorians the opportunity to voice their concerns or to hear your response. As I said last night, if you are going to make such a big decision you need to bring Territorians along for the journey. You have not done that.
TIO is sold; it will go through. I think 2 January 2015 will see the ‘transfer of the ownership’ of Territorians’ asset. We have promised Territorians who have come to us that we will continue to fight against you selling any more assets. We are obviously very concerned about the Chief Minister selling our port. We have been fighting, as the member for Wanguri has done as the shadow minister, against the splitting of Power and Water and for the future of Territory ownership of that asset.
Member for Nelson, thank you for presenting this. Obviously we were keen to have a motion presented on TIO and what happened on the second last day of sittings for the year. Yesterday was one of the biggest moments in my short political career. As a born-and-bred Territorian, it was concerning listening to the members of the CLP government. I was very interested listening to some of the things they said. As Cabinet made a decision to sell a public asset for way under its worth, I am not sure every member of Cabinet spoke. I know not every member of government spoke on it; I am not sure of Cabinet members. The bare minimum that Territorians who own that asset expect from the government which sold it is that it should explain its reasons.
I agree we should have gone to a Public Accounts Committee. We are all about process and know the member for Nelson likes process. The member for Port Darwin talked about process. This House operates under the Westminster system, going through certain processes. We see legislation rammed through on urgency. Yesterday was a very dark day for Territory politics, not only for the sale, but also how it was pushed through this parliament.
We all know this government has sold out and is not listening to Territorians. We are going to have another fight about the port. That will be another issue. This Chief Minister has been here a total of eight years since he landed on Territory soil and it is the land of opportunity for him. I tell this Chief Minister and his Cabinet – whoever that may be next week as well – that we will fight that as we have done with TIO. We will take it to the people and hold you to account if you are thinking of selling our port.
It is interesting that of the people contributing to this debate I cannot go past the member for Sanderson, who said that selling TIO is not an issue in his electorate. I find that very hard to believe. With the number of people who have come to our offices and to see us in the mall, stopped and voiced their concern at the Casuarina shopping centre where we have had our stall and at the Sunday markets I and the members for Nightcliff and Fannie Bay attend, and signed the petitions the member for Wanguri and everybody else has at the front of their offices, it is beyond comprehension that the member for Sanderson thinks it is not an issue in his electorate.
At least 15, maybe 16, of your constituents have come to see me. I said a couple of months ago that if people are not coming to see you that is a problem. I am not saying that 15 or 16 people from your electorate have popped into the Sunday markets to see me; I am talking about locking in times to see me in my office in Millner at the Rapid Creek Business Village. We also had phone conversations with people about what this government is doing. I will not be too sneaky here. I say about half of those people are Labor supporters, but the other half are Liberal supporters. More importantly, they are Territorians who have not had chance to be heard by their local member or voice their concern.
When the member for Sanderson said it has not been an issue or a major concern in his electorate, that tells me several things. One is his constituents do not feel comfortable speaking to him, and the other is they do not believe what he says. That is a concern, and it will be a concern for the members for Sanderson and Port Darwin in the 2016 election. This will not be forgotten. People will not forget about the sale of TIO, we will make sure of that. Territorians will make sure of that. Wherever you go, whatever function you attend, people will talk to you about this.
We also have the port situation. We will find out early next year if you intend to get rid of the port, make some more cash-grab money. As I said, if you intend to get rid of another Territory asset perhaps you will run that process a little better and give people an opportunity to have their say and have a proper debate in this House.
Another thing the member for Sanderson mentioned was a rally that was held. The member for Nelson was involved in organising that rally. The member for Sanderson – the member for Blain screamed across the Chamber as well – said that only 28 cars were involved. I do not know where he was ...
Mr Wood: It was more like 128.
Mr VOWLES: Yes, I would say about 128. I would have to agree with you, member for Nelson. But 28 cars! That tells me you do not want to listen. Your constituents are coming to me because you do not want to listen. To try to pull the wool over Territorians’ eyes and say 28 cars were at the rally is a disgrace. There were over 100 cars at that rally. They were Territorians who vote in your electorate and who, at some stage, voted for this government.
As I said last night, I was interested to see the former member for Drysdale, Mr Ross Bohlin, in a TV interview call the government arrogant. There is probably another adjournment on the former member for Drysdale, Ross Bohlin. I will not stick up for him in this parliament, but since he has left politics I have started to believe some of things he says. We have a quick chat about things. We know when a former member of parliament calls his own party arrogant there is something wrong with the process.
I am deeply disappointed about what happened yesterday, in how this government sold a public asset, and that you have not given Territorians the option to voice their concerns. You have not given them an option of a public forum. As I said last night, I take my hat off briefly to the member for Katherine for holding a public consultation, apparently attended by 80 people. In the calls I received today mention was made of a commitment from the member for Katherine that he would not support this. People thought when they left that public consultation in Katherine that he would not support this. You can guarantee we will get out that he voted for the sale of TIO and sold out his constituents.
I have told the Leader of the Opposition I am happy to letterbox that to his constituents because I know they are concerned. You just have to look at social media, where people have voiced their concerns on different websites, our Facebook pages and so forth. They are deeply concerned that the member for Katherine went against his constituents, to whom he gave an undertaking he would not support this. As a member of Cabinet he supported this. His constituents will not forget it, and we will ensure they do not forget it in 2016.
Last night I had three questions I asked the Minister for Infrastructure to clarify for me, as the Lands and Planning minister had already spoken. In Question Time yesterday, the Chief Minister said the $25m was all for Rapid Creek flood mitigation works. I have not had any clarification about that. The initial commitment was for $25m for Rapid Creek and parts of the rural area. I have not had that cleared up yet so I am still waiting for that answer ...
Mr Styles: Ask for a briefing.
Mr VOWLES: The second question was is $25m out of the $50m just for Rapid Creek flood mitigation works? What are those works? Are we talking about raising the Trower Road bridge? Would it give all-weather access to the ambulance and the hospital? Will all the works out of the $25m lessen the flooding around that area?
The last question I had was how many homes would it get off the flood map along Rapid Creek Road? I am still waiting for an answer.
As the member for Sanderson just said, I will get another briefing and that is not a problem. However, I asked those questions last night and I thought the minister responsible or one of the other ministers could have answered me.
I will finish with one last question: how much did all the advertising cost? How much did the full-page ad cost Territorians? I hope at some stage you come back to us with an answer because it would be in the hundreds of thousands trying to sell Territorians on the sale of TIO. That did not happen.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I fully support this motion and I thank the member for Nelson for bringing it to his House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the members for their contributions. This debate, even though it is after the event, was still an important debate to have.
I quote from the debate on Thursday 30 October 2014 by the Chief Minister, who said:
Fair enough, but as the member for Nhulunbuy said tonight, when we tried to have a mature debate the Chief Minister did not turn up. I heard the member for Brennan say he was at a LGANT meeting. That was not something I was told. The minister gave me the impression he was away. That is okay.
I then e-mailed one of the staff on the fifth floor and asked if someone else could attend. I gave details of the meeting and said we were looking at giving roughly 10 minutes for the CLP, 10 minutes for TIO and 10 minutes for the ALP to talk so there would be plenty of time for questions. I was then told the Chief Minister said, basically, that the media had been hijacked. Once that was said, nobody from the CLP turned up. Just before that public meeting we had the debate in this parliament and there were many speakers from the CLP telling us why we should sell TIO. I thought someone from that side of parliament could have at least attended and put the government’s case to sell TIO. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Regardless of whether there was a LGANT meeting, the fact is the Chief Minister was having dinner at Hanuman.
Our meeting went from, I think, 6 pm until past 8 pm. We tried to keep it within reasonable limits. I remind people that meeting was also an attempt by me to find out what people thought after they had been informed. As I said last night, I had a PowerPoint presentation and everyone had a hard copy of it. They were given a little yellow slip at the end of the meeting which asked them what they thought about selling TIO after hearing from Richard Harding and the Opposition Leader. They obviously had not heard the point of the view of the government. There were 80 people who voted. It was a secret ballot in the sense we did not ask people to put their hands up; we just asked them to write what they thought on a piece of paper and put it in a box. We had a few scrutineers who counted them, and out of 80 votes, 78 said they did not want it to be sold.
That, to me, said the government had not put its message across. Sadly, instead of having the opportunity to put their point of view, people did not believe the Chief Minister’s words about us engaging in a mature conversation. He said he would be derelict in his duty if he did not do that, and the government was derelict in its duty when it came to having that mature debate. Many things have been said tonight. The member for Katherine held a public meeting not so long ago, and some of the things that came out of that public meeting highlight that this whole issue was rushed. I was looking at the Katherine Times editorial, which said:
It went on to talk about the different amounts of money certain ministers have said should be given to flood mitigation in Katherine.
There was also an article in the Katherine Times where the Mayor of Katherine, Fay Miller, said there was simply was not enough money. There is also some confusion in that if you take the $8m that was promised to move the ambulance centre out, you only have $17m for the mitigation process.
Part of what is highlighted here is that this was rushed. People were thinking of ideas, and meetings were held at the last minute. A symbolic signal of it being rushed was yesterday when legislation was presented here and it was decided this legislation would be passed on urgency in the one day. That is the impression I have overall: the government wanted to do something quickly. It argued about liquidity and this and that, but in actual fact it was in a big hurry. That big hurry was not about bringing the people along; it was about its agenda. Unfortunately, people were left behind.
In summing up, we know TIO has been sold. Unfortunately it has been handled in a terribly amateurish way instead of a professional way that brought along the people of the Northern Territory. It might be a good economic argument, which is something I have said could be argued. The public relations exercise has been woeful, and the people have been left behind.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that is all I have to say and I am happy to vote on this motion.
The Assembly divided:
Motion negatived.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I update the House on the status of negotiations for access to waters affected by the High Court’s decision on Blue Mud Bay.
On 30 July 2008 the High Court of Australia handed down its decision with regard to the Blue Mud Bay matter. The High Court found the Fisheries Act is valid in tidal waters over Aboriginal land but that a permit is required to enter and remain on those waters ...
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I have a copy of the ministerial statement?
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order, pursuant to Standing Order 258 the ministerial statement is being distributed forthwith.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Do not panic, member for Johnston, I would not forget you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I want to start the ministerial statements in a civil manner, so can people please refrain from yelling across the Chamber otherwise I will not refrain from having you removed for an hour. Minister, you have the call.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The Blue Mud Bay decision presented a range of practical problems, not least the inability of either fishers or traditional owners to identify the extent of waters overlying Aboriginal land. It addition, negotiations with affected land councils are complex, requiring formal consent from over 2000 traditional owners around the Territory coastline.
This government is committed to reaching agreements that provide a practical win/win solution for traditional owners and recreational fishers. These agreements will enable ongoing access to affected waters by recreational fishers. They will also provide greater opportunities for traditional owners to be involved in managing and benefiting from fishing activity, not just in the narrow band of affected tidal waters but right across their sea country. This government is committed to creating economic development opportunities for Aboriginal people in regional areas, and our approach to the Blue Mud Bay negotiations provide clear evidence of this.
This government has allocated $2.7m from this year’s budget for Blue Mud Bay agreements. The formal allocation of this funding will ensure the delivery of a range of initiatives, including marine ranger program training and support and access payments to traditional owners for the term of those agreements already reached.
There will also be opportunities for traditional owners from other areas to negotiate agreements for waters overlying their land. I am proud to say agreements have already been reached for the following regions: the upper Daly River; the Daly River mouth to Cape Ford; the McArthur River/Sir Edward Pellew group of islands; Minimini/Murgenella; Nhulunbuy; Wadeye and the Tiwi Islands. The federal minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Hon Nigel Scullion, recently endorsed the legal deeds for these arrangements which provide for ongoing access by commercial fishers, fishing tour operators and recreational fishers, and other water users without individual permits.
Each agreement includes initiatives for marine ranger programs, including training and enforcement powers. They also include a code of conduct to raise awareness and respect of the rights and culture of traditional owners when visiting affected waters, and amendments to the Aboriginal coastal licence to allow the development of fishing businesses and increase the supply of fresh fish to local communities.
Payments in recognition of the level of commercial and recreational fishing activity in affected waters are also included in the offer.
These initiatives are already benefitting Aboriginal communities across the Northern Territory coastline. Capacity-building programs have commenced, including the training of marine rangers in fisheries enforcement and scientific research. These specifically-tailored training programs are accredited and provide Aboriginal people with real and valuable skills. Significantly, these courses are then followed up with practical experience in the field.
Staff from my Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, in conjunction with the Water Police, have undertaken joint fishery patrols with marine rangers. The success of this training is evident as patrols by marine rangers have resulted in a number of fisheries offences being detected and prosecuted. These marine rangers play a valuable role in providing a cost-effective service in regional areas.
My Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries is also contracting marine ranger groups to help in fisheries research programs. Rangers are collecting samples, recording information, extracting otoliths, or ear bones, from fish and sending them back to Darwin for analysis to determine their age.
These capacity-building programs provide skills and experience to ranger groups to allow them to contract their services to other government agencies, universities and organisations. Not only do these programs provide jobs for marine rangers, they are also consistent with the cultural obligation of traditional owners to be actively managing their sea country.
Our commercial fishing mentor program has delivered training to more than 30 people in commercial fishing skills including gear maintenance, catching, handling and hygiene, and even business skills. While this program is in its infancy, the demand for mentoring is growing rapidly with many communities wanting to get involved. Fish have already been sold in local stores in Milingimbi, Ski Beach and on Goulburn Island.
From little things big things grow! Our vision is to build upon this progress, and increase and broaden the skills and experience of these communities so they become active operators in the Territory’s commercial fisheries.
New fishing brochures have been developed for the Daly River and Borroloola areas which acknowledge the permission granted by traditional owners to visit their land and outline the code of conduct for fishers. These communities have worked in partnership with my department to develop the brochures and provide local artwork for the design. I table a copy of each one of those brochures that have been developed so far.
These programs are successfully delivering economic, employment and workplace skills and development opportunities in remote Aboriginal communities. This government is committed to giving traditional owners across the Territory’s coastline the opportunity to consider the government’s offer to enable ongoing permit-free fishing access to intertidal waters overlying Aboriginal land.
Sitting down with this government’s negotiating team will give traditional owners the opportunity to discuss the management of sea country and allow them to consider a specific agreement for their area so they can decide if a mutually beneficial agreement can be reached.
In highlighting these successes today, I also acknowledge that there is still work to do. These negotiations, by their very nature, are time consuming. However, it is important that traditional owners gain a detailed understanding of the High Court decision and the elements of the government offer for their area. I believe these offers contain considerable benefits for traditional owners, which is why I am prepared to take the time required to provide this opportunity.
While the six agreements reached to date encompass most key recreational fishing areas, formal negotiations have not been able to be progressed in some key commercial fishing areas. This includes Blue Mud Bay, where the legal case began, and Buckingham Bay, Arnhem Bay, Boucaut Bay, Millingimbi, Ramingining and the Roper/Limmen/Towns River regions.
However, informal discussions with traditional owners from coastal communities in Arnhem Land have shown that they have a keen interest in holding negotiations with government over individual agreements for areas. At this stage, the Northern Land Council has extended the interim arrangements until the end of November this year. Given the number of community meetings that will still be required, it is clear that further time is required to allow these discussions to progress. Government is prepared to continue to devote resources to the further negotiations to ensure all traditional owners have the opportunity to consider an offer for an agreement that will provide opportunities and the improved management of sea country.
I have shown that the opportunities for remote communities through these Blue Mud Bay agreements are numerous and include: actively involving Aboriginal Territorians in aquatic resource management; improving the efficiency of marine surveillance, compliance and scientific research; building small business capacity in remote communities; providing locally caught fresh seafood for health and cultural benefits; increasing the capacity of Indigenous marine ranger groups to operate under fee-for-service arrangements; and importantly, genuine engagement of communities.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for the statement. It is a pity I was not able to get a copy of this earlier, because I am interested in this area. As you know, some of my family are involved in some of these discussions about the Blue Mud Bay decisions that have been made around the coast of the Northern Territory.
It was interesting to hear the minister give this statement today on these fishing agreements. I noticed he answered a question during Question Time in relation to the agreement with the Tiwi Islands, and he mentioned the Vernon Islands. I did not know there were any restrictions in place on the Vernon Islands as a fishing zone in the first place, so I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about how the Vernon Islands were included in the Tiwi Islands agreement. I know there were negotiations held some years ago between Larrakia and the Tiwi Islands as to who owned the Vernon Islands. It is a funny part of the Northern Territory because it is not in the Litchfield Council area or the Tiwi Regional Council area. It is a part of the Territory a bit like the East Arm port; it does not belong to any local government.
The minister may say that how traditional owners come to agree over these arrangements being put forward by the Northern Land Council is something that does not concern him because his portfolio does not cover those negotiations, and that his staff or his department work in conjunction with the Northern Land Council to come up with these agreements. I am concerned as to whether there is sometimes a process that is questionable. That is not to say we should not have agreements, but it is questionable whether people have been consulted in a proper way.
I note that there is a meeting coming up soon at Nungalinya College, which will deal with the intertidal zone area around Fog Bay and the Peron Islands. The agenda says good faith negotiations have continued and the Northern Land Council consulted widely through formal and informal meetings with members of the Wadjigan and Kiuk groups.
I am concerned and hope that if any group is to make an agreement over land that is intertidal, the Northern Land Council will make sure all groups involved in that agreement have an opportunity to meet together, that all viewpoints are raised and the meeting is minuted. Under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act you need to have some formal basis on which the agreement is signed off. One of the complaints I have received is people could be phoned and asked if they agree, or there could be a small meeting, but no one knows what was asked of the people and no minutes were taken. There was no opportunity to even have a group meeting – or did not appear to be – where there was a secret ballot.
I am not arguing whether people in that area should sign an agreement or not; that is up to them to decide, not me. I am more worried that the process is open and transparent and can stand up to scrutiny. When the government said it made an agreement with a group of people, that is fine, but we need to be sure that when the agreement was made it was legal, open, transparent and we can see the minutes of the meeting.
I am also interested to know whether we can see the agreements. After all, these agreements involve public money. We have ranger programs, I gather there are educational programs and sea rangers are involved in training programs. That is all great. I am not saying we should not have all that. However, if the government is saying it is putting money into these programs as part of the agreements, it would be good to know how much money is being paid for that agreement, and whether we have a method of checking to see if the benefits of the agreements claimed by government are occurring.
The minister issued two very nice brochures. I have seen the one for Daly River and it is an excellent brochure – very clear. Any fishermen going to that part of the world would straightaway know where he could and should not go. I congratulate the government. I am not sure whether it was just the government which put them together or someone else, but they are excellent brochures for anyone fishing in the area. One of the good things about them, minister, is many people used to go crook about the Daly River and complain that they should be able to go up and down that area. It is the old case of forgetting there were people here about a generation-and-a-half ago who owned all that land. Where my wife was born, there is a bunch of silver circle houses at what we called the old Channel Point area. Dundee Beach is on Wadjigan land. A name like Dundee, of all names, does not even relate to the country.
My wife can tell you that her father rowed a canoe up and down that coastline on which they lived. That was in my wife’s time, one-and-a-half or two generations ago. Yet, people do not know that and think the land is theirs, and do not realise people were there long before we were.
Sometimes that is not recognised, but that brochure the minister has released gives you a feeling that, yes, there are groups of people who have a strong connection with the Daly River. It helps us appreciate that as well, plus it gives the fishermen a good idea of where to fish and not to fish. It has two uses.
I get back to my concerns. I want to ensure these agreements are done properly. I am not saying the ones which have been signed are not done properly, minister, but I am worried when this statement said ‘consulted widely through formal and informal meetings’. When you go to the footy club you do not expect someone ringing everyone and saying, ‘What do you think of this? What do you think of that? Oh, that is what we all agreed to.’ No, they should come to a meeting and people put their sides of the argument, listen to the debate, and then vote on it. They need to vote on it because you want to ensure that is what the people want. I have that concern.
The other thing it said about the invitation for this meeting is ‘people are invited and encouraged to attend this final BMB meeting’. That is the final Blue Mud Bay meeting. Why is it the final meeting? I am not sure. Does that mean if they still do not have an agreement there is a big hurry for this? People are still allowed to fish in the area for the moment. Again, I have some concerns, not about what people agree to, just that the people, as a group and not as families or individuals, are being asked when these decisions need to be made so everybody knows what others’ opinions are and can vote as a whole. You cannot cut up sections of the coastline into this person’s bit and this person’s bit; it belongs to all the people. So that decision needs to be made by all the people as a group.
I raise that issue, minister, because you will be making agreements with traditional owners and those agreements have to fit within the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
I hope when you sign that agreement you can genuinely say the people of that area have supported the agreement, and there is proof they have supported it through the minutes of a meeting and a vote to make sure the majority have agreed.
I am sorry, member for Johnston, I was standing at the right time and, obviously, you were asleep, dreaming of days when you hit the fastest century at the MCG; it is never out of his mind.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. We hope there will be more statements about this important issue. One thing …
Mr Vowles: The day before.
Mr WOOD: I do not want to see that happen again. The minister said:
This is where the court case started, so it is interesting to know the negotiations have not been completed in the Blue Mud Bay area. Why has that not happened, especially since this is where it all started?
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House.
People listening probably do not understand that when the minister delivered the speech was the first time we saw or heard it. It is a little difficult. When this happens in parliament I, as shadow minister for this portfolio, have to go with the speech I prepared, so here we go.
This is an important statement because it is about how this government is working with Indigenous traditional owners in managing their land and resources as well as economic development, which includes commercial fishing, recreational fishing tours and tourism.
As well as recreational opportunities for Territorians, their friends and relatives, fisheries are an important resource for the Territory in economy and lifestyle. Importantly, fishing and the management of fisheries’ resources continues to be an important part of the day-to-day life of many Indigenous Territorians.
In 2010, for example, it was estimated that more than 35 000 Territory residents and 55 000 visitors fished and spent at least $80m in that year alone on recreational fishing and fishing tours in the Northern Territory. AFANT has noted recreational fishers spend an average of $1500 per year on fishing goods and services in the Northern Territory, the highest rate in the country. An amount of $22m per annum is spent just on guided fishing in the Northern Territory, and there is direct expenditure on recreational fishing in the NT of $100m per year. A total of 70% of recreational fishing occurs in our regional areas of King Ash Bay, Daly River, Roper River, Dundee Beach, Mary River and some parts of Kakadu.
We have a commercial industry, including wild catch fish and aquaculture, which contributes 12.5% of the production value of primary industries in the Northern Territory. In the intertidal zone, the wild caught barramundi fishery is worth over $5m per year and the mud crab fishery is worth over $6m per year.
Last sittings a statement on fisheries was made, and in our response to that statement we highlighted the missed opportunities for the minister to update Territorians on access to fisheries in the intertidal zone, adjacent to Aboriginal land, as a consequence of the High Court’s 2008 Blue Mud Bay decision. The Blue Mud Bay decision found that traditional owners’ control of access to Aboriginal land did extend to water overlying Aboriginal land to the mean low water mark.
AFANT has said that making agreement about continued fishing access to this area has been one of the most complex and difficult issues facing recreational anglers in the Northern Territory.
In government we recognised the importance of access to land and seas for fishing, but we also saw opportunities for Indigenous economic development and more direct involvement of traditional owners in the management of land and seas, supporting more access to Aboriginal land. We are proud of our achievements in government in ensuring a sustainable fishery, protecting rivers, streams, and the marine environment that sustain our fisheries and our investment in better recreational fishing infrastructure. We made good progress in facilitating access agreements, but two years on there is still more to do.
I note the importance of marine ranger groups being actively involved in fishery management. It was not always that way. Traditional owners across the Northern Territory have not forgotten the resistance of the former Country Liberals government to a direct role in fisheries management; the previous CLP administration resisted land claims and protested native title rights to fish stocks.
On election to government, we saw the opportunities to work collaboratively with all stakeholders and landholders and choose a different path, supporting the development of land and sea ranger groups and their work in land, sea and fisheries management. It is good to see the government continuing key elements of that approach, assisting ranger groups and supporting them through resources and developing their law enforcement capacity. It is important to note that negotiations with traditional owners have never just been about money, they have been about respect for landowners and support to manage fishing access.
Today we have an update of sorts – a brag about an arrangement with Tiwi Islanders and a signal to the Northern Land Council asking them to consider a further extension to interim access arrangements. The Northern Land Council has previously sought to conclude negotiations by November this year, saying it was unlikely there would be further extensions. We can only speculate on the reasons for continuing delay. In particular, what are the obstacles to settling long-term access providing certainty and opportunities to all stakeholders?
I understand the request to the Northern Land Council for a further extension is being considered favourably by the Northern Land Council, but will be dependent on decision-making of all members of the Northern Land Council in December. I thank the Northern Land Council members for their commitment to a positive outcome for all, and their patience and ongoing commitment to continue working on resolution of these access arrangements. Ultimately, decisions of traditional owners will be based on the confidence of local traditional owners. The government is taking negotiations seriously; being fair and reasonable in setting long-term access arrangements.
Today the minister announced an agreement with the Tiwi Islanders, but an agreement that continues to cause some angst for AFANT with continuing restrictions on access is the north coast of the Tiwi Islands. We understand the need of Tiwi Islanders for the opportunity to develop their guided fishing tour operations in that restricted area. We would like to hear more about support for that, particularly for local Indigenous employment and business opportunities.
The minister said the government has allocated $2.7m for Blue Mud Bay agreements this year. What about the other side deal being made? For example, what commitment has the government made to the Tiwi Islanders for improved roads on the Tiwi Islands? We know that is important to Tiwi Islanders. We do not criticise anyone for using negotiations with government to leverage better outcomes; we just want the government to be more open on what deals they are, or are not, making in connection with land and sea access.
What about unresolved issues of access to the Finniss River? What is the status of the three-year trial of access to the Minimini Creek and Murgenella areas in Arnhem Land? What is the government doing to facilitate access to areas that lie outside the five regions identified for regional access agreements? What is happening with the issue of boat identification? What is happening with more access and permits for fishing outside of the five regional management areas? What is happening with the fishing mentoring program announced by the minister in the May budget? What is happening in supporting stronger connections and links between traditional owners and the recreational, fishing tour guiding and commercial fishing sectors? It is not just about government, and the government is not the font of all wisdom.
It would also have been useful for the minister or Chief Minister to update the House on the status of the unresolved land claims, the beds of some rivers and streams in the Northern Territory. Resolving these claims and settling access arrangements remains a key issue for land claimants, recreational fishers and AFANT.
If the Chief Minister will contribute to this debate we would like to hear what success he has had with more financial support from the Commonwealth to resolve the long-term Blue Mud Bay access agreements. What is the status of finalising the Kenbi Land Claim and access agreements in relation to Bynoe Harbour and parts of Darwin Harbour? What about the coastal areas of Kakadu, Cape Hotham, Chambers Bay and Finke Bay, and the Roper, Victoria and Fitzmaurice Rivers?
The minister spoke in his fisheries statement last sittings about the closure by the CLP government of both Chambers and Finke Bays to commercial barramundi fishing. We understand this was a popular decision among recreational fishers, but the change has not been well managed. You left commercial barramundi fishers bewildered and uncertain about the long-term wellbeing of their industry under a Country Liberals government. It left many unanswered questions about the future of wild caught barramundi fisheries in the Northern Territory.
The commercial fishing industry, including the mud crab fishery, continues to wrestle with uncertainty about its future, while long-term access to fishing grounds affected by the Blue Mud Bay decision remain unresolved.
It is important to note, for example, that the wild caught barramundi industry currently obtains the bulk of its catch from just 10% of the Northern Territory coastline. The Seafood Council tells us the key issue for it is the need for certainty, which is a key issue in the future for both the industry and individual businesses. Continuing uncertainty means access to finance for reinvestment and to grow business is almost impossible while long-term access to fishing resources remains unresolved. What is the government doing to assist in resolving these issues for commercial fishers?
It is a commercial industry, including wild caught fish and aquaculture, that contributes 12.5% to the production value of primary industries in the Northern Territory. The finfish sector on its own realised $25.7m in production value in 2011-12.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the minister has talked up the progress that has been made in building on the positive start we made when we were in government, but many issues remain unresolved. We and Territorians more generally would like to hear about and see more of their plans and commitment to settling unresolved access issues.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on the statement given by the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. I know the minister has worked hard and in consultation with traditional owners over fishing permit agreements.
On 30 July 2008 the High Court of Australia handed down its decision with regard to Blue Mud Bay matters which recognise the right of traditional owners to the water over their land. While the court decision acknowledged that the Fisheries Act is valid in tidal waters over Aboriginal land, they decided the permit is required to enter and remain in those waters. Since then governments of all sides have attempted to secure agreement to allow continued access to the water by Territory fishermen.
This government is committed to reach agreement to provide a practical win/win solution for traditional owners, and recreational and commercial fishers. When negotiating, this government aimed for agreement that will enable ongoing access to that water by recreational and commercial fishers, as well as providing great opportunity for traditional owners to be involved in managing and benefiting from the fisheries activities, not just a narrow band of tidal waters but right across sea country.
Agreement has already been reached on six areas across the Top End. Today I was able to join with the Chief Minister to announce the seventh agreement. The Country Liberals government has reached an historic agreement with the Tiwi Land Council allowing permit-free access to key fishery areas of Bathurst and Melville Islands, as well as Vernon Island. Tiwi traditional owners have long aspired to own and run successful fishing businesses. This agreement will assist them to do so while also benefitting recreational and commercial fishers. It is a win/win for traditional owners, the local community and Territory fishermen.
The 20-year agreement includes a total of $135 000 a year to support the marine rangers program, a commitment to enhance the power of marine rangers, a one-off $30 000 payment to build a new recreational fishing camp, enhanced Aboriginal coastal licences for community members, and a code of conduct to ensure visitors respect the rights of traditional owners.
The agreement will grant recreational and commercial fishers, as well as fishing tourism operators, permit-free access to intertidal water around the southern and eastern region of Melville and Bathurst Islands, as well as Vernon Island. Fishers also will be able to visit the township of Wurrumiyanga and Pirlangimpi, where they may be able to buy fuel and supplies and visit the art gallery, helping to grow the local economy.
The Tiwi Islands fishing tourism business, Tiwi Islands Adventures, will have exclusive access to the north of Melville Island and the west of Bathurst Island. This will create an opportunity for the Tiwi to grow their fishing business, while also allowing permit-free excess to other parts of the island by recreational and commercial fishers. Permits will be issued through the Tiwi Land Council. A permit will also allow fishers to use land-based fishing camps.
This agreement is further proof of the government’s commitment to breaking the cycle of welfare dependency, and the creation of viable economies and jobs in remote communities, as well as keeping our communities for Territory fishermen.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for this statement to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Amendment to the Workers Rehabilitation
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Chief Minister is unable to join us at the moment. However, he has asked me to deliver his statement on his behalf in relation to the amendment to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act today.
The Chief Minister would have informed the House of his government’s intention to amend the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. This follows an extensive review of the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Scheme that started in March 2013. The review was overseen by the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Advisory Council, which is made up of representatives, employers, workers and other scheme participants. The Country Liberals government acknowledges the comprehensive and detailed nature of the review and the extensive report that has been completed. The Chief Minister particularly acknowledges the efforts of the authors of the report, Messrs Mark Crossin and George Roussos, whose tireless work and consultative efforts have resulted in 58 well-considered recommendations that have broad industry support.
The review involved considerable public and stakeholder consultation, including an 84-day public comment period resulting in 72 submissions being made. The Chief Minister wishes to thank all those who have contributed to the review which helped shape the final recommendations.
The last comprehensive review was undertaken 30 years ago in 1984. While there have been some reviews on specific issues, the scheme is now out of step with other jurisdictions. This has been a concern to both the insurance industry and the business community, which have been seeking a comprehensive review for some time.
The current scheme provides no fault coverage for eligible workers who are injured at work. Benefits of the scheme include weekly payments, medical treatment, rehabilitation costs and, in some cases, payments for permanent impairment. The scheme is focused on rehabilitation and return to work, but with the potential for injured workers to be paid income maintenance until pension age and for medical expenses for life. It is a generous scheme in comparison with other schemes in Australia.
A recent independent actuarial review of the scheme indicated that insurers, as a whole, had lost money for three of the last five years with the net outcome also being a loss. This indicates that the change is required if insurance premiums are to be affordable. As such, the review of the scheme has advocated that changes to benefits are necessary if the Northern Territory scheme is to remain affordable for business, and to ensure Territory businesses have every chance to be competitive.
The Giles government supports striking a balance between the cost of the scheme and the benefits for injured workers. The Country Liberals government is committed to ensuring long-term financial viability of the scheme whilst enhancing return to work outcomes for injured workers. The focus of the scheme must be about a successful return to work.
The Chief Minister would like to bring to the attention of the House some of the changes proposed to the legislation. It is proposed to limit weekly benefits for most claimants to a maximum of five years, with medical and treatment costs to end 12 months after that date. However, claimants who are assessed as having a significant permanent impairment will retain the existing entitlement of weekly benefits until their pension eligibility age, and will be entitled to medical and treatment costs for life. The change will only impact a minority of claimants.
Statistics show that 66% of claims involve less than one week off work. Of the remaining claims, 56% will be sent back to work in less than six weeks and less than 5% of claims will extend beyond 52 weeks.
A new definition of ‘worker’ is proposed based on whether Pay As You Go (PAYG) tax instalments are being deducted or should be deducted by a worker’s employer. This approach will make it easier for individual businesses to determine their workers’ compensation insurance requirements.
As the Chief Minister previously promised, the government intends to introduce presumptive legislation for Northern Territory firefighters. It is recognised there may be a proven link between firefighting and the risk of some types of cancer. The intention is to provide financial support not only to career firefighters but also to auxiliary and volunteer firefighters by making it easier for firefighters to make a compensation claim for any of the 12 cancers that have been shown to have an association with their occupation.
Presumptive legislation for firefighters currently exists in the Commonwealth, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. The framework we will be adopting is similar to those jurisdictions. There will be a requirement for a certain amount of time in active service and that the claim has to be made within 10 years after service ceases. The provisions will apply to cancers diagnosed from 25 August 2012, being the date the Country Liberals government came to office.
It was identified in the review that the Northern Territory had fallen behind other jurisdictions in lump sums payable to dependants after the death of a worker. It is, therefore, intended to increase the lump sum as well as benefit for a funeral, in addition to creating a new benefit for counselling for family members. On today’s value, the benefit for death will increase by about $150 000, thus easing the financial burden on the deceased worker’s dependant family.
There is no provision in the act for the settlement and finalisation of a claim by payment of lump sum. However, almost 30% of claims are now resolved through lump sum payments under contractual arrangements that are independent of legislation and are not binding. There is a widespread demand for lump sums as it is an important tool for managing claims. The proposed changes will meet that need. However, to ensure that the use of lump sums does not become a substitute for effective rehabilitation and return to work, lump sum settlements will not be normally permitted during the first 104 weeks from the injury.
The intention of the current act is that for diseases to be compensable, the employment should materially contribute to the disease. However, strokes and heart attacks, which generally result from underlying diseases, are often being compensated because they happened at work. The legislation will be made clearer to exclude strokes and heart attacks unless the employment was a major contributor for the underlying disease or the cause of the condition.
In today’s world, older workers are being encouraged to stay longer in the workforce. The Country Liberals government believes it is important to support this process by ensuring that they can access appropriate workers compensation protection. It is proposed to extend the time period of weekly payments up to 104 weeks of incapacity for older workers. This change will, for example, mean that a worker aged over 67 years of age would receive up to 104 weeks of weekly payments instead of the current 26.
In addition to the recommendations made in the review, the Giles government has identified further changes to improve the scheme and its operation. To reinforce the principle objective of the legislation, there will be a change to name. This important legislation will be called the Return to Work Act. This reflects the objective of the legislation, which is to return injured workers to productive work as soon as practicable. Monetary compensation is simply a support mechanism during recovery and a return-to-work process.
With this focus in mind, there will be a strengthening of obligations around the return to work. First of all, the Giles government will make it an offence for an employer to dismiss a worker within six months after the injury unless the dismissal is due to serious or wilful misconduct. It will also become a requirement that the employer must develop a return-to-work plan for workers who are likely to be incapacitated for more than 28 days. Workers will be required to cooperate with the plan to retain their entitlement to weekly benefits.
In addition to those changes, we propose to exclude journey claims to and from work. This would make the Territory’s scheme consistent with the majority of other Australian jurisdictions. Journey claims to and from work are outside the control of employers, and in the case of motor vehicle accidents they already have cover by the Territory Motor Accident Compensation Scheme.
It is proposed that a bill will be introduced to the Assembly early in the new year with adoption by 1 July 2015. The Chief Minister again acknowledges the comprehensive review that was undertaken by Messrs Roussos and Crossin. The review covers many matters that will help to improve the administration of the Territory’s Workers Compensation Scheme, and the Chief Minister has only touched on some of the more significant matters in this statement.
The full report is available on the NT WorkSafe website. I table the Chief Minister’s government’s response to the review of the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Scheme.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak on the Chief Minister’s statement on the amendment to the Workers Rehabilitation Compensation Act.
In his statement, the Chief Minister said his government is responding to concerns of both the insurance industry and the business community. But the most important people affected are the injured workers themselves. Whether in government or opposition, we will keep injured Territorians’ at the forefront of our concerns.
We want a system that is sustainable and secure into the future. This statement goes too far. We will wait to see the business cases made by the government when it tables the amendments to the act. Let us face it, there are other issues the NT government could address to assist NT small businesses to remain competitive and relieve the main pressures they have in continuing to do business. During the last election campaign the CLP promised it would address issues, and drive down the cost of living and doing business in the Territory. What have we actually seen? Its actions are driving business costs higher – higher power and water and transport costs, and now they are looking to sell the port, with more cost increases in the pipeline if that comes to pass. Given the proceedings in the House this week, insurance premiums will be hiked up.
It is also clear that any pressure on the sustainability of the scheme is not coming from the increase in the number of workplace accidents. As noted by the preliminary report, over the last 10 years there has been a significant reduction in workplace incidents, driven down by the previous Labor government’s focus on improved workplace safety. We applaud business and workers for their positive response to our changes, and for working hard to make workplaces safer. We need to continue our focus on encouraging healthy and safe workplaces. Every worker should go to work knowing they will return home to their family that night and are going to work in a safe environment.
The Chief Minister states that the Territory’s workers compensation scheme is ‘a generous scheme in comparison with other schemes in Australia’. The reality is our scheme is quite similar to other jurisdictions and offers reasonable medical treatment and 75% of the worker’s lost income.
Words like ‘generous’ paint the wrong picture. The current scheme is fair and reasonable, and in line with other jurisdictions. It is not generous to treat injured workers with dignity and respect, to compensate them for their loss of income and help them with their medical and treatment expenses so they and their families are not sent broke. That is not generous; that is what we should be doing.
The Chief Minister’s statement said he supports striking a balance between the costs of the scheme and the benefits for injured workers. However, the government’s own review of the scheme on page 77, which forms the basis for the amendments, advised that premiums may not drop as a result of the implementation of the reforms. Of course, Labor is just as committed as you are, Chief Minister, to ensuring the ongoing viability of our workers compensation scheme.
The Law Society’s submission to your review pointed out that in 2008 insurers dropped premiums because they were in a price war with each other, not because injured workers were being treated ‘too generously’. Big insurers were engaging in price cutting wars, and it is not a reason to attack injured workers.
The changes the Chief Minister outlined in his statement today go to reducing benefits for injured workers, not balancing interests. The statement said the focus for the scheme must be about the successful return to work of injured workers. Let us be honest, that is the goal of the current scheme we are all focused on.
We will never forget the most seriously injured workers you are targeting in this review. You propose limiting weekly benefits for most claimants to a maximum of five years, with medical and treatment costs ending 12 months after that date. Your statement points out that only a small number of claimants, 2.2%, remain on workers compensation beyond 52 weeks. An even smaller number need workers compensation to support them for up to five years. Why would we abandon them? Are we going to allow insurers to toss them on the scrap heap? ‘Here is some money, go away, you are not our problem anymore.’
The statement said that claimants who are assessed as having a significant permanent impairment will retain the existing entitlement of weekly benefits until their pension eligibility age. What precisely does this mean? What is the impairment threshold, and is it changing? How many injured workers are covered by this change? What do medical experts say about this? Let us see the details on this soon, not the day you try to ram it through our parliament as you have done with the TIO sell-off this week.
On that matter, will you come clean on whether you discussed these changes with Allianz as part of the secret sales talks to appoint them as the government’s compensation provider now you have sold TIO? Allianz is already a significant player and is about to dominate the workers compensation insurance business in the Territory. Actuaries varying TIO for Allianz will no doubt have placed a value on the future liabilities of workers compensation as part of their due diligence. These amendments will greatly affect that liability. Was Allianz given a private briefing on these amendments? What did Allianz know? You still have not answered that question, Chief Minister.
The statement proposes to change the definition of a worker based on whether Pay As You Go tax instalments are being or should be deducted by the worker’s employer. This rings major alarm bells; the current definition is broader and better. The new definition invites dodgy operators to engage people as contractors and, hey presto, the worker is left to argue a complicated case in court about their common law rights and definitions of employment. That is if they are even aware they have a case.
Most jurisdictions retain a broader definition; we should do the same in the Northern Territory. We welcome the government’s long overdue commitment to introduce presumptive legislation for our Territory firefighters, but again I must point out that the devil will be in the detail on this matter.
The Chief Minister said it is recognised that there may be a proven link between firefighting and the risk of some cancers. It is already recognised, not just in Australia but overseas and by numerous internationally accredited studies. There is a proven link, not ‘may’, ‘if’ and ‘but’. Long-established scientific and health reports state that our firefighters – in fact all firefighters around the world – face increased levels of cancer directly linked to their job of protecting people, property and bushfires when the tragedy of a fire strikes.
The Chief Minister stated, ‘12 cancers have been shown to have an association with their occupation’. There are, in fact, 16 cancers that have been shown to have a link with firefighting, not 12. The Territory firefighters ask you to adopt best practice and recognise all the science, all the studies, all the reports. Our Territory firefighters asked you to adopt best practice. What cancers are you not recognising and why? It is an important question for our firefighters, Chief Minister. What cancers are you not recognising and why are you are not recognising them? Twelve out of 16 is not good enough!
The Chief Minister stated that our legislation will be similar to the Commonwealth, Tasmanian, South Australian or Western Australian legislation. We await the details of the legislation to ensure it is not just similar, but equal to or better than, for our Territory firefighters, whether they are career, auxiliary or volunteer firefighters who serve us so well and so selflessly. What are the qualifying periods we are adopting? Will they vary for career firefighters, volunteers and auxiliaries?
The statement went on to say there will be a requirement for a certain amount of time in active service and that the claim has to be made within 10 years after the service has ceased. What is the rationale for these conditions? Cancer does not follow a timetable, sadly. Many cancers have a long latency period, and in some cases there is over 20 years before detection. So the clock ticks and firefighters worry that they may be diagnosed a day or two, a month or two, a year or two after the cut-off date. Cancer is not milk, it does not have a use-by date. Insurers can always challenge a claim, but firefighters cannot be sure they will be diagnosed with cancer within 10 years of completing service. This is an important point. It is appalling that you seek to restrict the benefits of legislation to cancers diagnosed within a 10-year time frame.
What is also appalling is that you, Chief Minister, will restrict the benefits of the legislation ‘to cancers diagnosed from 25 August 2012’, being the date that the Country Liberals came to government. How appalling! You are seeking to enshrine legislation to the date of the CLP’s succession to government. This might be a special day for you and your crew, Chief Minister, but cancer does not recognise it as a special day. These are real people, our heroes, our everyday firefighters who put their lives at risk for us, who are now battling the fight of their life. Here in the Territory firefighters are suffering from occupational-related cancers. They get no joy from celebrating legislation on your anniversary day.
Do not ignore our firefighters who were diagnosed before 24 August 2012. Do not leave them and their families out in the cold. The previous Labor government had intended to pass legislation that would have been retrospective, which would have protected our firefighters. This small group, which has been so vocal and so passionate, will have nothing to celebrate about this legislation.
I remind those opposite that it was your then Deputy Chief Minister, Dave Tollner, who followed them out into the hall of parliament and said to them, ‘It will be right, we will look after you’. I heard those words. This legislation, this statement does not do that.
We welcome the government’s statement that the NT will move to catch up with other jurisdictions in lump sums payable to dependents after the death of a worker. Similarly, we welcome the increase to the benefit for a funeral and for the creation of a new benefit for counselling for family members. We await the details on these initiatives to ensure they do indeed match undertakings in other jurisdictions.
The Chief Minister’s statement seeks to introduce provisions for a settlement and finalisation of a claim by the payment of a lump sum. He said in his statement that there is a widespread demand for lump sum payments as an important tool for managing claims, but said this may cause some concerns about the actions of unscrupulous insurance companies using them as a ‘substitute for effective rehabilitation and return to work’. To prevent this kind of poor corporate behaviour, the amendments will limit lump sum buy-outs in the first two years.
However, this raises its own red flag. What is to prevent insurers from maltreating workers who have been insured for over two years? Will lump sum buy-outs become the norm after two years? What about amputees who may face periods of rehabilitation longer than two years, but with the right treatment often can be rehabilitated and returned to work? Is two years the right time to allow all cases a proper medical assessment and a proper treatment regime to return an injured worker to health?
The statement said that 66% of claims involve less than one week off work. Of the remaining claims, 56% will be back at work in less than six weeks, and less than 5% of claims will extend beyond 52 weeks. The reality is we are looking at a very small number of claimants who require workers compensation beyond two years, but for them and their families the weekly payments and medical and treatment costs are critical to get their life and health back, and to take the stress off their family so they can get well and their families can get on with their lives.
Regarding changing a name, what is in a name? Plenty to cause concern in this instance. The Chief Minister stated the name change, ‘reflects the objective of the legislation, which is to return injured workers to productive work as soon as practicable’. This is an admirable objective and one which Territory Labor has worked hard to realise, but let us not forget there will be some instances where someone is so seriously injured this may not be achievable. Let us not forget those workers whose injuries see them away from work for a long time, and sometimes they are unable to work at all or work full-time again. Let us not rush them out the door or design a scheme that encourages insurers to pay them out and get them off the books.
Alarmingly, we are already hearing reports that TIO is pressuring some injured workers into taking the money and running. Will that increase with these amendments?
Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition looks forward to the Chief Minister advising us whether the compensation changes flagged in the statement have been the subject of previous discussions with Allianz. We look forward to the Chief Minister answering further questions.
Debate adjourned.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table two travel reports for the members for Barkly and Nhulunbuy pursuant to clause 4.1 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Tonight I congratulate the hard-working public servants in my department who worked on projects that were finalists in the 2014 Chief Minister’s Public Sector Excellence Awards. These awards are a fantastic way to highlight the great work of the public service. Many of the projects that were finalists are innovative, first of their kinds, have been well researched prior to implementation and are genuinely changing the lives of Territorians for the better.
I hope I do not miss anyone out. If, for some reason I do, I sincerely apologise.
The runner up for the Chief Minister’s Award for Enriching our Society was the Department of Correctional Services Elders Visiting Program. The Elders Visiting Program recognises there is an important cultural link between Indigenous prisoners and Correctional Services staff. The elders in the program advise staff on cultural and community issues that may impact on a prisoner’s behaviour and ability to address their offending behaviour. Elders and respected persons provide an important link to the management of Indigenous prisoners and visit correctional facilities on a regular basis to engage and participate in activities with prisoners.
Our new elders visiting program model was created with three specific regions. The regions are as follows:
1. Katherine: Katherine east and west
2. Barkly/Central: Tennant Creek and Central Alice Springs area
3. Saltwater Gulf: Darwin and island communities representative of the gulf communities.
I congratulate those who worked on the Elders Visiting Program, specifically Commissioner Ken Middlebrook, Rob Steer, Raelene Gerdes, Juanita Jones, Margaret Friel and Wade Jensen.
The finalists in the Chief Minister’s Award for Excellence in Partnering were the Department of Correctional Services and italk. The Department of Correctional Services and italk Library, a company based in Alice Springs, entered into a one-year collaboration to teach prisoners how to use multimedia and develop picture-based stories for other prisoners, many of whom are illiterate. The initiative involved training up 60 male and female prisoners at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. Importantly, work skills gained by prisoners assist them in gaining work on their release from prison.
The project was initiated after italk Library successfully produced four safety stories in conjunction with Alice Springs Correctional Centre Indigenous prisoners. This enabled those prisoners with low levels of literacy and numeracy to understand the more critical aspects of the work health and safety manual for use by prisoners participating in prison industries in a visual format so the messages could easily be understood by all prisoners.
Well done to those who helped establish the partnership and get it off the ground. Again, I congratulate Ken Middlebrook, Rod Steer, Deb Halprin, Christopher Brocklebank, Felix Meyer, Bill Yan, Stephen Rosier and Raelene Gerdes.
The department and Berrimah Construction Services are the finalists of the Chief Minister’s award for Enriching Our Society. Berrimah Construction Services has been operating on an independent site at Berrimah Correctional Centre since 2008 under a robust memorandum of understanding and agreement with the Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services.
The Bachelor of Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education and Northern Territory Corrections recognise a collaborative effort is required to socialise and equip low-security prisoners for work upon release to increase the level of employment of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.
The program provides construction training for Indigenous male prisoners, with 151 prisoners presented with a Certificate II in Construction, Forklift, Skid Steer, Welding, and White Card last financial year. It is a great project backed by a great team of Ken Middlebrook, Tony Bowland, Andrew Collins, Rachel Glen, Rob Steer, Tim Cross, Keith Butterworth, Raelene Gerdes, Richard Schmidt and Liam Fraser.
The department was also the winner of the Chief Minister’s Award for Building Regional and Remote Economies with the Tiwi Islands Economic Development. The Tiwi Islands Economic Development project was a joint project between several government agencies.
The Department of the Attorney-General and Justice played an important role in this and I congratulate and thank for their efforts Lyn Walsh, David Winter, Nestor Sanchez, Kristy Edlund and Poppi Gatis.
Finally, Sharon Hayes from the Department of Correctional Services was presented with a Public Sector Medal. Sharon was recognised for her work as an Aboriginal Cultural Adviser with the Family Responsibility Centre in Alice Springs. A positive role model, Sharon is regarded as a leader within her team, and is considered an expert in managing kinship cases. Sharon has an aptitude for developing early intervention strategies to influence young people in making positive and safe choices.
Well done to all the finalists and the winners I have mentioned tonight, and to all the other hard-working departments. I congratulate you all. When we have passionate individuals in our public sector, we are sure to grow northern Australia socially, economically and culturally.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I talk about some wonderful students and the exploits of Taminmin College. It is the only rural government high school and has 1200 students. They do all sorts of wonderful things at Taminmin, and towards the end of the year there are a lot more things happening than normal.
I first congratulate Danielle Hazelton who was the Palmerston and Rural Region Winner of the Secondary Teacher of the Year Award at the recent Teaching in the Territory Excellence Awards. She was presented with her award at Parliament House. Dani is a committed and passionate teacher and a fantastic leader of the English, Humanities, PLP, LOTE and Business Faculty. These awards were presented in early November and I congratulate her, not only on receiving the award, but for her dedication and commitment to making the lives and the education of so many students better ...
Mr Wood: Starring in Harem Scarem as the queen.
Ms PURICK: Member for Nelson, I pick up on your interjection. She is also starring in Harem Scarem as the Queen. Not only is she a brilliant teacher but she is obviously a talented amateur actress.
The second matter I compliment Taminin College for is another activity, a small program called Movie Stars in the Making. In Term 3, two Year 7 students, Jude Lamilami and Stephen Tipungwuti, were given the opportunity to act in a movie trailer for a day alongside great Aussie actors Miranda Tapsell – who starred in The Sapphires – and Kelton Pell from Redfern Now on ABC. These students had to play Kelton’s two cheeky nephews, Billie and Richie. A long but great day was had by all and the two students gained a very interesting insight, not only to the world of acting, but something that was far more interesting than their school activities. They might take up a career in acting and I am sure they will do a great job.
I also compliment Taminmin on its student science champions. Taminmin College is renowned for its participation in the titration and chemistry competitions. Congratulations go to Jack Campbell, Jasmine Aitken and Natasha Bond, Year 11 chemistry students who were recognised at the Royal Australian Chemical Institute’s awards as the top Northern Territory team in its Australian National Titration Competition. This is an outstanding achievement for these students. Once other state and territory results are finalised, they may be eligible to participate in the national finals. There were students from other schools who participated in these competitions. They are very popular, not only with Taminmin College but all high schools across the Northern Territory. I will mention some of these students because they are all noteworthy. They love their science, and I compliment them, their science teachers and the school generally.
In the category of Practical Investigation Student Directed Years 7-9, the winners were Maili Clarke, Jessica Opitz and Ebony Todd. The Practical Investigation Student Directed Years 7-9 Group winners were Nikola Minshull and Fair Srimongkon. In the Practical Investigation Teacher Directed Year 10-12 Group, two group winners were Natasha Bond, Jasmine Aitken and Jaimee Harbidge, and Emily Wing and Emily Box. In Scientific communications multimedia Years 10-12 the winners were Jessica Dowling, Emily Box and Emily Wing. The Menzies/CDU Science Encouragement Award – Middle School winner was Jessica Opitz. The Senior Science Student Award – Senior School winner was Jack Hopkinson.
The Australian National Titration Competition gold medallists were Natasha Bond, Jack Campbell, Jasmine Aitken, Jack Hopkinson and Riley LeLay. Silver medallists were Jack Byrnes, Eric Horng and Telfer Thorbjornsen, Jimi Smith and Tegan Longden. The Best Year 11 Student was Natasha Bond. The Excellent Team – Top Team in NT was Natasha Bond, Jack Campbell and Jasmine Aitken. Congratulations to them all.
On the Taminmin College website there is an article titled ‘Science Champions’. There was a photo, not only in their newsletter but also in all the paraphernalia regarding the competition. Well done to Jasmine, Jack and Natasha. I am proud we have such science geniuses. Hopefully they will go on to bigger and better things in their science studies, not only in later years, but if they go on to university.
The other thing I compliment Taminmin students on is an event where participants in the Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award scheme had the opportunity to have dinner with Prince Edward. After selection they went to Sydney to meet with Prince Edward and other dignitaries associated with the Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award, such as ministers and various parliamentary people. They met at the Powerhouse Museum. It was a trivia night with 250 participants and there were 19 tables. As it happened, the Territory team sat on the table with Prince Edward and other dignitaries. They had a wonderful evening. They tell me they came fourth out of 19 tables. They were very privileged and said they were very impressed by and had a lovely time with the prince. They said he was a very warm person and because of his knowledge of trivia and small things in regard to science, he helped their table win fourth place. Well done to Tia Leach, who is a gold Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award recipient, Natasha Bond, who is a silver, and Coralie Myers, who is a bronze.
The other student of Taminmin I compliment is Nina Carseldine, who is a swimming champion. She is in Year 11, and for three years in a row she has been selected to compete in the Special Olympics in the swimming category. A couple of weeks ago she returned from Melbourne where she won gold in the 50 m relay and 50 m freestyle, and a bronze in the 50 m breaststroke. In her past swimming championships she has also brought home medals. Congratulations to Nina. I am sure she will bring home many more gold medals in the near future, or any other medal, for that matter.
Last I compliment the class of 2014. Their Year 12 graduation ceremony was held recently, which I attended, along with the member for Nelson. As always it was a very enjoyable evening. The students are so well presented and proud. The auditorium was full of their family and friends. The master of ceremonies was Lisa George. The principal, Miriam McDonald, gave an address. There were presentations by the member for Nelson, Gerry Wood, and other sponsors, and I also presented some awards. I place on the record some of the recipients for this year. Whilst the school may not get the same publicity as some of the urban-based schools, it definitely punches above its weight, given the size and sheer scope of subjects the school provides.
The Department of Treasury and Finance Award was presented to Kelsey Considine. The Northern Territory Open Education Centre Award went to Jack Hopkinson. The Bernie and Phyllis Plew Memorial Community Service Award went to Lachlan Casburn who I have previously spoken of in regard to his Queen Scout Award for contribution to community. The RICOH Pupil of the Year Award went to Riley LeLay. The Kezia Purick Citizenship Award went to Lizzie Fogarty. The Caltex Best All Rounder Award went to Andrew Hind. The Taminmin Old Scholars Award went to Lillie Thompson. The Litchfield Council Scholarship this year was divided between two students, Emma Kellaway and Riley LeLay. The Indigenous Excellence Award went to Emma Kellaway. The Board of Studies Award, which could be similar to being the Dux of the School, went to Jack Hopkinson.
Towards the end of the evening there is always someone who speaks to the graduating students about what it is like to have left school for one year. This year Demi Tinning spoke to the students very well and in a manner they could identify with about what it was to go from school into the big wide world. She has a job in one of the units in Royal Darwin Hospital, which I will not mention, which she enjoys. She was trying to give them words of encouragement on what to expect when they left school.
The presentation of student folios was made by the chairman of the council, Beverly Ratahi. The student response was undertaken by Riley LeLay who is one of the student councillors. He was also one of the recipients of various awards. He was the young gentleman I spoke about earlier who went to Canada on a science expedition. I am sure he will go very far in his studies in life.
There were about 115 students who graduated that evening. They all received their portfolios, and I am sure many of them – in fact all of them – will go on to bigger and better things. They seem to have loved their time at Taminmin College, and I am sure they will take many good memories away with them.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to continue with my story telling of the life of Ann Brown.
In the main, Ann did not have much to do with mental health as it was not part of her training. But she was a good listener and would often just sit and listen. One day while listening to a lady she could see rippling on the woman’s chest. At the time Ann wondered how the woman could ripple her chest with her muscles like that. All of sudden, a rat jumped out of the lady’s shirt. Ann yelled, ‘There’s a rat!’, and the lady got cross at her for being more interested in her rat than in her story.
The dedication of community health nurses cannot be underestimated. Ann told me so many tales like the one of her in the 1980s where there was a small cyclone that had come to Darwin and a lot of trees were down on the main roads. She knew she had to administer penicillin to one of her clients but there was no way she could drive there. Instead she grabbed her son’s bicycle and rode four suburbs to administer the penicillin to the client. There were no such things as road blocks and the commitment to her patients was her utmost priority.
Ann has only felt scared one time in her life and that was one day in Casuarina Plaza where she was taking stitches out of a man’s abdomen. She could feel shaking and she thought something was wrong with her. Soon enough, people started screaming and bottles were smashing all around her, falling off tables and shelves. The man whose stitches she was removing swiftly fastened up his pants and quite literally ran out of Casuarina Plaza. Ann said it felt like the entire building was falling apart. Instead of running out screaming herself, Ann had to help her patients, which were mostly mothers and babies, to get outside. She told the mothers to grab their babies and get out as fast as they could. The earthquake did not cause any irreparable damage and no one was injured. She was pleased to see that the man whose abdomen she had not quite finished unstitching came back a couple of days later.
Darwin was not free from its outbreaks and Ann recalls vividly the rubella outbreak where 700 clients came in one weekend to receive immunisations against the disease.
One part of Ann’s job which she loved was postnatal home visiting. Ann found this truly enjoyable. Ann recalls she put on a lot of weight during this time as she would go and visit new mums and their babies and be invited in for coffee and cakes as the mums enjoying their time at home would bake in preparation for Ann’s arrival. Ann especially recalls the Greek families would put out their best china and cakes. Ann knew she did not need to consume all the cakes laid before her but she certainly was conscious of being polite. She recalls the tiny cups of coffee that you could stand a spoon upright in. There was also plenty of coke and Fanta on offer.
Ann recalls Cyclone Tracy very well. It was Christmas Eve and she was cooking a turkey and filling up the fridge with punch and trifle. She heard on the radio a call for people to fill up their pots with water, and the bathtub. Ann scurried to ensure that all pots and the bathtub were full of water. What she failed to do, which she laughs about now, is put lids on the pots. Of course during the cyclone the roof crashed in and ruined all of the water. To this day Ann jokingly curses the radio station for not telling people to put lids on the pots of water.
Ann had family in Katherine. Her two-year-old son had measles and a collapsed lung during the cyclone. They decided to throw the kids into the car and drive to Katherine so that he could get medical assistance. Her other children were covered in measles. When they got to the hospital in Katherine, Katherine said that they had to go to Adelaide. Ann and her three kids got on a plane with Essington House kids (now Don Dale) and were evacuated on a 15-seater plane to Alice Springs. When they arrived in Alice Springs they were still wearing the clothes they had on for Christmas Eve. It was freezing cold but people were waiting at the Alice Springs airport to give these evacuees from Darwin jumpers and blankets. Ann recalls that someone asked if she had any money and she looked in her wallet and said ‘Oh yes, I have $20 so I will be fine’. The person gave her $200 which was absolutely amazing. Eventually Ann and her sons got to Adelaide and her youngest son went into hospital.
Ann recalls the generosity of people in Adelaide. When they arrived there they were given boxes which they could fill with cans of food and as much clothing as they liked. Ann happened to run into a friend of hers at the Adelaide airport who said, ‘Come and stay with us’. When they arrived at the friend’s home and meticulously washed all of the new clothes she and her boys had received and hung them on the line, they went out for a little picnic in the fields. When they returned they saw that the goat had eaten all of the bottoms of all of the clothes except for the two-year-old’s clothes because they were too short on the line. Ann then had to pack up all of the clothes and return them to Adelaide and explain what had happened in order to get new clothes for her family.
In January 1975 they bought a new car in Adelaide. They drove to Port Augusta, but the road was blocked so they had to leave the car in Port Augusta and get the bus back to Adelaide and fly to Darwin. Ann’s father-in-law caught the bus to Port Augusta in the Dry Season and picked up the car in Port Augusta.
Back in Darwin Ann did not have electricity for six months. The walls were covered in dirt. They had a generator that you could only run one item at a time on. On one occasion when she was washing the walls the water was running down the wall and went into the power point. She was jolted and flew right across the room and hit the back wall. She was lucky that she just received a shock.
Ann laughs when she says she always hoped she would live to 65 and that everything after that was a bonus.
She tells me how she is very much enjoying living the bonus. Ann’s biggest regret in life was starting smoking at the age of 20 due to peer pressure.
She has always been too busy to be sick herself and recalls the one occasion when she was sick with shingles on her face. That was the most painful thing she has ever experienced in her life.
In 1998 Ann came to Palmerston while she was still working as a community health nurse. She retired in 2004. Ann had big plans for her retirement and they mainly revolved around enjoying herself. Her neighbours played carpet bowls and asked her to come along. She realised there were so many activities for seniors including aqua aerobics, reading, gardening, minding grandchildren, carpet bowls, 50+ Club, walking, indoor bowls, scrapbooking, scrabble and folk art. Ann reflected that all of these pursuits started about eight years ago and out of the four people she started these things with two have passed away and one is leaving town.
Ann told me that life is transient and you never know how long your friends will last for.
For many years Ann was heavily involved in folk art. She received many prizes from the Royal North Australia Show Society for her craft and ceramics, including high commendations and second prize. Prestigiously Ann was also nominated in the 2006 Nursing and Midwifery Awards as a Living Legend, a truly outstanding achievement and well-deserved commendation for her enduring service as a nurse.
Ann reflected that Palmerston was very good 10 years ago. They had community meetings and public issues and she made many friends there. About three years ago at a seniors forum, someone said, ‘Why can’t we have a seniors’ centre?’ In response to this desire by Palmerston seniors, Ann lobbied and opened up Joy Anderson Centre. Unfortunately, not one single person came every day for nine weeks, despite her advertising it everywhere.
The Alexander Day Club was also losing momentum and was going to be shut down. At Cazalys seniors’ morning tea she spoke to Mary and Dave and said that people wanted a seniors’ centre but no one had been going to Joy Anderson Centre.
One morning Ann was at croquet, and it was that morning that Ann was nominated to be secretary of the Palmerston 50+ Club. That was 18 months ago when 50+ started and it has been a huge learning curve for Ann. It now has 35 members who come regularly and they all go on outings together. New people often attend. The local council and federal and local politicians give great support to the 50+ Club which is now incorporated. Ann, of course, has remained as secretary and plays a vital role in the club.
Ann remains actively involved with carpet bowls and 50+ Club. She is also an extremely proactive member of the City of Palmerston Seniors Advisory Committee. She also assists with Seniors Week and most other seniors-related activities in Palmerston.
Ann is well and truly a Territorian now, but she still loves to read The Broons by Robert Burns, does a great rendition of Address to a Haggis and still makes you sing a song or tell a poem whenever you want a treat on Halloween!
I nominated Ann for the 2013 Palmerston Citizen of the Year because she is a model citizen, and a role model to us all. I am so proud to know Ann and have a strong relationship with her. Not a week goes by where we do not see each other in one way or another. I hope my recounting of your life has been done justice in my parliamentary contribution. Of course, the stories I have told are a small component of Ann’s long and rich life.
I want to wholeheartedly say thank you to Ann for everything she does in our community. I look forward to working with her for many years to come and commend her for being a noble and worthy Citizen of the Year.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, on this second last day of parliamentary sittings for 2014, I acknowledge some special people who have assisted me to fulfil my role, first as the member for Araluen and second as Minister for Health, Disability Services and Alcohol Rehabilitation.
This year marks the second year of our Country Liberals government being in office. Although it was not as hectic and unstable as the first year, this year has not been without great challenges paired with considerable achievement.
The most difficult part of my job is being away from my beloved Alice Springs, my electorate of Araluen and, most of all, my dear and beautiful family.
I first thank my electorate officer, Carley Plume, who works tirelessly to provide an excellent service to the electorate of Araluen. Carley is as solid as a rock. She is extremely capable, kind, reliable and competent. She cares about the people of Araluen and looks after their needs, questions and concerns on my behalf. Thank you, Carley. Words cannot express my gratitude and appreciation.
Thank you also to Michelle, my part-time electorate officer assistant. Michelle has proven to be a valuable member of the team. It is difficult to remember how we coped without her. She is quiet, no-nonsense, an awesome woman, and I thank her for her hard work.
The people of Araluen are patient and, for the most part, understanding of the fact I do not spend a lot of time in Alice Springs because of the demands of my ministerial duties. When I am at home in Alice Springs, I make a point of getting out and about, particularly on the weekends. I know most people feel comfortable stopping me in the street for a chat. I encourage people to do so.
We are all busy people. I like to think I am no busier than the average person. Everyone has demands on them and we all struggle to fit the demands of life into our busy schedules, no matter who we are and what we do.
Thank you to the people of Araluen for your patience and your continuing faith in me. I am here for you. Continue to let me know what you think and how I can assist you. I will always do what I believe is in your best interests, as hard as that may be at times.
My ministerial staff in Darwin is a group of dedicated hard-working people. This year I have seen some of my valued key staff move on for a range of personal reasons. Thank you in particular to Alex Bruce, Penny Fielding, Phoebe Stewart and Anthony Watts who have been my rock in Darwin at different times throughout the year. You are a collection of outstanding individuals, clever, committed and capable of doing anything with your lives. I wish you all the very best in your current and future endeavours.
My ministerial administrative staff is also a collection of incredibly skilled, committed people. In particular I thank Hollie, Fiona, Lisa, Corrine and Cherie. I feel at times I neglect you, as I am always rushing in and out, racing on and off planes and flat out when I am in Darwin. Your ability to deal with my peculiar work life without one single grumble or complaint has been a blessing to me. Polite, capable and extremely competent, you are all great people. I want you to know you are all valued and deeply respected. Thank you.
People behind the scenes who help me also include the government drivers. These guys are angels. Once again, nothing is too much. Thank you Bill, Ben, Yanis, David and John for being so patient, polite and professional at all times.
I thank the people who clean and maintain our offices in Parliament House. We recognise the fact you make our job easy by ensuring our work environment is well kept.
I acknowledge the staff of the Legislative Assembly who work behind the scenes enabling us to get on with the business of government. Thank you to the Clerk, Mr Michael Tatham, and his professional team. Thank you to the staff in Hansard; your behind-the-scenes work is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
It is my great privilege to work with some amazing people in the health and disability sector. We are blessed to have many highly competent public servants. Thank you to Dr Len Notaras, Chief Executive of the Department of Health, and his team of executives, especially Jan Currie, Michael Kalimnios, Dr Joe Wright, Nicki Walford, Annie Riley, Dr Christine Connors and Dr Steve Skov . I have worked closely with these leaders in their respective health fields and I thank them for their commitment.
I thank the two new Chief Operating Officers Top End, Sharon Sykes, and Central Australia, Sue Korner, and also the Chair of the Top End Health Services Board, Mrs Annette Burke, and her board, as well as the Chair of the Central Australia Health Services Board, Mr Damien Ryan, and his board. The introduction of the new health services framework this year has been a huge accomplishment and I acknowledge the enormous amount of hard work that has gone into achieving this. Thank you to all staff of the Top End Health Service, the Central Australian Health Service and the Department of Health and Disability Services. Your hard work ensures we have excellent health and disability services across the NT that we should all be enormously proud of.
Without hesitation, I acknowledge my colleagues in the CLP parliamentary wing. We all have very difficult jobs. We all struggle at times to cope with the enormous and unrelenting pressure of politics. I can honestly say from the bottom of my heart that I respect you all. We have more in common than we have differences. We are all under enormous pressure. Our personal lives are constantly compromised. We miss our families and friends, and many of us are constantly disconnected from those we love. The pressure on our families is enormous, but for the most part we suffer in silence.
At times we clash and feel let down and betrayed by each other. At this time of year, it is opportune to put aside our differences and acknowledge our great strengths as individuals and as members of this great political team.
There are a few colleagues who, year in and year out, have provided me with strength, perspective and friendship. I will not name you, you know who you are. You are special people and I thank you.
To my family, Craig Lambley, Harry Lambley and Alice Lambley, yes, it has been yet another year of great highs and lows. Together we can survive anything. I am eternally grateful for your patience. I know you all suffer at times through your wife and mother being absent. You all go without. We miss each other. We all suffer because of the choices I have made to be a politician, but I cannot survive without your love and kindness. Thank you.
In government, all we do is what we truly believe is in the best interests of the Northern Territory. It is not about self-interest, it is providing good governance for the NT. Sometimes our decisions are not popular, but we strive to do the right thing with the true and long-term welfare of the Northern Territory paramount.
I look forward to 2015 and, in particular, spending more time getting out and about, listening and talking to Territorians about how we can improve their lives.
At this time of year I wish the people of the NT a safe and very happy festive season. God bless you all.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I want to send a Christmas message to the constituents of Karama and Malak, who are such wonderful people to be working for – a fantastic effort across our community. In particular we have a great school cohort. I acknowledge the leadership shown at our schools by our principals.
At Karama Primary School we have seen a year of change with a new principal, Tim Morgan coming in. He has been a fantastic addition to our school. He took over from the acting principal Lisa Hirschausen, who I worked closely with for many years and who was a great asset to our school. She had then taken over from our long-term principal who retired, Marg Fenbury. There are great teachers and support staff. The school is dynamic. I have watched it turn out some very fine young Territorians. Congratulations to Karama primary and my Christmas best wishes to you all.
At Malak Primary School we have good, strong leadership with our principal Peter Swan, who works well with the teaching and support staff, and supports parents and engages incredibly well with our students. Malak primary is a great school. I thoroughly love the visits to the school to see the work our students are producing. A Christmas blessing to them.
At Manunda Terrace Primary School we have a fantastic principal in Sally Winch who is very strong and is exactly the strong leader the very multicultural school cohort needs. They come from a very lower socioeconomic part of my electorate. Manunda Terrace primary teachers have shown a consistency across the school, many of them having worked there for so many years. It is truly inspirational to see a school with such a strong leadership team and fantastic support staff. The students are incredible and are great fun. I love my interaction at Manunda Terrace Primary School. Christmas blessings to them.
Marrara Christian College is a beautiful school which supports and nurtures the students in primary, middle and senior years. Andrew Manning is the principal who has come in and shown strong leadership at the school, ably supported by a great leadership team, teachers and support staff. The students there cover such a variety of challenges. There is a vibrant VET program at the school. I am a huge supporter of Marrara Christian College and I thank them for being a fantastic school leader in our community, and my Christmas blessings to them.
Sanderson Middle School is headed by principal Liz Veel, who I have known for many years in different roles across our education system. We have a beautiful mix of teachers who have come into the school and who have been there for so many years who know not only the students, but have known their elder siblings who have been through the school, and their families. It is a great school that holds community events such as Sanderson Shines. I enjoy providing support to Sanderson Middle School and love engaging with that school. Christmas blessings to you.
Holy Family Primary School holds a special place in my heart. It has nurtured my children through their primary schooling. My son Zac is my big boy in Grade 4 this year. Thank you for the nurturing environment that Shane Donohue and his staff provide at Holy Family school, which is just around the corner from my house. It is such a beautiful school to go to. I feel at times that I am incredibly blessed to know so many of the students, and have seen not only them come into the school, but have seen their older siblings go through the school before them. They are a fantastic asset in our community. Thank you and Christmas blessings to Holy Family school.
O’Loughlin Catholic College is the sister school to Holy Family, teaching the middle and senior years on the same campus. David Finch has been the principal. He is leaving at the end of the year and we will be welcoming James Jolly in the new year. I have had such a long and beautiful relationship with O’Loughlin Catholic College, again seeing those children in middle and senior school ever since they were little possums in Transition at Holy Family. I love going to O’Loughlin Catholic College and seeing the way the school continues to grow from strength to strength. Thank you, David, for the work you have done at O’Loughlin Catholic College.
School staff at all of these schools work so very hard to support parents and children in a very positive learning environment. It is a credit to our community.
We had so many literacy award winners throughout the year in my schools. I congratulate all of them. One of the best parts of my job is to attend the school assemblies and provide our children with encouragement to continue progressing with their learning. I sponsor many local children throughout the year.
I particularly congratulate Abby Cubillo, 15 years, who has been playing basketball at the top level in the Darwin comp, coming runner-up in the women’s league’s Most Valuable Player competition recently. She will move to Sydney next year on a scholarship for basketball. I wish her all the best.
Danielle Ponter, 15 years, has been selected in the Australian junior female AFL squad and also won Sports Person of the Year at this year’s Top End NAIDOC Awards. We are truly blessed with young sporting talent in my electorate.
I assisted a group of 14 students and teachers from Marrara Christian College to travel to Hyderabad in India for two weeks to attend local schools and villages. All reports say the children had a wonderful time and have a lifetime of fantastic memories. Congratulations to Prasana for organising such a wonderful trip!
The great work being done in the community by Darwin Community Arts in Malak is exceptional. Thank you to My Sister’s Kitchen for its wonderful community dinners and the Underground Malak Community Shed, the men’s and women’s program. It is a fantastic group of community arts-based volunteers providing community support out of Malak. I feel incredibly privileged to have provided part of the seed funding and to have watched them grow over the years.
Malak and Karama residents have shown their annual support for the Cancer Council’s Biggest Morning Tea fundraising. Our local businesses chip in their support with prizes. Particular thanks go to Karama Newsagency, Brumbies, Karama Tavern and Crocodylus Park.
I congratulate Jarrod Rollo, another young resident, who was nominated at the Young Achiever Awards for organising an awareness ‘pink’ game with his Under 14 rugby team. He raised awareness for the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre and Cancer Council NT. He is hoping to turn this into an annual event with rugby.
Carleita Harbidge, who was chosen by an artist to be the subject of a Portrait of a Senior Territorian this year, is an outstanding Territorian. Carleita and her husband Chris are long-term Territorians and incredible people. The stories they have to tell about the Territory and the way in which they have raised their beautiful family and grandchildren are inspirational. This has not been the best year for their health, so I send them particular Christmas blessings to wish them great health and happiness in 2015.
Thank you to my mother, Dawn, a most awesome, special individual. She volunteers once a week, in the afternoon, as a JP in my Karama office supporting local residents. Her service as a JP is very popular, but I suspect many people drop into the office just to say hello to Dawn.
Danielle Williams worked in my office as my Karama electorate officer; thank you, Danielle, for your great work in the office, it was certainly much appreciated. It gave my permanent electorate officer, Kerry Wetherall, a chance to work as part of my opposition team to see the engine room and the other type of work I do.
Mike, Louise, Wello, David Halliday, Charlie, Mandy, Anna, Katherine, Sonia, Ryan, Cameron, Janine, and Angela, you have all been a rock of support for me as Leader of the Opposition and my staff. You have also helped with my colleagues. You are an engine room and produce amazing work – true champions for the Territory. I sincerely thank you.
My thanks to Assembly staff for the support you provide us to get on with our job. The Clerk and his staff, the Table Office, Hansard, security, the drivers, the cleaners – everyone in this great building we have the privilege to work in does their best.
Finally to my family: Peter, thank you for being amazing, a great partner and a great support for me and my beautiful children, Jhenne, Bronte and Zac. I am the luckiest mother in the universe. I love you to the moon and stars and back. It is amazing that my daughters are entering that phase where they are venturing out into the world. If Jhenne does follow through and move to Canberra next year, a big part of me will be living in Canberra. I will miss her awesomely. I am incredibly blessed and enriched by having Peter, Jhenne, Bronte and Zac being my supportive local team network and inspiration.
To my Labor colleagues, we are a great team. I love working with each of you and I am very excited about 2015. A very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you all.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, tonight I reflect on the year that was, pay tribute to those who have helped make the Territory the best place on earth to live, and thank those who have worked tirelessly in support of my work as a minister and as a local member.
All Territorians benefit from the tireless and often thankless work undertaken by Emergency Services personnel and key community service providers. To Katherine’s police, paramedics, nurses, doctors, firefighters and volunteer bushfire brigades, teachers and childcare workers, I say thank you.
To those members of the Katherine community who turn up and pitch in, time after time, to volunteer, raise money and lend a helping hand to others less fortunate, I offer my sincere thanks.
I mentioned teachers already, but I single out those principals and teachers of the schools in Katherine. I thank you for everything you do to mould and shape our youngest generation. Teachers at Katherine High School, St Joey’s, Casuarina Street, School of the Air, McFarlane, Clyde Fenton and of course Katherine South, you all make the Territory a better place to live.
I am proud of the achievements I and my departments have made in 2014. The effects of significant legislative changes such as amendments to the Pastoral Land Act will have a flow-on effect for many Territorians now and well into the future. These changes now enable pastoralists to diversify land use and develop new income streams without having to change the tenure of the pastoral lease. Activities such as tourism, horticulture, extensive agricultural developments, aquaculture and forestry can coexist with pastoral enterprises.
The passing of new legislation to allow pharmaceutical poppies to be commercially grown in the Territory has the potential to add a $30m industry to our economy. These changes mean job creation and a kick start for the local economy in our rural areas.
A huge thank you to the staff in the Departments of Land Resource Management and Primary Industry and Fisheries for their hard work in making these legislative changes a reality.
It would be remiss of me not to thank Peter Zeroni for his mammoth efforts in writing, researching and managing the introduction of the poppy legislation. This project consumed his days, nights and weekends for months on end. Thanks, Pete. This government appreciates your good work.
However, these significant legislative changes could not have been made without the help and support of a team including those from Health, Police, Attorney-General and, of course, our Parliamentary Counsel. Thank you also to the team for their help, support and professional expertise.
I have enjoyed the full support and dedication from my department’s Chief Executives, Alister Trier from the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, Rod Applegate from the Department of Land Resource Management, Scott Perkins from the Department of Mines and Energy, and John Baskerville from Power and Water Corporation. I also welcome Mr Stuart Pearce as Chief Executive of the newly-formed Jacana Energy, and Mr Tim Duignan as Chief Executive of Territory Generation.
Within my departments there is a wealth of knowledge and expertise, and teams of committed and passionate staff. I thank them all for 12 months of what has been terrific work. One stand-out example of this commitment is the work undertaken by the Herbarium team in the Department of Land Resource Management.
At this year’s Merrepen Arts Festival I was honoured to launch Ngan’gi Plants and Animals. Ngan’gi Plants and Animals is a record of the traditional knowledge of the names, uses and stories of the plants and animals of the area around Daly River, which has unique and rich biodiversity. This book, which is technically an ethno-botanical publication, is the result of a colossal effort that crossed cultural and scientific borders. It outlines the food value of plants and animals, and the cultural and traditional significance. Patricia Marrfurra McTaggart from Nauiyu and the department’s Glenn Wightman worked with elders from the community for 25 years to complete this project, which will help preserve and utilise Indigenous biocultural knowledge.
We must acknowledge the hard work of government, industry and associations across northern Australia who have rebuilt relations with Indonesia, carved new markets to our north and realised the positive turnaround in our live cattle exports. Prices for steers hit a new high recently with our pastoralists getting $2.50 a kilo. These prices, in conjunction with high export quotas from Indonesia and growing markets in Vietnam and elsewhere, are possibly the best Christmas gift any cattle station owner or manager could ask for.
The Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries is also responsible for protecting the Territory from biosecurity incursions of exotic animal or plant pests and diseases that could seriously harm our exports and production. The department is leading a two-pronged response at the moment, eradicating both the fungal disease banana freckle and the cucumber mosaic mottle green virus that is decimating our watermelon crops. These eradication projects are not easy. Again, I thank the department’s staff for their commitment and hard work.
I take this opportunity to thank the various industry associations related to my portfolios and their chief executives. Collectively they are passionate, professional and none will take no for an answer when they are representing their members. I make specific mention of Tracy Hayes from the NT Cattlemen’s Association, Grant Fenton from the NT Farmers Federation, Katherine Winchester from the NT Seafood Council, Craig Ingram from AFANT, Tom Harris from the Extractive Industry, Drew Wagner from the NT Minerals Council, and a special mention to Luke Bowen, the former CE of the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, who is now working in the Northern Australia Development Office.
There are also many advisory committees which provide advice to me and my departments. I make special mention of the NT Catchments Advisory Committee and the NT Weeds Advisory Committee.
Throughout the year I had the pleasure to attend conferences in the Northern Territory organised by local industry associations. The recent Northern Food Futures Conference and Beef Round Table were standout successes. The Northern Food Futures Conference attracted hundreds of delegates. With international participants and agricultural ministers from Queensland, Western Australia and federally, it brought together the wider farming sector and showcased northern tropical agricultural opportunities and, more broadly, Darwin’s multicultural farming sector.
As a minister whose electorate is not in Darwin, I am obviously away from home and the electorate a lot. First I thank Pat Witte, my electorate officer who holds the fort for me in Katherine. There is nothing and no one in Katherine Pat does not know. I have often described Pat as the glue that holds me together. Again I acknowledge the amazing work Pat does throughout the year to keep my electorate office running.
I also acknowledge Alison Jacks, who stands in for Pat from time to time when she is away. Alison also does a terrific job keeping everything running smoothly in my electorate.
To staff in my office in Parliament House, thanks for your valiant efforts all year round. To you all I say we are indeed the best office on the fifth floor. Thanks to the Legislative Assembly staff who work in the background and those hard-working scribes in Hansard, as well as the drivers. These people work quietly behind the scenes doing their job, and without them we could not do ours.
Two of my staff members left temporarily to have babies. I welcome these new Territorians, Aubrey and Rudi.
I also thank my colleagues and other staff on the fifth floor for being part of a great team in this hard-working dynamic government.
I also thank my constituents for giving me the honour of serving them and working with them over the past 12 months. It is for you that I do the job I do, and we are a great team.
Finally, I thank my wife Jennie who, together with our sons, continues to give me her unconditional love and unwavering support, and enables me the privilege of serving my electorate and fulfilling my portfolio responsibilities.
Once again, I thank my colleagues and the members opposite, the member for Nelson and the members of the Palmer United Party for their contributions over the past 12 months in this House. Itchy and icky times, I guess, every now and then, but that is what the parliament is all about. Regardless of what side of this House you sit on, I believe we are all working for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. Finally, I say to all and sundry, I wish you a very Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year. I hope to see you all upon a safe return in 2015.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, this evening I need to raise some important questions about the cuts that Territory schools have to make under the global school budget policy of the CLP government. At present, Territory principals and school councils are grappling with their budgets for the 2015 school year. They are under immense pressure to get their budgets in, signed off and finalised under some extremely trying circumstances. Not only are they trying to attend to all the other huge jobs they need to do at the end of the school year, such as reports, getting students through exams, planning their 2015 programs and finalising their staffing, they now have to put a huge amount of work into trying to make the new parameters they are working under within global school budgets work for their schools.
Principals and school councils are under huge pressure to ensure those budgets are in the black, and are under instructions to make sure they are in the black. There appears to be little concern with what cuts schools are making in order to do this. We have even heard that some schools have been instructed to put the best spin possible on the global school budgets, despite the predicaments it is putting them in.
Recently we saw the Education minister proudly boast that on a trip to Central Australia, all schools had submitted their budgets in the black. However, we have since heard there was a lot of work done to get the schools there. We understand there were schools in Central Australia that had submitted budgets in the red, but were told to go back and do what work they needed to get those budgets in the black. Apparently they have managed to do just that. To get those budgets in the black has meant some have had to make cuts.
Sadly we are hearing many similar stories in other schools around the Territory, and that schools in Darwin and Palmerston are currently finalising the cuts they will have to make to get their budgets in the black. We are hearing about this in remote areas too. This is despite the firm commitments that were made to schools by the CLP government around their global school budget policy. The Education minister could not have been any clearer when he said,
Unfortunately, the minister is failing students across the Territory by failing to meet the commitment he has made to schools. In real terms, principals and school councils are making hard decisions about what they cut next year at their school to get their budgets in the black. Teacher numbers are also set to decline in the Territory for a third straight year under the CLP government. Due to the global school budgets there are some big cuts becoming apparent at schools. Information coming through is indicating some schools are losing one teacher, another losing three teachers and another is losing five. Shockingly, I have heard that one school is possibly losing even more than that.
It is difficult to get crystal clear numbers on the severity of the teacher cuts next year as staff are scared to talk, but it looks set to be a significant figure. More experienced teachers on CT9 pay rates are feeling nervous too. They are now being looked at as high-priced teachers rather than experienced teachers. When schools are faced with tough decisions about who stays and who goes when they make cuts, higher-paid teachers will sadly be more at risk of losing their jobs, not because of their ability but because of their pay level. It is a sad state of affairs for our education system when you lose experience.
Schools are cutting programs that enhance the education of their students as they are unable to fund them. They are making tough decisions about what they can and cannot keep. What will this mean? Bigger classes, fewer teachers, less subject selection, and staff at schools under even more pressure. These cuts are not a win for the education of Territory kids. Global school budgets are not delivering a bright new future for schools. They are, instead, putting school leaders under even more pressure. They are also ensuring that all the pressure around those hard decisions is pushed directly onto principals and school councils, ensuring the government is able to wash its hands of the responsibility of driving those cuts.
There is also still confusion about what exactly schools are being funded for. The one-size-fits-all formula for funding schools is leaving many worse off. We have heard many concerns raised by the AEU and COGSO. They are deeply concerned that the teachers’ EBA currently being voted on will not be appropriately funded by schools under the global school budgets and the formulas used to calculate them.
Schools are concerned and still confused regarding what exactly they fund and where the line of responsibility is drawn between the school and the department. For example, who funds payroll tax for relief teachers, first aid allowance or the maintenance officer’s overtime and so on? These are questions still to be answered.
Everyone in this Chamber and all the principals, school councils, members of the AEU and COGSO are passionate about education. We all have the same goal of wanting to see Territory kids get the best possible education so they have a life full of opportunity. However, under the CLP government the vital work of principals, teachers and school council members is getting harder as they keep being asked to do more with far less. It is concerning that it appears global school budgets are ideologically driven and are a way for the CLP government to place a barrier of protection between their budget decisions and the impacts they have on vital frontline services such as teacher jobs in schools.
We know in the Territory we have the largest education deficits in the nation. The CLP has delivered two years of cuts and 2015 has more to come. Sadly, after two years of education cuts under the CLP government, schools are already at the bare bones. You are now cutting into the bones of our schools and failing to honour the promises you made to schools that they would not suffer under global school budgets. Under the CLP government, we are seeing three consecutive years of cuts despite the promises that were made.
Given the commitment the minister has made to schools that no school would be worse off under global school budgets, what work is he doing to monitor the decisions that schools are being forced to make right now? Is the Education minister tracking teacher numbers under global school budgets? Is the minister monitoring that schools are not worse off under global school budgets? Is he being accountable and honouring the commitment he made to students, parents and teachers across the Territory about global school budgets?
Madam Speaker, global school budgets are not delivering a better world as the Education minister promised. In fact, it is making it harder for our education professionals to get on with the jobs they want to do in delivering the very best education outcomes for Territory kids.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will do what most people do at this time of the year, thank everybody, especially the staff of the Legislative Assembly. We have many of them, including the Speaker’s staff, the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk and Clerk Assistants, and people in the Table Office, Hansard, security, the Parliamentary Library and the State Library. These days, as I am not permitted to have any research officers help me, I very much rely on the Parliamentary Library and appreciate the work they do in getting material to help me during the debates.
I should not forget the cleaners. Sometimes they come into my office and get a big fright. They get to know me late at night and are always welcome.
I also thank the members of this House. It is often said we do not always see eye to eye on policies, but I sometimes remind myself that life is short and there is a life after parliament. Whilst we might have some fairly robust debates in this House at times, we should also remind ourselves that we need to set examples to the wider community, and when we have our differences of opinion we do not carry that any further than this Chamber. We can be friends here if we can, but at least be friends outside away from the politics that sometimes divides us.
I wish all the members of parliament a Happy Christmas and a Happy New Year. Obviously, we are moving to some very interesting times with some of the debates coming up, but that is part of the job. Territorians expect us to look at, analyse and debate these issues because, as someone said earlier, we are here for the welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. We need to do our job as diligently and thoughtfully as possible.
I do not have the staff some members here have. I thank Kim. Kim is my staff and someone who is a very strong woman because she puts up with me. I am someone who is all over the place, not the most well-organised person. She manages to put up with that and keep me, more or less, on an organised path, as best she can. She is a great lady. Recently when the phone calls came roaring in about the sale of TIO, her head was spinning. She sometimes uses the phrase ‘this is doing my head in’. After a smoke outside and a bit of fresh air, she is back on the ball again and she does a great job. Kim, thank you very much.
Also, to Vicki, her cousin who does the cleaning, I also appreciate that. If you can clean my office, you are doing well. It is not exactly the easiest place to clean; there are a few chickens that get in the way.
My family has grown up a fair bit, so they do not have to put up with me too much; they have all left home. Occasionally they come back just to annoy me. It is my wife, Imelda, as I have said every year, who hardly ever sees me. Sometimes I need to have an identification tag so she can recognise who I am. Without her, I would not be here. She has had to put up with a fair bit since I have been a member of parliament. She is not overly interested in politics – that is not her cup of tea – but I know she supports me. She makes sure I come to parliament in the morning looking reasonably well dressed, because I more than likely to grab a shirt out of the cupboard and throw it on. She makes sure I am looking spic and span.
She has always been my strong supporter. As I said – and I think the member for Araluen said the same thing – this job takes you away from your home, more so with ministers and people from Central Australia. Whilst I may not travel as much as those people, there is not a lot of time at home in between working days. People are asleep when you get home and sometimes they are asleep when you get up. There are times when I do not see my wife as much as I should, but I appreciate all her support.
Madam Speaker, there are also my constituents. I have a great lot of people out there. I am not being too biased, but rural people are different. Rural people are very passionate about the rural area. If the minister for Lands and Planning wants to know why I am so passionate, it is because I believe the rural area is a great place to live, and so do many of the people who live there.
They will be passionately fighting against the rural area being turned into a suburb of Palmerston or urbanised in the southern part of the shire. We do not want to see 70 000 to 100 000 people take over the rural area. The rural area is a special place. Sometimes I do not know whether members of the government understand that. I have lived for nearly 30 years in the rural area. Unless you have lived out there and enjoyed that bit of freedom and the open space and compare that with people who live side by side in some of our so-called affordable housing subdivisions, than I do not think you understand why people in the rural area are different.
They are great people. You only have to go to the Rural Garden Club, the Humpty Doo Fibre Craft Guild, the Rural Potters, the Humpty Doo Bowls Club or some of the sporting events, or the Girraween Primary School Field Day and you will see how different and special it is. I will passionately try to retain that rural-ness as I believe it is a great place to raise families. You see so many children in the rural area riding horses or on motor bikes. Sometimes it drives me nuts, but they have the space to do it. There are so many people who keep some bush on their block, and you will see signs up in the rural area ‘Land for Wildlife’.
It is a great community and those people support me. I appreciate the support they give me and I try to serve them the best I can. I have my failings like anyone else, but I appreciate the support I get from rural people. The comments and the constructive criticism I receive are all things that make it good to be a member of parliament from the rural area.
I wish everyone left today, all my constituents, my family and my staff a very happy Christmas and a safe new year.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson, and that includes all your constituents in Wallaby Holtze Road.
Mr WOOD: Yes.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of the Intensive English Unit from Darwin High School accompanied by Peter Stretton and Jeany Feeney. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also advise of the presence in the gallery of the Palmerston Senior College Special Education Centre accompanied by Eleonore Simpson. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time here as well.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: The electorate officers from the government benches are also here. Welcome back. You must have enjoyed yourselves yesterday; you have come for a second round.
ALCOHOL MANDATORY TREATMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 107)
(Serial 107)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Amendment Bill 2014 is to amend the act to strengthen and increase the referral pathways to alcohol mandatory treatment, repeal the absconding offence and improve the timeliness of referral to assessment.
Currently there are people who would benefit immensely from inclusion in the alcohol mandatory treatment scheme but who are excluded from it because of low-level alcohol-related offences. It is for this reason that I have asked the House to allow this bill to be passed on urgency.
The alcohol mandatory treatment program is targeted at those who most need help getting off the grog. In doing this, we are finding that these people, some of the most marginalised in our society, have a range of other health problems.
When we know this program is working and helping people who cannot help themselves, it is wrong to wait for three or more months to pass this amendment. The hardship caused to these people by excluding them from treatment is not good government. This amendment directly addresses the issue of people who need help but are currently excluded. For example, people whose offence arises through a breach of an Alcohol Protection Order. It is important that this group of people be eligible for treatment because these types of offences arise solely through misuse of alcohol. Treatment will assist them to address their misuse of alcohol and keep them out of the criminal justice system in the future.
The proposed amendment ensures the people who can benefit most from alcohol mandatory treatment – chronic misusers of alcohol – are eligible for it. It does this by removing the current blanket exclusion from alcohol mandatory treatment for people who are charged with committing an offence for which the maximum penalty is, or includes, a period of imprisonment. Instead, people will only have an automatic exclusion for offences with a maximum penalty for imprisonment for more than seven years.
Referrals to assessment for alcohol mandatory treatment are currently made by police. Health professionals and police have told us there are many people with chronic alcohol misuse problems who interact with the health system on a regular basis and there would be great benefits in allowing health professionals like emergency department clinicians to refer people to assessment for alcohol mandatory treatment.
The proposed amendments allow for an additional pathway to alcohol mandatory treatment for people with chronic alcohol misuse problems who interact with the health system on a regular basis. This new pathway will help reduce the pressure on the hospital system and provide for people with chronic alcohol misuse problems to receive treatment without having to interact with the police.
The Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act has been in force for almost 18 months. Attitudes towards alcohol mandatory treatment have changed, and clients participating in the program see treatment as a valuable health service.
In addition to improving the health of clients, alcohol mandatory treatment is helping to reconnect people with families and communities, as well as providing opportunities for training and employment. Clients are treated in three very secure treatment centres in Darwin, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, with a fourth facility planned for Katherine clients. People are embracing the opportunity to get well and make healthy choices for themselves and families. This is validated by the significant decline in absconding incidents that have occurred in recent times.
The repeal of the offence for absconding responds to the enhancements made to the alcohol mandatory treatment scheme since it commenced. Rather than it being an offence, the bill ‘stops the clock’ for a person who absconds from a mandatory treatment facility when under an order, and adds the days of their absence to the duration of their treatment.
The bill amends the Police Administration Act to help ensure the safety of a person by enabling their early transfer to an assessment facility – even when a person is intoxicated – to a centre that offers specialised medical and withdrawal services and a high standard of care to intoxicated and withdrawing persons.
It is government’s intention to pass these bills through all stages of these sittings and I seek urgency pursuant to Standing Order 179 on the basis that later passage would result in hardship being caused for reasons I have previously outlined.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement accompanying the bill.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition does not support this bill on urgency, but as we know, government will have its way. It has the numbers in this House and it will pass through all stages tomorrow. That said, we stand firm on the introduction of bills on urgency. Unless there is clearly a demonstrated need for it bills should not be put through on urgency.
We saw a classic example in this House yesterday with bills that will see the sale of TIO. What is it about this government that it shies away from open and transparent consultation with stakeholders?
Yes, I was advised last week through the minister’s office that the bill would be going through on urgency. We were at least given the heads-up about the contents of the bill, and I was able to receive a briefing, albeit ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, at the moment we have had the second reading speech, so that should be adjourned. The next motion is about urgency.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through all Stages
Pass Bill through all Stages
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Amendment Bill 2014 (Serial 107) passing through all stages at these sittings.
I cast members’ minds back to this time last year. We had commenced the operation of the alcohol mandatory treatment program six months before on 1 July 2013. Under significant pressure from a range of interest groups we agreed to review the legislation pertaining to alcohol mandatory treatment, which we did. This review commenced around this time last year in December.
In hindsight, this was a premature review. It was a review that did not need to happen at that point in time. However, we relented and agreed to appease the very vocal critics of alcohol mandatory treatment, and the review was undertaken. It came at some cost to Northern Territory taxpayers. The outcomes of the review were wide-ranging, but for the most part, quite predictable.
The main message we received from that review was that the absconding provision should be changed. People felt that having the absconding offence in place criminalised drunks. There was a range of other recommendations, including opening pathways for referral. We now have that document in the public arena, including a range of recommendations which are reflected in these amendments to the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act.
We delayed releasing that review, and have spent the last seven or eight months contemplating how to use it. It was premature to come up with such conclusive recommendations six months into the operation of this program, so we took our time to contemplate how to use these recommendations.
The consultation has been done. These amendments reflect several of those recommendations. The review cost us all money and time; people were taken off the process of rolling out the AMT program and were focused on providing this review to appease the interest groups, as I said.
We delayed its release, thought about it and now we are ready to make these amendments to the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act as recommended in that review, pushed by, mainly, our critics. Not many people outside the predictable group of stakeholders and interest groups who are very critical of AMT – or have been in the past – contributed to the review.
The timing is right now to move on this. One of the main reasons, apart from the fact the timing is right generally regarding the review, the contemplation and the amendment to the act which follows a natural succession, is we know that heavy drinking in the Northern Territory, for the most part, is seasonal, particularly in Central Australia. The date is 26 November and this marks a very clear change in behaviour. At this point in time every year you start to see a spike in the misuse of alcohol in Central Australia, accompanied by antisocial behaviour and a lift in crime rates. It is seasonal. It is as predictable as night follows day. It is a trend that has been recognised throughout the Northern Territory for a long time – decades.
We are on the cusp of the spike in increased misuse of alcohol, particularly in Central Australia, so the timing is critical. From this point on, the emergency departments will see an increase in alcohol-related presentations as they always do. The time is right to make these changes, particularly the change of opening up the pathways for referral.
The other issue which has inspired me to put this through on urgency is not just recognising that more people will be in hardship because there is a seasonal increase in the misuse of alcohol throughout the Northern Territory, but in recent times I have been approached by clinicians working in two of the emergency departments in the Northern Territory. They feel a great sense of frustration that because of the very serious ill health of most of the people who would normally go straight into alcohol mandatory treatment, they are first brought to the hospital rather than taken into protective custody in the police system.
There is a group of people which is continually bypassing the possibility of being referred to alcohol mandatory treatment because they are too sick. The police responsibly bring them to the emergency departments of our hospitals because they are too concerned about the health of these sick people and the fact they could be in serious strife health-wise if they do not seek immediate medical attention. These people are bypassing the protective custody system we have in place which would normally trigger a referral to alcohol mandatory treatment after being picked up three times. I have listened to the recent concerns brought to my attention by clinicians working in the emergency department. That is another reason we need to deal with this as soon as possible.
There is a range of scenarios that have been brought to my attention in recent times which make me now feel these changes have to be brought through on urgency. We need to get it up and running. As I said, the consultation was done less than 12 months ago in the early part of this year. There is no need to delay these changes.
I cannot imagine who the members of the opposition or the Independents would want to consult with beyond those who were consulted in January/February this year when we did the review of the legislation. We have ticked all the boxes.
To delay these amendments going through parliament today means we would continue to exclude people from this program which is achieving results, changing people’s lives and giving an opportunity for these very sick alcohol-affected people to get better for a period of time within a residential rehabilitation program. To continue to exclude people in need of alcohol mandatory treatment will cause hardship.
I encourage members of the other side of the Chamber – the opposition and Independents – to join with me in getting these amendments through today. I know the principle of urgency does not go down particularly well. Yesterday we passed the TIO bill on urgency. This is a slightly different scenario in that there is no great capital gain and no loss of an asset that people believe is particularly close to their hearts. This is just about making sure we include as many people into this alcohol mandatory treatment program as possible. The timing is right. It is about a seasonal moment in time where we have a responsibility as a government to offer alcohol mandatory treatment to as many people as we can.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I impress on people in this Chamber that they support this bill going through on urgency.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, thanks for the clarification. The reason I started talking to the motion on urgency was when the minister concluded her second reading she went straight to move the motion that it go to urgency.
In accordance with Standing Order 179 which refers to urgent bills, the Speaker can, on application of the Chief Minister or the minister in this case – perhaps the Minister for Health acting on the Chief Minister’s behalf – declare a bill to be urgent if satisfied the delay of one month provided by Standing Order 178 could result in hardship being caused. I am checking it has gone through that process and the Speaker has said yes to that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it has not gone through that standing order process. It should not be referenced, and that is why the motion is to suspend standing orders so it can go through on urgency. Standing Order 179 does not require the suspension of standing orders. The motion at the moment is whether we suspend standing orders so the bill can be progressed through.
Ms WALKER: Okay. I am talking to whether or not we should be suspending standing orders to talk about the urgency of the bill?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, that is correct.
Ms WALKER: I do not believe there is a case for hardship, in a whole sense, which the Minister for Health is referring to. Bills on urgency are something we will have to get used to in this House because this government is not particularly interested in fulsome consultation and review of legislation, but rather in ramming things through on urgency.
Whilst I may appreciate the position, to an extent, of the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation’s case, I do not believe it warrants pushing through on urgency. She has said this review has ticked all the boxes. I do not believe it does by a long shot. We are talking about a review of the act. She said the main feedback was around absconding, pathways, and getting through those legislative changes on urgency. She just made passing reference to many other recommendations out of the review of the act.
Let us be serious. There were 48 recommendations made in the review, five of which did not require any changes. That would take it to 43 recommendations, three of which are going through on urgency in legislation through the bill presented today.
That is still 40 recommendations that are outstanding from a review of legislation that went through about 18 months ago that was poorly consulted on at the time. We warned against some of the pitfalls of that alcohol mandatory treatment legislation that we were informed of by stakeholders in that sector who raised these concerns. Lo and behold, what do we see today? The three things that were highlighted to the minister around criminalisation, pathways and people being held in custody are the very things this act is setting out to correct.
That in itself is okay, but there are other things that need to be addressed. I am stunned that the minister has been silent on a death in care, tragically, that occurred at some time in October, at a time when the minister must have been aware of taking through this bill on urgency. This is why the opposition, again working with stakeholders, had called for a wholesale review of the alcohol mandatory treatment program and its results, not just the legislation.
We are at risk of hardship when we know, as the minister has referred to, we have people in this system who have serious health issues. The risk of death in care is a very real one, as highlighted by the passing of an individual in October. In this debate about wanting to review AMT and hardship, and to make it more workable, the minister is silent on this and has been silent on the calls for a clinical review to be held into the results of alcohol mandatory treatment.
She said in this debate a few minutes ago that it is achieving results. What results? Every few months we get to see a couple of pages that provide us with some kind of results, but that data is not made available to anybody other than those within the Health bureaucracy. This is why we have called for an independent clinical review whereby that data can be made available and a rigorous assessment done to measure the successes, pitfalls and risks associated with it.
How do we know, for instance, those providers of services – who I have no doubt are doing their very best within the resources allocated to them and are genuinely committed to providing that service – are adequately resourced? How do we know there are processes and procedures in place if someone is seriously ill around their access to the best medical care?
This is not a criticism of the providers, this is a criticism of a government which put through legislation last year, dismissive of anybody who wanted to offer an alternative view. We are talking about legal experts, justice experts, lawyers and social justice advocates who were dismissed in the most appalling language, we recall, by the Chief Minister who referred to them as ‘lefties who thrived on the misery of others’. He used some four-letter language in that as well.
I note also the demeanour, the language, or the tone of the minister in referring to the review, which was a good review of the act commenced late last year or perhaps in January and made available in March 2013. She made the passing reference ‘at a cost to Territory taxpayers’. Yes, these consultancies come at a cost; that is the reality.
I could not help but hear some begrudging sense at that ‘cost’ that the Health minister had to fork out for to have this review undertaken. Is that why she is reluctant to move to an independent clinical review of the system that would allow access for independent clinicians and experts to have access to all of the data? If it is the cost she begrudges then shame on her. However, I suspect it is more related to the fact she does not want people to see the data. She knows people will see it is not working, not achieving results and is an incredibly costly system, when we know money is tight in the Health budget, in delivering results.
She also made reference to it having cost us time and money to appease the interest groups. How demeaning is that language – ‘appeasing the interest groups’? We know this minister does not have broad shoulders and does not like taking criticism from others.
Going back to the issue of urgency, this is a good report with 48 recommendations, a review into the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act – just the legislation. She said they sat on it and thought about it. She sat on it for six months before doing anything with it, then suddenly it has become urgent and needs to come through this House. People will not buy that.
The fact we have had this death, and there is the risk of further deaths of people in care in this system, is frightening. To push this through on urgency when there are many other aspects to alcohol mandatory treatment – not just the act itself. Being able to shine a spotlight on the results, have some accountability and transparency around the system and the ability to measure whether it is working is what is really called for here.
I also note the minister differentiates between when something is urgent and when it is not. We heard her speak yesterday – for the first time, I add – on the Medical Services Act and the fact it is long overdue for review. This review will take time. At the same time, we have calls from a certain sector of our community. I attended a forum at Charles Darwin University on Monday afternoon about the legal aspects of reproductive health pertaining to access to termination of pregnancy for women and girls in the Northern Territory. The minister is not interested in stepping into that space, but rather hiding behind a review of the whole act, which will take time.
This is at odds with a review of the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act. It is not just the act, but the whole system and data that goes with it. She is not prepared to do that, but she is prepared to rush in on urgency with a case for hardship for those people going through alcohol mandatory treatment. We understand it is because of the woeful legislation they presented – the errors that were obvious to everybody except the CLP government: the inherent risks associated with absconding and the fact it criminalised people and got them into the Corrections systems. Yes, there is a need to open up pathways for greater access. It does not quite stack up.
Mr Deputy Speaker, without a doubt this will go through on urgency. We will see the passage of the bill tomorrow. Given the numbers this government has it will get through. I object to the case for urgency, but we will head into the debate tomorrow and see where we go from there.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for allowing me a recent briefing on this bill. I forewarned the minister I would not support urgency. That is not to do with the debate about the bill itself. The minister knows I have supported alcohol mandatory rehabilitation. That does not mean I have not had a number of questions about how that policy has functioned. I had some criticisms at the beginning, and some of those criticisms have been addressed in these changes. I am very pleased to see that.
We will debate this tomorrow because we do not have the numbers to stop this going through on urgency. It is disappointing. Alcohol mandatory rehabilitation has been around for quite a while now; there has been a review. We are debating whether it should be passed as a matter of urgency. The main reason, I understand, the minister would like this to go through quickly is we are getting close to the new year, and there will be many people who will probably drink more than they should. This will be a good opportunity to bring in these changes because it is that time of year.
I remember a similar discussion in relation to Alcohol Protection Orders. I might be wrong, but that may have been rushed through also on the basis that new year celebrations were coming up and it would have been good to have that legislation during that period.
We can argue whether it is good to have legislation available at a certain time of year, but where is the planning? The government has departments and offices full of people on the fifth floor. Surely someone could have planned well enough for these changes, which need fulsome debate, so they do not have to go through as a matter of urgency.
If we have a review, people have feedback. The department has had feedback on problems in relation to alcohol mandatory treatment. They should have put these matters before parliament at the last sittings. Then we could have had time for a full debate. We rushed legislation through yesterday, which was wrong. You can give all the reasons in the world, but it did not need to happen.
Things have to be fair dinkum urgent. We have passed and I have supported urgent bills. I remember a bill in the last government where some legal advice showed that if there were not some changes to the Water Act in regard to discharge licences, Power and Water would not have been able to discharge waste or sewage into the harbour, simply because there was a mistake in the act. Of course, that had to be done on urgency, which made sense. There have been other cases.
But this case highlights to me a lack of forward planning in relation to bringing forward amendments to this bill. The minister knows I support just about all the amendments she is presenting, although I will debate some of those and might have some queries in relation to them. However, that is not the issue. I am not trying to denigrate positive changes to the act, I am just saying this does not quite fit into the case of having to have it done by tomorrow otherwise the whole thing will collapse. It is basically saying we need to do this because at a certain time of year it would be better if we had this legislation up and running. That may or may not be the case, but it should have been done a lot better, from the point of view of giving people in this parliament an opportunity to (1) think about the legislation and (2) go to the relative people who are involved.
I sent an e-mail to the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Medical Association. Obviously, they are also very busy people. I know Robert Parker and he is pretty flat out. I sent him an e-mail asking for comment. I only have this little window of opportunity to get a second opinion on some of these issues. If we are to have a good debate backed up by experts in this field, then we cannot do it in such a short time.
I understand, minister, and I appreciate we had a briefing. But there is also a stack of other legislation and we had to deal with the TIO issue, which was a very big and important issue in this parliament. If we had had a little more time, I am sure we would not be in this situation where we are passing a bill on urgency.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope the minister understands I am not against what she is trying to do here, which I generally support. In this case it should not be rushed. I would have liked to have heard other opinions from people in the field to ensure when I spoke tomorrow on this debate it was not just me saying these things, but it was supported by – or in some cases not supported by – those who deal with people who use our alcohol mandatory treatment facilities. We could then have had a more enlightened debate than one rushed through.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the members for Nhulunbuy and Nelson for their contributions to the debate on the suspension of standing orders to allow the amendments to the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act I propose to put through today on urgency.
If we do not put it through today, 26 November, it will not be until mid-February at the earliest, which in my mind is too long. That is three months away. This program, as I said earlier, has only been functioning for 17 months and a lot has happened. We have had a complete review of the legislation within six months of it being in operation – unprecedented and premature. I am not hiding anything, but you have to allow time for these complicated, very complex programs to fully roll out before you start to put the measuring tape on them and pull them apart and analyse them.
We are providing quarterly statistics on our figures of the number of people coming through alcohol mandatory treatment, giving a range of variables in those statistics. We are adequately informing people of what is happening. At some point next year when the program has been, for the most part, rolled out across the Northern Territory we will do a full review and all will be revealed.
Do not forget when we started this program we were under no illusion. Residential alcohol rehabilitation programs have been in existence around the world for many years. This program is no different from any other. It is no different from Banyan House or from other programs around the Northern Territory, except it is mandatory.
We have always measured our expectations and success on the same measures other alcohol residential programs measure theirs. We have always said if between 10% to 20% of people going through alcohol mandatory treatment change their drinking habits, abstain if they choose, then that is a success. There will be other successes. Without pre-empting a review that will probably take place towards the end of next year, the Attorney-General mentioned the fact that crime has significantly reduced across the Northern Territory. That is a measure of the success of alcohol mandatory treatment and of a number of other programs we have initiated in the two years we have been in government.
We have pushed along this alcohol mandatory treatment program. We passed legislation very quickly, as the member for Nhulunbuy outlined earlier. We pushed it through because it was an election commitment and we wanted to get on with it. People voted us in on the premise we would get this up and running, and we have. Within six months we agreed to a review of the legislation. I do not withdraw my comment earlier that it was done mainly to appease the critics who were jumping down our throats. There is a chorus of people out there who, no matter what we do, will find fault and continue to criticise us, whether we implement the 47 recommendations of the review into the AMT legislation or not. There will always be something wrong with it because they are philosophically opposed to the mandatory side of this treatment. I get that. That is up to them, that is their prerogative. However, I do not intend to appease too many more people in the community who continue to criticise rather that provide constructive, assisting, supportive feedback.
The consultations around these amendments were done 12 months ago. The review into the legislation included extensive consultation. We received 12 submissions from stakeholder groups across the Northern Territory representing the medical fraternity, the legal fraternity, and various other interest groups. We do not need to consult anymore. I am sure if the member for Nelson grabbed a copy of the review of the legislation that was made public in about March or April this year, he can reflect on the consultation that was done.
We need to move this along. We moved it along from day one. We passed the legislation, we have the programs up and running, reviewed the legislation in record time and we reflected on that review for the last six months, which in the scheme of things is not a huge period of time.
Now we want to implement a few of those priority recommendations. These are the top three, member for Nhulunbuy. The main recommendation of that review was to withdraw the absconding offence. That is one of the amendments we will put through today; we will drop that. That was one of the main criticisms people had of the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act. We have listened and we are implementing the changes to the legislation today. We do not want to wait another three months because it means that over summer, a critical period, particularly in Central Australia – Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, all the remote communities around Central Australia and you could almost include Katherine in that although its climate is more tropical. This is the danger period for us in the misuse of alcohol and all the associated crime and antisocial behaviour that goes with it.
I do not want to wait until February to put these amendments through; we should do it now. We will save and improve people’s lives. We will give more people an opportunity to get off the grog and feel, for the first time in years, what it is like to be healthy.
The member for Nhulunbuy on the other side of the Chamber said it is not a success, it is a waste of money. Member for Nhulunbuy, please come to Alice Springs and visit CAAAPU, meet the people who are managing this program and listen to their stories. Okay, there is no empirical evidence to counter your specific concerns but there will be in the future. Take the time to listen to the people providing this service. In Tennant Creek and Darwin we have converted great critics of AMT to come on board. An Aboriginal man came up to me when we opened the Stringy Bark facility in Darwin and said, ‘Robyn, I have been a very strong critic of alcohol mandatory treatment. I now work here and see the change it can make to people’s lives.’ Those third-party endorsements are worth more weight than the criticisms levelled at us from our critics that appear in the media on a regular basis. But we live in a democracy, criticise all you like. We know we are doing some amazing things.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing, I take up a point the member Nhulunbuy raised in her debate earlier: the death of the woman at CAAAPU. CAAAPU, like any other health facility in the Northern Territory, is just that – a health facility. It is like a hospital or a clinic; it is a health facility. We fund CAAAPU to provide a health service to people with chronic alcohol problems.
A woman died in that facility. We notified her next of kin. We did not stand on the top of Mount Gillen and tell the world this woman died. This woman died for reasons that will be identified by the Coroner. I cannot talk about why this woman died. I did not think it appropriate for the Health minister of the Northern Territory to treat this death differently than any other death in a health service in the Northern Territory. I respected the rights of the family. I know I am being criticised because I did not make it public and did not issue a media release. How irresponsible and inappropriate would that have been for the Health minister to go to the Centralian Advocate, the NT News, the ABC and God knows who else to say, ‘A woman has died in alcohol mandatory treatment’?
I do not do it for people who die in the Alice Springs Hospital, the Darwin hospital or any other hospital in the Northern Territory. I do not do it for any other death. It is not appropriate, particularly given this was an Aboriginal woman, and there are cultural ways of dealing with this. We were hiding nothing ...
Ms Walker interjecting.
Mr Elferink: Which gutter would you have had her die in, Lynne? Which gutter?
Mr Gunner: So she was going to die, no matter what?
Mrs LAMBLEY: I do not think it is appropriate for the opposition party of the Northern Territory …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can people stop yelling across the Chamber or I will put a few more out for a while!
Mrs LAMBLEY: I have broad shoulders, member for Nhulunbuy. The last two years for me have been the most character building of my entire life. If you want to throw rocks at me for not going to the media and making a spectacle of this woman’s death, then so be it. I will take that as I have taken many other criticisms levelled at me …
Mr Elferink: You do not have an answer. All you have is noise and whinging.
Ms Walker: You missed your call in the debate.
Mrs LAMBLEY: … by the media and the opposition of the Northern Territory. I stand by my decision to treat that death as I would any other death in a health facility of the Northern Territory.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business and member for Nhulunbuy, you are both already on warnings, and I will send you out – one more.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I stand by my decision to treat the death of that woman at CAAAPU, a health facility funded by the Northern Territory government, as I would any other death in any other health facility funded by the Northern Territory government …
Ms Walker interjecting.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I will not make a media spectacle out of it. I am hiding nothing, but it would have been irresponsible …
Ms Walker interjecting.
_______________________
Suspension of Member
Member for Nhulunbuy
Suspension of Member
Member for Nhulunbuy
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, you were warned. You can leave the Chamber for one hour, pursuant to Standing Order 240A. I have had enough!
________________________
Mrs LAMBLEY: It would have been irresponsible and insensitive of me to make a media spectacle of that woman’s death. It is a Coroner’s case now. It will be investigated by the Coroner, and the Coroner will inform the public of the Northern Territory in good time why that poor woman passed away.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 13 Noes 11
Mr Barrett Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Ms Fyles
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Ms Lawrie
Mrs Finocchiaro Ms Lee
Mr Giles Mr McCarthy
Mr Higgins Ms Manison
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Moss
Mrs Lambley Mr Vowles
Mrs Price Ms Walker
Mr Styles Mr Wood
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
The Assembly suspended.
VISITORS
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of the participants in the Learning on Country Program from Maningrida College, accompanied by Shane Bailey. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome and hope you enjoy your visit to Parliament House today.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Amendment to Darwin Rates
Amendment Bill (Serial 72)
Amendment to Darwin Rates
Amendment Bill (Serial 72)
Continued from 25 November 2014.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Darwin Rates Amendment Bill 2014. The Speaker read His Honour the Administrator’s message recommending an amendment set out in the schedule distributed to members. Committee discussion will be confined to the matter contained in His Honour’s recommended amendment. Members are reminded there is no opportunity to debate the content, desirability or policy intent of the original bill.
Clause 2:
Mr GILES: Mr Chair, I move an amendment to clause 2 of the bill. The Darwin Rates Amendment Bill 2014 seeks to amend the Darwin Rates Act. The key features of the bill modernise the language in the legislation, align rating procedures with those of the Local Government Act and allow for the possibility, in the future, for other areas to be covered by the act. The bill was introduced into the Legislative Assembly during the March 2014 sittings.
Clause 2 provides that the bill takes effect from 1 July 2014. Due to an administrative oversight, the commencement date was not changed to prevent retrospectivity and the bill was passed by the Assembly during the August 2014 sittings.
As a result, the Administrator has recommended that the bill be returned to the Assembly with an amendment to the commencement clause to avoid the bill operating retrospectively. The new commencement clause provides that the amendments contained in the bill are to commence on the date to be fixed by the Administrator by Gazette notice. I support the Administrator’s recommendation and I thank him for his contribution.
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Chair, I thank the Chief Minister for his letter of explanation. To refresh everybody’s memory of this bill, it was debated on 20 August 2014. I believe, from your letter, Chief Minister – and I have looked at this matter – that clause 2 of the bill debated on that day had a commencement date of 1 July 2014. There seems to be an irregularity; I assume this is why we are here. The Administrator returned the bill proposing an amendment that the commencement date of 1 July 2014 be changed to be – and I ask you Chief Minister to advise me – ‘a day fixed by the Administrator by Gazette notice’. Is that correct?
Mr GILES: Yes.
Mr McCARTHY: How does that work and why does it need to be changed?
Mr GILES: How it works is when the Gazette is printed. Why does it need to be changed? As I explained, the original bill asked for it to take effect from 1 July 2014, but the bill was not heard in the June proceedings, it was heard in the August proceedings. There needs to be a change of the date for when it can start as it cannot be done retrospectively.
Mr McCARTHY: Chief Minister, thank you for informing the opposition. Were there any other problems with assent of this bill determined by the Administrator?
Mr GILES: No.
Mr McCARTHY: Then it was not in relation to any of the aspects that arose out of debate? I will quote from Hansard from the member for Daly:
- Madam Speaker, I have my doubts about this legislation. As a member of this party I said I would only support this legislation going through on the proviso there is no plan to implement any rates in any of the unincorporated areas in this term of government. I take the minister on his word that will not occur.
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, I point out again that members were reminded there is no opportunity to debate the content, desirability or policy intent of the original bill.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr Chair, I heard that. These comments are in relation to the amendment. I have asked the Chief Minister if that was not a complicating factor in this bill.
Mr CHAIR: I do not see that it relates to this amendment. The amendment is purely the date of assent of the bill. The indication you have given there from the member for Daly had nothing to do with the date of the assent of the bill.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for answering that query. This relates to the amendments because, once again, we have some serious issues.
We are back in this House in a Committee of the Whole looking at legislation that obviously was defective. The member for Blain has clearly articulated a matter that I was privileged to be part of in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. It was a very good learning curve as a parliamentarian, to understand and participate in the process to protect government from possible liability and court action. This goes to the subject of indemnity.
My question last night in a committee stage was about indemnity. Chief Minister, I honestly believe you should take more time to listen than to attack, ridicule and spin. Last night I was talking about indemnity as well, looking after our government on behalf of Territorians. We have the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. We now have legislation being rushed through this House on urgency. We have a defective bill, picked up by the Administrator, sent back to the government to be corrected, and I am being told that this is trivial?
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, I have just checked again with the Clerk and we are getting way off what the committee stage is about. There was one recommendation from the Administrator, purely in regard to the date – nothing else. We are now getting into indemnity and everything around that. I want the debate restricted to the one clause and the date, otherwise I will put the motion.
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Chair, the Chief Minister might like to comment on what is going on with his government, because I have just outlined a number of serious issues about the passage of legislation ...
Mr CHAIR: Member for Barkly, I have had enough, be seated.
Mr WOOD: Chief Minister, so I can be clear: we are not selecting the date on which this bill will now become official? We are leaving that up to the Administrator. Will the Administrator have any guidance as to what day this act will commence from?
Mr GILES: All we are debating is the clause 2 amendment, as discussed by the Chair. The reason this has come forward is because it was originally to be debated in June, so it would have been okay for 1 July. However, because we held the bill over until August the date was wrong. That is all it is. The gazettal date will be fixed in time for the next financial year.
Mr WOOD: The date will be fixed. It says on the amendment, ‘Insert the day fixed by the Administrator by Gazette notice’. There will be a date before the beginning of next financial year? This act will not happen until that date is fixed, and it will be fixed before the next financial year?
Mr GILES: That is right.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.
TERMINATION OF UNITS PLANS AND
UNIT TITLE SCHEMES BILL
(Serial 104)
UNIT TITLE SCHEMES BILL
(Serial 104)
Continued from 23 October 2014.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I start I thank the minister and his office. I became the shadow minister responsible for this only a few weeks ago. They have been very accommodating in my requests for briefings and in providing additional information they have perhaps already provided to the opposition. I appreciate there were numerous e-mails back and forth between me and the minister’s office with people helping me on this. Before we get into the debate I wanted to acknowledge that and the departmental staff who made themselves available to provide briefings at short notice. I thank the minister and his team.
The government’s unit titles bill seeks to amend the legal framework for the redevelopment of unit complexes when not all owners are in agreement. In 2009 the Labor government introduced the first legal framework for the termination of unit titles by the majority of owners. This legislation allowed for the termination of units based on 90% of agreement for schemes at least 20 years of age and for new schemes established from 2009. This provided certainty for purchasers buying after the commencement of a unit development and for owners after that date. This scheme was not applied retrospectively, as at the time this could instead go to court for 100% agreement by owners.
The former Labor government held a strong record of leading redevelopment and providing economic foundation for investors to invest here. We had examples of that with the Wirrina redevelopment in Parap which was the first redevelopment of a large public housing complex resulting in a mix of public, affordable and private units.
Again, I point to the record of the previous Labor government in supporting development to provide the Territory’s housing needs. Looking around our CBD, there has been considerable redevelopment in the past 15 years.
In November 2011, there were over 2000 units with approved development status across Darwin, and the majority were in the CBD pending finance and construction. By December 2012, over 600 units were under construction across Darwin CBD and suburbs. In the five or so years before 2012, about 5000 new units were built in Darwin CBD, the equivalent of a new suburb of homes, including the number of units built at the waterfront, which is now becoming a feature of Darwin city.
We also identified and made election commitments to redevelop aged public housing complexes in a process that would involve private developers providing a mix of housing options on these sites. I notice the current government has adopted some of these projects, but it feels as if this commitment has been reshaped at the expense of public housing. We have not seen that obligation met.
On this side of the House we are pro-development and redevelopment, but it needs to be in strong consultation with our communities. We need to bring our communities with us. We recognise there are unit schemes currently which will soon arrive at the end of their economic life. On Mitchell Street is a key example of an old building on a valuable piece of land. The challenges in achieving redevelopment at that site due to the owners’ inability to reach unanimous agreement are very much understood on this side of the House. A solution is required.
However, we feel this legislation does not provide the solution in a sound and equitable legal framework for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it lacks adequate safeguards and is poorly framed, exposing both homeowners and developers. We feel in developing this bill the government has failed to consult with the people – Territory homeowners who will be directly affected.
There is considerable tension between the concept of redeveloping land – particularly to prevent ghettos – and the rights of the property owners who would like to enjoy their property without interference. We want to see a balance between redevelopment and those rights. It is extremely important to get the balance right.
The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech, referred to this legislation being the first of its kind in the nation. I know he understands legislation very well, but I feel he should understand that legislation of that significance should be underpinned by robust and very thorough consultation to get the balance right.
While the process of consultation has been lengthy, the extent of the consultation has been considerably inaccurate. As a result, this legislation has some flaws and does not provide safeguards for homeowners and proponents to avoid costly legal wrangling in the future. Obviously the government has a large amount of resources at its disposal, and we feel it is unacceptable to present legislation of this complexity without a sincere effort to consult with all affected parties.
I question whether the government, in making the determination about the age of the units which can be redeveloped without unanimous agreement, identified all the unit complexes which will be affected by this bill. The government’s Integrated Land Management System can identify the age of properties in the Territory and provide the government with this type of information, so they could have spoken to owners to try to get the message out regarding their proposal. Did the government write to every homeowner possibly affected by this bill, particularly owners of units aged 15 years and over across the Territory, which this legislation will impact on? Did you even consider, given the controversy this legislation was likely to attract, that a greater effort should be made to consult with the large body of people affected by the legislation – homeowners – particularly as you point out in your legislation that this bill is leading the nation?
We feel it is not acceptable that the consultation process did not provide extensively advertised public forums with targeted advertising for homeowners, including writing to them directly to properly inform them of the proposals. To many of us our home is our castle. No matter if it is a small one-bedroom studio unit or a larger house, it is still the most important property in a person’s life.
You pointed out that the topic was incorporated in the Attorney-General’s department’s general law reforms, but it is questionable whether that is adequate consideration given the complexity and sensitivity of this bill. Attorney-General, do you know how many members of the public – not stakeholder organisations or lawyers – attended these law reform meetings across the Territory compared to the number of homeowners affected? It is a topic deserving of considered and comprehensive public forums to ensure that arguments can be put to the public to properly inform stakeholders of the proposed changes and seek their feedback.
For example, when the New South Wales government flagged changes in its legislative regime around unit title reforms, it announced a two-year process to ensure all stakeholders were aware of the proposed changes and were consulted. This included an online discussion forum which attracted over 1200 comments, resulting in 600 proposed law changes. They also held round table meetings with various stakeholders.
Has the government engaged with the New South Wales government to understand its draft outcomes on unit terminations, ages and percentages? Its findings might have benefitted the Territory in weighing up to get the balance right, which is the key of this bill. Other jurisdictions are treading carefully due to the complexity and social issues affected by such change.
This legislation might seem straightforward but it is very complex. It appears the government did not engage with NT Shelter, which advocates for housing provision and home ownership for Territorians. Did you approach Territory-based community legal services? They all play a role in advising and assisting everyday Territorians?
The timing of the release of the discussion paper in November 2012, with submissions closing on 31 January – falling over the Christmas holiday period when many Territorians are away and businesses close, not necessarily following normal routine – is not an ideal time to undertake public consultation.
I am also curious about any private discussions with stakeholders about the discussion paper prior and post the report dated September 2013 which summarised the submissions and the government’s proposed direction at the time.
This bill proposes the required percentages to support termination of a current unit title. We are talking about 95% for a development aged 15 years or more but less than 20 years. Fifteen years is not an extremely long time. In fact, the first unit I bought would probably be nearly 15 years old. To me, it is still a new complex. I was lucky enough to move in when it was brand new, so 15 years is not a long time. We are talking about 90% for a development aged 20 or more years but less than 30 years, and only 80% of agreement for a building aged 30 years or more. We are talking about relatively young buildings.
The economic life of a building is generally 25 to 30 years, yet this bill proposes redevelopment at 15 years. While any redevelopment would have to stack up financially, the average unit owner would understand the need for legislation to redevelop older units, particularly those built pre-Cyclone Tracy, because we want to prevent ghettos from developing. However, one of the main questions is whether 15 years of age is consistent with that.
I understand the proposals received included redevelopment at one to five years with a 95% agreement. There is still a balance to be struck that requires conversation with all stakeholders affected.
I note the NT Property Council’s submission suggested linking this reform with specific town planning zones such as Central Business, High Density or Medium Density to ensure facilitation of required urban renewal without affecting the majority of smaller suburban units where, in their view, redevelopment is not imperative.
We are wondering why the government has ignored this recommendation, particularly when our urban planning is in such a mess and there is so much community angst and concern about spot rezoning.
A number of submissions pointed to the risk of vulnerable people being adversely affected by this bill. We could all point to homeowners who purchased lower-cost housing many years ago which has now become valuable due to its location. Tenants of Territory Housing who might have purchased the property if offered the opportunity, or people who bought older buildings because that is all they could afford, are often low-income earners and their home is their nest egg, their future.
Redevelopment of older housing often results in additional ongoing costs with higher body corporate fees. A smaller property would have less maintenance issues with a lift, a swimming pool or a gym than a newer complex which has those amenities which attract fees. This bill is silent on compensation for people in these situations. A bill of this significance could establish a compensation model to assist homeowners and developers to negotiate appropriate compensations so homeowners are not worse off.
This bill also fails to require the body corporate and homeowners to consider independent financial advice before making decisions on proposals, something we feel strongly about. You are talking about valuable land and developers who obviously have access to financial planners and lawyers. They have fantastic ideas, but we need to ensure the rights of everyday Territorians who own their homes are protected. We could be dealing with people who are a little more vulnerable and might not seek adequate financial advice on the proposed redevelopment. Is it right for them? Sure, they might get a couple of hundred thousand dollars payout, but if they are unable to afford to buy back into the property, or pay the ongoing body corporate fees, that is a huge issue of concern.
A homeowner in a complex that is redeveloped under this scheme could end up in a situation where the new units are out of their financial reach and are pushed out of the community where they have lived for many years, established networks and are close to support. The bill could provide safeguards by establishing affordable entry points – which is back to the mixed developments or affordable and high-end units – to facilitate the original owners remaining in their homes where they are connected with their community.
Without provisions like this, particularly in larger sites that will provide considerable yield opportunities, over time affordable units will become less and less available as more and more sites are redeveloped into high-cost housing. This was a concern raised by NT Shelter. This will result in the circumstance of people being asset rich, but cash poor. People who have invested in these properties that were of less value are potentially being disadvantaged simply because the land cost has risen and zoning allows for more intensive use of the site. I feel that with the legislation we need to look at these situations and protect them.
Taking this policy position would go towards addressing the situation where a homeowner is happy to live in an older unit and does not want to move or take on additional costs by upgrading their home. Those issues for individuals could be reasonable grounds to object in a particular circumstance, yet they could be addressed by affordable housing measures that ensure homeowners are not worse off.
Everyone has a different point of view about what they want for their home. Some people want brand new, others are happy as they are. We need to take into account that everyone has a different standard of living and ensure by pushing this legislation people are not in a circumstance where they cannot afford to live where they want to.
In Parap Village, the Wirrina public housing development is a great demonstration of mixed housing. It has maintained public housing, but has some affordable rentals and private unit accommodation so you have that balance and blend.
The second reading speech identified that there has been no science applied to the provisions of the age at which buildings with more than 10 units can be redeveloped. Instead of being a matter of judgment, it started at 15 years. I mentioned before that 15 years for a building seems extremely young. Many people take on a home loan of between 20 to 30 years. Potentially, someone who planned on living there for a very long time after receiving their home loan and is meeting their repayments can be forced out of that property by this legislation.
I am curious about the considerations Cabinet gave in identifying the appropriate age for redevelopment in this legislation, particularly regarding some older sites in Darwin. I think straightaway of Mitchell Street. There are some buildings in my electorate people think of as appropriate which are far older – 30, 40 or even 50 years. It is concerning. I wonder what the considerations were. People who bought their unit off the plan 15 years ago and are still paying off their mortgage could be faced with taking on additional borrowings to live in a newer unit in the same location, when their original unit may not necessarily be in such a poor state as to require redevelopment. However, the land value makes it attractive for investors. This issue goes to balance and protections, and was raised in discussions I had with NT Shelter.
I know you will say if it is a newer building of course it will not be redeveloped. What about the situation where a piece of land could have duplexes right through to 10, 15 or 20 units, which could now see a tower of tens of units? Even though the building could be quite new and suitable for people, we feel the age issue has not been addressed completely.
I acknowledge that a range of views was submitted. Stakeholders who should have been consulted are the large number of affected homeowners. As I pointed out, there was nothing stopping the government from letting people know about this. I spoke to some people who were concerned this legislation would affect them. When we think about redevelopment they are not in those typical buildings seen around Darwin and perhaps Alice Springs. These are people in quite adequate housing, but who know their land has value. They are quite concerned about this legislation, the lack of consultation and the age and percentage ratios. Territorians who will be affected by the change could have been more adequately consulted about this bill. It could have provided more protections and balances that the community would expect from such significant legislation that affects the fundamental right of home ownership.
We all know deciding on home ownership is probably one of the most important decisions you will make in your life. This bill goes too far and affects too many people without providing the consultation needed for sound legislation. In briefings we talked about measures in place to protect individuals. Developers who are obviously looking at developing are able to get sound legal and financial advice. Individuals might not be able to seek that, and might be excited at the prospect of change but need to be supported in that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we feel this legislation has gone too far. There could have been other ways of dealing with some of the significant sites that possibly need to be redeveloped. I have a number of questions I will raise in the committee stage. The opposition will be opposing this bill today on a number of points I have made.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for allowing me some very good briefings from his department. I will be supporting this bill. I will explain why and raise some concerns at the same time. I hope the minister will take note of those concerns. I have weighed up the concerns and advantages. In looking at the bill overall, I see there are safeguards in it regarding some of the concerns the shadow minister just raised. They are some of the concerns I also have. I hope the government will be reviewing this on a continual basis to make sure some of those issues do not occur.
I thank the minister’s office for sending me a list of all those people who had been a part of the discussion paper. I agree with the shadow minister; there could have been more people involved. You might say there is a limit on the number of people we can ask. Except for a few individuals – although PLan is included – I am not sure who those other people represent. Maybe they represent COTA because many people you will deal with in these units will be seniors. One of these people might represent COTA, but I do not know as it is not marked here.
The other group I raise is local government, because local government is also mentioned as a group involved in this bill. For instance, clause 17(3) says:
- … the Tribunal must take into account the views expressed by any of the following:
(a) the schemes supervisor;
- …
Mr Elferink: It is the vibe.
Mr WOOD: It is. It is a great movie. I remember debating a caravan park which used to be in my electorate, the Sundowner Caravan Park, when they were given orders to move within a month in the Wet Season. It is not there now. One of the terrible things about the move to get rid of that caravan park – not the greatest caravan park in the world by the way – is if you go past that block of land today there is nothing growing on it but weeds. They were being kicked out so the land could be redeveloped. There were people who had lived there for at least 15 years.
The member for Fong Lim laughed at me when I said that a caravan with an annexe on it and a little garden was someone’s home. That is why we fought so hard to get an extension of time for those people to find another place to move to. One of the issues all of us will agree is important in this debate is it is not a bricks and mortar issue. A home is a place of security for many people. It is a place where a family exists and there is love and laughter and all the things that occur around a family. It is part of a street, that street is part of a neighbourhood and that neighbourhood is part of a community which is part of a place where people find that security and want to belong. When that is broken, you not only remove the person’s physical home, you interrupt part of their being in that community.
I am not discussing this purely in relation to a block of flats, I am relating it to a community where there will be disruption. I hope government will do its best to make sure that disruption is minimal for those people who do not want to leave or be part of this redevelopment, and that we look after them as best as possible. We have to operate in that philosophy.
It is like some of the other bills we have discussed. I have said many times that when I give my support for alcohol mandatory rehabilitation, it has to be done for certain reasons, one of which is compassion. If we take away someone’s right to live in a house because of these changes to the law, then we need to be compassionate and make sure the people who are disrupted are treated fairly and with dignity.
With that in mind, I will comment on an issue raised by the shadow minister. I was approached by someone from Stuart Park and had meetings with him at the Gardens Park Golf Course. It was very nice. I do not get down there too often. We had a chat about issues I raised, thankfully, minister, with your staff. The good thing was he was willing to sit down with your department staff, and face-to-face deal with the issues he had raised with me which I could not answer. He had an hour’s meeting. I rang him the other day and said, ‘How did the meeting go?’ My impression was he was satisfied with what he was told.
His concern was raised here earlier. I am not going to verbal him, just talk about this in general. He owns a one-bedroom unit and a developer came along and said, ‘I want to knock down these two-storey units and put up eight-story units. I will offer you some money if you want to go.’
He obviously is not keen to go; he is happy in the unit he is in. He can afford to pay the strata title fees. The money he is being offered would not enable him to buy a new unit in that area. My concern is that person should be allowed to stay there and pay the same strata title fees. An eight-storey block of flats would have a lift, probably a pool and, of course, the strata title fees will rise. He cannot afford that and probably does not even want that. There needs to be a way for that person’s rights to be protected.
I asked in my briefings if we could put that into the legislation. Could we say if a person who does not want to leave and objects, they can retain the same strata title fees and conditions they have now, and when they die or sell the premises that agreement ceases? It would be only for those people who object. On the other side of it, as we discussed, the problem is nobody would knock the place down because they would all want the same arrangement. We then have to rely on the tribunal.
I keep thinking of The Castle movie and the judge who agreed with the people about their home. Clause 17(1) of the bill says:
- The Tribunal may make an order approving the termination of a development, or the termination of the development and the redevelopment of the development land, only if the tribunal considers that:
(a) it is just and equitable to do so;
I am sure the member for Port Darwin will have a field day telling me the history of the words ‘just’ and ‘equitable’ …
Mr Elferink: No, but I will have a field day with ‘equity’.
Mr WOOD: I am sure those books in front of us would cover half the number of debates we have had over the centuries about what is just and equitable. By now we should understand the commonsense approach is this is fair and treats the objector with compassion. Clause 17(1) continues:
- (b) any objection to the termination or redevelopment by an owner of a unit in the development is unreasonable; and
- (c) it is otherwise necessary to do so, taking into account any factors prescribed by regulation.
Perhaps in the regulations, which we do not have, some of the issues raised today might be covered.
We will rely a lot on the tribunal. That will be part of what has to be reviewed. I do not expect much of this to happen. There are some places in Darwin where people have probably been dying to do this for years. Possibly it will happen quickly. However, the government needs to come back, perhaps even in a statement, report on how this has worked in fact and what the tribunal has recommended if there were cases where people objected.
Clause17(2) says:
- In deciding whether to approve the termination of a development and any redevelopment of the development land, the Tribunal must also consider the following:
- (a) the extent to which an owner of a unit in the development is likely to suffer adverse consequences if the termination of the development were ordered;
- (b) the extent to which an owner of a unit in the development is likely to suffer adverse consequences if the termination of the development were not ordered;
- (e) any matter prescribed by regulation.
The regulations are important. It would be good if we could see what will be in the regulations because that might relate to the just and equitable approach to this.
What concerns me the most is if you have a block of flats and the owner wants to knock it all down and put in a non-residential development; he wants to build a sausage factory, a block of shops, or something that is not residential. The first example was the person who will knock all the flats down will at least build some more flats. That is one argument. In this case, that person will not be able to have a house in that area. This is hard. That person will lose the sense of identity I was talking about in the beginning. Unless there is a place right next door, they may have to leave the town, the suburb, or that community. That will be a real issue for the tribunal.
If it was a building 30 years or more old and 80% of people need to approve it, you might find that there is quite a reasonable number of people who will not have a house in the vicinity. It will be interesting to see how the tribunal will deal with this issue because it could be argued the tribunal would say, ‘Sorry, mate, this development is detrimental to people far more than would be reasonable and just, or equitable and just’, and that person simply cannot develop that land in that way.
But if the tribunal was to make a decision that this development could occur, then what will happen to those people? I know they could theoretically apply to the Supreme Court, but as I said earlier, many of these people would be older and probably could not afford to go to the Supreme Court. It could only go to the Supreme Court on a matter of law. This is what I am worried about. It may not happen, or in only very few cases. However, it does not matter if it is only very few cases, we need to ensure those people are given a fair hearing and that their future is a top priority when decisions are being made about redevelopment of an area.
I have put in my notes that I hope the government, maybe every 12 months, will report back to this parliament. It does not have to be a big report. It would give us an indication if such a development occurred under this act. I do not think it would hurt that there was some report, maybe every 12 months over the next couple of years, to give us an indication about where this act applied and what the results of the notices were. For instance, what were the results of the draft notice of proposed termination? Once that proposed termination certificate had been issued and people were asked what they wanted to do, what were the results of the decision made by the tribunal to allow that development to occur?
We do not need to know names of people, but we could find out the results of objections so we knew how they were dealt with in a practical way. If there were issues that needed to be sorted, then this bill could be refined. If you read the second reading – and I have heard the Attorney-General talk about this – it is groundbreaking legislation in Australia.
The minister mentioned Singapore, and I gather in some parts of the United States it occurs. However, I do not think the form in which this legislation comes before us applies anywhere else in Australia. That is why I am being a little particular. If we are going down this path no other state has, we need to make sure we have plenty of checks and balances in place.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I go back to the issue I started with. This is about a person’s home – or more than one person’s home. It could be a family or a number of people. It is about community and change that could affect people quite seriously, so it is legislation that has to be dealt with sensitively. The bricks and mortar are not the real issue here; it is the people who live in the bricks and mortar. As a parliament we should make sure we give them due respect when making this type of legislation.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, it has been interesting listening to the debate this afternoon. I listened very closely to the member for Nightcliff and her view there has been a lack of consultation on the Attorney-General’s bill. Again, she has it so wrong.
I believe the media release on this was issued on 30 September. From that media release it was clear that a discussion paper concerning unit titles terminations was released in November 2012 – we are now in 2014 – with comments required by 31 January 2013. Subsequently, a report on that consultation was published in September 2013. An explanatory document and draft bill was then able to be viewed on the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice website. The draft Termination of Units Plans and Unit Title Schemes Bill was then available for public comment from 1 October. At that stage it was expected to be tabled and debated in the House in the October sittings. We are now in the November sittings, the last sittings of the year. The Attorney-General has done a tremendous job in consulting with the community on something that has been a bugbear for many people for many years.
I recall listening to a positive story only recently. I have not had a chance to speak to the Attorney-General about this. There was a gentleman – let us call him John Smith. John lived in East Brunswick in Victoria. In, I believe, 1983, a townhouse he had been living in opposite a lovely park and the tram stop was purchased from him by developers – he had a terrace house at that stage – for the cost of a replacement unit in a new block of units being constructed in 1983. From the old townhouse he had lived in since the 1950s he went to live in a lovely new, modern unit, for 1983 standards.
I know this story because only a matter of a few months ago I learned that last year those nice units he moved into in 1983 were bought by new developers who wanted to redevelop the area again. Mr John Smith now lives in a sub-penthouse unit complex overlooking the same park opposite where had lived since, I think, 1953. In 1983 he moved into a brand-new unit constructed after a demolition job was done on old terrace houses in the area. This gentleman had been able to live in the exact same place for many years but, through developments, upgraded quite successfully. He now lives in a very modern building that meets his every need as he is now quite aged. For him it has been a remarkable journey to be able to live in the same place he did many years ago.
Residential units requiring major costly repairs and maintenance, or those which pose a health and safety threat, could be a thing of the past. We are hoping with the passage of this legislation today that will be true. Under this proposed legislation, a unit complex of 10 or more may be redeveloped if the required majority of owners agree to the plans, and the compensation offered by a developer to dissenting owners is accepted.
I recall when the Attorney-General was speaking about this months and months ago. He said this legislation will put an end to a small number of unit owners purposely blocking development for unreasonable financial gain against the wishes of the majority of owners.
This legislation is aimed at those who constantly undermine the wishes of the majority of property owners in an old and devalued unit block. Under current legislation in the Northern Territory, a complex cannot, except under an order of the Supreme Court, be sold or redeveloped if just one of the owners refuses to accept an offer from a property group, even if the remainder of the owners all agree to the plans.
With the appropriate number of approvals by owners, the proposed legislation could see obsolete buildings developed to cater for Darwin’s growing population. Small minorities that object to the proposed development will have access through the appeals process, providing owners with the necessary safeguards, and all parties with a fair and transparent process.
The member for Nelson raised safeguards. Safeguards will be in place for anybody who strongly objects to any change to an existing structure, and their concerns will be heard by the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NTCAT).
I recall – without going into too much detail – that was one of the areas we spent more time discussing how we could ensure we protect everybody and are doing the right thing for the majority of people with this legislation. You have to remember this legislation only affects unit blocks of 10 units or more. Of course there are other processes available for people in smaller unit blocks.
One area we need to focus on is the rationale behind the intent of this legislation. The way I see it, this bill will see improved housing developments and increase the amount of housing available. The reality is – and I have said this repeatedly in this place – the former Labor government left us in a housing crisis. We have been working across the board to increase housing across the Northern Territory. To give you an idea of some of the other areas we have been focusing on with land release, since the start the start of the year we have released land to support 2100 homes in Palmerston, 3000 homes at Berrimah Farm, 200 homes in Katherine East, 47 homes in Alice Springs on top of the 33 already released, and 23 homes in Tennant Creek, just to name a few.
Releasing land is one thing, but the government has also been reducing red tape to allow this land to be turned off quicker. This legislation the Attorney-General is debating today in this House is also a measure of reducing community red tape when it comes to developing land.
The mess the former government left us in when it came to the amount of land being released and the resulting house prices, land prices and rentals going through the roof in the Northern Territory was on the back of how they drip-fed the market. If you read and analyse the member for Nightcliff’s comments earlier, you will understand why things were so slow to happen under a Labor government.
So far in 2014 – and we still have about five weeks to go – we have issued titles for 671 dwellings, tracking for an improvement on last year’s 677. Labor’s legacy was an average of 410 titles issued over its last five years in government. That means around 520 more Territorians have a home because of the measures this government has taken to turn around Labor’s housing crisis.
It should also be mentioned – and I have undertaken research in the last couple of years on efficiencies – wearing my environmental hat at the moment, even the most green advocate will tell you the worst way to grow a city is through urban sprawl, and if we are looking for efficiencies we should be looking at densification.
This legislation will allow that to occur. We have some amazing older style unit developments across the Northern Territory, including in Darwin, which are on ideal locations next to transport hubs, close to schools, infrastructure and all the things required. Under the current legislation these sit idle and are unable to be developed. This legislation will assist in reinvigorating those older sites.
Let us talk about what a new, modern and efficient building can do compared to an older building. One might have less leaks and be more efficient when it comes to air conditioning and energy use; newer buildings are far more energy efficient than some of the older unit complexes, particularly those built with the old standard core-fill Besser blocks with no big eaves or verandas on them. Many of them were built in the 1960s, and the ones that withstood Cyclone Tracy are still here today. Those buildings are what people refer to as ‘hot boxes’. With modern building techniques and more efficiency built into buildings, a couple of things happen for residents. One is their energy consumption drops dramatically so their bills are cheaper. We can densify the land we have today which reduces the cost of living and the cost of land. The cost savings in a development building 20 units on a place where there were 10 are passed on to the consumer.
Something else this will do is improve the aesthetics of the Territory’s older eyesore buildings; they will be torn down and replaced with far better looking developments. We have some beautiful old buildings and some not so beautiful. Some are in good condition and have been kept in good repair and we should, from a heritage point of view, be looking after them. However, some of the older unit developments are well past their use-by date and the land, through a new development, can serve Territorians well into the future if they can be redeveloped.
The Attorney-General has spelt out very well that consumers’ rights will be protected by NTCAT, where they will have a right of appeal. Decent processes are built in; the numbers are right in this case. One of the biggest things a little left field with a new development is it is a bit like slapping paint on a building. I often think, when I visit many of our schools, there are some where the infrastructure is fantastic but others need a slap of paint. It changes the environment, both physically and mentally.
When a place is dressed up people feel happier and better. They have the opportunity, through this legislation, and a real chance of changing the atmosphere around some of the older, grottier unit complexes in these suburbs. The whole dynamics can change over time if you allow it to grow and develop.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Attorney-General for presenting this legislation. This has been a tough one because it is not easy to get the balance right. The way this legislation has been drafted, we have the balance about as good as you are going to get it. I welcome the opportunity this legislation will bring for Territorians. Let us see our city develop and grow into what it really has the potential to do.
______________________________
Statement by Speaker
Members’ Attire
Statement by Speaker
Members’ Attire
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we move on there is a matter I want to raise.
Many years ago in this House, there was a member by the name of Neil Bell who was a member from Alice Springs. The Speaker did not give him the call, which went on for a couple of days until he finally asked the Speaker why he was not getting the call. He was told he was not appropriately attired because he was wearing a pair of jeans.
I know the Speaker is very strict on the attire in this House. It has come to my attention that someone in this House has not been completely attired. Members must ensure they have shoes on at all times, both men and women. I just wish to point that out. I know the Speaker would be pointing that out very clearly.
Mr Elferink: That is me. Guilty as charged.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business I thought you would like that history story, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am fully aware of the history of Mr Bell not being given the call because he was wearing jeans. I subordinate myself happily and fulsomely to your sage guidance on this important issue.
______________________________
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank all honourable members for their contributions and I particularly acknowledge the concern the member for Nelson has brought into this House. I seek to assure the member for Nelson that I tread very timidly in this place ...
Mr Vowles: In your socks.
Mr ELFERINK: In my socks, absolutely. I was so scared to even put my shiny shoes on; I wanted to softly-softly walk through here.
I assure all honourable members that I am a passionate believer in property rights. People should have the right to own property. If anybody ever studies the philosophy surrounding the concepts of property, it is a more nebulous thought or concept than we instinctively know. Nevertheless, without going into the background of the history of property and its philosophical constructs, it is fairly well defined in our western world – certainly sufficiently well – for all of us to know what we are talking about and share a common understanding of what property is.
Property is protected by the law and should be protected by the law. I raise this because this represents a diminution, to a small degree, of people’s property rights. It is a diminution nevertheless, but a diminution of property rights on behalf of one person, or inflicted on one person because it creates property rights for another person.
The member for Nightcliff raised the issue of where I came up with these numbers. Why these particular thresholds? I will be the first to admit to members of this House that the thresholds are, essentially, arbitrary. But the law is full of arbitrary thresholds. Sometimes you have to apply arbitrary thresholds simply because there is no other way to do it.
Of course, you rely on what information you have to set these arbitrary thresholds, so it is a form of informed arbitrariness. Nevertheless, arbitrary it is. For example, if you look at traffic offences, if you travel at a certain speed you are either exceeding the speed limit or you are not. If you are travelling with a certain amount of alcohol in your blood, you are either exceeding the limit of alcohol or not.
In truth some people could probably drive at 65 km/h, 5 km/h above what is normally the speed limit and be quite safe. Other people could drive at 40 km/h and represent a danger to the community. Of course, with an arbitrary speed limit you are nevertheless well under the legislative speed limit because legislation, as I have often said in this House, is a clumsy tool. It is a net we cast into the future hoping to catch only one type of fish.
The real world is a lot more complex than that. These numbers are, essentially, arbitrary, but they are informed by a number of submissions that have been received across the board. These submissions have gone from what I would call downright aggressive to timid to the point of being pointless. We need to find a balance.
I am so concerned about this that I am more than happy to commit right now to the member for Nelson that we will review this. I imagine you will find the review in the annual report of NTCAT in any instance. Even if it does not find its way into the annual report of NTCAT, I will make sure there is some sort of review back to this House.
I want to address the issue of consultation. I am not sure how much more we could have reasonably consulted. I heard the statement from the member for Nightcliff that I should have written to every landowner potentially affected by this. I am somewhat unconvinced that is reasonable. We have made strident efforts to consult since we started consulting in November 2012. Indeed, the process of consultation in relation to these types of issues more generally dates back to 2011 under the former government. The consultations were extensive indeed.
We wanted to talk widely, and when the idea was originally mooted there were a number of articles in newspapers, particularly regarding the class of person I was worried about, the quintessential little old lady who was at risk of being pushed out of her home. We heard reference to that type of person from the member for Nelson, who said a home is more than just bricks and mortar; it is the experiences, the shared love and the tragedies. All of those things make bricks and mortar a home. I am excruciatingly aware of that reality.
Sadly, I have also become aware of another series of realities. These realities involve people coming to me saying, ‘My friends and I, or my business partners and I, own a group of units in a strata title block, and one or two are holding out. They do not even live there; they are absentee landlords who live in Victoria. Basically, they are screwing us for the penthouse on a redevelopment we would carry out.’ There is no problem with the property title being wound up; it is just that they are haggling over the price. That is essentially where it comes to.
In that instance, the strata title ceases to be a shield, which is what it is intended to be – a shield to protect the owner’s property rights. It becomes a sword in negotiations which can be wielded in an unreasonable fashion. That is the difficulty we are dealing with in this legislative instrument.
The statute book of the Northern Territory, under the Justices Act if memory serves me – under one of the legislative instruments – already allows for making an application to the Supreme Court to have a matter like this heard. It has never been used in a titles act – I have just had somebody whisper Unit Titles Act to me.
The capacity has always existed, but so nebulously or inaccurately described that it did not provide any useful pathway forward. By the time everybody gets lawyered up to take a matter to the Supreme Court, you are invariably in a place where you are spending lots of money without a clear or certain pathway in front of you. Consequently, that is how this legislative instrument came about.
I will take people through the consultation process. The bill was introduced in parliament on 23 October 2014. That has lain on the Table since that time. In actual fact, it goes back to December 2011 when a draft discussion paper was considered by the Property Law Task Group established under the former government, and that is the reference I made earlier. In November 2012 a discussion paper was released and it was advertised through the Northern Territory News, Centralian Advocate, Tennant Creek & District Times, Katherine Times and Arafura Times. Comments were sought by 31 January 2013.
Also during November 2012, the Department of Attorney-General and Justice conducted general law sessions for the public and legal professions in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. Unit titles cancellation was listed on the public advertisements for these sessions as one of the topics open for discussion. There was, however, relatively little interest in the topic despite the newspaper articles published during that time.
I have made no secret of the government’s intention to go down this path historically, and have referred to it on a number of occasions in a number of fora in the Northern Territory.
Copies of the discussion paper were also sent to the Chief Executive Officer of the Real Estate Institute; the Chief Executive Officer of the Chamber of Commerce; the Chief Executive Officer of the Law Society; the Chief Executive of Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment; the Chief Executive Officer of Engineers Australia; Raina McCarthy; Chief Executive Property Council of the Northern Territory Property Division; the Chief Executive of Planning Institute of Australia Northern Territory Division; the Chairman of the Development Consent Authority; the Chief Executive Officer Strata Title Australia; the President of the Australian College of Community Association Lawyers; the National President of the Institute of Building Surveyors; and the President of the Australian Institute of Conveyancers. Responses to the discussion papers were received from Graham Jackson, Jonathon Pollock, John and Tess, Stuart Paech and Margaret Clinch.
There were also confidential submissions: Carinya Redevelopment Committee – which is 79 Mitchell Street and I will return back to that address shortly; Julie Lewis of Strata Community Australia; Graeme Suckling from the Urban Development Institute of Australia; REINT through Quentin Kilian; and the Property Council of Australia Northern Territory Division.
Copies of most of the submissions were published on the department’s Internet site. They remain on that site now. A report on the outcomes of the consultation was finalised in 2013 and subsequently published on the department’s Internet site.
On 26 November 2013, copies of the report were provided to most persons who had commented on the issues paper. Inadvertently, that did not find its way to the Property Council at that time. However, I can assure members in this House that we have since spoken to the Property Council at length, and spoken to its very public meeting recently, and received its approval at that meeting.
On 30 September we also announced the proposed legislation with a media release entitled ‘Fairer unit title legislation’. The media release noted the intention to introduce the bill in the October sittings. We have stepped through this and have also gone to organisations which generally would tend to favour or are biased towards looking after tenants. That sufficiently covers the field. To say we have not been out and about talking about this would be a stretch.
The member for Nightcliff is quite right, we did not write to every individual property owner who may be affected by this legislative instrument. Frankly, there are bounds to what government can do. Once again, I return to the concept of reasonableness in dealing with how you try to work your way through these things. We have been out there enough. By any reasonable measure we have come to that point.
This, then, takes us to the issue of what this bill actually does. We all know already the parameters of this bill. As I said, the parameters enter in the environment some pretty arbitrary numbers: up to 15 years old – 100% of the people have to agree; from 15 to 20 years – 95%; from 20 to 30 years – 90%; 30 years and older – 80%. Yes, they are arbitrary. We could have set them at 85% or 75% or 50%, but we were very careful to make one other distinction between unit titles of greater than 10 and fewer than 10 individual titles. We have done that because many of the people affected by these things – the little-old-lady effect the member for Nelson referred to – tend to, do or have traditionally lived in smaller unit complexes.
The blocks of flats on Trower Road near Casuarina are a case in point – those older ones with the six flats. Some have recently been done up ...
Mr Wood: Six packs.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, the six packs, they are the ones. The corner of Styles Street and Trower Road is another one that springs to mind, and Alawa Crescent and Trower Road as well. There is a number of those types of units.
There is a presumption against proceeding down that path built into legislation, whereas for above 10 units the presumption is essentially in favour, if you fall within those parameters. Once again, that is a fairly arbitrary set of numbers, but we think that is where the point of balance should be.
Anybody who reads this legislation – I have spoken to the the President of NTCAT, Mr Bruxner about this – understands what it implies. It implies, by being so prescriptive, that in unit blocks of greater than 10 where those percentages I described operate, you create a presumption in favour of the proponent getting what they want. The proponent then jumps through all the other hoops in this legislation, which includes the list of about 20 boxes they have to tick, to satisfy the scheme supervisor that this is a serious bid.
You were concerned with the Sundowner Caravan Park issue where everybody was pushed out and then, all of a sudden, a vacant block was left. For a proponent to come to NTCAT seeking a direction which is in accordance with those parameters we have set down, they have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops, which means they have to spend some real dough up front to demonstrate there is a real plan. The scheme supervisor will not go, ‘Tick, this is a great thing’, until such time as there is a demonstration this is a serious thing.
It is not five guys standing around a barbecue who happen to own 85% of a 30-year-old block of units who think it is a great idea, ‘We will toss the others out and make an application’. It has to be a real application. It has to be identifiable, and a whole bunch of hoops have to be jumped through. At that point the scheme supervisor says, ‘Yes, tick, that looks serious’.
Beyond that you have to go to NTCAT, get a direction or an order, then you can activate the components about the fair value compensation to the person who suffers the loss. That person who suffers the loss should be dealt with, and NTCAT will encourage a mediated result every step of the way in any instance.
However, being a presumption in favour does not automatically mean it will get the big tick anyhow, because a presumption in law must always be rebutted. There may be a set of 12 units or 20 units where a little old lady is living who can make out such a strong argument that the presumption can be rebutted within the principles of justice and equity. I will return to that in a second.
For units in blocks of less than 10, there is no figure. It could be less than 80%, but the presumption is, therefore, against it. Whoever proposes the development has to describe why the presumption against such an order should be defeated and an order be made anyhow.
The classic example of that was an individual who walked into my office about a year-and-a-half ago and said, ‘I own four out of five units in a very popular beachfront area in town. I desperately want the last guy to sell me his unit and I am happy to pay 150% of the value of the unit to buy the person out. I am happy to give him a new unit in a new block of units I will redevelop. The bloke is an absentee landlord and he says point blank he will not give me the go ahead unless I give him the penthouse.’ Unless the person gets a $1m unit in return for a unit worth about $300 000, they will hold out.
This is the point where the strata title does not become a shield, it becomes a sword and is used as a way of inflicting an injury on another person who is trying to exert also legitimate property rights. This is the balance between the two property rights we are talking about. In those circumstances I would expect NTCAT to say the presumptions have been successfully rebutted and issue the order anyhow. It is obviously a fight over money, and is just a matter of one person extorting an unreasonable amount from another.
I was very clear when I discussed this with the legislative draftsman that I wanted the principles of equity to flow through this legislative instrument. The member for Nelson, quite rightly, picked up on the terms ‘justice’ and ‘equity’. I will take the member for Nelson to the word ‘equity’ as a concept in law.
Equity was a system of legal consideration which was built to support the common law when a decision produced a result that, whilst lawful, was so unjust in its result that some structure had to be created to enable that unjust quality to be obnubilated. As a consequence, the principles of equity grew over time and are described as being intermeshed with the common law to such a point that some judicial officers would now argue that they are essentially part of the common law.
But equity comes with a series of maxims attached, which are important to consider. Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. That is the reference regarding a wrong in the common law producing a result which is lawful, but not necessarily just. Equity stands up to interfere. Equity follows the law. The law happens first, equity follows and, if need be, corrects the wrong that has been done.
Where all the equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail, and where there is equal equity the law shall prevail. I do not want to dwell on that because it does not quite fall on point. However, here are the ones that do matter for the consideration of NTCAT.
One who seeks equity must do equity. As a consequence, a person may walk into NTCAT saying, ‘I have done everything I possibly can to find a negotiated outcome which is fair, just and reasonable, and every time we try to talk to this person they just say, “No, get stuffed, I am just going to rent the flat out until such time as you guys yield”’. Clearly the person making the application could say, ‘I have done everything I can that is reasonable, right and equitable and the other party is causing me grief’. That is the flavour of equity. This is well-established legal practice, not some nebulous idea. Equity has been around for 800 years.
One who comes to equity must do so with clean hands. You cannot try to screw over a unit title holder, jam it to them, make their life difficult, etcetera, then walk into NTCAT saying, ‘I am now going to exercise my right in the law’. You must be walking into the NTCAT saying, ‘I have done everything that I can reasonably do’.
Let us say there is a little old lady in a group of 20 flats who says, ‘I just want to live in my flat. I have tried to negotiate with these people and they are just monstering me and stomping me. I now come to NTCAT for protection.’ So long as that little old lady in a group of 20, where there is a presumption in favour – she is the one holding out against 19 and the building is 35 years old – she may well defeat the rebuttable presumption saying, ‘I have done everything right and tried really hard to find a way through this’. Equity will favour that person who comes to equity with clean hands.
Delay defeats equity, which means if somebody uses this process to delay a consideration or a result and it is clearly demonstrated this person is using the NTCAT process, or whatever processes are available to them, to avoid a result, then that diminishes the quality of equity to the point it does not operate anymore. Delay is a variation on this theme that you do not really operate with clear hands. It is about conscience.
There are other equitable maxims. One of them is, ‘Equity will not assist a volunteer’. I will not go into too much detail. I hope I am able to impress upon this House that the use of the term ‘equity’ in the legislation is very deliberate and well-considered. It is supported by a system of law that goes back a long way. One of the equitable principles we have tried to introduce with NTCAT is not binding it to the rules of evidence and strictly to the systems of law available. It directs them, quite clearly, that equitable principles will apply.
I hope that will address the injustices the members for Nelson and Nightcliff have been quite careful to point out, particularly the member for Nelson.
Each one of these cases will have so many variations that it will be difficult to effectively describe, through a legislative instrument, an arbitrary way forward. These things will be as individual as court cases in any other court. Therefore, all we can do is describe parameters and create, within those parameters, certain presumptions. That is what this legislation seeks to do. It creates a number of protections and the equitable provisions are very important in those protections.
There is the need for a proponent of a redevelopment to go through a bunch of hoops that have to be independently assessed by the scheme supervisor before getting the tick to even end up in front of NTCAT. Bear in mind that NTCAT will encourage people who come before it to mediate and come to a conciliated result, rather than necessarily having the tribunal rule. This legislative instrument places – only as the last backdrop of a series of potential solutions – a result which means a direction can be given. That is essentially what this legislative instrument attempts to do.
This instrument attempts to say property ownership does not exist in a vacuum. Property ownership diminishes and advances, and advances and retards, the quality of property rights owned by other property holders who have property adjacent to a property in question. Through this legislation we seek to get the balance right.
One of the areas I was particularly focused on was 79 Mitchell Street. I said I would return to this because I have seen 79 Mitchell Street, situated opposite the cinema in Darwin. It was consideration of what was going on at 79 Mitchell Street which impelled me to go down this path because it is in my electorate.
I understand that on a number of occasions they have been close to having a resolution for the very old, tired and dilapidated unit title scheme at that location so the building could be knocked over and redeveloped. On a number of occasions, but for a handful, if not for one or two, property owners in that unit block – I think there are about 80 or 90 units there – that unit title scheme would have been wound up, terminated and a redevelopment would have occurred. As it stands, they continue, at this stage, to be an eyesore pretty much in the heart of the Darwin CBD. However, it is not the only group of units to which I have turned my mind; it is merely the most prominent example of this issue.
As a consequence of that, I hope we have this balance right. Am I certain we have this balance exactly right? That is a matter which is very subjective in nature. My subjectivity is not necessarily another person’s subjectivity. It is for that reason we need to maintain a close, careful and thoughtful eye upon how this moves forward. For that very reason, I will expect this to be reviewed and I am more than happy to publish the review process into the future.
I expect there will be a number of proponents who will come forward in the short term, then the matters will peter out very quickly to a few matters every year. That would be my anticipation. Whether that happens or not is yet to be discovered. In any instance, this is novel legislation. I am aware this government has brought a number of Australia firsts – in fact possibly even a world first with alcohol mandatory treatment – into this parliament because we are not afraid of trying new things.
One of the greatest criticisms I have of other jurisdictions, particularly one in the United States, which I think is Oregon, which says that unless you have an evidence base …
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank honourable members.
There is a jurisdiction in the United States, which I think is Oregon, which will not allow a legislative instrument to be brought forward unless there is some evidence basis for it. I do not subscribe to that because that stultifies originality and thinking. Sometimes there are things that governments do that do not have an evidence base. Sentenced to a Job, by way of example, is one of them.
I thank honourable members for their sober debate in relation to this. This is an issue that could easily engender fear. Equitable principles are not easy to explain in a seven-second grab on the media. The legislation is constructed in such a fashion as to give as much comfort as we possibly can to all the proponents. It is a way forward for development, yet creates protections for those people who would be unnecessarily adversely affected by the operation of this legislation.
Madam Speaker, NTCAT will find itself in circumstances where it has to exercise the wisdom of Solomon, but that is why the members are paid the big bucks.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: The committee has before it the Termination of Units Plans and Unit Title Schemes Bill 2014 (Serial 104) together with Schedule of Amendments No 30 circulated by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. Before I commence on clauses 1 to 3, are there any general questions?
Ms FYLES: Attorney-General, how does the bill provide for non-financial unit owners to have voting rights on application for unit terminations?
Mr ELFERINK: The bill, as far as I know, does not make any specific arrangements for that. Are you talking about tenants?
Ms FYLES: No. If you are the owner of a property and have not been paying your strata fees for one term or many years – I am not sure.
Mr ELFERINK: My immediate response is your name is still on the title. It is not like you are dealing with the body corporate where you are seeking voting rights and there is a constitutional restraint. Whilst your name is on the title, that is what is at the core of this legislative instrument.
Ms FYLES: Because it goes to the tribunal, if you are in arrears with fees is there any measure to take in that?
Mr ELFERINK: No, the heart of this legislation is an attempt to make sure that people’s property rights are protected. A third-party interest, like a body corporate outstanding fee, is not within the contemplation of this bill and I suspect would have scant attention paid to it by the NTCAT if it was considering the bigger picture.
Ms FYLES: Part 3 refers to unit scheme terminations by unanimous resolution. The section does not provide any detail as to what information a proponent has to provide to the body corporate and associated consultation and submission processes, due diligence and independent oversight, in order to inform a unanimous decision.
Is there a reason the requirement specified in Part 4 for majority agreed unit scheme terminations that go to the information processes and issues I have just spoken about to make an informed decision as a unit owner do not apply in Part 3 for unanimous agreed terminations? Would ensuring consistency not provide safeguards and legal protection for unit owners and developers alike?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, when everybody agrees you do not need to put parameters around it. Imagine a bunch of people in a two-year-old block of units, 20 units tall. It does not apply to this legislation, and everybody agrees to knock the thing over and build a 40-storey tower block. That is a risk anybody takes in the normal world. We do not seek to intrude into people’s rights to engage in free contract. Where there is a meeting of the minds, which is a term in the law of contract that everybody agrees, you do not have to stick parameters around it; they can stick their own parameters around unanimity.
Ms FYLES: On page 8 of the bill in Part 4, what protections are there for unit owners in the situation of unit owners agreeing to termination of the unit title based on a redevelopment proposal and that proposal being modified during the DCA process?
Mr ELFERINK: If a person has agreed they are not subject to this legislation. If a person has agreed to undergo a proposal to redevelop something – that is a contractual risk I would take if I was redeveloping my own house block, or whatever. I enter into contracts all the time for all types of reasons.
The law covers that field particularly well. I could run up and get you my Contracts Law text book from my office and give you a document close on five inches thick dealing with all the problems with variations of terms of contracts, what is a term of a contract, what is an implied term of a contract and all those types of things. That is the law of contract.
Where people agree to engage in a redevelopment, this legislation has scant impact. Where people do not agree and the acquisition of their title right is then in question under NTCAT is where this legislation covers the field.
Ms FYLES: Does the bill provide protection for owners who believe they are signing up to one proposed development which could change into something completely different, potentially having a significant change in the nature of the development? This was an issue identified by PLan.
Mr ELFERINK: No. That is what the law of contract is for. Let us say you sign up to purchase a Rembrandt painting – good for you if you can afford it – and all of a sudden you get a Van Gogh from the vendor. What you say at that point is, ‘That is not what I signed up to’, and that is a contractual fight. It has nothing to do with the operation of this legislation.
In that instance, just as an aside, you would attract the law of specific performance. Specific performance is an equitable proposition where damages will not do because you are after a unique thing. That very unique thing must be imposed, or the court must impose an order.
As a general principle, the purchase of land excites the concept of specific performance, and if you sign up to one thing, and do so voluntarily, then are subsequently misled, then the contractual principles of misrepresentation would apply. If the misleading is so profound then the principles of fraud in criminal law may extend to it.
Ms FYLES: These questions are probably in the same vein of questioning, but does the Unit Title Schemes Act provide adequate protection, and has it been reviewed in consideration of this bill? Did the Development Consent Authority contribute to the development of this bill or make a submission?
Mr ELFERINK: They were told, but I am not sure if we got much back from them. The DCA is like the referee in a soccer match if I want to develop something, either within or outside the boundaries of what the Planning Act and the Unit Title Schemes Act permit. We informed them, and if they had anything to speak to us about, it would have been very unlikely to be a policy issue, it would have been a refinement issue only. As far as I know, we received nothing from them.
Ms FYLES: What about the situation where a strata title was extinguished then a proposal fell over? What protections for individuals are there with that?
Mr ELFERINK: That is a very good question. We turned our minds to it when putting this legislation together. That is the reason you have to settle the matter of the compensatory outcome prior to the development going ahead.
You cannot force a person into a contractual environment. If they absolutely refuse to go down that path, you are then looking at a result in damages. If there is an environment where you suffer a loss, and that loss needs to compensated, then that comes in the form of damages. No project will go ahead until that element of damages has been dealt with and the people who have had the decision made against them are tout of the picture. They are compensated and they move on, then the development goes ahead.
That development is entirely a commercial enterprise which the government has no interest in. If it goes toes up or belly up, that is a matter for the developers. By that stage, a person affected by the operation of this legislation would no longer be involved in the development and would have been compensated for any loss they suffered through the payment of damages.
Ms FYLES: In the same line of questioning, I know you compare this process to buying a home off the plan, where you sign a contract knowing the cost, the finishes and the completion date, including if completion is delayed. How does it impact on somebody? I guess you are saying that is a separate contractual arrangement. I guess there is a grey area if somebody elects to take a new property or a new unit in the new property. How does that come into play?
Mr ELFERINK: In practical terms, let us say there is a group of people who are seeking to exercise the operation of this legislation. We are talking about a block of 20 units in a unit complex which is 40 years old and there is one person saying ‘No, I do not want to go down that path’. They then go to NTCAT. NTCAT applies the laws of equity, as I described in my second reading response. If, however, during the conversation a person changes their mind and says, ‘Do you know what? If you can give me this guarantee and this guarantee, I will be prepared to sign up.’ The moment they do so, they do so voluntarily.
NTCAT would have to be extremely careful that this person was a volunteer and not suffering duress of the system. Mr Bruxner, or any person in the process, would be very alive to that reality. In the law of contract, voluntariness is an important component.
The concept of duress in contract is also a very important component. As a consequence of that, if a person who was in NTCAT then allowed mediation to go ahead and voluntarily signed up to an arrangement, this legislation would stop operating and the law of contract would be immediately enlivened because that person was there as a volunteer. They would then be taking the risk.
NTCAT’s last duty in this space would be to say to the person, ‘All right, you are now signing up for this. This is now your risk as somebody who has now become a proponent of the development.’
Ms FYLES: Just to clarify, I understand what you were saying then, with this legislation, if you own a property and you do not want to partake, but it goes to NTCAT and it thinks it is fair and reasonable, will they force a monetary offer or will they force a spot in a new property? Is that defined?
Mr ELFERINK: It is not, but I would be astonished if it was anything other than monetary compensation. You cannot force a person into a contractual arrangement. This matter would have to be acquitted, dealt with and off the books before the development went ahead. It is as simple as that.
Ms FYLES: Is there a reason why it is not in the legislation?
Mr ELFERINK: It is because you cannot force a person into a contractual arrangement. If you are not a volunteer in a contract it is, by definition, not a contract. As a consequence, we are dealing with some absolute concepts. This legislation deals with a person who is not a volunteer.
It is coercive, and it comes to a result where they are paid out, for fair value, for whatever they lose. If at any point in that conversation they say, ‘I will sign into the redevelopment’, they become a volunteer, which is a different. That has nothing to do with this legislation.
Ms FYLES: Because we are looking at this from the perspective of everyone who currently owns a unit that may be affected, is there any requirement for the proponent to provide an estimated cost of the proposed development, sufficient information for a unit owner to make an informed decision?
Mr ELFERINK: It would be settled on fair value of what exists there. I draw your attention back to the legislation, where there is a large list of hoops to jump through.
If a proponent was to go to a person holding out and say, ‘I will give you the eighth-storey sub-penthouse for this’, and it is valued at, let us say, $800 000, where the fair value of the existing unit is $500 000 or $300 000, the advantage to the person receiving that would be a substantial monetary gain. We heard the minister for Planning describe exactly such a circumstance in his response.
Once again, this is an absolute. Once you buy into the idea that there is a unit waiting for you in the final product, you are in the area of contract and you have volunteered to occupy that space. The law will be quite clear. You are either being coerced or you are a volunteer. I could not imagine, in any real context, somebody who is a little-bitish or might be a volunteerish, coerce-ty sort of person – good luck with that, Hansard.
Ms FYLES: I will move on. The bill does not require the same level of financial transparency and certainty when requiring a homeowner to sell their title based on a proposal. How does a homeowner identify if the redevelopment is a good decision for them, particularly when they are intending to buy into the development?
Mr ELFERINK: Once again, it comes back to this one issue: they are either paid out and are out of the scheme entirely, or they are in. Being in is a commercial development which has a commercial consideration, nothing at all to do with the operation of this legislation.
Ms FYLES: Thank you, Attorney-General. Given the complexity of this bill, has the government considered the development of practical tools like a basic contractual agreement template that can be embedded in regulations to assist the everyday Territorian if they find themselves in this situation and are trying to deal with it?
Mr ELFERINK: The short answer is that already exists, but not in regulation. REINT has template contracts for these sorts of things all the time. Again, I point out this is a straight fair-value compensation. The valuer, by the way, will be independent of both the proponent and the person affected or subject to an application under this legislation. Once again, it would not attract a contract if they are still operating under this legislation.
If, however, a person is considering going down the path of buying into a redevelopment, I am sure that person would be able to get a very quick valuation on the proposed unit in that environment. There would be a number of standard contracts available either through REINT, which I would recommend a person go to because of their experience in the Northern Territory – I bet you London to a brick if I looked on the Internet I would find a number of those contracts available to me in a general guide.
I understand what you are doing. You are asking a series of general principle questions and I get that entirely. It is just as convenient to go through this path.
Ms FYLES: Around identifying the meeting requirements to vote on a proposal, I noted the changes on it we received today might cover this. To vote on a proposal, the meeting must be held not earlier than three months or later than 12 months. Are there specifications for the level of consultation and discussion required between the proponent and the unit owners prior to that meeting to vote on a proposal?
Mr ELFERINK: That would probably be subject to regulation. Even without regulation operating, bearing in mind what I said before about the principles of equity, those who seek equity must do equity. If you are seeking a decision from NTCA you will have to be able to demonstrate to NTCAT you have done all the right things, because if you ain’t you are going to get chucked out of there.
Ms FYLES: In addition to the submission, are there to be presentations where, in a managed and transparent way, unit owners can ask questions of the proponents? I probably can second guess your answer.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, and you will be entirely right.
Ms FYLES: Around the timing, where unit owners vote on a proposal and the required majority is not achieved, the proponent can resubmit the same proposal at six months. That seems to me a short time period. I would have thought 12 months. Are you able to …
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. As I said before, this legislation is full of arbitrary time limits. It is arbitrary; this is law. The whole of the statute book has a bunch of arbitrary numbers in it. You and I could argue subjectively about the merits of those time limits until the sun expands and we are sucked up into a red giant in five billion years’ time. We have settled on six months. It is arbitrary, but we have been guided by the submissions we have received.
Once again, if a proponent was to use the six-month time limit almost as a hammer to beat the little old lady, if you like, then you would find that NTCAT would be quite critical of that and you would be doing yourself a disservice if you use that legislation in that fashion.
Ms FYLES: Thank you, Attorney-General. That six months seems like you just got through one process and you are facing another, particularly if people are genuinely thinking about it. They may be incurring legal and financial costs. That time frame seemed a little short.
There seems to be no limit on the number of attempts which can be made. Do you think it may be appropriate to place limitations on the process so we do not see this continue almost to the point of harassment?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, that is pretty much what I described before. I can also say the cost component is very much at the heart of NTCAT. An application to NTCAT will cost you $49; that is it. You do not need a lawyer to walk into NTCAT.
NTCAT will make sure those equitable ideas are followed through, so you are on pretty safe ground in that environment. NTCAT will chuck you out the door if you are using this legislation as a weapon. Moreover, you would have to come up with something new. The application would not even see the light of day if it was an unchanged application just rolling out every six months.
Ms FYLES: I had a couple more questions but I will save them. Thank you.
Mr CHAIR: There are a fair few amendments so we will go through these reasonably quickly.
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr ELFERINK: I move amendment 30.1, that clause 12(1)(c) be omitted from the definition of ‘prescribed number of days’ in clause 4 and it be replaced by clause 12(2)(b)(i).
The first effect of this amendment is that under clause 12 an objector to a proposed termination will have 28 days rather than six months – 182 days – in which to make a decision to either agree to the termination to sell the unit to the proponent, sell the unit to a third party or make an application. The 28-day period starts from the day the body corporate makes a resolution in favour of the termination.
The period of 182 days was originally set to make sure the person seeking to sell the unit on the open market would have sufficient time to do this. This issue is now covered by clause 12(2)(b).
The second effect is that the owner who makes the decision to sell on the open market will have 182 days from the date of the resolution of the body corporate to provide a copy of the contract to the proponent.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 11, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 12:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.2 that the words ‘accompanied by a copy of a binding accepted offer to purchase the unit’ be omitted from clause 12(1)(c)(ii).
This is a technical amendment consequential to changing the time periods as described by the amendment to clause 4 in which various decisions must be made by an objecting owner.
Clause 12(1)(c) will deal with decisions that must be made within 28 days of the termination resolution. The words being omitted by this amendment are being moved to replace clause 12(2)(b).
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.3, that the words set out in clause 12(2)(b) be omitted and replaced by the new clause 12(2)(b)(i) and (ii) as set out in the amendment schedule.
The new clause 12(2)(b) sets out the obligations of an objecting owner if the objecting owner gives notice under section 12(1)(c)(ii) that he or she wishes to sell the unit on the open market. If so, the objecting owner must enter into the binding contract within 182 days of termination resolution and must have the property sold by no later than 42 days after providing a copy of the binding accepted offer.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I move amendment 30.4 that the words ‘subsection (2)’ be omitted from clause 12(3) and replaced with the words ‘subsection 2(a) or (c) if applicable’.
The effect of this amendment is to remove the current reference in clause 12(3) to clause 12(2)(b). This will mean the time period referred to in clause 12(2)(b), as provided for in amendment 30.3, is not relevant under the subclause for determining the date by when an application can be lodged by a proponent to the Northern Territory Civil Administrative Tribunal, or NTCAT, concerning an objecting owner’s failure to comply with clause 12(2) and the new section 12(3)(a) which deals with this issue.
I also note that the new subsection uses the terminology ‘binding contract’, rather than ‘binding accepted offer’. The replacement terminology has been used because it is easier to understand.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I amove amendment 30.5. I move that the new clause 12(3A) as set out in the amendment schedule be inserted after clause 12(3).
This new clause sets out what a proponent may do if an objecting owner, having made an election to sell the property on the open market under clause 12(1)(c)(ii), fails to either provide a contract within the prescribed time – 182 days of the date of the commencement of the termination resolution – or having done, fails to complete the contract within 42 days after providing it to the proponent.
The proponent can apply to NTCAT for an order for the sale of the unit at a price fixed by NTCAT after NTCAT has received the report referred to in clause 12(4), being a written report from the valuer. The sale is on terms and conditions determined by NTCAT which must comply with the requirement set out in the regulations.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.6, that the words ‘of a unit in the development’ be removed from clause 12(5)(b)(ii) and replaced with the words, ‘of the objecting owner’s unit’.
Clause 12(5)(b) sets out that a person must be served with a copy of an application to NTCAT under clause 12. One of those is each mortgagee.
Currently, clause 12(5)(a)(iii) is drafted so each mortgagee of the units must be served. The intention is, however, that the only mortgagees who need to be served are those holding a mortgage over a unit owned by an objecting owner.
Amendment 30.6 provides for this change and that is described as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.7, that the words ‘entered in the record of administrative interests’ be removed and replaced with the word, ‘registered’.
The Office of the Registrar-General has indicated a preference that the resolution mentioned in clause 12(7) be registered in the Land Titles Register rather than be recorded in the Record of Administrative Interests. The main reason for supporting this suggested change is that currently the Registrar-General has a warning attached to the Record of Administrative Interests to the effect that the Northern Territory of Australia does not guarantee the accuracy of the information contained in the record. It is not appropriate that a clause 12 resolution be subject of such a warning and the amendment 30.7 is as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.8.
I move that the word, ‘proponent’ be omitted from clause 12(8)(a) and replaced by the words, ‘the body corporate’.
The effect of this amendment is that it is the role of the body corporate, rather than the proponent, to provide details to the Registrar-General for the purposes of the Registrar-General entering details of the proposed termination in the Land Titles Register.
This is an issue raised by the Law Society of the Northern Territory. The change reflects the view that formal changes regarding the body corporate’s title should be the responsibility of the body corporate rather than the proponent, and that is reflected, as circulated, in proposed amendment 30.8.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.9, that all words from and including ‘enter’ to ‘section 38’ be removed and replaced by the words set out in the schedule of amendments.
The amendment is consequential to the amendment to clause 12(7) regarding the registration of the termination resolution on the land title, rather than the less formal Record of Administrative Interests. Amendment 30.9 has been circulated to reflect this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.10, that the words after ‘information’ in clause 12(8)(c) be omitted and replaced by the words set out in the schedule of amendments.
This amendment is consequential to the amendment made to clause 12(5)(b)(ii). The effect is that the reference in clause 12(8)(c) to the Record of Administrative Interests is replaced by reference to the Land Titles Register. The wording of clause 30.10, namely clause 12(8)(c), has been circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.11, that the new paragraph (d), as set out in the schedule of amendments, be inserted into clause 12(8) after clause 12(8)(c).
This clause makes it clear that the proponent is responsible for paying any fees the body corporate may incur for the purposes of registering the termination resolution with the Registrar-General.
Amendment 30.11 has been circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.12, that the word ‘proponent’ be removed from clause 12(9) and be replaced by the words ‘body corporate’.
This amendment is consequential to the amendment to clause 12(8)(a). If there is a need to seek an extension of time for the lodgement of a resolution by the body corporate with the Registrar-General, it should be the responsibility of the body corporate to seek the extension. That is reflected in amendment 30.12, as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 14, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 15:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.13, that the words in clause 15(a) be omitted and replaced by clause 15(a) as set out in the amended schedule.
This amendment arose from briefings provided by the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice and my office to the shadow Attorney-General and the member for Nelson. The amendment makes it plainer that under clauses 15(a) and 16(1), applications for the termination, can be made to NTCAT concerning developments for which there are less than 10 units. It also spells out that applications can be made concerning other developments not subject to Part 4. These other developments include developments having 10 or more units that are less than 15 years old. This amendment does not change the meaning of the current clause 15(a).
Mr Chair, I understand that the amendment 30.13 has been circulated and does not require me to read it out.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Ms FYLES: Attorney-General, I have a couple of questions on clause 17 but I am happy for you to make amendments first.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. This is the replacement of a semicolon I think.
Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.14. I move that the word ‘appropriate.’ be omitted and replaced with the word ‘appropriate;’.
This is a drafting change to accommodate the new section 17(2)(e) as outlined in amendment 30.15.
Ms FYLES: Is there any reason why the factors a tribunal has to take into account in making an order are not prescribed in this bill, rather than regulation, which is obviously subject for debate? Perhaps you could give a little more detail on what constitutes ‘unreasonable’, as referred to in clause 17(1)(b).
Mr ELFERINK: I know where you are going with this. Without being too pedantic about saying we are only discussing a semi-colon in this particular case, I get the question.
Reasonableness is a concept at law which fills textbooks. It first found its life as an expression of law, I think in about the 1920s or 1930s,
Mr Conlan: Oh, here we go.
Mr ELFERINK: She asked, mate, she will cop it.
Mr Conlan: I am surprised it is only 1900s. I thought it was going to be the 1600s.
Mr ELFERINK: I will give you the condensed version.
Reasonableness is a concept that found itself out of the law lords in the 1920s or 1930s and was described as ‘the man on the clock at Clapham omnibus’. The man on the Clapham omnibus is, if you like, a perfectly reasonable human being, utterly fictional in truth other than the fact that this is a person who sees the world through a completely reasonable lens.
The reasonable person was adopted in Australian law in about the 1950s and was described in Australian law as ‘the man on the Bondi tram’. In the modern world it would be ‘the person on the Bondi tram’ but it does not rhyme quite as well.
Reasonableness is well-guided by many court cases discussing the concept, both directly and in obiter. It is never a perfectly-defined idea but it is now generally a well-understood principle of law.
Ms FYLES: Thank you. I have a copy of the September report into this act which proposes that in the general principles of any order being determined by the main criteria of an economic necessity for the redevelopment – for example, the cost of repairs that reasonable owners would not incur for the health, safety or amenity of the building – planners are concerned that the emphasis is not enough on the age and the condition of the building. I am not sure if you have a comment on that.
Mr ELFERINK: It comes back to that same issue of reasonableness. Once again, I am talking about a building I do not even know about. I have cited a couple of examples here, but in truth this legislation will refer to buildings I do not even know exist. If it stays on the statute books for another 30 years it might refer to buildings that do not exist yet.
We leave it for another body such as NTCAT to make that review. Of course, the test of reasonableness, which is well understood by NTCAT, as well as the principles of equity, will apply. Consequently, on a case-for-case basis they will come to a resolution that makes sense in all the circumstances.
Ms FYLES: Clause 17(2)(c) states that the tribunal must consider the financial benefits and risks of the proposed termination, and if applicable the proposed redevelopment. Does this clause address the general principle of economic necessity? What expertise will the tribunal have to make this determination? Can they seek independent advice to inform their decision?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes and yes.
Ms FYLES: Thank you.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.15 that clause 17(2)(e), as set out in the amendment schedule, be added after clause 17(2)(d).
The new 17(2)(e) provides that additional matters can be prescribed by regulation, being matters that must be taken into account when termination is being considered by NTCAT or the Supreme Court.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide greater flexibility to the matters that must be taken into account when considering a termination. That amendment is as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 28, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 29:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.16, that clause 29(1) be omitted and replaced with a new clause 29(1) as set out in the amendment schedule.
The substantive change made by the amendment is that the words providing for the payment of a prescribed fee of the Registrar-General are included. This change removes doubts as to whether fees are payable for the registration of terminations under section 72 of the Unit Title Schemes Act. The amendment, as circulated, refers to these amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move amendment 30.17, that in clause 30, after the word ‘Act’ in section 54G(1) of the Land Title Act the words, ‘the prescribed fee must be paid to the Registrar-General, and’ be inserted.
The purpose of the amendment is removing doubt as to whether fees are payable for terminations. This is in accordance with amendments circulated to all members.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Before I finish, I thank Mr Robert Bradshaw of the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. Were he in parliament today he would have been receiving accolades of gratitude from me for the enormous work he has put into this bill under trying circumstances. That truth is not lost on me. Mr Bradshaw is a dedicated, faithful and loyal public servant of the people of the Northern Territory, and I place on the record my thanks and commendations to him for managing this particularly difficult legislation in such a professional manner.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): As shadow minister, I also acknowledge and thank Mr Bradshaw for his efforts in briefing me and getting me up to date in a very short period of time, and I thank the minister.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
POLICE ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL
(SERIAL 98)
(SERIAL 98)
Continued from 22 October 2014.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, this is my first bill in relation to police since taking on the shadow responsibility a few weeks ago. I place on the record my thanks to the member for Fannie Bay, who has held this portfolio responsibility in the Labor opposition for the past two years and done an excellent job. I also acknowledge that this bill is sponsored by the Attorney-General and not the Chief Minister as minister for Police.
Discussions on our side arrived at not only workload but looking at responsibilities. It was decided that I would respond in the second reading to this bill.
I recognise the vital role our police have in keeping our families and communities safe and the often dangerous work they do in law enforcement. The Attorney-General knows that only too well. I also recognise the need for contemporary legislation which best supports Territory police, men and women, to do their jobs.
I thank the police for their briefing on this bill. It was standing room only in my parliamentary suite office a couple of weeks ago with three senior members of the police force, two lawyers, the Chief Minister’s police adviser, me and an adviser from the Leader of the Opposition’s office. I thank them for the briefing on the bill. They are clearly, and not surprisingly, of the view that the two amendments to the Police Administration Act are both reasonable and logical.
However, the more I have spoken to people about this the more concerns have been raised. It is appropriate to highlight these concerns in my contribution today, in the hope that the Attorney-General can address these issues – as I am sure he will – in his reply later in this debate.
The amendments today contain two very different and unrelated elements of the Police Administration Act, and both deserve close scrutiny. I also need to add that concerns have been raised – and they are reasonable – about an overall review of the Police Administration Act and the need to understand what exactly the government’s priorities are in reviewing the act. Why is it that these two amendments come before the House today, in the midst of – I understand from the Northern Territory Police Association – a current review already afoot into other parts of the act, including Parts IV, V and VI?
The first amendment I will speak to amends Part VII of the act, which pertains to police powers, and inserts a new Division 4AA, ‘Taking person into custody for infringement notice offence’. This amendment enables the so-called paperless arrest. The legislation gives police the power to take someone into custody for a period of up to four hours before they commit an offence, if the police think it is in the best interest of the individual or the public to do so. Police may take the person into custody for a period longer than four hours if the person is intoxicated. The rationale behind this – and the examples that were given during the briefing – is if someone is drunk, as I have just mentioned, but not extremely intoxicated, or agitated, or at risk of committing an assault on anyone, then the police can bring this individual into custody to ‘cool off’ – was the language used – or have ‘time out’ for minor offences. Once the individual has cooled off an infringement notice can be issued and they do not have to go through the police or court system, hence the term ‘paperless arrest’.
The example talked about was that the police can intervene before the individual goes too far and commits more serious offences – nipping things in the bud, you might say. On top of this, the rationale is that it will free up the courts and police resources from a lot of paperwork that would tie up the courts and police with things that would just be fineable offences anyway.
It was pointed out during the briefing that this amendment only covers infringements such as acting in a disorderly manner and intoxicated people, but not traffic infringements. It is focused more on the public nuisance scale of public drunkenness and situations where violence could occur or might be expected if the individual was allowed to continue with their behaviour.
On the surface this might seem like a reasonable amendment; it gives police an extra tool in their tool box to keep criminal acts down. It frees up courts and keeps police on the street, not behind a desk. It is perhaps not unlike the extra tool which was once the Banned Drinker Register, which went a long way to dealing with so many problem drinkers as a liquor supply and harm reduction measure. It was a tool police are on the record as saying was very effective in their line of work, before the Attorney-General gagged them from offering further commentary.
Members on this side might initially support the principle of reducing paperwork. I hear the CLP’s mantra of reducing red tape in the background. However, in discussing this legislation with stakeholders such as the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory and NAAJA, it is clear there are some concerns. I raise those concerns with the Attorney-General now and hope to get some assurances and answers to the very valid questions they have raised, as well as the concerns we on this side of the House share.
As I said, the Criminal Lawyers Association and NAAJA are concerned by the paperless arrest amendment. The Criminal Lawyers Association said the paperless arrest bill is appalling, in their words, and that it gives carte blanche for police to apprehend and retain people for four hours on trivial matters.
It raises the question, what rights do these people have to put their case when detained under this proposed amendment for paperless arrest? What of a person who is, for instance, not intoxicated and has not even been drinking, but who may give the outward appearance of displaying behaviours similar to an intoxicated person because they are perhaps unwell or have a mental health issue? What if the individual is on medication for a condition – let us say this person has not taken or been able to take prescribed medication and, as a result, we see some unusual behaviour?
There are no nurses deployed to our remote police stations, such as where I come from in Nhulunbuy, nor at places like Galiwinku, Gapuwiyak and other communities where police stations, through federal funding, have been constructed. What avenues are there to assess the health and wellbeing of these individuals detained on the strength of a paperless arrest?
It was made plain in the briefing I had that the problem in instigating the paperless arrest and taking an individual into custody is the behaviour itself.
The Criminal Lawyers Association claims this is being misleadingly marketed as a scheme to reduce bureaucracy, rather than for what it is. They talk about, ‘Legislation which will, in effect, give police the power to impose serious punishment …’ – we are talking about deprivation of liberty – ‘… on people suspected of committing minor offences, with none of the protections of the conventional criminal justice system’.
With the news a couple of weeks ago about the cessation of the Return to Country program, axed by government and, until recently, administered by Larrakia Nation, I am concerned we will see more people stranded in Darwin, unable to get back to their family and community, who will potentially feature amongst these new paperless arrests.
CLANT and NAAJA do not raise their misgivings lightly. Perhaps the minister can address these concerns. The fact that CLANT did not even see this legislation for input before it was introduced into the parliament is also of some concern. CLANT has said the Department of Justice, quite appropriately, always consults before legislation is introduced. This way, quite rightly, their concerns can be addressed or met or, in some instances, amendments put to proposed legislation. I will be grateful if the Attorney-General could advise which stakeholders were consulted on this bill.
Could the Attorney-General give the people of the Territory assurances that the deprivation of liberty that comes with this change will be addressed in a proper manner and what that manner will be? Can the Attorney-General explain if there will be systems in place for people to use if they believe they are being unfairly targeted by this law? Can the Attorney-General commit or explain if there will be an independent review of the system, such as the Ombudsman for example, to ensure this law is being used correctly? By virtue of being a paperless arrest, what systems will be in place to monitor who has been arrested for whatever infringement? Will the Attorney-General commit to a review of this law in 12 months to see if it is doing what it is intended to, and to enable scrutiny to ensure there is no misuse of this provision or no adverse incidents that arise as a result?
While this amendment may have more cons than pros, there are some questions that need to be answered to give Territorians assurances that there are checks and balances in place to ensure this bill and this intended law does not change what it is intended to do.
I note the Northern Territory Police Association advised it had no issue with this amendment. To a large degree that does not surprise me. We know they are really strapped for time, busy on their feet in their day-to-day work. Anything that would streamline things for them in doing their job obviously would be welcomed by their members.
I move to the second part of the bill which deals with an entirely separate matter. It is what makes it difficult to provide wholesale support or opposition for a bill when such diverse and entirely unrelated matters come before this House for consideration. But at the same time, I recognise this is part and parcel of the parliamentary and legislative process, namely that we are presented with one bill, elements of which we might find difficult to support or necessarily reject.
The second amendment pertains to Part IV of the act, ‘Discipline’, specifically section 76, ‘Breaches of Discipline’ and section 79, ‘Service of notice for alleged breaches of discipline. I understand these amendments are about strengthening the power of the Commissioner of Police to require a police officer and member to answer questions under lawful direction in relation to an internal disciplinary investigation into the officer or perhaps another officer.
I was advised during the briefing with police that it is about giving clarity to the Police Commissioner during a process known as directed interviews, and when questioning a police member about an internal disciplinary matter, they must answer the question or questions put to them.
I am advised this amendment seeks to close a loophole following a decision in 2013 in the New South Wales Supreme Court which determined the New South Wales Police Commissioner did not have the powers under the New South Wales Police Act to direct an officer to answer questions after claiming the privilege against self-incrimination in criminal matters.
I understand it is putting into legislation what has been accepted as the common law principle when it comes to police dealing with their internal investigations. This amendment provides for the requirement of answers and removes the protection against claiming a privilege of self-incrimination, something which exists for employees in any other workplace.
On the surface this might appear to be a reasonable amendment. Joe Public might reasonably except that police should, when under internal investigation, answer questions truthfully so as to keep the integrity of the police force at the highest order.
It is also worth noting that this amendment does not have universal adoption into all state and territory laws. In fact, I am advised the Northern Territory will be the first to adopt this law, while other jurisdictions are looking at the result of the NSW decision in 2013.
My question to the Attorney-General is, why is the Northern Territory moving so quickly towards this amendment to the Police Administration Act when there are still many other amendments the NTPA has been calling for, and when there is already a broader view afoot of Part IV of the Police Administration Act?
The Northern Territory Police Association does not support this amendment, and is critical of the amendment and the lack of consultation around disciplinary investigations which will give the commissioner the power to direct a police officer to answer questions during a disciplinary investigation and remove the protection to claim the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid answering such questions.
During my meeting with Mr Vince Kelly, President of the NT Police Association, which was immediately after my briefing on this bill, I was made aware of the NTPA’s disappointment with the lack of any discussion or issues paper as to why the proposed amendment we are discussing had been drafted, it would seem, in the absence of fulsome and genuine engagement.
In his second reading speech the minister thanked:
- … the multitude of stakeholders involved in the development of these reforms, including … the Northern Territory Police Association.
This is a claim the NTPA describes as inaccurate. The NTPA, in representing its members, has provided me with its position on removal of these protections. It is a position I understand has been made very clear to the Attorney-General. Rather than paraphrase, in the interests of accuracy I will place on the record a couple of paragraphs from the correspondence sent to me by Vince Kelly:
- Had we been properly consulted on the draft bill before it was tabled in parliament our association would have raised our concerns over the ability of civil plaintiffs being able to obtain discovery of transcripts of disciplinary hearings when making claims in tort against the Northern Territory and individual members of the police force as determined by the Chief Magistrate Mr Lowndes SM in the matter of Huddleston v Northern Territory of Australia 2012 NTNC039.
By extension of that decision, it is also likely that any testimony and documentary evidence disclosed in a disciplinary hearing could also be used against an impugned member in criminal prosecutions.
If this bill is to proceed and is passed by the parliament, we would seek that it be amended to provide protection to a member who has been charged with a disciplinary offence pursuant to section 84A of the act by inserting a new subsection under section 84B stating that hearings under that section are to be conducted in-camera and that evidence, both oral and documentary, produced by an impugned member in such a hearing, and the transcript of the hearing, may not be used in any other proceedings against the member under the act other than in an appeal pursuant to Part VI, or in any civil or criminal proceedings in any court or tribunal other than the Police Appeals Board.
Similarly, we ask that section 6 of the bill be amended so that section 79A clause 3(a) does not exclude the answers and information provided by an impugned member to be used in appeal proceedings under Part VI of the act, which would appear to be the effect of the current wording of that amendment.
The Northern Territory Police Association is on the record about the government’s priorities in holding them to account about their failure to commit to progressing blood testing legislation, or dealing with the NTPA’s call for reinstatement of welfare officers as a chaplaincy program.
These are very important reforms which go to important matters of health and wellbeing for police men and women. As an aside, we know the member for Fong Lim, when he held the portfolio, and then the Chief Minister, in rejecting not one, but two, private member’s bills introduced by the member for Fannie Bay – the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Fire-Fighters Bill – said they would introduce their own bill in October sittings to look after firefighters who are overdue in their bid to adequately be compensated for cancer contracted through their work. Regrettably, the Chief Minister has done nothing of the sort. He is also the Police minister.
Presumably he is too busy with his own fire sale of public assets like TIO. At the eleventh hour, a ministerial statement on workers compensation was circulated yesterday which we will be debating today. While reference is made to compensation for firefighters and what the government will do, it is not a bill. We are talking about a bill which is yet to be delivered and is now long overdue. Obviously I am talking about firefighters, but we are talking about the same minister who has responsibility for police understanding the priorities.
The issues of blood testing and the need for the return of a chaplaincy program were both raised quite publicly at the NTPA AGM in outgoing President Vince Kelly’s address. He did not spare the Chief Minister any pain in holding him to account about keeping his promises on the commitments he has made to police. Mr Vince Kelly was also critical of the Chief Minister’s broken promise over extra police.
This is why I place on the record these questions. It seems that the priorities around policing, as far as the government is concerned, are at odds with members of the police who work tirelessly day in and day out to serve and protect the community in ways that often risk their own personal safety and wellbeing so they can uphold law and order, and in doing so, do their best to work with the government of the day in a manner which is positive and constructive.
Mr Kelly said in his address at the August conference, ‘It is our view that government of any political persuasion will make better policy decisions by listening to all viewpoints on each issue, in our case the well-informed voice of operational police on the front line’.
The CLP claims to be a friend of the police but has done nothing except break promises to them in areas they see as desperately needed. Why is it the government sees the need to clarify this part of the act around disciplinary matters as a priority when other vital legislation, such as the promised amendments to the act giving a member powers to obtain blood samples from offenders taken into custody who have exposed that or another member to risks of bodily fluid transferred infection – the blood legislation – remains outstanding? This, along with more police and welfare officers, are promises that are well overdue.
When it comes to police, we have a government that will talk tough. When you look closer at it they are not friends of the frontline police, making them glorified bouncers at bottle shops, not giving them the support they need and expecting them to work harder for it. Although, I daresay the Attorney-General in his response will tell us they are supporting police with measures such as paperless arrests.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to hearing what others have to say during the second reading debate.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will not be voting on this, not because I do not want to, but because I was not able to get to the briefing. The briefing was at a certain time and it was impossible for me to get there. I would still like to contribute to the debate because I did get some correspondence from Vince Kelly, who is someone I respect as a fine member of our community and a hard-working President of the NT Police Association.
When a bill like this comes through, it obviously needs a good deal of discussion. From reading what the Police Association has said, it has concerns about the adequacy of consultation. I also get a little frustrated when we start talking about police; I hear many things said.
People might have seen some photographs in the NT News of some lads having to clean up some rubber on somebody’s driveway. My area has rubber everywhere; it is all over the roads. If you look at the new road to the prison, there is more rubber than bitumen. I have asked the Chief Minister to try to do something in the form of CCTV cameras; I was told to dob them in. If you live in the rural area, you know how difficult it is to dob people in.
We need more police on the beat in those areas. That is where I would like to see a little more emphasis. I am before parliament talking about some amendments in relation to people being picked up if they look like they may commit a regulatory offence – I think that is the correct title; I will check. They may commit a prescribed offence that would attract an infringement notice.
These people cause many people in my rural area a lot of heartburn, yet I do not see any real action by the government in trying to do something about it. I asked for CCTV cameras because it is impossible to dob these people in. Their actions last about 20 seconds, and flying out of your house to try to get a number plate is simply impossible.
Perhaps police could follow a couple of cars around and put people away for four hours until they calm down. That might be one way of trying to do something about it. I get so frustrated when I see nothing or very little being done. I receive continual complaints about hooning in the rural area. If somebody from the government would like to come to the rural area I will take them on a tour of the doughnuts. Just about every intersection in the rural area is covered in doughnut marks yet it is so difficult to get this government to do something practical about that issue, which has been ongoing.
However, I am here today to discuss an amendment to provide members of the Northern Territory Police Force with an alternative post-arrest option, where a person who has committed certain prescribed offences may be held by police for up to four hours. Whether that is a good or a bad thing I am not sure.
We can talk about these things, yet when I see matters that need to be addressed and which have been raised in this parliament many times, I am so frustrated there is no real attempt of trying to do something. If the government wants to spend some of the money from TIO, may I ask they spend it on some CCTV cameras in the rural area, and maybe other places like the industrial area of Palmerston where those gentlemen at least nabbed a few fellows and made them clean up the mess.
Some of these things are overlooked in the bigger picture of crime, but they are matters which get the goat of many people in my area. Yet nothing seems to be done. Police can go there for an hour and you might not see them for another week or so. They try their best and probably do not have the number of people they would like to have to do something about it. When you see ATVs driven by people without helmets on, unlicensed, unregistered, running along the edge of the road, sometimes with two or three people on them, you know it is dangerous. You phone and ask for something to be done, but nothing is.
I am not knocking the police, they do the best they can. But it seems that sometimes they concentrate on some of the issues that are before us today. Whilst I am not saying they are not important issues, they are the sort of thing that would worry most people in my area or be regarded as major issues. The issue for them is trying to do something about people misbehaving on our roads.
Now I have that off my chest, member for Port Darwin, as sometimes you have to, I read the letter from the Police Association. Obviously I am interested to hear your response to that. I will not repeat it all because the member for Nhulunbuy has quoted a fair bit of that letter.
I do not believe I should vote on the bill because I have a lot of respect for the Police Association, especially Vince Kelly, and I have not received a briefing in relation to it which could at least give me the ability to balance this debate. Simply, I have not heard the other side of the story except what you have written in your second reading speech.
The other thing I wonder about is this being a paperless arrest. I have never seen anything paperless yet. What I normally see is a government department sends you an e-mail and you print it ...
Mr Elferink: I will explain it to you later. It is not quite that way.
Mr WOOD: Not quite that way? You are paperless and I am the one who gets the paper …
Mr Elferink: No, no, do not panic.
Mr WOOD: Yes. I wonder about the concept of paperless arrest – whether in fact there will be a piece of paper somewhere that records this.
I will not go on any longer. I felt I needed to say something about what is happening in my area because we make a big fuss over these changes. The Police Association is not overly happy that many of the things they wanted to happen have not happened, yet some of these other things, which I do not think they believe have been fully consulted about, are being rushed through.
Whilst this is important, some of the material that hits my desk in the rural area is far more important, but unfortunately nothing happens. I hope the government will make an effort to take up some of these issues. I am sure the member for Goyder knows certain roads in her area that are burn-out pads. She will know about people at the back of Taylor Road who ride ATVs and motorbikes in a dangerous fashion. I am not against off-road vehicles, but in the right place and the right time – no trouble at all. There is behaviour about which the government needs to say enough is enough. People will lose their lives. People will also take the law into their hands if they feel their amenity of living in the rural area is being affected by hoons who have no respect for other people’s property, quiet or lifestyle.
Madam Speaker, I will leave it at that, thank you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support the amendment brought to the House by the Attorney-General this afternoon to bring about legislative changes that will embrace paperless policing as a part of moves to improve efficiency in the Northern Territory Police Force.
This amendment does not necessarily create an entirely paperless arrest, but it does allow for an improvement or an increase to police powers which, in effect, makes two things. First of all it makes sense, and it allows for police officers to spend more time on the road and less time tied up in police stations filling out paperwork.
I have 21 years’ experience as a police officer in the Northern Territory so I can fully understand the exact paradigm this amendment fits into, what has gone before and what has happened in more recent years. I remember when, in years gone by, as an arresting police officer one used to be able to knock over an arrest file in about 30 minutes. In fact, you could probably do it in less time if it did not involve putting someone on a breathalyser. I remember the good days when you could bring a suspect in …
Mr Wood: Those were the days!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: They were the days, member for Nelson, indeed. You could bring a suspect in, have that person breathalysed, one police officer would do the prcis and the other partner would do the apprehension report and, lo and behold, 30 minutes after you could be free and clear and hand over your arrested offender to the watch house staff who would then process and look after that individual.
Times have changed with the advent of computerised policing. The introduction of the PROMIS system in the early 1990s changed things a lot. The police force moved from a simplistic modus operandi to a more complicated and complex scenario where much more statistical information was gathered and held by the police force. This necessitated entries onto a computer system. That, I assure you, added an enormous amount of time to what was a very simple process for making an arrest.
Not so much in answer to that, but to improve policing powers throughout the years, we saw sections 137 and 138 of the PAA brought into being which allowed police officers to arrest people and hold them for specified lengths of time. This allowed for certain things to occur around the investigation of an offence: being able to conduct interviews, find prisoners’ friends and do a whole range of things. That took care of the top end of offending where serious offenders could be held in custody under those circumstances.
Throughout the course of time protective custody was often used as a simple mechanism to remove people who were causing a problem from the streets. Sometimes that protective custody led to the issuing of a summary infringement notice after that person was released.
I understand that, over time, the courts found there are some issues with holding people in protective custody, then issuing some punitive order at the end of it. It makes sense to provide police with an alternative power and, in effect, this is what this change of legislation is. It will allow police officers to arrest people for relatively minor offending, and for that person to be held in custody for four hours at which time, quite legitimately, an infringement notice or some other action could be issued against that person.
In effect, that does a number of things. One is it allows that offender to be removed from an offending situation. For example, that person might be involved in a fracas on the main street of Katherine. They might not be drunk, therefore not invoking the powers of section 128, but may have offended in a way which, if the police officer did not arrest that person, the offending might well continue or that situation escalate.
That person can be removed under arrest and placed into custody. Then, without the need for a police officer to sit for what might end up being a couple of hours to go through a normal arrest procedure of completing a file, that person would be held in custody until they could be issued with an infringement notice. That is a much simpler way of dealing with an offender from an administrative point of view.
Again, it is a mechanism whereby police officers can remove offenders from a situation and not be tied up doing oodles of paperwork, allowing them to get back out on the street as quickly as possible, which is critical in this day and age, as it always has been. This is a sensible, pragmatic way of dealing with those types of offences and situations as I have described them.
I can assure you that had this legislation been around when I was in the police force, I would have made quite hefty use of it. I worked very hard as a police officer. I remember in those very early days that arrest rates for me were very high because I loved my job. It was good fun to protect the community, but at the same time we took that job very seriously. I can only imagine the number of hours this type of provision would have saved us in paperwork over the course of the 21 years I served as a police officer.
Madam Speaker, I will not belabour this too long. It is good, sensible legislation. I know it is not necessarily supported by some quarters. I understand that the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency has publicly criticised this. That is what you would expect from a justice agency such as NAAJA. Nonetheless, this provision provides police officers with sensible powers and I am very pleased to support it today.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, as the Attorney-General, I wrap this up as I introduced the bill. Whilst it deals with police powers, it has come under the umbrella of the Pillars of Justice framework, which I have carriage of on behalf of the Northern Territory government.
There are a couple of things I need to address at the outset. I will deal with the Vince Kelly response first. I have not seen that letter from Vince Kelly. I understand he has sent it to other members, and conceivably sent it to me, but for some reason it has not found its way to me.
If I understood correctly what was read into the record by the member for Nhulunbuy, there was concern whether or not material evidence retrieved from a police officer in an interview which arose out of a breach of discipline could be used in a subsequent tortious action against the member. If I understood that correctly, then my reply is to draw the attention of the honourable member for Nhulunbuy to the proposed sections 79A(3) and (4), found in clause 6 of the bill. Those sections read as follows:
- (3) However, the answer to a question or the information is not admissible as evidence against the member:
- (a) in any proceedings against the member under this Act or
- (b) in civil or criminal proceedings in a court.
Civil or criminal proceedings in court:
- (4) Subsection (3) does not apply in relation to proceedings for the following matters:
- (a) perjury;
- (b) employment;
- (c) a claim in tort against the Territory made by the member.
The answers given by a member in such an interview can be used in a tortious action against the police force, but not in reverse, as seems to be suggested by the member for Nhulunbuy.
The commissioner has asked us for clarification around this uncertainty. This bill will restore the legislation to operate in a fashion that everybody always expected it to operate but for the decisions that I referred to in my second reading speech. I hope that helps the member for Nhulunbuy in relation to her inquiry. I also hope it helps the Police Association because it is not conceivable, under the interpretation of my reading of this legislation, for a tortious action to be brought against a member using the material extracted under the provision of the operation of this act.
Putting that to one side, I refer back to what this is about: the control of the streets. It is nothing more complex than that. I listened very carefully to the member for Katherine, who well remembers the day when processing a simple street offence was a very simple process. I obviously am a complete dinosaur because the PROMIS system post-dates me. All I remember is the simple act of arrest, doing your AP or a prcis, the file going in, then you could go back on the street. If you and your partner were really quick and pretty good, you could knock it over in about 20 to 25 minutes pretty comfortably.
The PROMIS system came along, then the requirements for things like notebook entries, which I always had anyhow – I was always very particular and meticulous in keeping my notebook up to date – were introduced. As time passed, greater and greater impositions were made.
The IJIS system was introduced and created certain expectations on police officers, particularly in the days of unmanned watch houses which Alice Springs had. We used to keep 150 people under protective custody in Alice Springs – before the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody – without the watch house being manned. Those were risky days, but that is how the system used to operate. Nobody thought too much about it.
The problem nowadays is that the process of arresting a person is laborious; it is hard. I want to paint a mental picture for members to provide an understanding of why I want to go down this path. The police will generally deny this, but on a quiet day, many will confess to it. On a Friday or Saturday night in Mitchell Street or in Alice Springs you will have X number of patrols. Let us just say you have three patrols in Mitchell Street on a Friday night, and there are a lot of drunken yobbos walking about committing offences. The offences they are committing are section 47 breaches of the Summary Offences Act – this is the old riotous, offensive, indecent language, disorderly behaviour or fighting section. I think that was the list from section 47.
A police officer would see this going on, stop the car or walk up to these people and tell them to cut it out, or they may go down the path of telling that person they will get a SIN – a summary infringement notice. Believe it or not, I pre-date summary infringement notices. I actually entered parliament in 1997 when these things were introduced. I remember saying to the then Police minister who introduced them that they were not a good idea. I am not really that warm towards summary infringement notices because of what the Summary Offences Act enabled police to do. It was a clean-up act. It was an act that enabled police officers to arrest a person and take them into custody and out of circulation.
Taking a person out of circulation was really important because every single copper out there will know this truth: the moron standing on a street corner being a foul-mouthed git at 9.30 pm at night is nearly always the person you are arresting at 2 am for a serious assault, sexual assault or something worse. If you take them out of circulation nice and early you are already well in advance of cutting off a lot of problems down the track.
This is where the problem arises. An arrest now generates, I am told, close on two hours of paperwork – let us accept one-and-a-half hours for the sake of conversation – and there are three units working on a Friday night. A police officer brings that person back to the watch house, and I understand they have to stand there and wait for the person to be processed. They then do the paperwork, which means updating a PROMIS job, generating an apprehension report, updating the IJIS system where necessary, as well as doing a prcis of evidence. That takes a couple of hours.
I tell you what happens in the real world. The shift sergeant will be poking these coppers in the back of the head the whole time they are in the police station saying, ‘Get out on the road, we need you out on the bloody road. There are jobs piling up.’ Two units are out of commission doing an arrest, and that is really problematic. Police try to deal with the matter by moving people on and dishing out a sinny, but they do not take these people out of commission. They do not remove them from the streets. They become – this is the part they will only whisper to you behind their hands – arrest averse, because they want to (1) avoid the aggravation of the shift sergeant yelling at them to get back out on the road and (2) make sure they do the right thing and stay on the streets as long as possible.
The arrest rate is not high, even when Mitchell Street has many problem people on the street. This robs the police of the power of control. I heard, of course, the complaints from lawyers who say this is arrest without trial and those sorts of things. It is not arrest without trial because there is capacity to have the matter heard through the normal hearing processes as described on the summary infringement notice.
Second, we already have a form of arbitrary arrest without a court appearance which you can find in section 128 of the Police Administration Act. We take people out of circulation for up to six hours, and if we have got them past midnight, we keep them until the morning. It is appealable. You can apply to a magistrate to have your condition reviewed.
This legislation does not create a circumstance which is not already in the contemplation of the law. I will give you an example. If a police officer does arrest somebody for a street offence and takes them into custody and places them in the watch house and they have been charged with that offence, bail may be set. If you read the Bail Act you will see it can take up to six hours – I think it is six hours, somebody remind me. Not too sure? Six hours, I am pretty sure of it. I will have to double check it. For six hours you can hold a person in custody before you determine bail. Even if it was four hours – and I will have to double check it – the effect is the same. If you have four hours to determine bail, the shift sergeant says, ‘I will get around to it in the next two hours because I am busy at the moment’, and that person is still sitting in custody.
People talk about the rights of citizens to be unmolested by their police forces unless they have reasonable grounds. Of course, you have the right to be brought before a court at the next practicable opportunity. In truth, the law has always accepted a time of deprivation of liberty as described by the member for Nhulunbuy, which has always operated under the law and continues to operate to this day.
This system simply restores a simple idea that when a police officer arrests a person for a street offence, they have taken that person out of commission. They bring them to the watch house, drop them off at the watch house, write out the summary infringement notice – so it is not entirely paperless – which goes into the property bag of the person who is then placed in the cells for the next four hours. In four hours’ time, they come out, collect their property, collect their summary infringement notice, and if they wish to contest the allegations in the summary infringement notice, then there are processes for that to occur. Those processes are explained on the back of the summary infringement notice.
This means the police will no longer become arrest averse. It will actually say to the police that if these clowns are playing up, arrest them, take them into custody, get them out of circulation. I will bet you London to a brick serious assaults later on in the evening will substantially drop. Moreover, I will bet you London to a brick the police will feel a much greater level of control over the environment they police.
Police want to have a level of control, not because they are thugs and bullies, but because they believe in standing up for the integrity of social order in our community. In fact, that is what we ask them as members of parliament and as citizens of the Northern Territory do every day. We want them to do these sorts of things. We want them to respond.
I heard the member for Nelson say he wants the police to respond in this circumstance, in that circumstance, and to his needs. Part of the problem is that many of the police he wants to respond are sitting in police stations pumping out arrest files – at two hours each – and dealing with the logjam of paperwork which diminishes their capacity to respond.
That is what this legislation is. If you like, to a degree it is back to the future. We are doing it because at some time in the past, certainly within my memory and I have just heard the member for Katherine describe it within his memory – I am glad to see the member for Sanderson, who predates both member for Katherine and I; he is the stegosaur and we are from the Jurassic. Modern policing can look back to us reptiles and know we remember a time when we used to arrest people regularly, put them in cells and control the streets effectively.
This legislation is about restoring the concept of effective control back to the hands of the police force. I do not doubt the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory will be highly critical of this because, of course, it represents criminals. That is not true, they are only criminals after they are convicted. Their predisposition will be one of absolute liberty rather than any form of custody. It is the default position they have.
Whilst I understand that default position, having studied law and political science I get the concept of liberty. But in the practical, real world of Mitchell Street when people are standing on street corners with their pants around their ankles blaring out expletives or baring their buttocks to passing cars, expectorating, fornicating, urinating, defecating and doing all the other things they do when they have a skin full of juba juice, we can now say to the police, ‘Go out, lift them, pull them out of circulation’. You may be doing them a favour because whilst they are sitting in the cells they are not getting drunker still and committing, later in the evening, indictable offences.
That is basically what this power will be for the police: to quickly and efficiently deal with individuals who present themselves as offending generally against the Summary Offences Act. It will give police a vehicle by which to remove them, contain them and then release them. It is a form of catch and release. If a person wishes to object, they still have all the systems of appeal available to them, either through the courts, the internal police investigation process, the Ombudsman’s Office or the civil courts. The remedies are there and the time spent in custody by a person does not exceed the contemplation of the Bail Act in any instance.
This no more an imposition on the good citizenry or burghers of the Northern Territory than any other legislative instrument has contained before. It represents efficiency and a capacity for the police to respond to minor street offences before they decay into indictable ones.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
I am mindful there are seven minutes to go before General Business. I do not think it is worth bringing on business at this stage, so I will finish with some observations in the third reading stage to get us through to General Business.
As I said before, the amendments we are seeking to provide to the police force in the Northern Territory are welcome. I have spoken to a number of rank and file police officers in the street who, in many instances, do not know who I am. I do not recognise most police officers nowadays as I have been out of circulation for too long. When I introduce myself I talk to them about this idea of a paperless arrest. To a person, they understand exactly what I am proposing. From a rank and file perspective, the police officers of the Northern Territory have indicated to me they very much welcome these amendments. I understand the NT Police Association also has welcomed these amendments for similar reasons.
Operational police have a tough job in our community. They try very hard to maintain law and order on the streets, and they must be given the means by which to do it. This idea is not unique to the member for Port Darwin, as much as I would like to claim it as an original. In truth, this was mentioned to me by the Commissioner of Police in passing some months ago. My mind immediately seized upon it, and because I was in charge of the Pillars of Justice policy on behalf of government, I was able to intrude into the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services’ domain and have this legislation drafted up by the police. It has been brought before this House, and will, I suggest, pass in this House in about five minutes, and be sent off to the Administrator for passage into law.
I encourage the police, as soon as this becomes law, to establish a general order as soon as possible. I encourage rank and file police officers to begin using this as soon as this legislation passes into law. I want people to be safe on our streets. I want police to be able to clearly demonstrate to the people of the Northern Territory that they are in control of the streets. Whilst I sound like somebody who wants a police state, I certainly do not. But that is not to say I believe the streets should be abandoned to those who think any behaviour is proper behaviour, and the rat-baggery described by the Summary Offences Act is something you should aspire to rather than something you should be ashamed of.
Clearly the police have to deal with drunken morons. This is a young jurisdiction with many people in it who behave like young people. That makes them 10 foot tall, bullet proof, and in many instances, utterly irresponsible.
I cannot begin to count the number of times I arrested people for summary offences many moons ago. In 1983, this was a much younger jurisdiction, in the sense of self-government having only been brought to the Northern Territory five years earlier. That was the year I joined the Northern Territory Police Force. I was operational and up and about as a constable by 1985, regularly patrolling the streets of what was then called the A Sector, the Darwin CBD; I presume it still is.
The A Sector presented police with a very particular problem. The nightclubs at the time were Fannies in Edmonds Street and I think it was still Crystals or Darby’s in the old casino site. There was Dicks as well in my old patrol district. There was any number of those pubs …
A member: The Dolphin.
Mr ELFERINK: The Dolphin in Nightcliff was a spectacular hole, as was Lim’s The Cage Bar. Goodness, gracious me, I would hate to think how many square inches of my skin are on the floors and car parks of some of these public houses because of having to control the wayward behaviour of some of these individuals. That was in a time when we were easily able to arrest these people and drag them out.
Now, because of the systems that have been put in place – and I understand the need for systems like PROMIS and IJIS – I am always mindful of the fact you do not necessarily want or need public servants, whether they be police officers or otherwise, to become slaves to a computer system. Computers, like everything else, should be tools which enhance the quality of the work done by public servants.
When a system becomes so onerous that it becomes an impediment to a public servant doing their work – including an operational police officer at three o’clock in the morning in front of a nightclub – then it is an impediment, not only for them but to the community as a whole. I could not think of a better way to remove red tape from operational police officers. I look forward to the police officers using this legislation, but them using it with discretion – the common law powers of discretion they have – and within the spirit of the law, not just necessarily the letter of the law.
I am sure a general order will be created to instruct police on how to use this system, but I encourage police to pick up the cudgels of this new power and use it for the proper maintenance in law and order and for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Government Actions to Rush the Sale of TIO
Government Actions to Rush the Sale of TIO
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that this Legislative Assembly condemns the Chief Minister and the government for their actions to rush through a sale of TIO:
without a mandate
without going to the Public Accounts Committee
and that the Legislative Assembly asserts that future insurance protections for Territorians are at risk.
I gave notice of this yesterday in the hope we would be debating TIO tomorrow, and would have had a little time in between. That is obviously not the case, but that does not mean some of these issues cannot be revisited.
Two things happened yesterday. The government was trying to convince us there was a good reason to sell TIO, and there was a rally around Parliament House of people saying not to sell TIO. That reflected the gap between Territorians and the government.
The government said it had a good reason to sell the TIO. As I have said before, that may be the case. I have heard some quite reasonable debate in this parliament, but it has not convinced the people of the Northern Territory. One of the main reasons the government has not convinced people selling TIO is something they should embrace is because it has not spoken to them.
The first item in this motion states that government has acted without a mandate. The Chief Minister has said a number of times that this debate has been going a lot longer than just the last couple of months. Many of us cannot believe that. There were rumours and the odd comment made, but the only real time I felt the government was fair dinkum about selling TIO was on about 1 October. That is probably when most people also realised the government would become serious about this sale.
If the government had been looking at it for a long time it was obviously before the election. It would have been worthy of the government, which was making promises about all sorts of things before the election, to at least say it was considering selling TIO, but would not do it without a proper consultation process with the people. It did not happen. Even though the Chief Minister has said that Labor had posters before the last election and at the show, I had no real idea and I do not think many members of the public did. Except for Labor using it as political advertising there was no real evidence the government would sell TIO.
Unfortunately, I do not think most people believed the government would sell TIO; there was no mention of it during the election campaign. Whilst the government might say it has tough decisions to make – I am not denying governments have to make tough decisions – there is a fine line between leadership and arrogance. Leadership is what has been missing here.
Leadership would have meant taking people with you. What has happened here has been more of a case of, ‘We are going to do it, we are tough. We do not really care what criticism we get, we will live with that, but we are going to do it.’ In some ways that shows a gutsy attitude. If you had a real case, you would not need to go down that painful path; you would have convinced Territorians this is a good deal. From the rally yesterday, one could presume you have not convinced people.
The challenge for the government between now and the next election is to convince people that things will be okay. That will take a fair bit of work, especially if people see changes in their insurance fees. The government has said that things will carry on as if TIO was still TIO. Obviously there will be some changes, but will there be more changes than TIO said there would be?
The consultation process is the key for me. This is not trying to put myself up as high and mighty, but I tried to do something, along with two business people. They came to see me and were concerned about their businesses. I would say they were probably pretty good CLP supporters with a small business. I said, ‘Let us see if we can find out what the real story is about insurance, about selling TIO’.
We booked Mal Nairn Auditorium at Charles Darwin University. We put ads in the NT News. I think from memory we put ads on the radio – not cheap. You pay $250 for a 30-second ad on Mix 104.9. You pay about $695 for a reasonable-size ad in the public notices. The three of us – and we did get some help from another person later – had to fund that campaign, not for any political reasons but because we felt there was no debate occurring in the community regarding why we should sell TIO.
When we held the public meeting I was hoping it could be a reasonable meeting where I could listen to the people’s concerns, the people could hear the views of TIO, the Chief Minister and the opposition, so they could hear a reasoned debate, and at the same time question the people taking part in that debate. That is the way to have a two-way consultation process.
Unfortunately it did not happen. The meeting occurred and a little over 100 people attended. The Leader of the Opposition and Richard Harding, who I have a great deal of respect for, attended, but the Chief Minister did not. I heard last night, and my understanding is, the Chief Minister was somewhere else in the sense that he was not available, or was at some function interstate or intrastate. I do not know. The impression I got when I mentioned this to the Chief Minister was he simply would not be around so he was not coming. I e-mailed one of his deputy chiefs of staff and asked if someone else could come, presuming the Chief Minister was not available. That did not happen either. I was told, ‘No, there will not be anyone coming because this meeting has been hijacked by the Labor Party and the unions’.
Then, to hear last night from the member for Nhulunbuy – I do not know whether the member for Nhulunbuy was in Hanuman ...
Ms Walker interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Oh, the member for Nhulunbuy was in Hanuman. The Chief Minister was having a meal while we were having a public meeting to discuss this important issue.
I do not care about the flack I might get for not supporting this TIO sale. You can try to give the people an opportunity to hear about an important issue. When the Chief Minister turns up, do you blame me for saying, ‘Well, blow this. If you are not interested in trying to convince people that it is a good idea, do not ask for my support because I do not know, I have not been part of this discussion either’.
Richard Harding gave a terrific talk and gave TIO’s point of view. What we did not hear was other people who might have a different point of view. I received a phone call last Friday from an insurance broker who had operated in the Northern Territory for 25 years. He did not agree. Why could we not have had him as part of the debate? Was there another side to this story? I have heard the story now from the government through the debates in parliament, but the people have not heard that except through the media. We need to have the mature debate with experts.
Wayne Wood – no relation of mine so I am not plugging a member of the Wood family – wrote to the paper the other day. He has lived in Darwin for many years. He was questioning whether there were any alternatives. I mentioned one alternative in the last debate, which was whether you could have a public meeting. The Chief Minister said, ‘No, we looked at that. We are probably a bit small for that.’ I had people ask me exactly the same question. If we had had a more fulsome debate some of those issues could have been looked at.
I will give you another example. I raised some issues about a major transport company in the Territory which had obtained workers compensation quotes from TIO, a range of other companies and Allianz. The member for Sanderson saw me yesterday – thank you, member for Sanderson, I appreciate that. He explained that perhaps I had it wrong and that TIO insurance would stay the same and Allianz does not work in this area. That might be right – and I appreciate the comments from the minister – but how will the public know that? A major company got some quotes and sent them to me. They do not understand if that is the case because the implication of what the government was trying to do has not reached the public. If it is the case this company should stay with TIO because it is $55 000 cheaper – the price Allianz is charging is not related to what TIO is charging because they will operate as two separate companies even though TIO is owned by Allianz.
It highlighted to me that this important debate had not gone to the lengths it needed to go. If the government had really wanted people to come along with it, it needed to set this debate back a lot further and not do it from October to now. That is why people said they were not with it. That is sad because there was an opportunity for the government to get on the right foot, but it did not and it suffered.
I recommended we take this to the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee could have been asked to look at this six months ago. The member for Port Darwin said we will trash the brand. There is no way I would trash TIO. We would be taking it out to people saying, ‘We have a good company but there is an option to improve the company. We want to hear from you.’
I do not know if we could do it with that committee; we were able to do it on the Council of Territory Cooperation. You could have brought people before the committee who are experts in the insurance field. I am not an expert in the insurance field, but the committee could have brought experts before it to discuss it around the Territory, because it is not just about Darwin and Katherine. The company I am talking about does not operate in Darwin or Katherine. We are thinking of cyclones and flood surges, but TIO insure you for lots of other things.
We do not want to get stuck on those matters. We should have looked at the Public Accounts Committee as a way of developing this issue. After all, why have a Public Accounts Committee? It is meant to look at government finances and would have been an opportunity.
The motion also mentions deception and the amount it will get from the sale of TIO. I have looked for figures in a media release from 24 November 2014. The only figure mentioned is in the the first sentence:
- The Territory Insurance Office will have new ownership but will remain a standalone brand in the deal worth $424m.
A journalist raced up to me outside Parliament House saying, ‘Do you know how much they are selling it for?’ I said, ‘I did not quite catch it’. He said, ‘They are saying $424m, but we asked a couple of questions and they are not selling it for that much. They are moving money from MAC into that amount which makes it look big, but it is not the amount we are getting for the insurance part of the Territory Insurance Office.’ So whilst it might be ‘correct’, it led people to believe the sale of the insurance company and the banking was $424m, which it was not.
That is what is annoying. Why was it not up-front that this is how much the insurance company cost, this is how much the bank cost and this how much we are moving from the MAC Scheme to help build up – I am not saying is not a good idea – an infrastructure development fund. You get the impression someone does not want to tell the whole story. That is why people start to wonder what is going on.
The other issue was the Senate inquiry. I have heard comments that it is run by Labor. Senate inquiries are run by many people. If the government had waited for the Senate inquiry – I do not know whether it was going to come here – it would have been an opportunity for it to put its good, strong case that it needs to sell. It would also have been an opportunity for the public to hear about it – they are public hearings, I presume – and for the government to be questioned about the asset sales.
In the previous debate, many people talked about asset sales. The Liberal government in Tasmania decided it would only sell one asset and would not sell the rest of its assets. It was a promise made at election time. It understood there were sweeteners put out by the federal government, but it decided that it would only sell one asset. I do not have that paper in front of me, but I clearly remember that debate ...
Mr Giles: It only has one asset that it can sell, by the way.
Mr WOOD: It did not say that when …
Mr Giles: That is the truth.
Mr WOOD: Well, that is not what they said. I remember reading the debate. They said, ‘We are not going to sell the other asset’. There was one asset they did sell. They said, ‘No, we promised in the election we would not sell them’. That is an issue that is probably a bit broader than this debate today.
We will not have many assets left. The printing office is gone, the bus company is gone and the insurance company is gone. We have the port, and the way it is going we will not have it for much longer, or at least we will not have the real ownership of it, it will be leased out. I am not getting into that at the moment as we are talking about the TIO. We will not have any assets left except for this House. You could get a few badminton courts in here; look at the height. I reckon that is not a bad idea. I reckon the badminton club would reckon this is a great place: air conditioned, soundproof, just across the road from the Deck Bar – perfect. But I am sure that will not happen. It just goes to show you we will not have many assets left by the time this government is finished its term in office.
Also on this motion is the concept of ‘the basis of securing reward payments from the federal government’s recycling program’. I heard the Chief Minister say we will get 15% on top of the price we sell our assets for. In a media release on 4 October he said:
- The Asset Recycling initiative offers …
… States and Territories a 15 per cent incentive to sell eligible assets and re-invest the proceeds in critical new, economy-growing community infrastructure.
I am an outsider, I believe we are going to get 15%.
A media release on 20 October stated:
- The Federal Government’s Asset Recycling initiative also offers a 15 per cent financial incentive for us to sell eligible assets and re-invest the proceeds in new, economy-growing infrastructure.
Anyone reading that media release would believe that asset recycling initiative is a goer, something that is happening right now. Lo and behold, I did not realise it was not until someone sent me an e-mail to say it has not been passed. An outsider would have accepted the Chief Minister’s words that we would receive an extra 15%. I do not know whether we will get it on top of $424m. What will we get it on top of? Will it be the $424m or will we get it on what the insurance company and bank are worth? We will only get that 15% if it is passed through the Senate. The impression I got was it is happening now and we would expect a 15% incentive payment. Again, people are having trouble trusting the government when it says something which is not exactly accurate.
The end of this motion says that the Legislative Assembly asserts that future insurance protections for Territorians are at risk. That is the area most ordinary people would have liked to have seen in black and white: ‘What is my insurance now? How much can I expect it to go up by? What changes will it make?’
A transport company sent me an e-mail which talked about $107 000 for workers compensation, and Allianz charging $171 000, or something like that. People are really concerned about what will happen to their insurance premiums. The Chief Minister said they will not go up. They will go up to some extent because Richard Harding has already said they will do spot pricing. I accept that, and it makes a lot of sense.
People do not know, and even I do not know. I cannot tell you what will happen. My concern is people did not receive the message you are trying to sell. You did not take the time to explain to ordinary people. Most of the 15 000 people who signed the petition were ordinary Northern Territory people – and that was up and down the Northern Territory. At that stage we had a little more time to run the campaign. There were ordinary Territorians in Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Mataranka – I think we might have left one at Renner Springs or even Three Ways as well. We did not get out to Borroloola, but someone may have taken some copies there and to Timber Creek. In that period we got 15 000 signatures and no one was forced to sign. I got nearly 1100 signatures in two weeks. Nobody asked them to sign it. It just sat on a table with a sign, ‘Do you think TIO should be sold?’ and people signed it.
I have organised petitions before. Sometimes petitions are a waste of time because the government does not take any notice of them. I know when there is a feeling in what people are thinking when the pages tick over each day. I collect them and there are three or four pages. I could go back the next day and there would be three or four pages full again. I have put out petitions before which sometimes have comments written across them telling me what they think of my petition. I did not get it in this case; many people signed.
Chief Minister, I know the deal is done. From a government’s point of view you have a lot of work to do to convince people this is a good move, which it may be. I hope if you spend this money we do not waste it, because people would expect you to invest it in projects that will make money.
I have heard many suggestions in this debate, and it becomes confusing. There was an equestrian centre and a swimming pool. Someone said to me, ‘We could get a swimming pool in your area’. The idea of a swimming pool has not surfaced since the last election, so I was a bit surprised to hear that. There was also a suggestion of a rectangular sporting field. The debate about what we should use the money for is serious.
TIO is a profitable organisation, at least over the last five years. I admit it was struggling before. If you are to use money from selling a company that showed a profit, then people expect it to be invested into something that will help grow the economy and show some returns so we can keep reinvesting money into the Territory. That is a good idea. But when things are suggested such as rectangular football fields, equestrian infrastructure and other things, they are what I expect to be part of government’s normal budgetary items. If we are to have an infrastructure development fund then there needs to be a few smart brains in a room working out the best way to invest this money.
We are here to debate what has happened. We all have concerns about it. However, I am also a realist and know we have to move on. The deal is done. Whether I like it or not, it is done. I would like to see the money you get used for projects that will definitely benefit the Territory, and hopefully get some financial returns back to the Territory to keep this infrastructure development fund alive. We should not just spend it and say, ‘That is great’, but target it to make sure we get the best value for money.
I hope, Chief Minister, if you are responding to this, you might give us some more details of exactly how this money will be spent so we get best value for dollar. That is important.
At times I am concerned with the way money is spent. It is difficult for government sometimes. We spent millions on Tiger Brennan Drive. The Labor Party spent millions on the overpass, and you are spending millions on duplicating it. If I was coming from the member of Arnhem’s electorate and I was having to travel up the Central Arnhem Highway, I would say, ‘What about us?’ I did it about two months ago. You need a good vehicle, put it that way. It is a 50:50 road: 50% good and 50% terrible. If I was a pastoralist – I know they are going to do up some of the road on the Plenty Highway past Mount Riddock. I have been on that road around Mount Riddock and there is a lot of traffic in that area. It can be as corrugated as blazes. Do we spend the money on those areas? You are looking at developing a new port. There is no road there. Do you spend some money in that area?
I am not saying that is where you will spend the money. However, wherever we spend the money it has to be well considered, not just wasted or something that is good for the next election. We have to think a bit broader than that in this debate. We have to say, ‘We have this pot of money; what is the best use for it?’
I raised these issues as an epilogue to a debate that is obviously something many people have heard many times. Some things need to be put on the record about the way in which TIO was sold and I have tried to do that tonight. It has been sold. We might not like it. The people might have said this was a bad move. The government has made a decision and that is the right of any government.
What I would like to hear now is what you will do now you have sold TIO. You also need to come back to parliament and say, ‘This is the state of affairs for TIO now’. Give us some idea how we compare with our premiums – some of what ordinary people like to hear. What are the premiums now? Is someone doing a control on premiums of TIO for car insurance, workers compensation, fire, theft, flood, cyclone, storm surge – whatever? Do we have a record of what it is for TIO today?
We know those things will not stay the same, but can we look over the next three years to see what changes and whether the benefits the government claimed have occurred? If you believe this government, it has said we have to reinsure at a higher cost than other insurance companies, and by having Allianz take that up, those costs, in theory, will be less. Will the lesser costs we will supposedly have for reinsurance be reflected in lower premiums? We need a report from the government saying, ‘This is what it was, this is what we claimed it would be and here is the proof of the pudding’, or not. We need to take this debate a lot further along in the years to come to see whether the claims the government made occur. That would be a positive thing to show the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I will answer a couple of questions. To answer the last point on risk rating, it is very hard to provide analysis on the comparison because every policy is different. Every house in the Territory would have its own risk rating based on the age and condition of the building, geographical location, topography and a range of other things. Combined with that is the risk rating every individual has with that property. You could have someone under the age of 25, male, employed and a smoker – a whole lot of other risk factors go into that. Insurance companies combine all those individual risk factors with others, put it through a formula, and that gets a risk rating which applies to a premium, depending on the level of insurance you take.
You could have all those risk profiles combined, and then determine that you want to insure your house for $400 000 and the next person, if they had exactly the same risk profiles – which would never happen – may want to insure their place for $500 000, for example. That is the challenge. Plus each year the value of homes changes with the fluctuation of the market. We now have CPI going up by 2.5%, land values might go up by 4% and property prices might go up by 1.5%. There are many contributing factors. If you did an analysis of two years to five years, everything would be different. You have to take it pretty much on the law of averages to provide a cost analysis. You would have to look at averages and identify reinsurance components within a premium to see the difference in reinsurance components, but you would not be able to specifically do individuals, their properties or otherwise.
The same goes for motor vehicles. For example, some motor vehicles have higher risk ratings than others for theft. Some last longer than others and they all have different profiles. If you combine that with the different age of a person and a person’s driving record, they all change. It has to be done on the law of averages. Are we looking at that? Yes, we are so we can monitor that into the future with a high degree of scrutiny.
I will not get into the politics of the game you are playing in this motion, but I point out the debate on TIO has been going on for a long time. Despite the misleading comments by the opposition, this was discussed well before the Casuarina by-election. They were running petitions at their booths at the by-election with signs everywhere, so to say that was not the case is false.
Let us talk about the port. Already the lies have started about the port. We have been talking about how we expand the port – the quay line, the hardstand areas, whether there is dredging, tug pens, building new areas for the port, rail loops, all of that sort of stuff – for a long time. The earliest media release I issued was in February this year talking about a long-term lease for the port. We have always said we will not sell it. Anyone who understands the port in this Chamber, which probably would not be too many people in the opposition, knows there is not a huge regulatory environment for ports around the Northern Territory outside Darwin.
I challenge you to write this date down because no doubt you will say you have never heard of any of this before. We have been talking about how to get more capital investment into the port. Anything you do at the port costs a lot of money: a new conveyer at the port for bulk goods costs $35m, roughly speaking; hardstand areas – $40m easy for ponds; and rail spurs, hundreds of millions of dollars. This is money the government does not have, with major debt thanks to Labor.
If we want to see expansion there, we need major capital investment. We cannot afford to do it – fundamental. If we want to grow northern Australia you need to have a higher level of capacity at the port. If you want to do things such as reduce the cost of living from imported goods, you must have a greater level of economy to scale, which means more containers, bigger ships and the like have to come over the port, which is what we are negotiating now. Do the people at the port do a good job? They do a fantastic job. The staff, the management team of Terry O’Connor and Melissa Reiter – everybody there does a great job.
However, we need a capital injection. There are a couple of ways that can be done. One is we can sell it and the other is we could long-term lease it, which is generally the way things are done these days. It used to be sold. We could find a capital equity partner for a cash injection or sell bits and pieces off and use the money. There are different things going on with things like the marine infrastructure park. You could do what Labor did with the Marine Supply Base with a long-term lease – I think 25 years for the MSB – and the rate of return in that area, which is another asset sell-off in a partnership model. There are a range of different things.
We have talked about a long-term lease of the port all year – in this Chamber, publically, on radio and all over the place. We had the CEO and the deputy CEO of the port give a briefing to port staff this morning – or maybe it was yesterday. Labor this morning asked questions about the port and a long-term lease and started attacking us about asset sales, fire sales, carrying on like crazy.
When you talk about a mature debate, this is the start of one right now. The difference with the port and a long-term lease, as opposed to TIO, is we are trying to get in front of the game, which, politically, will probably be the wrong thing. We should do it the same way we have done TIO.
Tomorrow, two pieces of legislation will be tabled. I am not sure if I am doing them cognate or separately, but there will be two tabled. One is about the regulatory environment and the other is about the future operations of the port. We have said flatly we are not selling the port.
That will sit on the Table for three months. If anyone wants to refer it to committee, go ahead and do all that. It will be there for public debate and we will be talking to the port and everybody, consumers and otherwise.
Already today the very poor-performing member for Nightcliff has issued a slanderous media release saying we are selling the port, already misleading the public. I get politics, I understand it, but this is the situation you find yourself in. She knows we are not selling the port. She has probably never been to the port, but that is beside the point. This is the challenge of getting the message out. As a mature democracy you should be able to have the debate right and not just lie to people. It is a flat lie ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr Giles: I have not said or talked about lying in the Chamber, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, you were very clear with your previous rulings.
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw the reference to lies and lying please.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I would like a point of clarification. If someone deliberately tells a mistruth outside of this Chamber, surely I have a right to call that a lie?
Madam SPEAKER: No, not in the Chamber. It is the language that is not accepted in the Chamber, Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: I withdraw. I am not reflecting on the Chair, but I find even more outrageous that someone can say something completely untrue out of this Chamber and we cannot even reflect on the untruth. It is outrageous.
We are trying to start a mature debate. We are bringing the legislation forward early, and you cannot even get it right because of the mistruth being told today publicly …
Ms Lawrie: A little sensitive.
Mr GILES: No, it is not sensitive at all. We know how you operate.
I rest my case, Gerry.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister, given an opportunity to defend the condemnation in this General Business Day motion does not because he knows he would be trying to defend the indefensible. He knows the points laid out here by the Independent member for Nelson are correct.
The CLP has sold TIO without a mandate. The CLP has sold TIO without a proper two-way consultation process with Territorians. The CLP sold TIO without taking it to the Public Accounts Committee. The CLP has been deceptive about the amount it will get from the sale of TIO. Before public hearings are held in the Territory early next year by the Senate inquiry into asset sales, the CLP sold TIO. The CLP said the sale would include securing reward payments from the federal government’s asset recycling program, but it is a scheme that has not even been enacted. Future insurance protections for Territorians are at risk because the CLP failed to put any legal guarantees in either the legislation or the conditions of sale.
That is why the Chief Minister gave his view on risk analysis in the insurance industry, then went straight to the port. He did not even try to defend and make a case that any of the points in this General Business Day motion are wrong, because they are correct in fact. Every point in this motion is an undeniable fact. That is why this Assembly seeks to condemn the Chief Minister.
We have a Chief Minister who was not elected by the people of the Northern Territory, who took the mantle of Chief Minister after he knifed the previous Chief Minister who won the election when that man was on an overseas trade mission, which embarrassed us with a trade partner. The man who is now the Chief Minister has not stood before the Territory public and said, ‘You can trust me to lead the Territory’; he worked the numbers in his party room and knifed the elected Chief Minister, who was tested by the electorate.
As Chief Minister he pretends that somehow he has been bestowed a mandate, when we know in fact there is no mandate to sell TIO. Why? It was very clear. In previous considerations of the sale of TIO when Labor was in government there was an overwhelming view from the Territory community, supported by CLP policy, not to sell TIO. Understandably, when people went to the 2012 election and government and opposition parties put their policies to seek mandates on those policies, not one policy came from either party to sell TIO. In fact, quite understandably, the Territory public viewed both parties as having the policy of protecting our public insurer TIO as a public asset. There is no mandate.
The Chief Minister in debate yesterday tried to pretend the sale issue has been going on for years and questioned why everyone is saying it has been rushed. What arrant nonsense! Last sittings the Chief Minister admitted that Cabinet began consideration of the sale of TIO in March. In the October sittings of parliament we found out that consideration of the sale of TIO commenced in March. That was not publicly announced. There was no media release from the Chief Minister saying, ‘What do people think about the idea of selling TIO? We are going to embark on community consultation, we are going to put the pros and cons and consider it all, engaging our community, engaging the stakeholders of TIO’ – who are the public – ‘and then make a considered decision.’ That would have been a mature conversation, but that did not happen.
The two-way consultation process contained within this GBD motion did not occur, in fact, it was quite the opposite. There was the spin machine engaged after the Casuarina by-election, commencing with the announcement by the Chief Minister that they were considering the sale of TIO – full-page advertisements, a website with, ‘What are your ideas and suggestions on how we could spend the money from the sale of TIO?’ Nowhere in any of that did the government ask the people of the Territory for a mandate. Nowhere in any of that spin did the government say, ‘Are you for or against?’, having a presented a case for it they wanted to present. That did not occur.
The public, not wanting to be treated like fools by this government, set about putting their own views forward. They did so through the media, talkback radio, the NT News and by contacting the media stations and TV channels. Overwhelmingly through those media polls, 90% were opposed to the sale of TIO. We in opposition thought, ‘Why do we not poll CLP members’ seats to find out what their own constituents think about the sale; surely they will be representing their constituents in any debate on TIO because they are elected to represent their constituents.’
Unsurprisingly, given the 90%-odd opposed to TIO through the media straw polls – as I will describe them – a legitimate poll showed over 80% consistently opposed the poll across all those eight seats. Did that matter to the CLP members in their arrogance? No. Did they then say, ‘Hang on. We could hold forums and consultations across the community. We could invite people who are clients of TIO directly affected by any decision to sell to meetings and forums, and we could present information and receive their feedback, and that would help us consider it’? That did not happen.
The member for Katherine, notably separate to his colleagues, undertook consultation in Katherine. After that consultation, we will not forget the coverage of the member for Katherine saying, ‘I have serious concerns’. Well he changed his mind at some stage because yesterday he stood in this Chamber and went on to defend the sale of TIO. But they were not two-way consultations with Territorians.
Then there is the point of the terms of reference to the Public Accounts Committee. The member for Nelson is correct; it is within the remit of government to refer matters to the Public Accounts Committee. It could have referred it months ago – March, for example, or prior to March if it saw fit. It could have made a reference to the Public Accounts Committee as to whether or not TIO should remain a public insurer or should be a private insurance model – not damaging a brand, but looking at the business case for and against public insurance/private insurer. It was never ever anyone’s view, desire or intent in the Territory parliament, let alone the members of the Public Accounts Committee, to consider brand trashing. But that is what you are accusing people of.
You would not make a reference to the Public Accounts Committee to allow for a mature conversation whereby an inquiry is held, submissions are sought and meetings occur across the Territory – because there are TIO account holders right across the Territory – that would allow insurance experts to express views on whether it should be a public or private model. It would allow members of the public to attend public hearings and put views of whether it should be a public or private model. It would allow everyone who needed to have their say to have their say. Then the weight of evidence for or against a public or private model of insurance in the Territory could have been considered by a Public Accounts Committee which has a majority of members of government, then a recommendation put to government.
If the majority of members of government held the view, after all the weight of evidence, that no, they think a private insurance model is the way to go, they would have made those recommendations. If the other members of the Public Accounts Committee had a view that, on the weight of evidence, they thought a public insurance model was still needed in the Northern Territory, given the serious concerns people hold as a result of the catastrophic private market failure in Queensland, and given we are subject to similar conditions, such as floods, storm surge and cyclone, then minority members of the committee could have put a dissenting report forward giving reasons for a public model. None of that happened. That is not about the TIO brand or the value of its sale. That is a mature debate about private versus public models of insurance. None of that happened. At the very least it could have.
The member for Nelson, when he first became aware in October that you were genuinely on the path of considering TIO for sale, called for it then. You had the opportunity to refer it in October. You ignored all the opportunities to engage Territorians and experts who would have come forth because they are very good at providing expert evidence to Public Accounts Committee inquiries.
Then we had the deception in the sale price. If it is a good price and a good sale, why did the Chief Minister not say in his media release, ‘We have sold banking and insurance of TIO for $284m’? Why were we told it was sold for $424m when it had been sold for $284m? If you deduct the $9m in fees, you are left with $275m from the sale. But you could be accurate in saying you sold it for $284m and deducting the fees from the sale price. He was not honest enough to say that. That is why we are condemning the Chief Minister in this point. The $140m from the drawdown from MAC could occur with a change to legislation, with or without sale. It was not pertinent to the sale. Why could, even on sale price, the Chief Minister not be honest? You had to explain, because it is a public asset, what the sale price was. You had to explain that People’s Choice had bought banking for $48m. You had to explain that Allianz bought insurance for $236m. People did their sums; they sold it for $284m not $424m as announced by the Chief Minister. It was extraordinary to see yet another deception in this when it goes to fact.
One of the concerns is because there was no referral to the Public Accounts Committee, no community consultations, and because of the magnitude of the potential impact of the loss of a public insurer in our Territory where we are subject to cyclone, flood and storm surge, people wanted to test the concerns about the issues of a sale of a public asset as an issue in and of itself. Do we keep our assets public? Do we keep the opportunities, revenue and profits public, for example, the $10m the CLP received as a dividend? How is TIO placed as a public asset? The chair of the board described it as strong, viable and sustainable. It has come through a five-year period of operating profits of $305m. All of that could have been, and should have been, taken into account before public hearings at a Senate inquiry into asset sales early next year. No, the CLP had to rush the sale.
If it stacks up it would have stacked up at the public hearing, surely? But it does not stack up. We know that. It is not a wise decision to take for Territorians. You are selling a profitable asset that people need as an insurance safety net. That is not wise. It would not have stacked up before the public hearing, so quickly sell it before that happens.
On the basis of securing reward payments from the federal government assets recycling program – oh my goodness. I do not know if members of parliament have seen the videos of the Prime Minister committing not to cut ABC and SBS on the eve of the election, then in Question Time in parliament saying he did not. Compare and contrast the fact that he is lying about lying. I do not know if people have seen those videos. There could be a classic one in this situation because we have the Chief Minister who in the public domain, the media conferences, in this parliament, all of those places, said ‘We are going to get 15% from the recycling of public assets scheme’. But the scheme does not exist and it is an incentive scheme so you do not get …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing order 62: offensive and unbecoming words in relation to a member of another parliament. Calling the Prime Minister a liar is a breach of that order.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. Yes, I agree. Opposition Leader, if you can withdraw those comments in regard to the Prime Minister of Australia.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw the comments in regard to the Prime Minister of Australia, and I will rephrase it. I do not know if anyone has seen all of the public clips of the Prime Minister’s commitment not to cut the budget of ABC and SBS on the eve of the election, then his answer in Question Time in parliament where he said he did not say that. It is a classic.
The correlation here is we have a Chief Minister who has said consistently on the public record in and out of parliament, ‘If we sell TIO we can attract the 15% incentive payment from the recycling scheme for the sale of public assets’. Yesterday in parliament he pretended he did not say that. It was one of those classic clanger moments this Chief Minister keeps making. It was gobsmacking. We could run those spoofs of him. We do not have to, because if anyone has gone anywhere near social media in the Northern Territory, you would see what everyone is saying. You cannot get the 15%; that is not true.
Finally, the assertion that future insurance protections for Territorians are at risk is real and present. That is what households and businesses are living with now because you ignored the overwhelming will of Territorians not to sell the public asset, their public insurer, TIO. For families and businesses across the Territory, premiums can go up significantly, potentially 200%-plus, because there are no guarantees in the conditions of sale or the legislation to prevent that. Also, there are no guarantees the coverage they have today will continue into the future. Affordable insurance coverage cuts to the core of what people need – hence the role of TIO – but also getting any coverage, and that is what is at risk now.
Madam Speaker, that is why Labor supports this motion. This has been a grand betrayal of Territorians and it is a disgrace.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I heard the same comments today that I did yesterday.
I said yesterday in this House – and I will say it again for the benefit of those opposite – that insurance is about risk management. Boards are required to consider risk management in their deliberations about where companies are going. I listened to the member for Karama and I am struggling to understand what part of risk management she does not understand.
There is a fiduciary duty required of directors of companies – in this case the Board of TIO – to take into consideration current and future predicted situations, make assessments from their experience, perform the due diligence and then go to their shareholders to say, ‘This is where we are at and this is where we think we will be. This is what we believe and are advising you to do.’ That is exactly what has happened with TIO.
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition and some other members might like to do the company directors’ course the Australian Institute of Company Directors runs. Then they might understand what fiduciary duty is about, what their obligations are and what the Board of TIO’s obligations are in relation to how they manage that company. I do not see any of that. I mentioned yesterday that if you do that, you will have an understanding. Sadly, those opposite do not understand what they do not know. They are making all sorts of assumptions that might suit the political argument they are trying to run to say this is a bad deal, etcetera.
This is a very good deal for the Territory. I note the Leader of the Opposition said that 90% of Territorians are against the sale of TIO. Yesterday I heard the figure of 80%. There is a bit of creep there and perhaps overnight another 10%, in her world, decided they did not want to support TIO. When you split 90% of Territorians into 25 seats, that is a lot of people. They have not been coming to my office. A couple of people have phoned me to say they do not agree with it. Interestingly enough, I have spoken to those people, and at the end of those conversations they said, ‘Okay, we understand’. I said yesterday that some of the people involved in running the roadside campaign, with the corflutes saying ‘TIO is ours, not yours, Mr Giles’, came to see me. They walked out quite happy with the explanation I gave them. Once it was explained, they understood.
When you look at the reality of some of the situations, you would think the opposition first would have come for some briefings, but they chose not to. After the sale was announced last Monday, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Opposition Leader chose to get some sort of a briefing about what the announcement was all about, but not before. This was after the event, and they claim to have come for a briefing. I want to ensure that everyone listening to and reading this understands that prior to the sale, they did not get a briefing. How do you represent your constituents in a responsible manner when you do not bother to get a briefing? You espouse all sorts of things. If you had actually had a briefing from the people we had a briefing from, which was available to you if you had asked, you might understand. It is not such a difficult decision when you start to expose Territorians to a massive amount of risk.
I spoke yesterday about statehood. How would it look and what would I say to my kids if there was a catastrophic event and the Territory government was bankrupt and the federal government had to come in to save us? I wonder what they would say to me? I wonder what the Prime Minister would say to me? ‘Mr Styles, we have a debt of $667bn the Labor government left us with. We are struggling here to cope with a debt that we were left’, as we are with the $5.5bn debt we were looking at when we came into government. What would the Prime Minister say to me? ‘Mr Styles, you are pretty dumb because you have exposed the taxpayers of Australia to a catastrophic event.’ That would not be very smart. I firmly believe in my heart, having looked at all the evidence and gone to all the briefings – there were plenty of briefings and lots of information available – that this was the right thing to do.
The opposition claims that everybody is up in arms. I have not seen that. I saw 28 cars driving around yesterday. I have had a few phone calls and some text messages. Some of the text messages and some of the phone calls I have had are very similar in wording. They start off the same way. I am not saying they are scripted; there are some very genuine people who have very genuine concerns. However, when you explain it to them they understand.
The member for Barkly said yesterday that there are a couple of hundred thousand Territorians looking for an answer. That is interesting because that means so many of those people do not even care about TIO because they do not have an insurance policy with them. There are about 30 000 policies with TIO. It is the smallest insurance company in Australia. If my notes are correct, it has 0.6% of the total Australian market. They have a good insurance book in the Territory but they only have 0.6%. I do not know where all these people are. I would love to meet 200 000 of them that is claimed.
Let us look at some of the other things that are being peddled from the other side. ‘We sold TIO without a mandate.’ It is very interesting when you look at what happened in 2006 when the then Labor government tried to sell TIO. They said, ‘We have to sell TIO’. I will not go through all of the reasons they gave, but they did so without a mandate. I am happy to be corrected but we have done some research, and we cannot find where the then ALP government in the Northern Territory said in 2005, ‘We are going to election and we will sell TIO’. If you can find it I am happy to be corrected. We cannot find where you won the 2005 election with a mandate. It is hypocrisy for someone who was in that government to say, ‘You did not have a mandate’. If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. Why did they not go to the 2008 election with a mandate to sell TIO?
I imagine Cabinet probably said, ‘We were elected to govern. We want to sell TIO; we will take it out there.’ The problem the ALP government of the day had was that the board was not supportive, nor was its management. That is interesting because when you talk to them now – and we asked all of these questions because we received briefings, which you could have had if you had asked. We received the briefings and were told the board and the management was not supportive; it was the wrong time to sell it, even though it was costing government, and in the GFC I think they lost $50m. In 2002 there was an injection by the then ALP government of $20m. The TIO has returned in dividends to the government $18.3m over the last 35 years. $18.3m was wiped out by the 2002 injection of $20m.
The member for Nelson said he is not an expert when he was talking about this earlier in this House. He said he has to take the advice of experts. I agree with him. We took the advice of experts; we listened to the members of the board. The members of the board are experts in various areas which is why they are on that board. We listened to them, got advice of our own and they came back and gave us information. We said we had gone to get some independent advice and Cabinet considered all of that.
I do not know where the Leader of the Opposition got her advice from, but it is totally opposite to all the good advice we have had from TIO and other independent sources.
I will quote the good Mr Jan van der Schalk. He is with stockbroking firm CLSA, which is Credit Linares Securities Asia. This is a major independent insurance analyst and stockbroking firm in Asia. When you google it – and I encourage you to do so to see its credentials – you will see it is one of the largest firms of that kind and has an impeccable record with its integrity firmly intact. This is what they say, because they are the experts the member for Nelson is talking about:
- ‘Their timing is perfect; they are selling at the top of the cycle’ ...
Further:
- ‘Reinsurance rates are cheaper than they have ever been. They are selling at the top of the cycle and let’s not fool around, in selling to Allianz they have sold it to a long-term partner and a pretty trusted brand’ ...
There are three pages of the news item and I will quote a little more:
- ‘For the Government to sell to Allianz gives the Government much more certainty around its own budget and expenses and when we look at the price it seems to be in line with the kind of prices that currently insurers like IAG and Suncorp are trading at’ ...
Further he said:
- … TIO was an unusual insurance company because it has a small premium base and a very high exposure to natural perils like cyclones.
The opposition claims we have been irresponsible, we should have done this, we should have done that and 90% of people are against the sale of TIO. I do not believe that. Irrespective of the figure, sometimes being in government is about doing the right thing. Integrity in leadership is about doing the right thing even when no one is looking. That is the definition of leadership and integrity. As a government we looked at all the facts, and as we say each day, we are here for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. I take that seriously. My children and my grandchildren live here and they will continue to live here because we are not going anywhere. I want them to have a bright future.
I take what the Leader of the Opposition says with a grain of salt because I do not think she knows what she is talking about, given she has not consulted experts and not attended the briefings all of us are required to have.
The Leader of the Opposition was part of a government that, in 2006, wanted to sell TIO when the board and management did not want to sell. The board approached the government last year and said, ‘We have a problem. You are massively exposed to a very high level of risk.’ We said, ‘Okay, we better get some information’, so we did. The board is supportive of selling TIO and has a management supportive of selling the brand to allow it to grow otherwise it will wither. They gave us all the information and we undertook due diligence and got independent advice from some very good people. We did some research about what other people and experts in Asia were saying about it and we made a decision.
In 2006 the ALP wanted to do it against the wishes of everyone. People said to us, ‘You need to do this’. That was the advice from the board and we took that advice. We have a totally opposite situation. Now, in opposition, the ALP says you cannot do that.
I go back to what has happened in the late 1980s and 1990s. Those opposite knew then it was the last government-owned insurer and banker in Australia. Other states had privatised in the late 1980s and the 1990s. New South Wales sold its government insurance office in 1992, Victoria sold in 1992, Tasmania sold in 1993, Western Australia sold in 1994, South Australia sold in 1995 and Queensland sold to Suncorp in 1997. Those jurisdictions clearly saw the writing on the wall – in the case of New South Wales, over 20 years ago. They undertook due diligence. They looked at what was going on and said, ‘We need to get out of this business because we are exposed as taxpayers’. State governments realised many years ago that insurance companies and banks are best run by the private sector, and the most efficient policy approach is ensuring effective regulatory frameworks are in place to protect the interests of customers.
I look at what the ALP did and recall a presentation in this House by the member for Fong Lim on who the party of privatisation is. It is actually the Australian Labor Party. It has privatised far more, and taken more steps to get rid of public assets, than the Coalition has. I am happy to be corrected, but my understanding, from my experience, is that is the case.
Irrespective that we have done the right thing, I encourage those opposite to get some information. For future representation of their constituents, I suggest they consider doing the Australian Company Directors course because it is really good. It gives you information you can use to make some of these assessments. You should have made some of these assessments.
The opposition members have not given us their business case, they have simply said they and everybody else want to own TIO. When people realise that the sky is not going to fall in, that their premiums are not going to go up by 200% to 300% – they may not go up now once we put the flood mitigation works in place – you will find, as in Roma in Queensland, those premiums may go down.
I heard yesterday from the Chief Minister that 24% of people in Katherine may have their premiums increased. Allianz has said that TIO will be a standalone entity. It is a good company. Probably the only thing I agree with the member for Barkly on in this debate is the fact that TIO is now in an excellent position. But if it is not allowed to grow and continue, then it will wither on the vine.
In the meantime, Territory taxpayers are exposed to an enormous risk. That is something I am not prepared to put my children through. In fact, even though it is a difficult political decision, I am not prepared to put the children of those members of the opposition through it because they may not understand what is going on. If you have a catastrophic event, then it will be their children and grandchildren who will be paying for many years to come – that is if the Australian government does not step in and take over as it is doing in Norfolk Island. It will take over the Northern Territory and simply reabsorb it. We will lose self-government and the prospect of becoming a state. It is about being responsible and doing the right thing.
I had a conversation last night with the member for Nelson. He used an example of a company which came to see him and said it is looking for workers compensation policy. I think the figure he used was that TIO quoted $106 000, some other companies quoted $108 000 and $115 000 and Allianz was $161 000. He asked, ‘Why would Allianz not just put the price of TIO policies up to $161 000?’ Again, I spoke about trashing the brand ...
Mr VOWLES: Madam Speaker, I seek an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77, for the member for Sanderson.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, member for Johnston; it is very kind of you.
After we had finished debating the issue I spoke to the member for Nelson. I explained to him that Allianz has 1% of the insurance market in the Northern Territory and TIO has 39%. Allianz wants to buy market share and that is what it has done. It has paid a lot of money to buy that market share. I said ‘Tell your people to take the TIO quote for $106 000 as opposed to the Allianz for $161 000’. Tonight in this debate the member for Nelson acknowledged that we had that conversation and he then realised TIO is not going anywhere; it is staying the same. It is a good company and the people who now own and underwrite TIO accept they want to keep that brand. We have had plenty of examples and metaphors in here about what you do not do to trash the brand of TIO. Nothing will change. The staff will not change and everything will stay the same.
At some stage, CPI rises will mean that people’s insurance will rise. My insurance has gone up over the last few years. I am with TIO; everything I have is with them. I will stay with TIO because I like the people there. There are plenty of Territorians employed there, so I will continue to support the company I have a relationship with.
Moving on to a couple of other issues, I reassure those who might be reading this or listening that nothing will change with TIO. We can look at other things that have happened around the country. I recall saying earlier in this debate that if this was so good, and those opposite believed this was so good, why did they not, through the ALP in Australia – for young people listening, the ALP stands for the Australian Labor Party. The branch of the ALP here is a sub-branch of the ALP. They take their policies from the ALP and are required to implement those policies. When you folks had control of the Australian government and most of the states around Australia, as well as the Territory, why did you not reintroduce state government insurance offices? If it is so good, as you say – I do not believe that – why did you not bring back state government insurance policies so everyone around Australia could benefit from whatever you believe the benefits are of government being in the insurance business?
Perhaps I could answer that question for you: it is because your colleagues around the country understand what is happening in that we are the last place in Australia to do this. To quote Dr Neil Conn when he addressed the House in 1997 – this was read by my colleague, the member for Port Darwin last night:
- Government in business is government in the wrong business.
We need to get out of that business. The Territory Insurance Office, on 2 January, will be in the hands of the world’s largest general insurer. If we have a catastrophic event, which I hope we never do, in relation to my first statement tonight when I said insurance is about risk management, it will need to manage the risk. It will spread reinsurance around the world. That is why it can reinsure for about 6% to 8% of its income, as opposed to 30% like TIO.
I am struggling to understand that the opposition would be prepared to put their children and grandchildren into a massive amount of debt. Once you get over $700m, we are all paying for that. On 2 January, we do not have to pay for that. Allianz, if there is a massive event, will pay for it and its reinsurance around the world will cover whatever happens here. We will not have to go cap in hand to the Prime Minister and say, ‘Excuse me, Prime Minister, but we were really dumb and we have just cost you $25bn’. That is what I am suggesting the Labor Party and the Labor opposition wants us to do if we have an event. The cycle is 36 years; we are four years overdue. On 2 January I can say, on behalf of the constituents of my electorate, I am not prepared to expose them to a massive amount of debt. I am not prepared to expose them to losing self-government or statehood.
TIO is not an issue in my electorate for the majority of the constituents I speak to when I am at my shopping centres or holding barbecues. Some people are concerned, and I talk to those people. I have people calling me, and I talk to them on a one-to-one basis to explain it to them. Generally, when I am finished, they understand. They might not like it, but they understand why it has to be sold. You just have to tell the right story. But to get the right story, you have to understand what is going on. To understand that, you have to receive briefings.
Given the sale has gone through and on 2 January 2015 Allianz will take over, perhaps you guys might like to get a briefing on some of the issues now. I would not want you to go forward believing in something that is a bit misconstrued. The government will be very happy to give briefings to anyone on your side who would like to come and talk to us. We will get the experts in to give you the information.
I understand you might have been playing politics and you want to stir it all up, but that is scaremongering. When you look at the facts – and I would love it if you would come to some briefings so we know you have the full story – and you still believe what you believe today, I would be very surprised. If you still believed after these briefings what you believe today, I would have serious concerns about your ability to make assessments and understand risk management. It is as simple as that. It is not hard; it is something we on this side had to do.
I will reiterate a couple of things. In the briefings we received, it became very clear to us that we had a responsibility to the taxpayers of the Northern Territory. We have taken care of the policyholders – and there are 30 000 policies – and the sky is not going to fall in; everyone’s policies will not double or triple, as some people opposite have said. TIO is a good company. Allianz is a well-respected company around the world. You will always find someone who has had an argument with Allianz. I have had an argument with TIO, my own insurance company. I remain with them but I had some pretty good discussions with them over something that happened a number of years ago. It is about understanding what is going on.
Given the fact we were required, on behalf of the Northern Territory taxpayers, to ensure they were covered, you have to look at what we will get out of this. We have some money, some infrastructure funds. What will come out of that? When you are left with a $5.5bn debt, it is very important that if you get some money you use it for economic development.
The members for Karama and Nelson asked what we are going to do with that. Well, member for Nelson, I can assure you the panels that will be put together to determine where this money will be spent will include experts in economic development. We will put that money where it will do the entire Territory the best in relation to economic development and get the best value for money we can on behalf of Territory taxpayers.
Madam Speaker, I will end with a statement that sometimes doing the right things is not popular. If you study leadership – and I have been very fortunate where I have been able to do that at a master’s level and also with the Australian Rural Leadership Foundation – you learn that sometimes doing the right thing is unpopular. The majority of people in the Territory understand why we had to do what we did. If you want to be leaders you have to do what is right, not necessarily what is popular. As articulated in this House last night, most people on the other side were saying if we do this we will lose our seats. We have done the right thing and at the next election people will understand and respect us.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I contribute to the debate and support the member for Nelson. Unfortunately, I have to agree with him that the horse has bolted, the deal has been done.
I reiterate to the member for Sanderson that we are in the Northern Territory, in northern Australia, and I refer you for a briefing to Warren Entsch who described the unique nature and specific challenges of the development of northern Australia. He made very important comments about looking at and evaluating state-owned insurance because it delivers specific products for the Northern Territory and northern Australia. It is not about all the southern states you rattled off in your contribution; it is about northern Australia. That is where we are, and is what we are talking about. It was – past tense – our TIO.
In relation to briefings, I am a Territorian who covered about 7000 km in the last month across four different electorates. I was being briefed regularly by the first minister, the Chief Minister, as I was a citizen listening to the leader driving this debate. I was being briefed almost daily by the Chief Minister, but the conversation was not a mature one. It became very immature and reactionary, started to twist and turn and came to be a very immature position of trying to make excuses for a sale. I had my briefing every day. I had a briefing in Parliament House and I still believe this was a bad deal. I support the Northern Territory Labor opposition in its promise to tail you every step of the way. The horse has bolted, but we will track the horse and continue to dialogue with Territorians.
The member for Sanderson wants to quote hundreds and thousands of Territorians. I used the figure of 200 000-odd because it is a Territory debate, whether you are a policyholder or not. The Chief Minister took a dividend of $10m this financial year for the Territory public, the Territory community, for the Territory’s community development, so I figure we are all in this together and should be proud of it and that is why we are debating it.
There were newspaper polls, radio polls and a petition from over 4000 petitioners organised by the Territory opposition. The member for Nelson had a petition running with over 1000 petitioners. The member for Goyder presented a very comprehensive petition from the people of the rural area she represents. That was all done in a matter of weeks. If you want to talk numbers, Territorians were involved in this debate. They were making their voices heard.
The fundamental problem and why the CLP is chasing its tail, why the horse has bolted, is because they refused to listen. They had an opportunity to use smart politics to gain a mandate for their so-called wonderful decision, but they chose to ignore it, hide from Territorians and drive this through.
A resounding theme that emerged yesterday in this debate was about the CLP not being frightened to make hard decisions, but a hard decision does not mean a good decision. That resounding theme emerged when I challenged them on the percentages by which they hold their seats. The member for Sanderson is reiterating that theme. I hope I have not caused him any loss of sleep and nervous tension.
However, I will continually cut to the bone on this debate because it is such an important one. Unfortunately, the debate is over and the CLP will reap what it sows. It chose a politically nave strategy not to engage Territorians and will pay the consequences. Territorians and businesses wanted a matured conversation and did not get it.
The Motor Trades Association warned that some of its members could go out of business. Katherine businesses voiced concerns about huge premium hikes and the effect they will have on their business. The CLP did not listen to them. The CLP arrogantly continued to ignore the wishes of Territorians and rode roughshod over the constituents of the Northern Territory.
Allianz has said premiums will rise, and some will rise steeply. Chief Minister, do you have any analysis that you could provide to this Chamber about insurance premium hikes that, in your public comments, range from between 30% and 200%? That was part of your briefing. I heard that on the road and when I was at home. Where is the business case analysis? Why have you not provided that for Territorians, or was it just immature one liners in a one-sided conversation?
Then we heard the rubbery figures about the sale. The debate really then dropped to a low level of excuses and quite paranoid behaviour, with the Chief Minister trying a snake-oil sale for Territorians over a very elaborate spin machine with a budget of $33m. The sale price was inflated to include the MAC $140m drawdown. None of it comes close to funding the wish list that was published in media releases, was talked about on radio, and was put out to Territorians.
The 6 November media release wish list noted a netball stadium, bridge to Mandorah, Nightcliff oval, water play and pool, Tanami road seal, rodeo arena, Indigenous arts and museum, basketball courts, medical facilities, golf course resort and clay target range upgrades at a conservative $570m. If we add the $215m infrastructure development fund, $50m for flood mitigation, and $9m on the sale fees, all up we get to about $844m. Even with this pretend sale price of $424m – and that has been exposed – the media is now reporting the accuracies around the true sale price, not this $424m spin. How does the CLP defend any credibility on the sale of TIO when Territorians know you are selling them a crock? These were daily briefings from the first minister of the Northern Territory, the Chief Minister.
The CLP had no mandate to sell TIO. It should have taken its privatisation plans to the next Territory election or a referendum, or it could have had alternatives that were proposed by the Independent member and the opposition members. It arrogantly rushed through this sale behind closed doors, ignoring advice and ignoring consultation. It now risks skyrocketing premiums. It is not sure what that future holds.
The Chief Minister has participated, once again, in his mature conversation in this House, in the Government Business Day opportunity to present an alternative – eight minutes. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the first minister, must be all talked out. I listened to briefings over a month but he is all talked out. Eight minutes was all he could afford Territorians now that he has slipped the chain on the gate, the horse has bolted, and it is all going to be a bed of roses, if you believe the Liberals.
Chief Minister, the trouble is you have force-fed Territorians. That was the sentiment I picked up at the rally. Anybody there who wants to sit and spin more figures – 28 cars – what a lot of rot! You should have been at Mindil Beach and counted those cars. The sentiment at Mindil Beach was, ‘Chief Minister, do not force feed us. We are Territorians and we are proud of it. Do not treat us like immature, ill-informed individuals. We are rock solid Territorians; we want a say. We demand our say.’ Now it has turned into an aggressive position of, ‘We will take you down’.
That is the Chief Minister’s fault and everybody in this House who supported him yesterday better stand shoulder to shoulder with him because Territorians will now demand accountability. They have been treated improperly and will demand accountability. Hard decisions indeed. Hard decisions really need to be good decisions.
The Chief Minister continued with the spin with his newsletter, his weekly message. I will quote from the Chief Minister’s weekly message e-mail I picked up on Wednesday 26 November. It is to Territorians. The Chief Minister, Adam Giles, opened with:
- After careful consideration of all the options, the Territory Government has decided to sell TIO, unlocking $424m for vital infrastructure projects.
He continued to spin this rubbish, even as late as this afternoon. I do not know where he thinks he will get any credibility in this whole tardy episode of this bill on urgency. I do not understand where he is coming from and all those members who are supporting him.
Quite an interesting irony emerged. I loved the member for Port Darwin’s debate. I give him credit as a Crown prosecutor, but he is a lousy defence lawyer. I honestly advise him after politics to go for the DPP job as Crown prosecutor; I will not be paying for you as a defence lawyer. Member for Port Darwin, you always add very interesting debate. That is what this House is about. However, your debate triggered a number of your other more junior members and they tried to run the theme that TIO is risky, bad business. He named it as needing life support, it had heart attacks, it was a tardy business and a threat to the Territory economy. He influenced many of the other junior members of the CLP, those being led by the nose, to trash the brand. The media reported it was nine hours of debate. I reckon at least for three hours of that debate CLP members were trashing the brand of TIO in this House. It was led by the member for Port Darwin and the other members followed.
The irony was that after trashing the TIO brand and telling us how sick, ill-performing and risky that business was, a global giant – a very intelligent insurance company – has rushed across global borders to buy it. It is such a risky business and poor-performing entity that this German multinational has roared across global borders to buy it.
I do not get it. I was totally confused with that level of debate. What is it? Maybe it is just more spin. Maybe the Chief Minister could better explain it to us, if you can believe it. This is an emerging theme, Chief Minister. Today in Question Time, once again we heard many questions, but very few answers.
With the sale of TIO Territorians now have no guarantees and no insurance safety net; they have been left vulnerable. Can you please explain your position? Allianz has admitted that premiums for Territorians will rise, but cannot confirm how much or when. We asked the Chief Minister about Territorians in Coconut Grove, Alice Springs, Beswick, Daly River, Cullen Bay, Ludmilla, Nightcliff, Djilkminggan, Fannie Bay, Bayview, Gunbalanya, Palumpa, Docker River – those are just some places. What happens to the exposure of all those other areas in the Northern Territory that you have ignored in your flood mitigation plans? You chose not to answer. Do you not care?
Not only did Territorians lose guarantees on insurance, but now we see there is plan to cut back workers compensation entitlements for some of our most vulnerable Territorians. That line of questioning will continue, as the opposition is very concerned. We have received correspondence from doctors who state that issue. Chief Minister, you chose to ignore it.
The Leader of the Opposition raised a very good point, and I asked the Chief Minister about it in Question Time, looking for some answers. Once again, it was my 6000 km briefing, where the Chief Minister continued to tell Territorians the CLP government would attract 15% on the investment of the sale of the TIO from the federal government’s infrastructure recycling scheme. It has already been established – it is quite logical – that there is no such scheme. We do not know if the scheme will pass through the Senate. How will the Chief Minister present a business case for the 15% when there is no scheme? Is it, once again, just, ‘Trust me’, Chief Minister?
It has come out in the dialogue over the last day-and-a-half that the TIO annual financial report revealed that on the 30 June this year the ownership of 24 Mitchell Street was changed from 25% allocated to TIO insurance to 100% allocated to the MAC fund. That was in June, months before the Chief Minister admitted in his full-page advertisement after the Casuarina by-election that the sale of TIO was on the agenda. Then last night the Chief Minister said the change of ownership was part of the sale transaction.
Chief Minister, you have to come clean. What is the real story? You can tell us now the horse has bolted and you have the legislation through. How many months have you been working on the sale of TIO? Did you hide critical information from Territorians while working out your TIO sell-out plan? These are all questions that will continue to hound you, Chief Minister, because of the way this whole tardy episode has been conducted ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, just a minute. If people want to conduct a conversation in here can they please go to the corner. I cannot hear the member talking.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will conclude with the last part of the debate I picked up. I cannot remember if I was in Lajamanu or the Tiwi Islands. It could have been Limmen River, Borroloola, maybe home in Tennant Creek. It could have been on the Sandover. Anyway, it was a very interesting part of the debate where the member for Port Darwin, once again, sensed the urgency of trying to get a new element to the story. I will quote from an article by Neda Vanovac on national news. This is from an AAP release on 23 November 2014:
- The Northern Territory Attorney-General has upped the stakes in the battle over the sale of insurer TIO, saying that if it remained in government hands it would ‘threaten the very fabric of self-government’.
A Cabinet meeting on Sunday night is likely to determine the fate of Australia’s last government-owned insurer, with the government pushing for a sale in the face of widespread public opposition.
The member for Port Darwin used the example of Norfolk Island.
I quickly place on the record why we have the legendary tale of Tennant Creek as the town with a heart of gold. Tennant Creek, as the powerhouse of the Northern Territory, is known for its gold and copper. But Tennant Creek’s heart of gold legend came from the support it gave to the victims of Cyclone Tracy. It was a very wealthy town in those days. The people of Darwin had suffered a major tragedy and the people of Tennant Creek stepped up with not only financial assistance but also offering their homes and family hospitality to shelter those people who had lost everything in Darwin. That is one example.
If I deconstruct that last story the member for Port Darwin used to try to assist the Chief Minister’s immature conversation, then we can talk about tropical Cyclone Monica, New South Wales floods in 2010, the Victorian bushfires in January/February 2009, the Queensland floods. You could see then the direct relationship with the federal government and the support it provides in natural disasters. We are all Australians, and I figure we should celebrate that.
We have clear points of difference and I mentioned those in the debate. People on the other side choose to ignore them. The most immature act the Chief Minister tried today was when he tried to twist the story about indemnity. When I asked positive, reinforcing questions last night about the absence of any indemnity clause to protect the government, which a purchaser would also look at in a contract, it was treated with disdain.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have lost all confidence in our first minister, our Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who is now totally focused on spinning his way into the next election.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, TIO has been sold. That is the context in which we have this debate today. We spoke yesterday to the passage of the bills around the rushed sale of TIO. Last sittings we had some limited debate about referring TIO to the Public Accounts Committee. There has been some limited debate in this House about the sale of TIO. Unfortunately, a bit like everything to do with this process, there has not been enough conversation about what to do with the public asset.
A public asset that is much loved is a rare thing, and it is odd for an insurance company to be loved. Pete Davies spoke about it well the other day when he said he was a bit shocked that people love an insurance company and it feels like the CLP has taken a favourite dog into the back yard and shot it.
The goodwill Territorians have for TIO is remarkable. It has come about through action and deed and has been earned by TIO. It is not just a vague love, it is an affection Territorians have developed over the years based on the actions of TIO.
As we said yesterday, we believe in affordable insurance which recognises the special conditions of the Territory and is there for you when you need it. We have discovered, just as Entsch discovered it in the PIVOT NORTH Inquiry into the Development of Northern Australia: Final Report, that the TIO model is a good way of delivering that. That is why people support TIO. That is why we have supported TIO, and that is why people are disappointed to see the Country Liberals sell TIO. It provides affordable insurance, it recognises the Territory’s special conditions and it has been there for many years when people needed it.
The motion today from the member for Nelson condemns the government for how it has gone about this process and for rushing through the sale. The first point is that it is without a mandate. That has been explored by both sides. Do you need a mandate to sell TIO? Does the government have a mandate to sell TIO? I am not sure if anyone on that side has said they do not have a mandate, but they have been quite up front in saying they did not campaign on this in the last election.
The Chief Minister at the time, who has now been replaced – Terry Mills has gone and Adam Giles is in – as Opposition Leader going into the last election, said clearly the CLP stood firmly opposed to the sale of TIO and would fight to see it retained. Obviously in the change of leadership we have had a change of approach. Territorians had a certain expectation with the CLP going into the last election and that has been betrayed. The position of the CLP has been, ‘Do we need a mandate? We have been elected to govern so we can do this.’ Of course you can. You have the numbers; you can make whatever decisions you like. This is a unicameral House; you have the numbers, you can push it through. But is that good? To reference somebody who represents the other side, Prime Minister Howard, who I had many disagreements with in a policy sense, was repeatedly returned to office because he was consistent.
People generally vote a party in because they believe they know how that party will act in certain circumstances. People going into the last election felt they knew what the Country Liberals would do if certain circumstances presented. They have been consistently betrayed by the actions the CLP has taken. This goes to trust. We have had the trust debate in this House through a few different vehicles like cost of living, alcohol and other policy arguments. Often it comes back to trust. People’s trust in the CLP has been damaged through a variety of issues and the latest one, the one we are debating this week, is TIO. Territorians trusted the CLP to have a certain position, voted for the CLP thinking they knew what that position was, and have been betrayed by what the CLP has done two years in.
The elected Chief Minister, who is now no longer in the role, said the CLP stood firmly opposed to the sale of TIO and would fight to see it retained. More specifically than that he said you should not do this type of thing at Christmas time. He said, ‘Now there are 250 employees, most of them families of the Top End and particularly in Katherine, who know how important TIO is. It appears, under the cover of the Christmas period, when we are all going to our Christmas drinks, going to Casuarina and buying plastic hammers and things like that, he is already at work preparing to sell our TIO. I reckon there is something he needs to understand: this is something that belongs to all Territorians. He needs to come out and explain to us why on earth would you want to sell TIO.’
Quite specifically, the former Chief Minister not only said not to sell TIO, and his position was to fight to retain it, but not to do it at Christmas time. This Country Liberals government is moving rapidly, rushing through the sale of TIO yesterday, and it is a complete betrayal of the position the CLP took to the last election. You can argue the question of whether you need a mandate or not to sell TIO. Let us not get caught up with that point, let us just say, quite clearly, Territorians thought you would do one thing and you have done another. When people do not think they can trust you or guess your actions, that is when they think, ‘The CLP is going to say this, but we know now, on form, that just because it said it, does not mean it is going to do it’.
You have broken trust with Territorians. You can argue all you want about whether you needed a mandate or not to do this and you had the right to do it, or needed just to be a government and do what government does. Without doubt, the people of the Territory thought you were going to do one thing and you have done another. Right at the heart of it, you failed them and that is where you have broken the trust with Territorians.
The very fact that you went into the last election with a very clear position, and have decided not to honour that position is why Territorians are upset about that mandate question. You can vacillate all you want around it, or you can cut straight through like some of you have, ‘No, we can just do this’, but at the end of the day, one of the reasons Territorians are angry with you is because they felt they knew very clearly where the CLP stood and have been shocked and betrayed by the fact that you have changed your position. You did not do it in a way that was very clearly explained to Territorians. You did not engage in a two-way consultation.
As the member for Nelson said yesterday, you cannot talk back to an ad in the paper. It has been cited that the member for Katherine held a public meeting. My understanding is that at that public meeting he said he would honour the constituent’s wishes that were expressed at the meeting, which was to keep TIO. That public meeting has happened. But, by and large, the Country Liberals did not engage in a two-way consultation.
In fact, the majority of what they put out on TIO was, ‘How would you spend the money?’ Not, ‘This is why we are selling, this is why we should not sell. What do you think?’ but, ‘Tell us how you would spend the the proceeds from the sale of TIO?’ We will get to this later in the debate.
Obviously the proceeds are much lower than people expected and will buy much less than people might have hoped. This will not change our children’s and grandchildren’s futures, as the Chief Minister promised. It is a fraction of what the annual infrastructure budget of the Territory already is. If you cannot change the Territory for our children and grandchildren with the current Territory’s infrastructure budget, the sale price of TIO will not make much difference. As I said yesterday, what we received for the sale of TIO is less than the amount we spend on repairs and maintenance for our infrastructure budget. It was quite a bad deal – not much money at all, really.
We have not had two-way consultation with the Territory public, and that has been made quite clear by the public. They do not feel they have been engaged properly on this process. There have been three or four attempts to gauge Territorians’ thoughts on this, and 80%-plus have not agreed with the sale. Who knows? If you had engaged properly and had a proper conversation with Territorians over a period of time, maybe you could get that 80% figure down. But as it stands, because of the way you have gone about trying to explain – or not explain – to Territorians what you want to do, that figure is, conservatively, 80%. The NT News had it at 89% against the sale of TIO.
One way you could have had a two-way consultation process with Territorians – I do not think this is by any means the only way you could have done this or it would have been sufficient in and of itself – was the suggestion made last Assembly that we have a committee, like the Public Accounts Committee, look at the merits of a sale and explore the arguments. That was knocked back.
If you look at the Pivot North report and what Warren Entsch did, maybe you can understand why. It was clearly found in that report that you need an insurance company like TIO. That model provides a competitive advantage to the Territory, and other people are envious of it. Maybe there was a real fear amongst the CLP that if you engage in a conversation like that, explore it publicly through the Public Accounts Committee process or a process like that, properly hear from people about the merits of retaining or selling TIO, they would find, just as Warren Entsch and his committee did, that you should keep it. Perhaps that is why they did not want to get into a proper process or go through the detail, and why they did not want people to be questioned and put evidence on the table about why we should keep or sell TIO, because they know from the Entsch committee that the response could be to keep it.
Entsch said we have a damn good model and other people should be looking to replicate it. He said that TIO helps in developing the north in the Territory, and the lack of a TIO in other parts of Australia is an impediment to development and holds them back. Maybe the CLP did not want to engage in that consultative, informative, deliberative approach that would have seen evidence taken from a wide variety of people who would have engaged in proper two-way conversations with statements made, questions asked and things put on the table, because it would have come back in favour of retaining TIO.
This real absence of substance is another thing that has hurt the CLP in this process and lack of engagement and consultation around TIO. There was a spurious argument that a committee like that would have hurt the sale price of TIO. I find that very hard to believe. All the people who have spoken about TIO have explained why they think it is a valuable product. The Territorians who are saying not to sell TIO are not bagging it or trashing it, they are saying they think it is a valuable product.
The government said this committee would scare people off. It was going to be very scary for a company to say, ‘Do we want to buy this product called TIO which everyone loves and has had witness after witness say it is a really valuable asset and a good thing?’ The government said, ‘No, let us not do that. Let us not engage with Territorians.’ The only people who have really been talking down the TIO are the ones opposite who want to sell it, ‘We have to sell the TIO. It is a risky prospect. We are exposed.’
All that nonsense is countered by the TIO’s annual report. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s guidelines are what it keeps to. It is all in here. It is as if the CLP has not read the Chief Executive’s statement in the annual report, the numbers in it, how it reinsures and the guidelines it sticks to. It is a real head-in-the-sand attitude. It is quite surprising that they think they can say these empty words that are defeated and rebutted by the TIO’s annual report.
It is disappointing that they would not engage in a two-way consultation process. It is disappointing that they would not let the Public Accounts Committee have a deliberative, consultative, lengthy approach to this that would allow expert after expert to appear, and could go into in camera hearings if there was any risk of commercial-in-confidence information being shared or TIO being damaged, which I do not think was a risk. You could have a series of people come before the committee to explain why TIO is important, what it does, why we should keep it, etcetera. That would have been incredibly helpful.
The CLP has been deceptive about the price. You do not have to drill too far to realise that the way they spruiked the deal was misleading. It does not take much. It was not going to take a sales pitch from Labor to say this deal was not as good as it looks on paper. It was a $280m purchase price. When you put it into the context of the profits TIO has delivered to the government over the last five years and the Territory’s infrastructure budget, what will this deliver? They were deceptive in how they described the sale amount. When you spin like the CLP is doing you continue to damage the trust of, and your relationship with, Territorians.
I am not a member of the CLP but I feel a bit sorry for you in what you have done to your relationship with Territorians over the last couple of years. You have engaged in practices that have led to a break in your relationship with Territorians, because you have said one thing and done another. Whether you think you have the right to do it or not, you have to acknowledge you have said one thing to Territorians and done another, and have done it in a way that has not engaged or consulted with, or properly explained yourselves to, Territorians. That is fine from our point of view. Who cares if the CLP damages its relationship with Territorians? However, you are the government and there will be times when you want the people to trust you, and you have lost that. That is bad for government and the Territory.
The other point is about the public hearings that will be held by the Senate inquiring into asset sales next year. I do not think that will be as good as the Public Accounts Committee process would have been, or a committee process run by Territorians. There will be an opportunity at this Senate inquiry for the kind of hearings and evidence we would have received through a Public Accounts Committee process. It is a shame that it is too late, after the horse has bolted.
Through that Senate committee open process, Territorians will get to hear people put questions and the answers, the merits of TIO, why we needed it, and all the conclusions the Warren Entsch-led committee came to. I am sure all the evidence that went to that will go to the Senate committee as well.
That will happen, be public and have a level of engagement with Territorians – but not enough and too late. It is not the same as having a Territory-led process. It is such a shame that did not happen. The government had many ways it could have consulted and engaged. That was an option, but even if it took up that option, it should not have been the only thing that was done. From our point of view, that would have been a good process for Territorians. Who knows? Maybe it would have found the evidence the Chief Minister is saying is out of there for the sale, but I believe it is highly unlikely.
One of the things the Chief Minister has consistently said about the thinking behind the possible or prospective sale of TIO is, ‘We are not going to rule it out but if we do it, isn’t it great that the federal government will throw 15% at us?’ Now they are trying to pretend that was never said and it was never quite an incentive for sale. The policy intention behind the Abbott government’s 15% recycling initiative is to create an incentive to sell a public asset. If you have already sold that asset, why does it need to provide that incentive? Obviously that 15% is still not through the Senate; it is not there yet and might not be there at all. In the CLP’s rush to sell TIO it has possibly lost $40m-plus in that 15%. There is every chance that 15% does not happen at all. In rushing this they have run the real risk of not getting that $40m at all.
As I said yesterday, there are two ways to approach this deal. Should you sell TIO or not? We obviously fell on the ‘do not sell’ side of the equation, as did the majority of Territorians – community leaders, business leaders and the Entsch inquiry. If you are to sell TIO, then surely you should try to do a good deal. This sale price is a fraction of the Territory’s annual infrastructure budget. By rushing it through you have run the real risk of losing the 15% that is part of the asset recycling scheme. The $40m would be quite handy. The $200m going into infrastructure is good money but is a fraction of the Territory’s annual infrastructure budget.
In the context of this sale and the $0.5bn-plus the Chief Minister talked about at one stage for the sale price, that does not reflect well when you think about the profits TIO has made for the Territory government, compared with the Territory’s infrastructure and annual R&M budget.
The Chief Minister said earlier this month on 6 November:
- ‘Through this proposed Infrastructure Development Fund, a proportion of the proceeds from any sale would be set aside for longer-term infrastructure projects that benefit our children and grandchildren.
‘We want to create an infrastructure nest-egg which is invested and grows over time, ensuring TIO’s legacy is felt by Territorians long into the future.’
Through its possible sale, TIO could serve all Territorians in a new way by providing us with the funds to unlock our potential, creating the jobs and industries of the future.
Those are great statements in theory, but the money we have from this sale is a fraction of the Territory’s infrastructure budget. If you could not change the Territory’s future and carry out projects that benefit our children and grandchildren with the $1.1bn budget last year, how will you going do it with $210m? That is just a fraction – a drop in the water really – compared to the annual amount of money we spend on infrastructure in the Territory.
It is a great motherhood statement, but when stacked up to what we have here, it is just not going to deliver what the Chief Minister has promised: this grand changing of our children’s and grandchildren’s futures from the sale of TIO …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fannie Bay, your time has expired and no one asked for an extension. I am sorry.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the member for Nelson in his motion that this Legislative Assembly condemns the Chief Minister and the government for their actions to rush through the sale of TIO.
Yesterday in this parliament was a bizarre day in many ways, and also a sad day for the Territory. It was sad to see TIO sold, despite the overwhelming number of Territorians telling the government not to sell it. They sent a message loudly and clearly to the government from across the Territory saying it was not its asset to sell and it should not sell it. They do not trust the government and the promises it has made to them about TIO and its future, especially after the track record of the CLP government since coming to power in 2012. People did not trust them.
The government did not listen and we saw a Territory asset owned by the people sold, gone forever to a German multinational insurance company and out of the hands of Territorians, based on goodwill apparently. People have been told, ‘She will be right, do not worry. TIO, with Allianz, will do the right thing by you for many years to come’, but with no guarantees at all. Despite what happened in other jurisdictions such as Queensland, particularly what happened with north Queensland’s insurance premiums, the government sold TIO and it is now gone forever.
The other bizarre thing about yesterday was the process we saw this parliament undertake to give passage to the legislation to sell TIO, which was disgraceful even in this parliament. It was a shameful event in this parliament to see the process followed in the sale of TIO. I have said before the reason we have processes around legislation and ensuring there is due time between introduction and passage of legislation is to ensure appropriate scrutiny can be given to the legislation and appropriate consultation can be undertaken so there is informed debate around the changes that legislation will make.
In the history books of the Northern Territory, the sale of TIO will go down as a shameful day because it was rammed through with no mandate from the people of the Northern Territory and with minimal scrutiny of the legislation. The government did not follow due process or allow appropriate and proper scrutiny of the Territory’s asset, TIO. Instead, it wanted to ram it through as quickly as possible so, in its view, it could suffer the least amount of pain possible and talk about matters other than TIO for the next few days of parliament. However, people have seen through that and think your act of selling TIO is disgraceful. They think the way you went about selling TIO and the process of pushing legislation through this House in one day is something you should be ashamed of, and rightfully so. To completely ignore sound parliamentary processes for something as big as the sale of TIO and ram it through in one day is a disgrace.
We debated the sale in this Chamber yesterday, and granted you made the announcement of the sale of TIO – I think media got word of it on Sunday night. The full details were given in a media conference at about 10 am on Monday. Then you came into parliament on Tuesday and introduced legislation to sell TIO with cognate bills so it would go through as swiftly as possible. You do not have the grace to leave it until February to allow for the proper time you are meant to give legislation for passage. You did not give it that time for Territorians to get more data and figures and ask more questions about the legislation so they had the full facts and figures in front of them before that legislation was passed. You did not give Territorians that grace by waiting until February.
You did not even wait a few days. You introduced it on Tuesday and passed that legislation the same day. You did not even wait until the Wednesday or Thursday. You gave people the bare minimum time you could for them to appropriately scrutinise those bills. That is not something to be proud of. There are those here who respect parliamentary processes and the system we work in, and who value and believe in it and democracy – and there are members in the government who are far more across parliamentary processes than I am and have been in this Chamber for a very long time – who were forced to push this bill through in one day. It is not a good look; it is a terrible look. To pass it on urgency was bad enough, but to do it in one day was terrible and you should be ashamed of that.
Another reason people were not happy with the government pushing forward with the sale of TIO was because they had no mandate to do it. People were not asked the question in the election of 2012, the Blain by-election or the Casuarina by-election when the government could have had feedback. ‘Do you actually want to see TIO sold? Yes or no?’ They were not asked that question; the government just pushed their agenda, without engaging in appropriate debate and consultation with Territorians.
People were very upset with the government and the lack of consultation about the sale of TIO; that has been very loud and clear. There has been a huge amount of anger in the community about the way the government went about selling TIO and the lack of information people had with regard to it. They did not ask the question: ‘Would you like to see TIO sold? Yes or no?’ The first thing you should have done was ask the question.
TIO is a huge organisation in the Territory which has stuck by people, through thick and thin, since 1979 and has done a fantastic job. People are very attached to TIO. I understand that governments have to make tough decisions and do heavy lifting, and not all of their decisions will be popular; however, in this case, you went about it in the worst way. It was such a wrong way of communicating your desire to sell TIO with Territorians. You did not ask the question in the first place. Instead you arrogantly said to Territorians, ‘If we are to sell TIO, what would you like to spend the money on?’ People see right through that; that is a terrible way to consult with people. They could see exactly what you were doing and thought it was disgraceful.
You kept saying in this parliament that this was necessary for the future of TIO; that you must sell it, it had to happen and people did not appreciate or understand how dire the situation was that TIO must be sold. You failed to put your case to Territorians – completely failed from day one. You were not open, accountable or transparent. Instead we just saw your advertising campaign, your website saying ‘Click on this website. We are keen to develop the north. Tell us what you would like to spend the money on from selling TIO. Here are some of our ideas, we would love to hear yours.’
You did not even put the argument about why you felt TIO should be sold. You had some good opportunities to do that and to put a really thorough communications plan out across the Territory to engage people on a meaningful level, in a two-way process of communication. Rather than speaking at them, you could have listened to Territorians. But you did not do that. You wanted to ram this through as quickly as possible and not listen to Territorians at all.
You could have held a roadshow. You could have gone across the Territory to speak to people about the sale of TIO and to put your case to them. You did that in Katherine, and good work to the member of Katherine for managing to get that over the line. Clearly there is still a lot of fury in Katherine about the sale of TIO. There was a huge amount of worry there, and rightfully so because we saw what happened in 1998 with the Katherine floods. We saw what happened in the mid-2000s when the water levels rose in Katherine again. We know it is a place where many people’s houses flood.
You could have spoken to the people in Alice Springs where there are people whose houses are subject to flooding as well. We know in Darwin there are many residents who have homes that will be subject to storm surge. We are all at the mercy of cyclones from time to time. It is the reality of living in the Territory; we have some fairly extreme weather conditions.
You could have gone up and down the track and spoken to the people who were concerned about the sale of TIO, but you did not do that. You just ran a one-way communications strategy that did not have the right message in the first place. It was an absolute fail, and it was very arrogant of the government to think that was the right way to communicate with people. It was wrong, and they told you that very loudly and clearly.
We saw that through the media. There was very strong commentary coming through texts to editors, vox pops, letters to the editor in the NT News and in social media comments. People were not afraid to have a go and tell you exactly what they thought about the sale of TIO.
Mix 104.9 talkback has run hot on this topic, because people have been ringing in to say, ‘Do not sell TIO. It is not on, and the government has not gone the right way about it.’ We have also seen plenty of commentary through Nine News and its social media, with people also making very similar comments.
There is no doubt this has been a very unpopular decision the government has made. People might have had a bit more respect for the government and the decision had it appropriately communicated with Territorians about it in the first place and tried to put its case, rather than arrogantly ramming it through in a very short period of time without engaging in any meaningful conversation with Territorians about it.
We know, thanks to the Chief Minister in Question Time during the last sittings, that the government, at a Cabinet level, had been discussing the possible sale of TIO since March this year. It is December next week. The government only came clean with its plans about the sale of TIO two days after the Casuarina by-election, even though it had been talking about it for some time. It has refused to answer questions the opposition has put to it in this Chamber about selling TIO. Nothing was on the table or off the table. That was not a very clear answer and was not being up front with Territorians.
We have seen the process it has followed, and yesterday it successfully executed it in one of the most disgraceful processes seen in this parliament. The way it went about it was a shocker, to say the least.
In the debate yesterday many members spoke of this, but I noticed not all members of the government spoke. It clearly tells me of the concerns of other members behind the scenes; they did not want to go on the record to outline and argue why they would support this. There is no doubt people are well aware of how unpopular the decision to sell TIO is, and they will go down in history as being part of that decision, which was made despite the evidence and what they have seen happen on the east coast, particularly in northern Queensland.
I come back to the Pivot North report which looked into the development of northern Australia. Part of the recommendations suggested looking at the insurance market in northern Australia, particularly in Queensland after the market failure they have seen. Recommendation 5.30 of the Pivot North report says:
- The Territory Insurance Office (TIO) in the Northern Territory is a government owned statutory insurance provider that has provided affordable insurance to citizens of the Territory since 1979. It provides a potential model for the creation of insurance office covering Northern Australia.
It saw TIO as a good model and a good business.
You could have allowed for further scrutiny of the sale of TIO through the Public Accounts Committee. That was something the member for Nelson pushed very hard for, and the opposition fully supported. It would have been a very good process and an opportunity for the government to argue their case of why they felt TIO should be sold. Through the processes of the PAC you could have held some hearings, put the case very clearly, received a lot of media attention about it, and seen the information that came out of that process. However, you did not do it; you just wanted to ram it through as quickly as possible. That process, unfortunately, did not happen. It could have added to the debate and made it far more robust. It could have helped Territorians understand a bit more why the government made this decision. You could have put your case but you chose not to use the Public Accounts Committee for that process. It could have benefitted the government.
We also know there will be public hearings held in the Territory as part of a Senate inquiry into asset sales. That is another forum in which the government could have put its case with regard to the sale of TIO. The government’s agenda into public asset sales is continuing. In the Chamber today we heard that moves are now on the way for the port and the future of it. Serious questions have been put to the government again today. We know we will be hearing some more detail about its plans for the port. I am just hoping there is a deeper level of consultation such as two-way communication in its work in the future. Let us see what happens. I hope government has learnt a lesson from the process it followed with TIO.
There are also questions around its desire to sell TIO. There has been a lot of talk about the federal government’s plans and what they will be doing with the asset recycling program, which has not been enacted yet. You have sold TIO without that commencing. We know the problems the Abbott government is having in Canberra at this point in time. It was a very sad day yesterday in this parliament. We have observed a shocking process for the sale of something as big as TIO.
This will be a legacy issue for the Giles government and something you will all be remembered for: when TIO was sold in the Northern Territory. This will not leave people’s memories; they will long remember how this happened just as they remember 2012 when you came to government on your promise to reduce their cost of living. Then you rammed the prices of power, water and sewerage through the roof. They will not forget very quickly. They are certainly not going to forget in 2016, even though, I am sure, you will be hoping they will.
You will be using the money you have raised through the sale of TIO to try to help people forget, there is no doubt about that. Territorians see through it. They have seen through this process and the actions you have taken to rush through the sale of TIO from day one. If you were really genuine you would have engaged in a far more meaningful level of conversation with Territorians about it, rather than so arrogantly ramming through the legislation to sell TIO in one day, and not coming clean with Territorians far earlier, since you have been discussing this since March. You only came clean with them after the Casuarina by-election. Then you rammed through this legislation in one day without having the grace to allow for proper scrutiny of this process and to at least leave it until March. It has been a disgrace and a shameful part of this Territory’s parliament history.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion by the member for Nelson. He feels the betrayal more than anybody. We all feel it, but the member for Nelson is a very generous individual in trying to work with whoever is in government. He is probably reaching the end of his tether in trying to work with the CLP because time after time it commits to and promise him things, then when it suits them, bang, they drop him and do incredible backflips. It is not only the member for Nelson who is being betrayed here; it is the whole of the Northern Territory. It is incredible to see the backlash launched across the Territory with this very sneaky move by the CLP which never came clean about what it was doing until it was all too late.
Yesterday will go down in the history of the Territory as a pretty sad day for democracy, for our parliament and for the government elected to govern because it brought into the parliament a motion for the sale of the last government-owned insurance company in the nation. The reason it was the last one is because of the unique circumstances we find in the Northern Territory, given the unique geography and the weather conditions we are subject to.
We heard there was a late night meeting of Cabinet on Sunday. Of course, the upshot of that Cabinet decision – I would like to have been a fly on the wall because we know some members on that side were not comfortable with it. They could see not only the political fallout, but the fallout in their electorates. One person who has done it toughest would be the member for Katherine. He represents a community which is incredibly vulnerable to floods and has been subject to terrible flooding.
After the 1998 floods that inundated Katherine the only people whose insurance policies were honoured were those insured with TIO. It was a real turning point for people in Katherine and for the government-owned corporation that was the Territory Insurance Office. It is TIO support heartland in Katherine, so it is tough for the member for Katherine.
I would like to know what sort of a deal the Chief Minister struck with the member for Katherine to get his vote and prevent him from abstaining or crossing the floor. They must have worked hard on that because it would only have taken the member for Katherine and one other member from that side and the motion would not have passed and the sale would not have gone through.
Time and history will tell, but Territorians are pretty unforgiving. I have been amazed in the last few weeks to see the outpouring of public sentiment from people around the Territory. Our media outlets and our social media networks generally provide a good litmus test as to what people are thinking and how they are feeling, depending on the issue. Sometimes you get a balance with those who support and those who do not. Unequivocally, people did not support it. Polls demonstrated 80% to 90% of people did not support the sale of TIO. That is not just from looking at the letters to the editor, texts online, the social media messages, but at some polling that was done as well. That confirmed that was how Territorians were feeling, with 80% to 90% of Territorians not wanting to see the sale of TIO go through.
What did that mean to the Northern Territorian government, to the CLP? Nothing, not a thing. What it demonstrated, yet again, but in one of the biggest ways we have ever seen – even though the CLP of old was pretty bad; this contemporary lot are worse – is they did not care what Territorians thought because their messages constantly were, ‘Believe us, we know what is best for you. Selling off the government owned asset owned by you, the Territorian taxpayers, will be good for you. Believe us.’ I would love to see – and I guess we will find out when estimates comes around – what the CLP government campaign cost with full-page advertisements, mail-outs, brochures, advertising on air and all of that.
There was one key part of their platform in communicating with Territorians that has really cost them dearly, and I talked about this last night. They have ignored everybody’s protests. They closed their eyes and ears, ‘We know what is best for you’. That real test will come around in August 2016 when people go the polls at a general election, cast their vote and send a message to the CLP. Accumulatively, the sale of TIO has tipped the people over the edge.
I had an interesting e-mail today from someone – I will not reveal their identify but it is a former member of the CLP – telling me that people on this side of the House have to keep up the campaign against the government because it is simply atrocious. What has also really annoyed people with the sale of TIO is that the government likes to think it has engaged with people, consulted and put out its story, but it has never engaged in any meaningful two-way, open communication process.
The member for Katherine is the exception. He is smart enough to realise – over a week or so ago he called the forum in Katherine – that if he did nothing then that would be far worse. Good on him for calling that forum in Katherine and getting Richard Harding, the CEO of TIO, there. He seems to think the people were placated by what they were told. I am not so sure about that, not from what I have heard from friends of mine in Katherine who attended that meeting. But at least he did it. In the estimation of the eyes of the people he represents there that counts for something. Perhaps part of his broader political strategy was him sending a message to his constituency, ‘I am listening to you, I hear you’. He publicly said, ‘I have major concerns about this’. Somehow, by the weekend, things had magically changed and he came out of the Cabinet meeting on Sunday night, we presume on side with his Cabinet colleagues. That was definitely confirmed with the vote yesterday.
As for the unelected Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, he would not commit to any sort of public forum. He does not like doing it; I know that. Even when he slips into Nhulunbuy from time to time, he only ever uses a charter plane. The people in Nhulunbuy are pretty good, decent people like the rest of the people in the Territory. They go along to a public meeting. They respect the fact that elected representatives come along. They know they may not always get what they want out of those meetings in any commitments, let alone a backflip on a decision that has been made, but they appreciate when people will at least front up to those forums.
The Chief Minister does not often front these forums in Nhulunbuy. If he does, it is in and out pretty quickly, with a tightly controlled audience, and a, ‘Sorry, I have to go, my charter plane is ready to go’. If he cannot do that in Nhulunbuy, it is no surprise he could not do it Darwin. He could have done it with some of his Cabinet ministers standing around him, such as the members for Brennan, Sanderson and Port Darwin. All of those people put hands on hearts yesterday and said, ‘This is the best thing to do, we are on the right track here’. If they are so convinced to sell TIO, why could they not go to a meeting? That is what you put yourself out for when you are in public life; it is not all pats on the back to say you are doing a great job.
There are times we have to go along to a community consultation whether or not it is uncomfortable. I have been through it myself within a matter of weeks of becoming the local member, with some policy changes around homelands and Indigenous affairs. It was a baptism of fire, but it is what we do.
The one thing that really grated with Territorians is the Chief Minister would not front up to a meeting. He is so incredibly arrogant. As we know, that evening – I just confirmed it for the member for Nelson when he mentioned it – the Chief Minister was at the Hanuman Restaurant having dinner. He was …
Mr Chandler: He was at a LGANT meeting.
Ms WALKER: I was there attending a LGANT meeting with the member for Barkly, who has recently taken over the Local Government portfolio as a shadow responsibility.
Member for Brennan, you might want to say to me, ‘Member for Nhulunbuy, why were you not at the CDU meeting?’ We planned, within our ranks, who would be where. I do not know what was in your diary that night, member for Brennan, but there were members of our Caucus who attended the forum at CDU. The Leader of the Opposition was there, and we wanted to show our support. I was part of a handover with LGANT, introducing my colleague, the member for Barkly, to stakeholders within LGANT. I was sitting there when I saw the Chief Minister arrive at the same time there was a forum on at CDU.
The Chief Minister could have easily attended both. He has one of those nice, white cars downstairs that pulls up at the front of wherever he is. People would have appreciated it, even if he had turned up to CDU perhaps for the last 20 minutes or so. Nobody expects ministers, least of all the Chief Minister, to sit through two hours of a forum, but he did not go. He did not want to because he knew what he would hear from people. That is cowardly. That is not a sign of strong leadership and is not a sign of having the convictions …
Mr Chandler: How many times did you guys front rallies out the front?
Ms WALKER: What about you, member for Brennan? Why did you not go to the forum at CDU? Why did the member for Drysdale not go to the forum at CDU? She was quite anxious ...
Mr Chandler: You are hypocritical to the core.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No yelling across the Chamber!
Ms WALKER: She said in her contribution to debate last night that she was uncomfortable. She probably got a bit hammered through her electorate office with constituents coming to see her. She did the right thing in sticking up for her constituents. I reckon they were knocking on your door too, member for Brennan. I think you have had some sleepless nights. You are a different kettle of fish to the Chief Minister; you have a bit of heart and soul about you and are sensitive to when people are unhappy with you. I sense that about you in the way I see you operate, but not the Chief Minister. He does not care.
It was a great phrase from you, member for Nelson, that it was all about ego-nomics and not economics. That is what it comes down to: ego. The Chief Minister has an ego the size of the Territory. He is determined – I have heard this from a few sources – that he will leave a legacy in the Northern Territory as being a great economic reformer and someone who has done amazing things for the Territory.
History will tell the story, but the Chief Minister will go down as somebody who has trashed the Territory, and the only way he could find money to spend on important infrastructure projects and commitments, election commitments – a lot of those out in the bush – was by selling public assets.
The figures do not stack up either. Perhaps trying to look after 13 portfolios, including the Treasurer since August when the member for Fong Lim was dumped from Cabinet, is just too much. Those figures just do not stack up. What is coming into the coffers of Northern Territory Treasury is nowhere near what Territorians were promised. To be honest, it is nowhere near going to fill that list of potential projects. When he asked people, ‘Tell us what you want. Tell us what you want us to spend money on’, he was like Santa Claus with a big bag of lollies. You tally up all of those projects that were put forward by Territorians and it comes into millions and millions of dollars – way more than the sale of poor old TIO could ever possibly fund.
People see it for what it is. Territorians are not fools. But even during that debate last night there were still Territorians hoping there would be members on the other side who would cross the floor. There were people who genuinely believed it was such a terrible decision and terrible legislation to be ramming though this parliament in one day. I believe in the history of our parliament it has only ever happened on one occasion where legislation has been introduced, debated and passed. It was nothing as significant as this. People will remember it. They are unforgiving and it must be causing enormous angst within the ranks of the current CLP government for their backbenchers and Cabinet.
Of course, there is a bit of jostling going on. There is a vacant space in Cabinet, and has been since August. One wonders whether that is because we are waiting to see the member for Fong Lim serve out his six-months’ penance. The member for Brennan stated that publicly when he was on ABC one evening as the new Deputy Chief Minister, saying that, ‘Yes, six months out of Cabinet would be about right for Dave before we would even consider having him back in’.
There must be other people on the backbench who would be jockeying by saying, ‘Come on, I have worked hard for a couple of years, it must be my turn now’. I reckon the member for Drysdale might be at the front of that queue. She is a very competent individual and she is wasted sitting on the backbench. One wonders what kind of plans are afoot that the Chief Minister, since August, has held onto all of these portfolios and not elevated somebody into Cabinet. Who knows what is going on there.
The impact of this sale has been talked about enormously. I simply do not buy the yarns the Chief Minister tells us about how everything will be okay. We are really concerned – I spoke about this yesterday evening in the debate – about what this will mean to our regions. I will talk again, because I love talking about my electorate, of Nhulunbuy, where we have lost 1100 jobs and a major employer that contributed through its operations just a shave under 2% of the annual gross state product in the Northern Territory. That is wiping millions off the books of the Northern Territory government, money that would otherwise be coming into Treasury to help us fund important infrastructure projects such as bridges, roads, hospitals and schools. Nhulunbuy, as we all know, is going through a pretty bad time. The community is not going to disappear; it will not become a ghost town.
We know there has been work afoot to try to attract new investment. One of the key things pointed out by the insurance analyst yesterday who was interviewed on ABC radio was that, without the guarantee of insurance coverage and premiums at an affordable price for these extreme weather conditions of floods, cyclones and inundation, people will not invest in the Territory. If they can invest their money somewhere else in the country rather than the Northern Territory – and with a government, I might add, you cannot trust; they do one thing and say another – why would people invest here?
I am concerned about businesses and insurance coverage for people’s homes because affordability will be beyond their means. As if we have not already been hit hard enough by massive hikes in power and water prices, there will be another 5% increase in January. It will be really tough.
Mr Deputy Speaker, time will tell, but we condemn the CLP government for this move. I am pleased to be speaking in support of this motion this evening, and I do not think it is the last we will be hearing of it.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion condemning the Chief Minister and the government for rushing the sale of TIO put forward by the member for Nelson today.
This legislation was introduced and passed in one day, two days after the decision was made. The way this process has unfolded showed no respect to the voices of Territorians we were elected to represent, and introducing such important legislation in one day showed a lack of regard and respect for full debate and a level of scrutiny that should be given to a major business decision.
We are being told by the members of the CLP government that this is a business decision. It is a huge business decision, but apparently it is not open for scrutiny. That is really concerning. Apparently it is not okay for it to go through the Public Accounts Committee because if we debate this further it will cause damage to the TIO brand. That is untrue. This is a business decision that should have full debate and full scrutiny, and that is what we are here for.
The member for Wanguri hit the nail on the head when she said yesterday was a bizarre and sad day for the Territory. I completely agree with her. I left here yesterday completely overwhelmed by what had happened in just one day in parliament. I remember talking to members of this Chamber about how the first constituent through my door as the local member for Casuarina was somebody who wanted to talk about the potential sale of TIO and their concerns about it. My first phone call was from a constituent in Alice Springs who was concerned about the potential sale of TIO and wanted every member of this Chamber to know people in Alice Springs were concerned.
The CLP government told us in October it had been discussing this since March. The time frame for Territorians to wrap their heads around this decision has been incredibly short, much shorter than since March. The mechanisms for Territorians to have a two-way conversation with the government about their concerns, questions and views on this sale have been pretty much non-existent. Yet Territorians have still managed to make themselves exceptionally clear on their views on the sale of TIO. Despite being given minimal forums to do so by the CLP government, people did what they could to voice their concerns and to be explicit that they were not convinced about the sale. This was happening when the government would not confirm whether the sale was on or off the table, when the government flagged the sale was a real possibility and when the government announced in this House it was considering final offers and would move quickly.
Warren Entsch made his voice heard through the Pivot North report. Despite advice that this model should be expanded across northern Australia, the CLP government did not listen. People were making their concerns known and voices heard through petitions in shopping centres, outside our offices and by asking the member for Goyder whether they could access a petition at her office, which she obliged and got a huge number of signatures on. They were making themselves heard when they visited, called and e-mailed our offices as recently as today. People have been in my office today asking which way members voted yesterday.
The member for Sanderson might have said he has not had many visits from his constituents, but I am sure I am not the only person on this side of the House who has been contacted by constituents from Sanderson. They were making themselves heard when they erected signs which are still around my electorate today. They were making themselves heard when they contacted media outlets and hopped in their cars yesterday, even after the announcement was made of the sale. And it was not 35 cars. I do not know who was out there counting. There was a huge number of people who participated in the rally yesterday, even though the announcement of the sale had already been made. They were there to show the CLP government that they were not happy with the way it went about this decision.
This sale has been made without a mandate. The CLP had the opportunity to take its plans to an election; it did not campaign on it in the election. It did not take the plans to the Blain by-election or the Casuarina by-election. It was not up front about the conversations it was having about selling this public asset. It did not let Territorians know in April it was starting to discuss this sale.
There was an opportunity for members of the CLP government to attend a public forum that was held in my electorate, facilitated by the member for Nelson. However, no CLP government member came to present a case for the sale. I attended that forum. I was very interested to hear what a number of people had to say. That is why the member for Nelson held that forum in the first place; to listen and to make his mind up about what members of the public were saying about this sale. Business owners, families – lots of families who brought their kids – everyday mums and dads, and seniors attended; everybody was there. They wanted to talk about their concerns. They wanted to hear from both sides of this House about the pros and cons of the potential sale.
They wanted to hear Richard Harding’s views on the sale. I commend him for attending that meeting when he had no CLP member of the government – who were making this decision – there to support him. That is shameful. Good on him; he did an excellent job and people appreciated him being there.
People commented on the absence of CLP government members. I have been thinking about this. Perhaps it was the case that they were not convinced then. A number of members of the CLP government had expressed their concerns. Maybe at that point they were not convinced enough to attend and present a case for the sale. No CLP government member came to counter the concerns of Territorians, despite polls taken by a range of outlets and organisations which were interested in what Territorians wanted to say, indicating between 80% to 90% were against the sale. Let us not forget these same concerns were held by members of the CLP government only weeks ago. Perhaps it was even later than that, up until Sunday. Who knows? The decision was not made until Sunday. If members on the other side of the Chamber believe that Territorians would have changed their minds with more information, then you should and could have facilitated those discussions.
I remember the ABC headline about the public forum held at Charles Darwin University: ‘Giles tells TIO opponents to steer clear of sale meeting’. I point out that is not exactly how debate or a mature conversation works. You need to be willing to listen to the opposition that comes as a result of the decisions you are making – huge decisions with huge impacts on Territorians – and to respect it and to include it in your decision-making. You have refused to do so.
It was a proposal, and now a sale, that raised a good number of questions and angst amongst a number of sectors of our community. It is not a small level of angst, but a huge level. It is extremely disappointing that no concerted effort was made by the CLP government, not just to present information through the newspaper – which came thick and fast in full-page ads – but to engage in conversation and debate with Territory residents and business owners.
The only local member of the CLP government to hold a public forum was the member for Katherine, and he must be given credit for that. It is unfortunate that others did not see fit to follow suit. Whether the member for Katherine’s constituents see that he acted in their best interests, I have no doubt will be revealed in time.
It seems that the 15% from the asset recycling scheme was discussed as part of the package for selling TIO – it was certainly put out to the public that way – despite the fact this legislation has not yet passed in the Senate and the CLP government has no idea whether this would be issued retrospectively. This has not been secured or agreed to.
Guarantees discussed by the CLP government about coverage, premiums and community support are not captured in the contractual agreements, nor can anyone seem to agree on how long these verbal agreements are in place for.
The $424m sale price is not all that it seems either, with $140m of that coming from the MAC Scheme, leaving a $284m sale price. Is it any wonder that Territorians are concerned, wanting more information and to clarify what exactly this sale is about?
Territorians wanted to have a say in this process; they made that very clear. The level of anger is perfectly understandable and reasonable. Territorians do not feel they have engaged in a two-way consultation process in which they would have an opportunity to freely provide you with feedback, concerns and ideas, and have an opportunity to hear from you. That would have helped you form the basis for your decision for sale, but that did not occur. That is not a process that would trash the brand of our insurance company. However, it is about keeping the trust of Territorians and being open and transparent.
When somebody phones you and asks how you would use the profits from the sale of a public asset, what are you supposed to think? Is answering the question providing indirect agreement to a question that was never asked, whether or not you want the sale to go ahead? Territorians saw through it, just as they saw through the language change from ‘sale’ to ‘transferring ownership’.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am proud to support this motion moved by the member for Nelson. I also condemn the actions of the Chief Minister and the government.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind you there are only 30 minutes left.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you. I will give some time for the member for Nelson to wrap if I do not get too carried away. I will try not to. I do not want to be the new member for Greatorex in this Chamber. I will leave that up to him.
I support the member for Nelson’s general business motion about the rush of the sale of TIO. I will get to the first point, which talks about a sale without a mandate. My colleagues have spoken about this many times over the last couple of months, but I do not get sick of it. I do not get sick of standing up for Territorians, hearing their concerns and delivering their messages through to this arrogant government. I do not get sick of always standing up for what is right, which is giving Territorians – the people who voted us in as local members and you as government – an opportunity to have their voices heard. I will never get sick of that. It is what we are here for. You, as a government, have not given Territorians the opportunity to voice their concerns or to hear your response. As I said last night, if you are going to make such a big decision you need to bring Territorians along for the journey. You have not done that.
TIO is sold; it will go through. I think 2 January 2015 will see the ‘transfer of the ownership’ of Territorians’ asset. We have promised Territorians who have come to us that we will continue to fight against you selling any more assets. We are obviously very concerned about the Chief Minister selling our port. We have been fighting, as the member for Wanguri has done as the shadow minister, against the splitting of Power and Water and for the future of Territory ownership of that asset.
Member for Nelson, thank you for presenting this. Obviously we were keen to have a motion presented on TIO and what happened on the second last day of sittings for the year. Yesterday was one of the biggest moments in my short political career. As a born-and-bred Territorian, it was concerning listening to the members of the CLP government. I was very interested listening to some of the things they said. As Cabinet made a decision to sell a public asset for way under its worth, I am not sure every member of Cabinet spoke. I know not every member of government spoke on it; I am not sure of Cabinet members. The bare minimum that Territorians who own that asset expect from the government which sold it is that it should explain its reasons.
I agree we should have gone to a Public Accounts Committee. We are all about process and know the member for Nelson likes process. The member for Port Darwin talked about process. This House operates under the Westminster system, going through certain processes. We see legislation rammed through on urgency. Yesterday was a very dark day for Territory politics, not only for the sale, but also how it was pushed through this parliament.
We all know this government has sold out and is not listening to Territorians. We are going to have another fight about the port. That will be another issue. This Chief Minister has been here a total of eight years since he landed on Territory soil and it is the land of opportunity for him. I tell this Chief Minister and his Cabinet – whoever that may be next week as well – that we will fight that as we have done with TIO. We will take it to the people and hold you to account if you are thinking of selling our port.
It is interesting that of the people contributing to this debate I cannot go past the member for Sanderson, who said that selling TIO is not an issue in his electorate. I find that very hard to believe. With the number of people who have come to our offices and to see us in the mall, stopped and voiced their concern at the Casuarina shopping centre where we have had our stall and at the Sunday markets I and the members for Nightcliff and Fannie Bay attend, and signed the petitions the member for Wanguri and everybody else has at the front of their offices, it is beyond comprehension that the member for Sanderson thinks it is not an issue in his electorate.
At least 15, maybe 16, of your constituents have come to see me. I said a couple of months ago that if people are not coming to see you that is a problem. I am not saying that 15 or 16 people from your electorate have popped into the Sunday markets to see me; I am talking about locking in times to see me in my office in Millner at the Rapid Creek Business Village. We also had phone conversations with people about what this government is doing. I will not be too sneaky here. I say about half of those people are Labor supporters, but the other half are Liberal supporters. More importantly, they are Territorians who have not had chance to be heard by their local member or voice their concern.
When the member for Sanderson said it has not been an issue or a major concern in his electorate, that tells me several things. One is his constituents do not feel comfortable speaking to him, and the other is they do not believe what he says. That is a concern, and it will be a concern for the members for Sanderson and Port Darwin in the 2016 election. This will not be forgotten. People will not forget about the sale of TIO, we will make sure of that. Territorians will make sure of that. Wherever you go, whatever function you attend, people will talk to you about this.
We also have the port situation. We will find out early next year if you intend to get rid of the port, make some more cash-grab money. As I said, if you intend to get rid of another Territory asset perhaps you will run that process a little better and give people an opportunity to have their say and have a proper debate in this House.
Another thing the member for Sanderson mentioned was a rally that was held. The member for Nelson was involved in organising that rally. The member for Sanderson – the member for Blain screamed across the Chamber as well – said that only 28 cars were involved. I do not know where he was ...
Mr Wood: It was more like 128.
Mr VOWLES: Yes, I would say about 128. I would have to agree with you, member for Nelson. But 28 cars! That tells me you do not want to listen. Your constituents are coming to me because you do not want to listen. To try to pull the wool over Territorians’ eyes and say 28 cars were at the rally is a disgrace. There were over 100 cars at that rally. They were Territorians who vote in your electorate and who, at some stage, voted for this government.
As I said last night, I was interested to see the former member for Drysdale, Mr Ross Bohlin, in a TV interview call the government arrogant. There is probably another adjournment on the former member for Drysdale, Ross Bohlin. I will not stick up for him in this parliament, but since he has left politics I have started to believe some of things he says. We have a quick chat about things. We know when a former member of parliament calls his own party arrogant there is something wrong with the process.
I am deeply disappointed about what happened yesterday, in how this government sold a public asset, and that you have not given Territorians the option to voice their concerns. You have not given them an option of a public forum. As I said last night, I take my hat off briefly to the member for Katherine for holding a public consultation, apparently attended by 80 people. In the calls I received today mention was made of a commitment from the member for Katherine that he would not support this. People thought when they left that public consultation in Katherine that he would not support this. You can guarantee we will get out that he voted for the sale of TIO and sold out his constituents.
I have told the Leader of the Opposition I am happy to letterbox that to his constituents because I know they are concerned. You just have to look at social media, where people have voiced their concerns on different websites, our Facebook pages and so forth. They are deeply concerned that the member for Katherine went against his constituents, to whom he gave an undertaking he would not support this. As a member of Cabinet he supported this. His constituents will not forget it, and we will ensure they do not forget it in 2016.
Last night I had three questions I asked the Minister for Infrastructure to clarify for me, as the Lands and Planning minister had already spoken. In Question Time yesterday, the Chief Minister said the $25m was all for Rapid Creek flood mitigation works. I have not had any clarification about that. The initial commitment was for $25m for Rapid Creek and parts of the rural area. I have not had that cleared up yet so I am still waiting for that answer ...
Mr Styles: Ask for a briefing.
Mr VOWLES: The second question was is $25m out of the $50m just for Rapid Creek flood mitigation works? What are those works? Are we talking about raising the Trower Road bridge? Would it give all-weather access to the ambulance and the hospital? Will all the works out of the $25m lessen the flooding around that area?
The last question I had was how many homes would it get off the flood map along Rapid Creek Road? I am still waiting for an answer.
As the member for Sanderson just said, I will get another briefing and that is not a problem. However, I asked those questions last night and I thought the minister responsible or one of the other ministers could have answered me.
I will finish with one last question: how much did all the advertising cost? How much did the full-page ad cost Territorians? I hope at some stage you come back to us with an answer because it would be in the hundreds of thousands trying to sell Territorians on the sale of TIO. That did not happen.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I fully support this motion and I thank the member for Nelson for bringing it to his House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the members for their contributions. This debate, even though it is after the event, was still an important debate to have.
I quote from the debate on Thursday 30 October 2014 by the Chief Minister, who said:
- … we would be derelict in our duty to Territorians if we did not engage in a mature conversation around whether it may be an appropriate time to realise our value in TIO and reinvest in building the Territory for future generations.
Fair enough, but as the member for Nhulunbuy said tonight, when we tried to have a mature debate the Chief Minister did not turn up. I heard the member for Brennan say he was at a LGANT meeting. That was not something I was told. The minister gave me the impression he was away. That is okay.
I then e-mailed one of the staff on the fifth floor and asked if someone else could attend. I gave details of the meeting and said we were looking at giving roughly 10 minutes for the CLP, 10 minutes for TIO and 10 minutes for the ALP to talk so there would be plenty of time for questions. I was then told the Chief Minister said, basically, that the media had been hijacked. Once that was said, nobody from the CLP turned up. Just before that public meeting we had the debate in this parliament and there were many speakers from the CLP telling us why we should sell TIO. I thought someone from that side of parliament could have at least attended and put the government’s case to sell TIO. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Regardless of whether there was a LGANT meeting, the fact is the Chief Minister was having dinner at Hanuman.
Our meeting went from, I think, 6 pm until past 8 pm. We tried to keep it within reasonable limits. I remind people that meeting was also an attempt by me to find out what people thought after they had been informed. As I said last night, I had a PowerPoint presentation and everyone had a hard copy of it. They were given a little yellow slip at the end of the meeting which asked them what they thought about selling TIO after hearing from Richard Harding and the Opposition Leader. They obviously had not heard the point of the view of the government. There were 80 people who voted. It was a secret ballot in the sense we did not ask people to put their hands up; we just asked them to write what they thought on a piece of paper and put it in a box. We had a few scrutineers who counted them, and out of 80 votes, 78 said they did not want it to be sold.
That, to me, said the government had not put its message across. Sadly, instead of having the opportunity to put their point of view, people did not believe the Chief Minister’s words about us engaging in a mature conversation. He said he would be derelict in his duty if he did not do that, and the government was derelict in its duty when it came to having that mature debate. Many things have been said tonight. The member for Katherine held a public meeting not so long ago, and some of the things that came out of that public meeting highlight that this whole issue was rushed. I was looking at the Katherine Times editorial, which said:
When you slice through the political hyperbole, the $25 million the Northern Territory government has dangled in front of Katherine residents as a by-product of the sale of TIO is more about limiting damage at the ballot box in 2016 than it is about flood mitigation.
- The first indicator is that there was no communication with local governments about potential mitigation strategies prior to the announcement.
It went on to talk about the different amounts of money certain ministers have said should be given to flood mitigation in Katherine.
There was also an article in the Katherine Times where the Mayor of Katherine, Fay Miller, said there was simply was not enough money. There is also some confusion in that if you take the $8m that was promised to move the ambulance centre out, you only have $17m for the mitigation process.
Part of what is highlighted here is that this was rushed. People were thinking of ideas, and meetings were held at the last minute. A symbolic signal of it being rushed was yesterday when legislation was presented here and it was decided this legislation would be passed on urgency in the one day. That is the impression I have overall: the government wanted to do something quickly. It argued about liquidity and this and that, but in actual fact it was in a big hurry. That big hurry was not about bringing the people along; it was about its agenda. Unfortunately, people were left behind.
In summing up, we know TIO has been sold. Unfortunately it has been handled in a terribly amateurish way instead of a professional way that brought along the people of the Northern Territory. It might be a good economic argument, which is something I have said could be argued. The public relations exercise has been woeful, and the people have been left behind.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that is all I have to say and I am happy to vote on this motion.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 9 Noes 14
Ms Fyles Mr Barrett
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Conlan
Mr McCarthy Mr Elferink
Ms Manison Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms Moss Mr Giles
Mr Vowles Mr Higgins
Ms Walker Mr Kurrupuwu
Mr Wood Mrs Lambley
Mrs Price
Ms Purick
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Blue Mud Bay Fishing Agreements
Blue Mud Bay Fishing Agreements
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I update the House on the status of negotiations for access to waters affected by the High Court’s decision on Blue Mud Bay.
On 30 July 2008 the High Court of Australia handed down its decision with regard to the Blue Mud Bay matter. The High Court found the Fisheries Act is valid in tidal waters over Aboriginal land but that a permit is required to enter and remain on those waters ...
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I have a copy of the ministerial statement?
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order, pursuant to Standing Order 258 the ministerial statement is being distributed forthwith.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Do not panic, member for Johnston, I would not forget you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I want to start the ministerial statements in a civil manner, so can people please refrain from yelling across the Chamber otherwise I will not refrain from having you removed for an hour. Minister, you have the call.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The Blue Mud Bay decision presented a range of practical problems, not least the inability of either fishers or traditional owners to identify the extent of waters overlying Aboriginal land. It addition, negotiations with affected land councils are complex, requiring formal consent from over 2000 traditional owners around the Territory coastline.
This government is committed to reaching agreements that provide a practical win/win solution for traditional owners and recreational fishers. These agreements will enable ongoing access to affected waters by recreational fishers. They will also provide greater opportunities for traditional owners to be involved in managing and benefiting from fishing activity, not just in the narrow band of affected tidal waters but right across their sea country. This government is committed to creating economic development opportunities for Aboriginal people in regional areas, and our approach to the Blue Mud Bay negotiations provide clear evidence of this.
This government has allocated $2.7m from this year’s budget for Blue Mud Bay agreements. The formal allocation of this funding will ensure the delivery of a range of initiatives, including marine ranger program training and support and access payments to traditional owners for the term of those agreements already reached.
There will also be opportunities for traditional owners from other areas to negotiate agreements for waters overlying their land. I am proud to say agreements have already been reached for the following regions: the upper Daly River; the Daly River mouth to Cape Ford; the McArthur River/Sir Edward Pellew group of islands; Minimini/Murgenella; Nhulunbuy; Wadeye and the Tiwi Islands. The federal minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Hon Nigel Scullion, recently endorsed the legal deeds for these arrangements which provide for ongoing access by commercial fishers, fishing tour operators and recreational fishers, and other water users without individual permits.
Each agreement includes initiatives for marine ranger programs, including training and enforcement powers. They also include a code of conduct to raise awareness and respect of the rights and culture of traditional owners when visiting affected waters, and amendments to the Aboriginal coastal licence to allow the development of fishing businesses and increase the supply of fresh fish to local communities.
Payments in recognition of the level of commercial and recreational fishing activity in affected waters are also included in the offer.
These initiatives are already benefitting Aboriginal communities across the Northern Territory coastline. Capacity-building programs have commenced, including the training of marine rangers in fisheries enforcement and scientific research. These specifically-tailored training programs are accredited and provide Aboriginal people with real and valuable skills. Significantly, these courses are then followed up with practical experience in the field.
Staff from my Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, in conjunction with the Water Police, have undertaken joint fishery patrols with marine rangers. The success of this training is evident as patrols by marine rangers have resulted in a number of fisheries offences being detected and prosecuted. These marine rangers play a valuable role in providing a cost-effective service in regional areas.
My Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries is also contracting marine ranger groups to help in fisheries research programs. Rangers are collecting samples, recording information, extracting otoliths, or ear bones, from fish and sending them back to Darwin for analysis to determine their age.
These capacity-building programs provide skills and experience to ranger groups to allow them to contract their services to other government agencies, universities and organisations. Not only do these programs provide jobs for marine rangers, they are also consistent with the cultural obligation of traditional owners to be actively managing their sea country.
Our commercial fishing mentor program has delivered training to more than 30 people in commercial fishing skills including gear maintenance, catching, handling and hygiene, and even business skills. While this program is in its infancy, the demand for mentoring is growing rapidly with many communities wanting to get involved. Fish have already been sold in local stores in Milingimbi, Ski Beach and on Goulburn Island.
From little things big things grow! Our vision is to build upon this progress, and increase and broaden the skills and experience of these communities so they become active operators in the Territory’s commercial fisheries.
New fishing brochures have been developed for the Daly River and Borroloola areas which acknowledge the permission granted by traditional owners to visit their land and outline the code of conduct for fishers. These communities have worked in partnership with my department to develop the brochures and provide local artwork for the design. I table a copy of each one of those brochures that have been developed so far.
These programs are successfully delivering economic, employment and workplace skills and development opportunities in remote Aboriginal communities. This government is committed to giving traditional owners across the Territory’s coastline the opportunity to consider the government’s offer to enable ongoing permit-free fishing access to intertidal waters overlying Aboriginal land.
Sitting down with this government’s negotiating team will give traditional owners the opportunity to discuss the management of sea country and allow them to consider a specific agreement for their area so they can decide if a mutually beneficial agreement can be reached.
In highlighting these successes today, I also acknowledge that there is still work to do. These negotiations, by their very nature, are time consuming. However, it is important that traditional owners gain a detailed understanding of the High Court decision and the elements of the government offer for their area. I believe these offers contain considerable benefits for traditional owners, which is why I am prepared to take the time required to provide this opportunity.
While the six agreements reached to date encompass most key recreational fishing areas, formal negotiations have not been able to be progressed in some key commercial fishing areas. This includes Blue Mud Bay, where the legal case began, and Buckingham Bay, Arnhem Bay, Boucaut Bay, Millingimbi, Ramingining and the Roper/Limmen/Towns River regions.
However, informal discussions with traditional owners from coastal communities in Arnhem Land have shown that they have a keen interest in holding negotiations with government over individual agreements for areas. At this stage, the Northern Land Council has extended the interim arrangements until the end of November this year. Given the number of community meetings that will still be required, it is clear that further time is required to allow these discussions to progress. Government is prepared to continue to devote resources to the further negotiations to ensure all traditional owners have the opportunity to consider an offer for an agreement that will provide opportunities and the improved management of sea country.
I have shown that the opportunities for remote communities through these Blue Mud Bay agreements are numerous and include: actively involving Aboriginal Territorians in aquatic resource management; improving the efficiency of marine surveillance, compliance and scientific research; building small business capacity in remote communities; providing locally caught fresh seafood for health and cultural benefits; increasing the capacity of Indigenous marine ranger groups to operate under fee-for-service arrangements; and importantly, genuine engagement of communities.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for the statement. It is a pity I was not able to get a copy of this earlier, because I am interested in this area. As you know, some of my family are involved in some of these discussions about the Blue Mud Bay decisions that have been made around the coast of the Northern Territory.
It was interesting to hear the minister give this statement today on these fishing agreements. I noticed he answered a question during Question Time in relation to the agreement with the Tiwi Islands, and he mentioned the Vernon Islands. I did not know there were any restrictions in place on the Vernon Islands as a fishing zone in the first place, so I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about how the Vernon Islands were included in the Tiwi Islands agreement. I know there were negotiations held some years ago between Larrakia and the Tiwi Islands as to who owned the Vernon Islands. It is a funny part of the Northern Territory because it is not in the Litchfield Council area or the Tiwi Regional Council area. It is a part of the Territory a bit like the East Arm port; it does not belong to any local government.
The minister may say that how traditional owners come to agree over these arrangements being put forward by the Northern Land Council is something that does not concern him because his portfolio does not cover those negotiations, and that his staff or his department work in conjunction with the Northern Land Council to come up with these agreements. I am concerned as to whether there is sometimes a process that is questionable. That is not to say we should not have agreements, but it is questionable whether people have been consulted in a proper way.
I note that there is a meeting coming up soon at Nungalinya College, which will deal with the intertidal zone area around Fog Bay and the Peron Islands. The agenda says good faith negotiations have continued and the Northern Land Council consulted widely through formal and informal meetings with members of the Wadjigan and Kiuk groups.
I am concerned and hope that if any group is to make an agreement over land that is intertidal, the Northern Land Council will make sure all groups involved in that agreement have an opportunity to meet together, that all viewpoints are raised and the meeting is minuted. Under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act you need to have some formal basis on which the agreement is signed off. One of the complaints I have received is people could be phoned and asked if they agree, or there could be a small meeting, but no one knows what was asked of the people and no minutes were taken. There was no opportunity to even have a group meeting – or did not appear to be – where there was a secret ballot.
I am not arguing whether people in that area should sign an agreement or not; that is up to them to decide, not me. I am more worried that the process is open and transparent and can stand up to scrutiny. When the government said it made an agreement with a group of people, that is fine, but we need to be sure that when the agreement was made it was legal, open, transparent and we can see the minutes of the meeting.
I am also interested to know whether we can see the agreements. After all, these agreements involve public money. We have ranger programs, I gather there are educational programs and sea rangers are involved in training programs. That is all great. I am not saying we should not have all that. However, if the government is saying it is putting money into these programs as part of the agreements, it would be good to know how much money is being paid for that agreement, and whether we have a method of checking to see if the benefits of the agreements claimed by government are occurring.
The minister issued two very nice brochures. I have seen the one for Daly River and it is an excellent brochure – very clear. Any fishermen going to that part of the world would straightaway know where he could and should not go. I congratulate the government. I am not sure whether it was just the government which put them together or someone else, but they are excellent brochures for anyone fishing in the area. One of the good things about them, minister, is many people used to go crook about the Daly River and complain that they should be able to go up and down that area. It is the old case of forgetting there were people here about a generation-and-a-half ago who owned all that land. Where my wife was born, there is a bunch of silver circle houses at what we called the old Channel Point area. Dundee Beach is on Wadjigan land. A name like Dundee, of all names, does not even relate to the country.
My wife can tell you that her father rowed a canoe up and down that coastline on which they lived. That was in my wife’s time, one-and-a-half or two generations ago. Yet, people do not know that and think the land is theirs, and do not realise people were there long before we were.
Sometimes that is not recognised, but that brochure the minister has released gives you a feeling that, yes, there are groups of people who have a strong connection with the Daly River. It helps us appreciate that as well, plus it gives the fishermen a good idea of where to fish and not to fish. It has two uses.
I get back to my concerns. I want to ensure these agreements are done properly. I am not saying the ones which have been signed are not done properly, minister, but I am worried when this statement said ‘consulted widely through formal and informal meetings’. When you go to the footy club you do not expect someone ringing everyone and saying, ‘What do you think of this? What do you think of that? Oh, that is what we all agreed to.’ No, they should come to a meeting and people put their sides of the argument, listen to the debate, and then vote on it. They need to vote on it because you want to ensure that is what the people want. I have that concern.
The other thing it said about the invitation for this meeting is ‘people are invited and encouraged to attend this final BMB meeting’. That is the final Blue Mud Bay meeting. Why is it the final meeting? I am not sure. Does that mean if they still do not have an agreement there is a big hurry for this? People are still allowed to fish in the area for the moment. Again, I have some concerns, not about what people agree to, just that the people, as a group and not as families or individuals, are being asked when these decisions need to be made so everybody knows what others’ opinions are and can vote as a whole. You cannot cut up sections of the coastline into this person’s bit and this person’s bit; it belongs to all the people. So that decision needs to be made by all the people as a group.
I raise that issue, minister, because you will be making agreements with traditional owners and those agreements have to fit within the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
I hope when you sign that agreement you can genuinely say the people of that area have supported the agreement, and there is proof they have supported it through the minutes of a meeting and a vote to make sure the majority have agreed.
I am sorry, member for Johnston, I was standing at the right time and, obviously, you were asleep, dreaming of days when you hit the fastest century at the MCG; it is never out of his mind.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. We hope there will be more statements about this important issue. One thing …
Mr Vowles: The day before.
Mr WOOD: I do not want to see that happen again. The minister said:
- While the six agreements reached to date encompass most key recreational areas, formal negotiations have not been able to be progressed in some key commercial fishing areas. This includes Blue Mud Bay, where the legal case began ...
This is where the court case started, so it is interesting to know the negotiations have not been completed in the Blue Mud Bay area. Why has that not happened, especially since this is where it all started?
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House.
People listening probably do not understand that when the minister delivered the speech was the first time we saw or heard it. It is a little difficult. When this happens in parliament I, as shadow minister for this portfolio, have to go with the speech I prepared, so here we go.
This is an important statement because it is about how this government is working with Indigenous traditional owners in managing their land and resources as well as economic development, which includes commercial fishing, recreational fishing tours and tourism.
As well as recreational opportunities for Territorians, their friends and relatives, fisheries are an important resource for the Territory in economy and lifestyle. Importantly, fishing and the management of fisheries’ resources continues to be an important part of the day-to-day life of many Indigenous Territorians.
In 2010, for example, it was estimated that more than 35 000 Territory residents and 55 000 visitors fished and spent at least $80m in that year alone on recreational fishing and fishing tours in the Northern Territory. AFANT has noted recreational fishers spend an average of $1500 per year on fishing goods and services in the Northern Territory, the highest rate in the country. An amount of $22m per annum is spent just on guided fishing in the Northern Territory, and there is direct expenditure on recreational fishing in the NT of $100m per year. A total of 70% of recreational fishing occurs in our regional areas of King Ash Bay, Daly River, Roper River, Dundee Beach, Mary River and some parts of Kakadu.
We have a commercial industry, including wild catch fish and aquaculture, which contributes 12.5% of the production value of primary industries in the Northern Territory. In the intertidal zone, the wild caught barramundi fishery is worth over $5m per year and the mud crab fishery is worth over $6m per year.
Last sittings a statement on fisheries was made, and in our response to that statement we highlighted the missed opportunities for the minister to update Territorians on access to fisheries in the intertidal zone, adjacent to Aboriginal land, as a consequence of the High Court’s 2008 Blue Mud Bay decision. The Blue Mud Bay decision found that traditional owners’ control of access to Aboriginal land did extend to water overlying Aboriginal land to the mean low water mark.
AFANT has said that making agreement about continued fishing access to this area has been one of the most complex and difficult issues facing recreational anglers in the Northern Territory.
In government we recognised the importance of access to land and seas for fishing, but we also saw opportunities for Indigenous economic development and more direct involvement of traditional owners in the management of land and seas, supporting more access to Aboriginal land. We are proud of our achievements in government in ensuring a sustainable fishery, protecting rivers, streams, and the marine environment that sustain our fisheries and our investment in better recreational fishing infrastructure. We made good progress in facilitating access agreements, but two years on there is still more to do.
I note the importance of marine ranger groups being actively involved in fishery management. It was not always that way. Traditional owners across the Northern Territory have not forgotten the resistance of the former Country Liberals government to a direct role in fisheries management; the previous CLP administration resisted land claims and protested native title rights to fish stocks.
On election to government, we saw the opportunities to work collaboratively with all stakeholders and landholders and choose a different path, supporting the development of land and sea ranger groups and their work in land, sea and fisheries management. It is good to see the government continuing key elements of that approach, assisting ranger groups and supporting them through resources and developing their law enforcement capacity. It is important to note that negotiations with traditional owners have never just been about money, they have been about respect for landowners and support to manage fishing access.
Today we have an update of sorts – a brag about an arrangement with Tiwi Islanders and a signal to the Northern Land Council asking them to consider a further extension to interim access arrangements. The Northern Land Council has previously sought to conclude negotiations by November this year, saying it was unlikely there would be further extensions. We can only speculate on the reasons for continuing delay. In particular, what are the obstacles to settling long-term access providing certainty and opportunities to all stakeholders?
I understand the request to the Northern Land Council for a further extension is being considered favourably by the Northern Land Council, but will be dependent on decision-making of all members of the Northern Land Council in December. I thank the Northern Land Council members for their commitment to a positive outcome for all, and their patience and ongoing commitment to continue working on resolution of these access arrangements. Ultimately, decisions of traditional owners will be based on the confidence of local traditional owners. The government is taking negotiations seriously; being fair and reasonable in setting long-term access arrangements.
Today the minister announced an agreement with the Tiwi Islanders, but an agreement that continues to cause some angst for AFANT with continuing restrictions on access is the north coast of the Tiwi Islands. We understand the need of Tiwi Islanders for the opportunity to develop their guided fishing tour operations in that restricted area. We would like to hear more about support for that, particularly for local Indigenous employment and business opportunities.
The minister said the government has allocated $2.7m for Blue Mud Bay agreements this year. What about the other side deal being made? For example, what commitment has the government made to the Tiwi Islanders for improved roads on the Tiwi Islands? We know that is important to Tiwi Islanders. We do not criticise anyone for using negotiations with government to leverage better outcomes; we just want the government to be more open on what deals they are, or are not, making in connection with land and sea access.
What about unresolved issues of access to the Finniss River? What is the status of the three-year trial of access to the Minimini Creek and Murgenella areas in Arnhem Land? What is the government doing to facilitate access to areas that lie outside the five regions identified for regional access agreements? What is happening with the issue of boat identification? What is happening with more access and permits for fishing outside of the five regional management areas? What is happening with the fishing mentoring program announced by the minister in the May budget? What is happening in supporting stronger connections and links between traditional owners and the recreational, fishing tour guiding and commercial fishing sectors? It is not just about government, and the government is not the font of all wisdom.
It would also have been useful for the minister or Chief Minister to update the House on the status of the unresolved land claims, the beds of some rivers and streams in the Northern Territory. Resolving these claims and settling access arrangements remains a key issue for land claimants, recreational fishers and AFANT.
If the Chief Minister will contribute to this debate we would like to hear what success he has had with more financial support from the Commonwealth to resolve the long-term Blue Mud Bay access agreements. What is the status of finalising the Kenbi Land Claim and access agreements in relation to Bynoe Harbour and parts of Darwin Harbour? What about the coastal areas of Kakadu, Cape Hotham, Chambers Bay and Finke Bay, and the Roper, Victoria and Fitzmaurice Rivers?
The minister spoke in his fisheries statement last sittings about the closure by the CLP government of both Chambers and Finke Bays to commercial barramundi fishing. We understand this was a popular decision among recreational fishers, but the change has not been well managed. You left commercial barramundi fishers bewildered and uncertain about the long-term wellbeing of their industry under a Country Liberals government. It left many unanswered questions about the future of wild caught barramundi fisheries in the Northern Territory.
The commercial fishing industry, including the mud crab fishery, continues to wrestle with uncertainty about its future, while long-term access to fishing grounds affected by the Blue Mud Bay decision remain unresolved.
It is important to note, for example, that the wild caught barramundi industry currently obtains the bulk of its catch from just 10% of the Northern Territory coastline. The Seafood Council tells us the key issue for it is the need for certainty, which is a key issue in the future for both the industry and individual businesses. Continuing uncertainty means access to finance for reinvestment and to grow business is almost impossible while long-term access to fishing resources remains unresolved. What is the government doing to assist in resolving these issues for commercial fishers?
It is a commercial industry, including wild caught fish and aquaculture, that contributes 12.5% to the production value of primary industries in the Northern Territory. The finfish sector on its own realised $25.7m in production value in 2011-12.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the minister has talked up the progress that has been made in building on the positive start we made when we were in government, but many issues remain unresolved. We and Territorians more generally would like to hear about and see more of their plans and commitment to settling unresolved access issues.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on the statement given by the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. I know the minister has worked hard and in consultation with traditional owners over fishing permit agreements.
On 30 July 2008 the High Court of Australia handed down its decision with regard to Blue Mud Bay matters which recognise the right of traditional owners to the water over their land. While the court decision acknowledged that the Fisheries Act is valid in tidal waters over Aboriginal land, they decided the permit is required to enter and remain in those waters. Since then governments of all sides have attempted to secure agreement to allow continued access to the water by Territory fishermen.
This government is committed to reach agreement to provide a practical win/win solution for traditional owners, and recreational and commercial fishers. When negotiating, this government aimed for agreement that will enable ongoing access to that water by recreational and commercial fishers, as well as providing great opportunity for traditional owners to be involved in managing and benefiting from the fisheries activities, not just a narrow band of tidal waters but right across sea country.
Agreement has already been reached on six areas across the Top End. Today I was able to join with the Chief Minister to announce the seventh agreement. The Country Liberals government has reached an historic agreement with the Tiwi Land Council allowing permit-free access to key fishery areas of Bathurst and Melville Islands, as well as Vernon Island. Tiwi traditional owners have long aspired to own and run successful fishing businesses. This agreement will assist them to do so while also benefitting recreational and commercial fishers. It is a win/win for traditional owners, the local community and Territory fishermen.
The 20-year agreement includes a total of $135 000 a year to support the marine rangers program, a commitment to enhance the power of marine rangers, a one-off $30 000 payment to build a new recreational fishing camp, enhanced Aboriginal coastal licences for community members, and a code of conduct to ensure visitors respect the rights of traditional owners.
The agreement will grant recreational and commercial fishers, as well as fishing tourism operators, permit-free access to intertidal water around the southern and eastern region of Melville and Bathurst Islands, as well as Vernon Island. Fishers also will be able to visit the township of Wurrumiyanga and Pirlangimpi, where they may be able to buy fuel and supplies and visit the art gallery, helping to grow the local economy.
The Tiwi Islands fishing tourism business, Tiwi Islands Adventures, will have exclusive access to the north of Melville Island and the west of Bathurst Island. This will create an opportunity for the Tiwi to grow their fishing business, while also allowing permit-free excess to other parts of the island by recreational and commercial fishers. Permits will be issued through the Tiwi Land Council. A permit will also allow fishers to use land-based fishing camps.
This agreement is further proof of the government’s commitment to breaking the cycle of welfare dependency, and the creation of viable economies and jobs in remote communities, as well as keeping our communities for Territory fishermen.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for this statement to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Amendment to the Workers Rehabilitation
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Chief Minister is unable to join us at the moment. However, he has asked me to deliver his statement on his behalf in relation to the amendment to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act today.
The Chief Minister would have informed the House of his government’s intention to amend the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. This follows an extensive review of the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Scheme that started in March 2013. The review was overseen by the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Advisory Council, which is made up of representatives, employers, workers and other scheme participants. The Country Liberals government acknowledges the comprehensive and detailed nature of the review and the extensive report that has been completed. The Chief Minister particularly acknowledges the efforts of the authors of the report, Messrs Mark Crossin and George Roussos, whose tireless work and consultative efforts have resulted in 58 well-considered recommendations that have broad industry support.
The review involved considerable public and stakeholder consultation, including an 84-day public comment period resulting in 72 submissions being made. The Chief Minister wishes to thank all those who have contributed to the review which helped shape the final recommendations.
The last comprehensive review was undertaken 30 years ago in 1984. While there have been some reviews on specific issues, the scheme is now out of step with other jurisdictions. This has been a concern to both the insurance industry and the business community, which have been seeking a comprehensive review for some time.
The current scheme provides no fault coverage for eligible workers who are injured at work. Benefits of the scheme include weekly payments, medical treatment, rehabilitation costs and, in some cases, payments for permanent impairment. The scheme is focused on rehabilitation and return to work, but with the potential for injured workers to be paid income maintenance until pension age and for medical expenses for life. It is a generous scheme in comparison with other schemes in Australia.
A recent independent actuarial review of the scheme indicated that insurers, as a whole, had lost money for three of the last five years with the net outcome also being a loss. This indicates that the change is required if insurance premiums are to be affordable. As such, the review of the scheme has advocated that changes to benefits are necessary if the Northern Territory scheme is to remain affordable for business, and to ensure Territory businesses have every chance to be competitive.
The Giles government supports striking a balance between the cost of the scheme and the benefits for injured workers. The Country Liberals government is committed to ensuring long-term financial viability of the scheme whilst enhancing return to work outcomes for injured workers. The focus of the scheme must be about a successful return to work.
The Chief Minister would like to bring to the attention of the House some of the changes proposed to the legislation. It is proposed to limit weekly benefits for most claimants to a maximum of five years, with medical and treatment costs to end 12 months after that date. However, claimants who are assessed as having a significant permanent impairment will retain the existing entitlement of weekly benefits until their pension eligibility age, and will be entitled to medical and treatment costs for life. The change will only impact a minority of claimants.
Statistics show that 66% of claims involve less than one week off work. Of the remaining claims, 56% will be sent back to work in less than six weeks and less than 5% of claims will extend beyond 52 weeks.
A new definition of ‘worker’ is proposed based on whether Pay As You Go (PAYG) tax instalments are being deducted or should be deducted by a worker’s employer. This approach will make it easier for individual businesses to determine their workers’ compensation insurance requirements.
As the Chief Minister previously promised, the government intends to introduce presumptive legislation for Northern Territory firefighters. It is recognised there may be a proven link between firefighting and the risk of some types of cancer. The intention is to provide financial support not only to career firefighters but also to auxiliary and volunteer firefighters by making it easier for firefighters to make a compensation claim for any of the 12 cancers that have been shown to have an association with their occupation.
Presumptive legislation for firefighters currently exists in the Commonwealth, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. The framework we will be adopting is similar to those jurisdictions. There will be a requirement for a certain amount of time in active service and that the claim has to be made within 10 years after service ceases. The provisions will apply to cancers diagnosed from 25 August 2012, being the date the Country Liberals government came to office.
It was identified in the review that the Northern Territory had fallen behind other jurisdictions in lump sums payable to dependants after the death of a worker. It is, therefore, intended to increase the lump sum as well as benefit for a funeral, in addition to creating a new benefit for counselling for family members. On today’s value, the benefit for death will increase by about $150 000, thus easing the financial burden on the deceased worker’s dependant family.
There is no provision in the act for the settlement and finalisation of a claim by payment of lump sum. However, almost 30% of claims are now resolved through lump sum payments under contractual arrangements that are independent of legislation and are not binding. There is a widespread demand for lump sums as it is an important tool for managing claims. The proposed changes will meet that need. However, to ensure that the use of lump sums does not become a substitute for effective rehabilitation and return to work, lump sum settlements will not be normally permitted during the first 104 weeks from the injury.
The intention of the current act is that for diseases to be compensable, the employment should materially contribute to the disease. However, strokes and heart attacks, which generally result from underlying diseases, are often being compensated because they happened at work. The legislation will be made clearer to exclude strokes and heart attacks unless the employment was a major contributor for the underlying disease or the cause of the condition.
In today’s world, older workers are being encouraged to stay longer in the workforce. The Country Liberals government believes it is important to support this process by ensuring that they can access appropriate workers compensation protection. It is proposed to extend the time period of weekly payments up to 104 weeks of incapacity for older workers. This change will, for example, mean that a worker aged over 67 years of age would receive up to 104 weeks of weekly payments instead of the current 26.
In addition to the recommendations made in the review, the Giles government has identified further changes to improve the scheme and its operation. To reinforce the principle objective of the legislation, there will be a change to name. This important legislation will be called the Return to Work Act. This reflects the objective of the legislation, which is to return injured workers to productive work as soon as practicable. Monetary compensation is simply a support mechanism during recovery and a return-to-work process.
With this focus in mind, there will be a strengthening of obligations around the return to work. First of all, the Giles government will make it an offence for an employer to dismiss a worker within six months after the injury unless the dismissal is due to serious or wilful misconduct. It will also become a requirement that the employer must develop a return-to-work plan for workers who are likely to be incapacitated for more than 28 days. Workers will be required to cooperate with the plan to retain their entitlement to weekly benefits.
In addition to those changes, we propose to exclude journey claims to and from work. This would make the Territory’s scheme consistent with the majority of other Australian jurisdictions. Journey claims to and from work are outside the control of employers, and in the case of motor vehicle accidents they already have cover by the Territory Motor Accident Compensation Scheme.
It is proposed that a bill will be introduced to the Assembly early in the new year with adoption by 1 July 2015. The Chief Minister again acknowledges the comprehensive review that was undertaken by Messrs Roussos and Crossin. The review covers many matters that will help to improve the administration of the Territory’s Workers Compensation Scheme, and the Chief Minister has only touched on some of the more significant matters in this statement.
The full report is available on the NT WorkSafe website. I table the Chief Minister’s government’s response to the review of the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Scheme.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak on the Chief Minister’s statement on the amendment to the Workers Rehabilitation Compensation Act.
In his statement, the Chief Minister said his government is responding to concerns of both the insurance industry and the business community. But the most important people affected are the injured workers themselves. Whether in government or opposition, we will keep injured Territorians’ at the forefront of our concerns.
We want a system that is sustainable and secure into the future. This statement goes too far. We will wait to see the business cases made by the government when it tables the amendments to the act. Let us face it, there are other issues the NT government could address to assist NT small businesses to remain competitive and relieve the main pressures they have in continuing to do business. During the last election campaign the CLP promised it would address issues, and drive down the cost of living and doing business in the Territory. What have we actually seen? Its actions are driving business costs higher – higher power and water and transport costs, and now they are looking to sell the port, with more cost increases in the pipeline if that comes to pass. Given the proceedings in the House this week, insurance premiums will be hiked up.
It is also clear that any pressure on the sustainability of the scheme is not coming from the increase in the number of workplace accidents. As noted by the preliminary report, over the last 10 years there has been a significant reduction in workplace incidents, driven down by the previous Labor government’s focus on improved workplace safety. We applaud business and workers for their positive response to our changes, and for working hard to make workplaces safer. We need to continue our focus on encouraging healthy and safe workplaces. Every worker should go to work knowing they will return home to their family that night and are going to work in a safe environment.
The Chief Minister states that the Territory’s workers compensation scheme is ‘a generous scheme in comparison with other schemes in Australia’. The reality is our scheme is quite similar to other jurisdictions and offers reasonable medical treatment and 75% of the worker’s lost income.
Words like ‘generous’ paint the wrong picture. The current scheme is fair and reasonable, and in line with other jurisdictions. It is not generous to treat injured workers with dignity and respect, to compensate them for their loss of income and help them with their medical and treatment expenses so they and their families are not sent broke. That is not generous; that is what we should be doing.
The Chief Minister’s statement said he supports striking a balance between the costs of the scheme and the benefits for injured workers. However, the government’s own review of the scheme on page 77, which forms the basis for the amendments, advised that premiums may not drop as a result of the implementation of the reforms. Of course, Labor is just as committed as you are, Chief Minister, to ensuring the ongoing viability of our workers compensation scheme.
The Law Society’s submission to your review pointed out that in 2008 insurers dropped premiums because they were in a price war with each other, not because injured workers were being treated ‘too generously’. Big insurers were engaging in price cutting wars, and it is not a reason to attack injured workers.
The changes the Chief Minister outlined in his statement today go to reducing benefits for injured workers, not balancing interests. The statement said the focus for the scheme must be about the successful return to work of injured workers. Let us be honest, that is the goal of the current scheme we are all focused on.
We will never forget the most seriously injured workers you are targeting in this review. You propose limiting weekly benefits for most claimants to a maximum of five years, with medical and treatment costs ending 12 months after that date. Your statement points out that only a small number of claimants, 2.2%, remain on workers compensation beyond 52 weeks. An even smaller number need workers compensation to support them for up to five years. Why would we abandon them? Are we going to allow insurers to toss them on the scrap heap? ‘Here is some money, go away, you are not our problem anymore.’
The statement said that claimants who are assessed as having a significant permanent impairment will retain the existing entitlement of weekly benefits until their pension eligibility age. What precisely does this mean? What is the impairment threshold, and is it changing? How many injured workers are covered by this change? What do medical experts say about this? Let us see the details on this soon, not the day you try to ram it through our parliament as you have done with the TIO sell-off this week.
On that matter, will you come clean on whether you discussed these changes with Allianz as part of the secret sales talks to appoint them as the government’s compensation provider now you have sold TIO? Allianz is already a significant player and is about to dominate the workers compensation insurance business in the Territory. Actuaries varying TIO for Allianz will no doubt have placed a value on the future liabilities of workers compensation as part of their due diligence. These amendments will greatly affect that liability. Was Allianz given a private briefing on these amendments? What did Allianz know? You still have not answered that question, Chief Minister.
The statement proposes to change the definition of a worker based on whether Pay As You Go tax instalments are being or should be deducted by the worker’s employer. This rings major alarm bells; the current definition is broader and better. The new definition invites dodgy operators to engage people as contractors and, hey presto, the worker is left to argue a complicated case in court about their common law rights and definitions of employment. That is if they are even aware they have a case.
Most jurisdictions retain a broader definition; we should do the same in the Northern Territory. We welcome the government’s long overdue commitment to introduce presumptive legislation for our Territory firefighters, but again I must point out that the devil will be in the detail on this matter.
The Chief Minister said it is recognised that there may be a proven link between firefighting and the risk of some cancers. It is already recognised, not just in Australia but overseas and by numerous internationally accredited studies. There is a proven link, not ‘may’, ‘if’ and ‘but’. Long-established scientific and health reports state that our firefighters – in fact all firefighters around the world – face increased levels of cancer directly linked to their job of protecting people, property and bushfires when the tragedy of a fire strikes.
The Chief Minister stated, ‘12 cancers have been shown to have an association with their occupation’. There are, in fact, 16 cancers that have been shown to have a link with firefighting, not 12. The Territory firefighters ask you to adopt best practice and recognise all the science, all the studies, all the reports. Our Territory firefighters asked you to adopt best practice. What cancers are you not recognising and why? It is an important question for our firefighters, Chief Minister. What cancers are you not recognising and why are you are not recognising them? Twelve out of 16 is not good enough!
The Chief Minister stated that our legislation will be similar to the Commonwealth, Tasmanian, South Australian or Western Australian legislation. We await the details of the legislation to ensure it is not just similar, but equal to or better than, for our Territory firefighters, whether they are career, auxiliary or volunteer firefighters who serve us so well and so selflessly. What are the qualifying periods we are adopting? Will they vary for career firefighters, volunteers and auxiliaries?
The statement went on to say there will be a requirement for a certain amount of time in active service and that the claim has to be made within 10 years after the service has ceased. What is the rationale for these conditions? Cancer does not follow a timetable, sadly. Many cancers have a long latency period, and in some cases there is over 20 years before detection. So the clock ticks and firefighters worry that they may be diagnosed a day or two, a month or two, a year or two after the cut-off date. Cancer is not milk, it does not have a use-by date. Insurers can always challenge a claim, but firefighters cannot be sure they will be diagnosed with cancer within 10 years of completing service. This is an important point. It is appalling that you seek to restrict the benefits of legislation to cancers diagnosed within a 10-year time frame.
What is also appalling is that you, Chief Minister, will restrict the benefits of the legislation ‘to cancers diagnosed from 25 August 2012’, being the date that the Country Liberals came to government. How appalling! You are seeking to enshrine legislation to the date of the CLP’s succession to government. This might be a special day for you and your crew, Chief Minister, but cancer does not recognise it as a special day. These are real people, our heroes, our everyday firefighters who put their lives at risk for us, who are now battling the fight of their life. Here in the Territory firefighters are suffering from occupational-related cancers. They get no joy from celebrating legislation on your anniversary day.
Do not ignore our firefighters who were diagnosed before 24 August 2012. Do not leave them and their families out in the cold. The previous Labor government had intended to pass legislation that would have been retrospective, which would have protected our firefighters. This small group, which has been so vocal and so passionate, will have nothing to celebrate about this legislation.
I remind those opposite that it was your then Deputy Chief Minister, Dave Tollner, who followed them out into the hall of parliament and said to them, ‘It will be right, we will look after you’. I heard those words. This legislation, this statement does not do that.
We welcome the government’s statement that the NT will move to catch up with other jurisdictions in lump sums payable to dependents after the death of a worker. Similarly, we welcome the increase to the benefit for a funeral and for the creation of a new benefit for counselling for family members. We await the details on these initiatives to ensure they do indeed match undertakings in other jurisdictions.
The Chief Minister’s statement seeks to introduce provisions for a settlement and finalisation of a claim by the payment of a lump sum. He said in his statement that there is a widespread demand for lump sum payments as an important tool for managing claims, but said this may cause some concerns about the actions of unscrupulous insurance companies using them as a ‘substitute for effective rehabilitation and return to work’. To prevent this kind of poor corporate behaviour, the amendments will limit lump sum buy-outs in the first two years.
However, this raises its own red flag. What is to prevent insurers from maltreating workers who have been insured for over two years? Will lump sum buy-outs become the norm after two years? What about amputees who may face periods of rehabilitation longer than two years, but with the right treatment often can be rehabilitated and returned to work? Is two years the right time to allow all cases a proper medical assessment and a proper treatment regime to return an injured worker to health?
The statement said that 66% of claims involve less than one week off work. Of the remaining claims, 56% will be back at work in less than six weeks, and less than 5% of claims will extend beyond 52 weeks. The reality is we are looking at a very small number of claimants who require workers compensation beyond two years, but for them and their families the weekly payments and medical and treatment costs are critical to get their life and health back, and to take the stress off their family so they can get well and their families can get on with their lives.
Regarding changing a name, what is in a name? Plenty to cause concern in this instance. The Chief Minister stated the name change, ‘reflects the objective of the legislation, which is to return injured workers to productive work as soon as practicable’. This is an admirable objective and one which Territory Labor has worked hard to realise, but let us not forget there will be some instances where someone is so seriously injured this may not be achievable. Let us not forget those workers whose injuries see them away from work for a long time, and sometimes they are unable to work at all or work full-time again. Let us not rush them out the door or design a scheme that encourages insurers to pay them out and get them off the books.
Alarmingly, we are already hearing reports that TIO is pressuring some injured workers into taking the money and running. Will that increase with these amendments?
Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition looks forward to the Chief Minister advising us whether the compensation changes flagged in the statement have been the subject of previous discussions with Allianz. We look forward to the Chief Minister answering further questions.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPERS
Travel Reports for Members for
Travel Reports for Members for
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table two travel reports for the members for Barkly and Nhulunbuy pursuant to clause 4.1 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Tonight I congratulate the hard-working public servants in my department who worked on projects that were finalists in the 2014 Chief Minister’s Public Sector Excellence Awards. These awards are a fantastic way to highlight the great work of the public service. Many of the projects that were finalists are innovative, first of their kinds, have been well researched prior to implementation and are genuinely changing the lives of Territorians for the better.
I hope I do not miss anyone out. If, for some reason I do, I sincerely apologise.
The runner up for the Chief Minister’s Award for Enriching our Society was the Department of Correctional Services Elders Visiting Program. The Elders Visiting Program recognises there is an important cultural link between Indigenous prisoners and Correctional Services staff. The elders in the program advise staff on cultural and community issues that may impact on a prisoner’s behaviour and ability to address their offending behaviour. Elders and respected persons provide an important link to the management of Indigenous prisoners and visit correctional facilities on a regular basis to engage and participate in activities with prisoners.
Our new elders visiting program model was created with three specific regions. The regions are as follows:
1. Katherine: Katherine east and west
2. Barkly/Central: Tennant Creek and Central Alice Springs area
3. Saltwater Gulf: Darwin and island communities representative of the gulf communities.
I congratulate those who worked on the Elders Visiting Program, specifically Commissioner Ken Middlebrook, Rob Steer, Raelene Gerdes, Juanita Jones, Margaret Friel and Wade Jensen.
The finalists in the Chief Minister’s Award for Excellence in Partnering were the Department of Correctional Services and italk. The Department of Correctional Services and italk Library, a company based in Alice Springs, entered into a one-year collaboration to teach prisoners how to use multimedia and develop picture-based stories for other prisoners, many of whom are illiterate. The initiative involved training up 60 male and female prisoners at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. Importantly, work skills gained by prisoners assist them in gaining work on their release from prison.
The project was initiated after italk Library successfully produced four safety stories in conjunction with Alice Springs Correctional Centre Indigenous prisoners. This enabled those prisoners with low levels of literacy and numeracy to understand the more critical aspects of the work health and safety manual for use by prisoners participating in prison industries in a visual format so the messages could easily be understood by all prisoners.
Well done to those who helped establish the partnership and get it off the ground. Again, I congratulate Ken Middlebrook, Rod Steer, Deb Halprin, Christopher Brocklebank, Felix Meyer, Bill Yan, Stephen Rosier and Raelene Gerdes.
The department and Berrimah Construction Services are the finalists of the Chief Minister’s award for Enriching Our Society. Berrimah Construction Services has been operating on an independent site at Berrimah Correctional Centre since 2008 under a robust memorandum of understanding and agreement with the Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services.
The Bachelor of Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education and Northern Territory Corrections recognise a collaborative effort is required to socialise and equip low-security prisoners for work upon release to increase the level of employment of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.
The program provides construction training for Indigenous male prisoners, with 151 prisoners presented with a Certificate II in Construction, Forklift, Skid Steer, Welding, and White Card last financial year. It is a great project backed by a great team of Ken Middlebrook, Tony Bowland, Andrew Collins, Rachel Glen, Rob Steer, Tim Cross, Keith Butterworth, Raelene Gerdes, Richard Schmidt and Liam Fraser.
The department was also the winner of the Chief Minister’s Award for Building Regional and Remote Economies with the Tiwi Islands Economic Development. The Tiwi Islands Economic Development project was a joint project between several government agencies.
The Department of the Attorney-General and Justice played an important role in this and I congratulate and thank for their efforts Lyn Walsh, David Winter, Nestor Sanchez, Kristy Edlund and Poppi Gatis.
Finally, Sharon Hayes from the Department of Correctional Services was presented with a Public Sector Medal. Sharon was recognised for her work as an Aboriginal Cultural Adviser with the Family Responsibility Centre in Alice Springs. A positive role model, Sharon is regarded as a leader within her team, and is considered an expert in managing kinship cases. Sharon has an aptitude for developing early intervention strategies to influence young people in making positive and safe choices.
Well done to all the finalists and the winners I have mentioned tonight, and to all the other hard-working departments. I congratulate you all. When we have passionate individuals in our public sector, we are sure to grow northern Australia socially, economically and culturally.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I talk about some wonderful students and the exploits of Taminmin College. It is the only rural government high school and has 1200 students. They do all sorts of wonderful things at Taminmin, and towards the end of the year there are a lot more things happening than normal.
I first congratulate Danielle Hazelton who was the Palmerston and Rural Region Winner of the Secondary Teacher of the Year Award at the recent Teaching in the Territory Excellence Awards. She was presented with her award at Parliament House. Dani is a committed and passionate teacher and a fantastic leader of the English, Humanities, PLP, LOTE and Business Faculty. These awards were presented in early November and I congratulate her, not only on receiving the award, but for her dedication and commitment to making the lives and the education of so many students better ...
Mr Wood: Starring in Harem Scarem as the queen.
Ms PURICK: Member for Nelson, I pick up on your interjection. She is also starring in Harem Scarem as the Queen. Not only is she a brilliant teacher but she is obviously a talented amateur actress.
The second matter I compliment Taminin College for is another activity, a small program called Movie Stars in the Making. In Term 3, two Year 7 students, Jude Lamilami and Stephen Tipungwuti, were given the opportunity to act in a movie trailer for a day alongside great Aussie actors Miranda Tapsell – who starred in The Sapphires – and Kelton Pell from Redfern Now on ABC. These students had to play Kelton’s two cheeky nephews, Billie and Richie. A long but great day was had by all and the two students gained a very interesting insight, not only to the world of acting, but something that was far more interesting than their school activities. They might take up a career in acting and I am sure they will do a great job.
I also compliment Taminmin on its student science champions. Taminmin College is renowned for its participation in the titration and chemistry competitions. Congratulations go to Jack Campbell, Jasmine Aitken and Natasha Bond, Year 11 chemistry students who were recognised at the Royal Australian Chemical Institute’s awards as the top Northern Territory team in its Australian National Titration Competition. This is an outstanding achievement for these students. Once other state and territory results are finalised, they may be eligible to participate in the national finals. There were students from other schools who participated in these competitions. They are very popular, not only with Taminmin College but all high schools across the Northern Territory. I will mention some of these students because they are all noteworthy. They love their science, and I compliment them, their science teachers and the school generally.
In the category of Practical Investigation Student Directed Years 7-9, the winners were Maili Clarke, Jessica Opitz and Ebony Todd. The Practical Investigation Student Directed Years 7-9 Group winners were Nikola Minshull and Fair Srimongkon. In the Practical Investigation Teacher Directed Year 10-12 Group, two group winners were Natasha Bond, Jasmine Aitken and Jaimee Harbidge, and Emily Wing and Emily Box. In Scientific communications multimedia Years 10-12 the winners were Jessica Dowling, Emily Box and Emily Wing. The Menzies/CDU Science Encouragement Award – Middle School winner was Jessica Opitz. The Senior Science Student Award – Senior School winner was Jack Hopkinson.
The Australian National Titration Competition gold medallists were Natasha Bond, Jack Campbell, Jasmine Aitken, Jack Hopkinson and Riley LeLay. Silver medallists were Jack Byrnes, Eric Horng and Telfer Thorbjornsen, Jimi Smith and Tegan Longden. The Best Year 11 Student was Natasha Bond. The Excellent Team – Top Team in NT was Natasha Bond, Jack Campbell and Jasmine Aitken. Congratulations to them all.
On the Taminmin College website there is an article titled ‘Science Champions’. There was a photo, not only in their newsletter but also in all the paraphernalia regarding the competition. Well done to Jasmine, Jack and Natasha. I am proud we have such science geniuses. Hopefully they will go on to bigger and better things in their science studies, not only in later years, but if they go on to university.
The other thing I compliment Taminmin students on is an event where participants in the Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award scheme had the opportunity to have dinner with Prince Edward. After selection they went to Sydney to meet with Prince Edward and other dignitaries associated with the Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award, such as ministers and various parliamentary people. They met at the Powerhouse Museum. It was a trivia night with 250 participants and there were 19 tables. As it happened, the Territory team sat on the table with Prince Edward and other dignitaries. They had a wonderful evening. They tell me they came fourth out of 19 tables. They were very privileged and said they were very impressed by and had a lovely time with the prince. They said he was a very warm person and because of his knowledge of trivia and small things in regard to science, he helped their table win fourth place. Well done to Tia Leach, who is a gold Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award recipient, Natasha Bond, who is a silver, and Coralie Myers, who is a bronze.
The other student of Taminmin I compliment is Nina Carseldine, who is a swimming champion. She is in Year 11, and for three years in a row she has been selected to compete in the Special Olympics in the swimming category. A couple of weeks ago she returned from Melbourne where she won gold in the 50 m relay and 50 m freestyle, and a bronze in the 50 m breaststroke. In her past swimming championships she has also brought home medals. Congratulations to Nina. I am sure she will bring home many more gold medals in the near future, or any other medal, for that matter.
Last I compliment the class of 2014. Their Year 12 graduation ceremony was held recently, which I attended, along with the member for Nelson. As always it was a very enjoyable evening. The students are so well presented and proud. The auditorium was full of their family and friends. The master of ceremonies was Lisa George. The principal, Miriam McDonald, gave an address. There were presentations by the member for Nelson, Gerry Wood, and other sponsors, and I also presented some awards. I place on the record some of the recipients for this year. Whilst the school may not get the same publicity as some of the urban-based schools, it definitely punches above its weight, given the size and sheer scope of subjects the school provides.
The Department of Treasury and Finance Award was presented to Kelsey Considine. The Northern Territory Open Education Centre Award went to Jack Hopkinson. The Bernie and Phyllis Plew Memorial Community Service Award went to Lachlan Casburn who I have previously spoken of in regard to his Queen Scout Award for contribution to community. The RICOH Pupil of the Year Award went to Riley LeLay. The Kezia Purick Citizenship Award went to Lizzie Fogarty. The Caltex Best All Rounder Award went to Andrew Hind. The Taminmin Old Scholars Award went to Lillie Thompson. The Litchfield Council Scholarship this year was divided between two students, Emma Kellaway and Riley LeLay. The Indigenous Excellence Award went to Emma Kellaway. The Board of Studies Award, which could be similar to being the Dux of the School, went to Jack Hopkinson.
Towards the end of the evening there is always someone who speaks to the graduating students about what it is like to have left school for one year. This year Demi Tinning spoke to the students very well and in a manner they could identify with about what it was to go from school into the big wide world. She has a job in one of the units in Royal Darwin Hospital, which I will not mention, which she enjoys. She was trying to give them words of encouragement on what to expect when they left school.
The presentation of student folios was made by the chairman of the council, Beverly Ratahi. The student response was undertaken by Riley LeLay who is one of the student councillors. He was also one of the recipients of various awards. He was the young gentleman I spoke about earlier who went to Canada on a science expedition. I am sure he will go very far in his studies in life.
There were about 115 students who graduated that evening. They all received their portfolios, and I am sure many of them – in fact all of them – will go on to bigger and better things. They seem to have loved their time at Taminmin College, and I am sure they will take many good memories away with them.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to continue with my story telling of the life of Ann Brown.
In the main, Ann did not have much to do with mental health as it was not part of her training. But she was a good listener and would often just sit and listen. One day while listening to a lady she could see rippling on the woman’s chest. At the time Ann wondered how the woman could ripple her chest with her muscles like that. All of sudden, a rat jumped out of the lady’s shirt. Ann yelled, ‘There’s a rat!’, and the lady got cross at her for being more interested in her rat than in her story.
The dedication of community health nurses cannot be underestimated. Ann told me so many tales like the one of her in the 1980s where there was a small cyclone that had come to Darwin and a lot of trees were down on the main roads. She knew she had to administer penicillin to one of her clients but there was no way she could drive there. Instead she grabbed her son’s bicycle and rode four suburbs to administer the penicillin to the client. There were no such things as road blocks and the commitment to her patients was her utmost priority.
Ann has only felt scared one time in her life and that was one day in Casuarina Plaza where she was taking stitches out of a man’s abdomen. She could feel shaking and she thought something was wrong with her. Soon enough, people started screaming and bottles were smashing all around her, falling off tables and shelves. The man whose stitches she was removing swiftly fastened up his pants and quite literally ran out of Casuarina Plaza. Ann said it felt like the entire building was falling apart. Instead of running out screaming herself, Ann had to help her patients, which were mostly mothers and babies, to get outside. She told the mothers to grab their babies and get out as fast as they could. The earthquake did not cause any irreparable damage and no one was injured. She was pleased to see that the man whose abdomen she had not quite finished unstitching came back a couple of days later.
Darwin was not free from its outbreaks and Ann recalls vividly the rubella outbreak where 700 clients came in one weekend to receive immunisations against the disease.
One part of Ann’s job which she loved was postnatal home visiting. Ann found this truly enjoyable. Ann recalls she put on a lot of weight during this time as she would go and visit new mums and their babies and be invited in for coffee and cakes as the mums enjoying their time at home would bake in preparation for Ann’s arrival. Ann especially recalls the Greek families would put out their best china and cakes. Ann knew she did not need to consume all the cakes laid before her but she certainly was conscious of being polite. She recalls the tiny cups of coffee that you could stand a spoon upright in. There was also plenty of coke and Fanta on offer.
Ann recalls Cyclone Tracy very well. It was Christmas Eve and she was cooking a turkey and filling up the fridge with punch and trifle. She heard on the radio a call for people to fill up their pots with water, and the bathtub. Ann scurried to ensure that all pots and the bathtub were full of water. What she failed to do, which she laughs about now, is put lids on the pots. Of course during the cyclone the roof crashed in and ruined all of the water. To this day Ann jokingly curses the radio station for not telling people to put lids on the pots of water.
Ann had family in Katherine. Her two-year-old son had measles and a collapsed lung during the cyclone. They decided to throw the kids into the car and drive to Katherine so that he could get medical assistance. Her other children were covered in measles. When they got to the hospital in Katherine, Katherine said that they had to go to Adelaide. Ann and her three kids got on a plane with Essington House kids (now Don Dale) and were evacuated on a 15-seater plane to Alice Springs. When they arrived in Alice Springs they were still wearing the clothes they had on for Christmas Eve. It was freezing cold but people were waiting at the Alice Springs airport to give these evacuees from Darwin jumpers and blankets. Ann recalls that someone asked if she had any money and she looked in her wallet and said ‘Oh yes, I have $20 so I will be fine’. The person gave her $200 which was absolutely amazing. Eventually Ann and her sons got to Adelaide and her youngest son went into hospital.
Ann recalls the generosity of people in Adelaide. When they arrived there they were given boxes which they could fill with cans of food and as much clothing as they liked. Ann happened to run into a friend of hers at the Adelaide airport who said, ‘Come and stay with us’. When they arrived at the friend’s home and meticulously washed all of the new clothes she and her boys had received and hung them on the line, they went out for a little picnic in the fields. When they returned they saw that the goat had eaten all of the bottoms of all of the clothes except for the two-year-old’s clothes because they were too short on the line. Ann then had to pack up all of the clothes and return them to Adelaide and explain what had happened in order to get new clothes for her family.
In January 1975 they bought a new car in Adelaide. They drove to Port Augusta, but the road was blocked so they had to leave the car in Port Augusta and get the bus back to Adelaide and fly to Darwin. Ann’s father-in-law caught the bus to Port Augusta in the Dry Season and picked up the car in Port Augusta.
Back in Darwin Ann did not have electricity for six months. The walls were covered in dirt. They had a generator that you could only run one item at a time on. On one occasion when she was washing the walls the water was running down the wall and went into the power point. She was jolted and flew right across the room and hit the back wall. She was lucky that she just received a shock.
Ann laughs when she says she always hoped she would live to 65 and that everything after that was a bonus.
She tells me how she is very much enjoying living the bonus. Ann’s biggest regret in life was starting smoking at the age of 20 due to peer pressure.
She has always been too busy to be sick herself and recalls the one occasion when she was sick with shingles on her face. That was the most painful thing she has ever experienced in her life.
In 1998 Ann came to Palmerston while she was still working as a community health nurse. She retired in 2004. Ann had big plans for her retirement and they mainly revolved around enjoying herself. Her neighbours played carpet bowls and asked her to come along. She realised there were so many activities for seniors including aqua aerobics, reading, gardening, minding grandchildren, carpet bowls, 50+ Club, walking, indoor bowls, scrapbooking, scrabble and folk art. Ann reflected that all of these pursuits started about eight years ago and out of the four people she started these things with two have passed away and one is leaving town.
Ann told me that life is transient and you never know how long your friends will last for.
For many years Ann was heavily involved in folk art. She received many prizes from the Royal North Australia Show Society for her craft and ceramics, including high commendations and second prize. Prestigiously Ann was also nominated in the 2006 Nursing and Midwifery Awards as a Living Legend, a truly outstanding achievement and well-deserved commendation for her enduring service as a nurse.
Ann reflected that Palmerston was very good 10 years ago. They had community meetings and public issues and she made many friends there. About three years ago at a seniors forum, someone said, ‘Why can’t we have a seniors’ centre?’ In response to this desire by Palmerston seniors, Ann lobbied and opened up Joy Anderson Centre. Unfortunately, not one single person came every day for nine weeks, despite her advertising it everywhere.
The Alexander Day Club was also losing momentum and was going to be shut down. At Cazalys seniors’ morning tea she spoke to Mary and Dave and said that people wanted a seniors’ centre but no one had been going to Joy Anderson Centre.
One morning Ann was at croquet, and it was that morning that Ann was nominated to be secretary of the Palmerston 50+ Club. That was 18 months ago when 50+ started and it has been a huge learning curve for Ann. It now has 35 members who come regularly and they all go on outings together. New people often attend. The local council and federal and local politicians give great support to the 50+ Club which is now incorporated. Ann, of course, has remained as secretary and plays a vital role in the club.
Ann remains actively involved with carpet bowls and 50+ Club. She is also an extremely proactive member of the City of Palmerston Seniors Advisory Committee. She also assists with Seniors Week and most other seniors-related activities in Palmerston.
Ann is well and truly a Territorian now, but she still loves to read The Broons by Robert Burns, does a great rendition of Address to a Haggis and still makes you sing a song or tell a poem whenever you want a treat on Halloween!
I nominated Ann for the 2013 Palmerston Citizen of the Year because she is a model citizen, and a role model to us all. I am so proud to know Ann and have a strong relationship with her. Not a week goes by where we do not see each other in one way or another. I hope my recounting of your life has been done justice in my parliamentary contribution. Of course, the stories I have told are a small component of Ann’s long and rich life.
I want to wholeheartedly say thank you to Ann for everything she does in our community. I look forward to working with her for many years to come and commend her for being a noble and worthy Citizen of the Year.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, on this second last day of parliamentary sittings for 2014, I acknowledge some special people who have assisted me to fulfil my role, first as the member for Araluen and second as Minister for Health, Disability Services and Alcohol Rehabilitation.
This year marks the second year of our Country Liberals government being in office. Although it was not as hectic and unstable as the first year, this year has not been without great challenges paired with considerable achievement.
The most difficult part of my job is being away from my beloved Alice Springs, my electorate of Araluen and, most of all, my dear and beautiful family.
I first thank my electorate officer, Carley Plume, who works tirelessly to provide an excellent service to the electorate of Araluen. Carley is as solid as a rock. She is extremely capable, kind, reliable and competent. She cares about the people of Araluen and looks after their needs, questions and concerns on my behalf. Thank you, Carley. Words cannot express my gratitude and appreciation.
Thank you also to Michelle, my part-time electorate officer assistant. Michelle has proven to be a valuable member of the team. It is difficult to remember how we coped without her. She is quiet, no-nonsense, an awesome woman, and I thank her for her hard work.
The people of Araluen are patient and, for the most part, understanding of the fact I do not spend a lot of time in Alice Springs because of the demands of my ministerial duties. When I am at home in Alice Springs, I make a point of getting out and about, particularly on the weekends. I know most people feel comfortable stopping me in the street for a chat. I encourage people to do so.
We are all busy people. I like to think I am no busier than the average person. Everyone has demands on them and we all struggle to fit the demands of life into our busy schedules, no matter who we are and what we do.
Thank you to the people of Araluen for your patience and your continuing faith in me. I am here for you. Continue to let me know what you think and how I can assist you. I will always do what I believe is in your best interests, as hard as that may be at times.
My ministerial staff in Darwin is a group of dedicated hard-working people. This year I have seen some of my valued key staff move on for a range of personal reasons. Thank you in particular to Alex Bruce, Penny Fielding, Phoebe Stewart and Anthony Watts who have been my rock in Darwin at different times throughout the year. You are a collection of outstanding individuals, clever, committed and capable of doing anything with your lives. I wish you all the very best in your current and future endeavours.
My ministerial administrative staff is also a collection of incredibly skilled, committed people. In particular I thank Hollie, Fiona, Lisa, Corrine and Cherie. I feel at times I neglect you, as I am always rushing in and out, racing on and off planes and flat out when I am in Darwin. Your ability to deal with my peculiar work life without one single grumble or complaint has been a blessing to me. Polite, capable and extremely competent, you are all great people. I want you to know you are all valued and deeply respected. Thank you.
People behind the scenes who help me also include the government drivers. These guys are angels. Once again, nothing is too much. Thank you Bill, Ben, Yanis, David and John for being so patient, polite and professional at all times.
I thank the people who clean and maintain our offices in Parliament House. We recognise the fact you make our job easy by ensuring our work environment is well kept.
I acknowledge the staff of the Legislative Assembly who work behind the scenes enabling us to get on with the business of government. Thank you to the Clerk, Mr Michael Tatham, and his professional team. Thank you to the staff in Hansard; your behind-the-scenes work is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
It is my great privilege to work with some amazing people in the health and disability sector. We are blessed to have many highly competent public servants. Thank you to Dr Len Notaras, Chief Executive of the Department of Health, and his team of executives, especially Jan Currie, Michael Kalimnios, Dr Joe Wright, Nicki Walford, Annie Riley, Dr Christine Connors and Dr Steve Skov . I have worked closely with these leaders in their respective health fields and I thank them for their commitment.
I thank the two new Chief Operating Officers Top End, Sharon Sykes, and Central Australia, Sue Korner, and also the Chair of the Top End Health Services Board, Mrs Annette Burke, and her board, as well as the Chair of the Central Australia Health Services Board, Mr Damien Ryan, and his board. The introduction of the new health services framework this year has been a huge accomplishment and I acknowledge the enormous amount of hard work that has gone into achieving this. Thank you to all staff of the Top End Health Service, the Central Australian Health Service and the Department of Health and Disability Services. Your hard work ensures we have excellent health and disability services across the NT that we should all be enormously proud of.
Without hesitation, I acknowledge my colleagues in the CLP parliamentary wing. We all have very difficult jobs. We all struggle at times to cope with the enormous and unrelenting pressure of politics. I can honestly say from the bottom of my heart that I respect you all. We have more in common than we have differences. We are all under enormous pressure. Our personal lives are constantly compromised. We miss our families and friends, and many of us are constantly disconnected from those we love. The pressure on our families is enormous, but for the most part we suffer in silence.
At times we clash and feel let down and betrayed by each other. At this time of year, it is opportune to put aside our differences and acknowledge our great strengths as individuals and as members of this great political team.
There are a few colleagues who, year in and year out, have provided me with strength, perspective and friendship. I will not name you, you know who you are. You are special people and I thank you.
To my family, Craig Lambley, Harry Lambley and Alice Lambley, yes, it has been yet another year of great highs and lows. Together we can survive anything. I am eternally grateful for your patience. I know you all suffer at times through your wife and mother being absent. You all go without. We miss each other. We all suffer because of the choices I have made to be a politician, but I cannot survive without your love and kindness. Thank you.
In government, all we do is what we truly believe is in the best interests of the Northern Territory. It is not about self-interest, it is providing good governance for the NT. Sometimes our decisions are not popular, but we strive to do the right thing with the true and long-term welfare of the Northern Territory paramount.
I look forward to 2015 and, in particular, spending more time getting out and about, listening and talking to Territorians about how we can improve their lives.
At this time of year I wish the people of the NT a safe and very happy festive season. God bless you all.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I want to send a Christmas message to the constituents of Karama and Malak, who are such wonderful people to be working for – a fantastic effort across our community. In particular we have a great school cohort. I acknowledge the leadership shown at our schools by our principals.
At Karama Primary School we have seen a year of change with a new principal, Tim Morgan coming in. He has been a fantastic addition to our school. He took over from the acting principal Lisa Hirschausen, who I worked closely with for many years and who was a great asset to our school. She had then taken over from our long-term principal who retired, Marg Fenbury. There are great teachers and support staff. The school is dynamic. I have watched it turn out some very fine young Territorians. Congratulations to Karama primary and my Christmas best wishes to you all.
At Malak Primary School we have good, strong leadership with our principal Peter Swan, who works well with the teaching and support staff, and supports parents and engages incredibly well with our students. Malak primary is a great school. I thoroughly love the visits to the school to see the work our students are producing. A Christmas blessing to them.
At Manunda Terrace Primary School we have a fantastic principal in Sally Winch who is very strong and is exactly the strong leader the very multicultural school cohort needs. They come from a very lower socioeconomic part of my electorate. Manunda Terrace primary teachers have shown a consistency across the school, many of them having worked there for so many years. It is truly inspirational to see a school with such a strong leadership team and fantastic support staff. The students are incredible and are great fun. I love my interaction at Manunda Terrace Primary School. Christmas blessings to them.
Marrara Christian College is a beautiful school which supports and nurtures the students in primary, middle and senior years. Andrew Manning is the principal who has come in and shown strong leadership at the school, ably supported by a great leadership team, teachers and support staff. The students there cover such a variety of challenges. There is a vibrant VET program at the school. I am a huge supporter of Marrara Christian College and I thank them for being a fantastic school leader in our community, and my Christmas blessings to them.
Sanderson Middle School is headed by principal Liz Veel, who I have known for many years in different roles across our education system. We have a beautiful mix of teachers who have come into the school and who have been there for so many years who know not only the students, but have known their elder siblings who have been through the school, and their families. It is a great school that holds community events such as Sanderson Shines. I enjoy providing support to Sanderson Middle School and love engaging with that school. Christmas blessings to you.
Holy Family Primary School holds a special place in my heart. It has nurtured my children through their primary schooling. My son Zac is my big boy in Grade 4 this year. Thank you for the nurturing environment that Shane Donohue and his staff provide at Holy Family school, which is just around the corner from my house. It is such a beautiful school to go to. I feel at times that I am incredibly blessed to know so many of the students, and have seen not only them come into the school, but have seen their older siblings go through the school before them. They are a fantastic asset in our community. Thank you and Christmas blessings to Holy Family school.
O’Loughlin Catholic College is the sister school to Holy Family, teaching the middle and senior years on the same campus. David Finch has been the principal. He is leaving at the end of the year and we will be welcoming James Jolly in the new year. I have had such a long and beautiful relationship with O’Loughlin Catholic College, again seeing those children in middle and senior school ever since they were little possums in Transition at Holy Family. I love going to O’Loughlin Catholic College and seeing the way the school continues to grow from strength to strength. Thank you, David, for the work you have done at O’Loughlin Catholic College.
School staff at all of these schools work so very hard to support parents and children in a very positive learning environment. It is a credit to our community.
We had so many literacy award winners throughout the year in my schools. I congratulate all of them. One of the best parts of my job is to attend the school assemblies and provide our children with encouragement to continue progressing with their learning. I sponsor many local children throughout the year.
I particularly congratulate Abby Cubillo, 15 years, who has been playing basketball at the top level in the Darwin comp, coming runner-up in the women’s league’s Most Valuable Player competition recently. She will move to Sydney next year on a scholarship for basketball. I wish her all the best.
Danielle Ponter, 15 years, has been selected in the Australian junior female AFL squad and also won Sports Person of the Year at this year’s Top End NAIDOC Awards. We are truly blessed with young sporting talent in my electorate.
I assisted a group of 14 students and teachers from Marrara Christian College to travel to Hyderabad in India for two weeks to attend local schools and villages. All reports say the children had a wonderful time and have a lifetime of fantastic memories. Congratulations to Prasana for organising such a wonderful trip!
The great work being done in the community by Darwin Community Arts in Malak is exceptional. Thank you to My Sister’s Kitchen for its wonderful community dinners and the Underground Malak Community Shed, the men’s and women’s program. It is a fantastic group of community arts-based volunteers providing community support out of Malak. I feel incredibly privileged to have provided part of the seed funding and to have watched them grow over the years.
Malak and Karama residents have shown their annual support for the Cancer Council’s Biggest Morning Tea fundraising. Our local businesses chip in their support with prizes. Particular thanks go to Karama Newsagency, Brumbies, Karama Tavern and Crocodylus Park.
I congratulate Jarrod Rollo, another young resident, who was nominated at the Young Achiever Awards for organising an awareness ‘pink’ game with his Under 14 rugby team. He raised awareness for the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre and Cancer Council NT. He is hoping to turn this into an annual event with rugby.
Carleita Harbidge, who was chosen by an artist to be the subject of a Portrait of a Senior Territorian this year, is an outstanding Territorian. Carleita and her husband Chris are long-term Territorians and incredible people. The stories they have to tell about the Territory and the way in which they have raised their beautiful family and grandchildren are inspirational. This has not been the best year for their health, so I send them particular Christmas blessings to wish them great health and happiness in 2015.
Thank you to my mother, Dawn, a most awesome, special individual. She volunteers once a week, in the afternoon, as a JP in my Karama office supporting local residents. Her service as a JP is very popular, but I suspect many people drop into the office just to say hello to Dawn.
Danielle Williams worked in my office as my Karama electorate officer; thank you, Danielle, for your great work in the office, it was certainly much appreciated. It gave my permanent electorate officer, Kerry Wetherall, a chance to work as part of my opposition team to see the engine room and the other type of work I do.
Mike, Louise, Wello, David Halliday, Charlie, Mandy, Anna, Katherine, Sonia, Ryan, Cameron, Janine, and Angela, you have all been a rock of support for me as Leader of the Opposition and my staff. You have also helped with my colleagues. You are an engine room and produce amazing work – true champions for the Territory. I sincerely thank you.
My thanks to Assembly staff for the support you provide us to get on with our job. The Clerk and his staff, the Table Office, Hansard, security, the drivers, the cleaners – everyone in this great building we have the privilege to work in does their best.
Finally to my family: Peter, thank you for being amazing, a great partner and a great support for me and my beautiful children, Jhenne, Bronte and Zac. I am the luckiest mother in the universe. I love you to the moon and stars and back. It is amazing that my daughters are entering that phase where they are venturing out into the world. If Jhenne does follow through and move to Canberra next year, a big part of me will be living in Canberra. I will miss her awesomely. I am incredibly blessed and enriched by having Peter, Jhenne, Bronte and Zac being my supportive local team network and inspiration.
To my Labor colleagues, we are a great team. I love working with each of you and I am very excited about 2015. A very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you all.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, tonight I reflect on the year that was, pay tribute to those who have helped make the Territory the best place on earth to live, and thank those who have worked tirelessly in support of my work as a minister and as a local member.
All Territorians benefit from the tireless and often thankless work undertaken by Emergency Services personnel and key community service providers. To Katherine’s police, paramedics, nurses, doctors, firefighters and volunteer bushfire brigades, teachers and childcare workers, I say thank you.
To those members of the Katherine community who turn up and pitch in, time after time, to volunteer, raise money and lend a helping hand to others less fortunate, I offer my sincere thanks.
I mentioned teachers already, but I single out those principals and teachers of the schools in Katherine. I thank you for everything you do to mould and shape our youngest generation. Teachers at Katherine High School, St Joey’s, Casuarina Street, School of the Air, McFarlane, Clyde Fenton and of course Katherine South, you all make the Territory a better place to live.
I am proud of the achievements I and my departments have made in 2014. The effects of significant legislative changes such as amendments to the Pastoral Land Act will have a flow-on effect for many Territorians now and well into the future. These changes now enable pastoralists to diversify land use and develop new income streams without having to change the tenure of the pastoral lease. Activities such as tourism, horticulture, extensive agricultural developments, aquaculture and forestry can coexist with pastoral enterprises.
The passing of new legislation to allow pharmaceutical poppies to be commercially grown in the Territory has the potential to add a $30m industry to our economy. These changes mean job creation and a kick start for the local economy in our rural areas.
A huge thank you to the staff in the Departments of Land Resource Management and Primary Industry and Fisheries for their hard work in making these legislative changes a reality.
It would be remiss of me not to thank Peter Zeroni for his mammoth efforts in writing, researching and managing the introduction of the poppy legislation. This project consumed his days, nights and weekends for months on end. Thanks, Pete. This government appreciates your good work.
However, these significant legislative changes could not have been made without the help and support of a team including those from Health, Police, Attorney-General and, of course, our Parliamentary Counsel. Thank you also to the team for their help, support and professional expertise.
I have enjoyed the full support and dedication from my department’s Chief Executives, Alister Trier from the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, Rod Applegate from the Department of Land Resource Management, Scott Perkins from the Department of Mines and Energy, and John Baskerville from Power and Water Corporation. I also welcome Mr Stuart Pearce as Chief Executive of the newly-formed Jacana Energy, and Mr Tim Duignan as Chief Executive of Territory Generation.
Within my departments there is a wealth of knowledge and expertise, and teams of committed and passionate staff. I thank them all for 12 months of what has been terrific work. One stand-out example of this commitment is the work undertaken by the Herbarium team in the Department of Land Resource Management.
At this year’s Merrepen Arts Festival I was honoured to launch Ngan’gi Plants and Animals. Ngan’gi Plants and Animals is a record of the traditional knowledge of the names, uses and stories of the plants and animals of the area around Daly River, which has unique and rich biodiversity. This book, which is technically an ethno-botanical publication, is the result of a colossal effort that crossed cultural and scientific borders. It outlines the food value of plants and animals, and the cultural and traditional significance. Patricia Marrfurra McTaggart from Nauiyu and the department’s Glenn Wightman worked with elders from the community for 25 years to complete this project, which will help preserve and utilise Indigenous biocultural knowledge.
We must acknowledge the hard work of government, industry and associations across northern Australia who have rebuilt relations with Indonesia, carved new markets to our north and realised the positive turnaround in our live cattle exports. Prices for steers hit a new high recently with our pastoralists getting $2.50 a kilo. These prices, in conjunction with high export quotas from Indonesia and growing markets in Vietnam and elsewhere, are possibly the best Christmas gift any cattle station owner or manager could ask for.
The Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries is also responsible for protecting the Territory from biosecurity incursions of exotic animal or plant pests and diseases that could seriously harm our exports and production. The department is leading a two-pronged response at the moment, eradicating both the fungal disease banana freckle and the cucumber mosaic mottle green virus that is decimating our watermelon crops. These eradication projects are not easy. Again, I thank the department’s staff for their commitment and hard work.
I take this opportunity to thank the various industry associations related to my portfolios and their chief executives. Collectively they are passionate, professional and none will take no for an answer when they are representing their members. I make specific mention of Tracy Hayes from the NT Cattlemen’s Association, Grant Fenton from the NT Farmers Federation, Katherine Winchester from the NT Seafood Council, Craig Ingram from AFANT, Tom Harris from the Extractive Industry, Drew Wagner from the NT Minerals Council, and a special mention to Luke Bowen, the former CE of the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, who is now working in the Northern Australia Development Office.
There are also many advisory committees which provide advice to me and my departments. I make special mention of the NT Catchments Advisory Committee and the NT Weeds Advisory Committee.
Throughout the year I had the pleasure to attend conferences in the Northern Territory organised by local industry associations. The recent Northern Food Futures Conference and Beef Round Table were standout successes. The Northern Food Futures Conference attracted hundreds of delegates. With international participants and agricultural ministers from Queensland, Western Australia and federally, it brought together the wider farming sector and showcased northern tropical agricultural opportunities and, more broadly, Darwin’s multicultural farming sector.
As a minister whose electorate is not in Darwin, I am obviously away from home and the electorate a lot. First I thank Pat Witte, my electorate officer who holds the fort for me in Katherine. There is nothing and no one in Katherine Pat does not know. I have often described Pat as the glue that holds me together. Again I acknowledge the amazing work Pat does throughout the year to keep my electorate office running.
I also acknowledge Alison Jacks, who stands in for Pat from time to time when she is away. Alison also does a terrific job keeping everything running smoothly in my electorate.
To staff in my office in Parliament House, thanks for your valiant efforts all year round. To you all I say we are indeed the best office on the fifth floor. Thanks to the Legislative Assembly staff who work in the background and those hard-working scribes in Hansard, as well as the drivers. These people work quietly behind the scenes doing their job, and without them we could not do ours.
Two of my staff members left temporarily to have babies. I welcome these new Territorians, Aubrey and Rudi.
I also thank my colleagues and other staff on the fifth floor for being part of a great team in this hard-working dynamic government.
I also thank my constituents for giving me the honour of serving them and working with them over the past 12 months. It is for you that I do the job I do, and we are a great team.
Finally, I thank my wife Jennie who, together with our sons, continues to give me her unconditional love and unwavering support, and enables me the privilege of serving my electorate and fulfilling my portfolio responsibilities.
Once again, I thank my colleagues and the members opposite, the member for Nelson and the members of the Palmer United Party for their contributions over the past 12 months in this House. Itchy and icky times, I guess, every now and then, but that is what the parliament is all about. Regardless of what side of this House you sit on, I believe we are all working for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. Finally, I say to all and sundry, I wish you a very Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year. I hope to see you all upon a safe return in 2015.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, this evening I need to raise some important questions about the cuts that Territory schools have to make under the global school budget policy of the CLP government. At present, Territory principals and school councils are grappling with their budgets for the 2015 school year. They are under immense pressure to get their budgets in, signed off and finalised under some extremely trying circumstances. Not only are they trying to attend to all the other huge jobs they need to do at the end of the school year, such as reports, getting students through exams, planning their 2015 programs and finalising their staffing, they now have to put a huge amount of work into trying to make the new parameters they are working under within global school budgets work for their schools.
Principals and school councils are under huge pressure to ensure those budgets are in the black, and are under instructions to make sure they are in the black. There appears to be little concern with what cuts schools are making in order to do this. We have even heard that some schools have been instructed to put the best spin possible on the global school budgets, despite the predicaments it is putting them in.
Recently we saw the Education minister proudly boast that on a trip to Central Australia, all schools had submitted their budgets in the black. However, we have since heard there was a lot of work done to get the schools there. We understand there were schools in Central Australia that had submitted budgets in the red, but were told to go back and do what work they needed to get those budgets in the black. Apparently they have managed to do just that. To get those budgets in the black has meant some have had to make cuts.
Sadly we are hearing many similar stories in other schools around the Territory, and that schools in Darwin and Palmerston are currently finalising the cuts they will have to make to get their budgets in the black. We are hearing about this in remote areas too. This is despite the firm commitments that were made to schools by the CLP government around their global school budget policy. The Education minister could not have been any clearer when he said,
- No school will be worse off in 2015 as a result of … global school budgets, in fact many schools will be better off as they’re finally funded for the needs of their students.
Unfortunately, the minister is failing students across the Territory by failing to meet the commitment he has made to schools. In real terms, principals and school councils are making hard decisions about what they cut next year at their school to get their budgets in the black. Teacher numbers are also set to decline in the Territory for a third straight year under the CLP government. Due to the global school budgets there are some big cuts becoming apparent at schools. Information coming through is indicating some schools are losing one teacher, another losing three teachers and another is losing five. Shockingly, I have heard that one school is possibly losing even more than that.
It is difficult to get crystal clear numbers on the severity of the teacher cuts next year as staff are scared to talk, but it looks set to be a significant figure. More experienced teachers on CT9 pay rates are feeling nervous too. They are now being looked at as high-priced teachers rather than experienced teachers. When schools are faced with tough decisions about who stays and who goes when they make cuts, higher-paid teachers will sadly be more at risk of losing their jobs, not because of their ability but because of their pay level. It is a sad state of affairs for our education system when you lose experience.
Schools are cutting programs that enhance the education of their students as they are unable to fund them. They are making tough decisions about what they can and cannot keep. What will this mean? Bigger classes, fewer teachers, less subject selection, and staff at schools under even more pressure. These cuts are not a win for the education of Territory kids. Global school budgets are not delivering a bright new future for schools. They are, instead, putting school leaders under even more pressure. They are also ensuring that all the pressure around those hard decisions is pushed directly onto principals and school councils, ensuring the government is able to wash its hands of the responsibility of driving those cuts.
There is also still confusion about what exactly schools are being funded for. The one-size-fits-all formula for funding schools is leaving many worse off. We have heard many concerns raised by the AEU and COGSO. They are deeply concerned that the teachers’ EBA currently being voted on will not be appropriately funded by schools under the global school budgets and the formulas used to calculate them.
Schools are concerned and still confused regarding what exactly they fund and where the line of responsibility is drawn between the school and the department. For example, who funds payroll tax for relief teachers, first aid allowance or the maintenance officer’s overtime and so on? These are questions still to be answered.
Everyone in this Chamber and all the principals, school councils, members of the AEU and COGSO are passionate about education. We all have the same goal of wanting to see Territory kids get the best possible education so they have a life full of opportunity. However, under the CLP government the vital work of principals, teachers and school council members is getting harder as they keep being asked to do more with far less. It is concerning that it appears global school budgets are ideologically driven and are a way for the CLP government to place a barrier of protection between their budget decisions and the impacts they have on vital frontline services such as teacher jobs in schools.
We know in the Territory we have the largest education deficits in the nation. The CLP has delivered two years of cuts and 2015 has more to come. Sadly, after two years of education cuts under the CLP government, schools are already at the bare bones. You are now cutting into the bones of our schools and failing to honour the promises you made to schools that they would not suffer under global school budgets. Under the CLP government, we are seeing three consecutive years of cuts despite the promises that were made.
Given the commitment the minister has made to schools that no school would be worse off under global school budgets, what work is he doing to monitor the decisions that schools are being forced to make right now? Is the Education minister tracking teacher numbers under global school budgets? Is the minister monitoring that schools are not worse off under global school budgets? Is he being accountable and honouring the commitment he made to students, parents and teachers across the Territory about global school budgets?
Madam Speaker, global school budgets are not delivering a better world as the Education minister promised. In fact, it is making it harder for our education professionals to get on with the jobs they want to do in delivering the very best education outcomes for Territory kids.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will do what most people do at this time of the year, thank everybody, especially the staff of the Legislative Assembly. We have many of them, including the Speaker’s staff, the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk and Clerk Assistants, and people in the Table Office, Hansard, security, the Parliamentary Library and the State Library. These days, as I am not permitted to have any research officers help me, I very much rely on the Parliamentary Library and appreciate the work they do in getting material to help me during the debates.
I should not forget the cleaners. Sometimes they come into my office and get a big fright. They get to know me late at night and are always welcome.
I also thank the members of this House. It is often said we do not always see eye to eye on policies, but I sometimes remind myself that life is short and there is a life after parliament. Whilst we might have some fairly robust debates in this House at times, we should also remind ourselves that we need to set examples to the wider community, and when we have our differences of opinion we do not carry that any further than this Chamber. We can be friends here if we can, but at least be friends outside away from the politics that sometimes divides us.
I wish all the members of parliament a Happy Christmas and a Happy New Year. Obviously, we are moving to some very interesting times with some of the debates coming up, but that is part of the job. Territorians expect us to look at, analyse and debate these issues because, as someone said earlier, we are here for the welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. We need to do our job as diligently and thoughtfully as possible.
I do not have the staff some members here have. I thank Kim. Kim is my staff and someone who is a very strong woman because she puts up with me. I am someone who is all over the place, not the most well-organised person. She manages to put up with that and keep me, more or less, on an organised path, as best she can. She is a great lady. Recently when the phone calls came roaring in about the sale of TIO, her head was spinning. She sometimes uses the phrase ‘this is doing my head in’. After a smoke outside and a bit of fresh air, she is back on the ball again and she does a great job. Kim, thank you very much.
Also, to Vicki, her cousin who does the cleaning, I also appreciate that. If you can clean my office, you are doing well. It is not exactly the easiest place to clean; there are a few chickens that get in the way.
My family has grown up a fair bit, so they do not have to put up with me too much; they have all left home. Occasionally they come back just to annoy me. It is my wife, Imelda, as I have said every year, who hardly ever sees me. Sometimes I need to have an identification tag so she can recognise who I am. Without her, I would not be here. She has had to put up with a fair bit since I have been a member of parliament. She is not overly interested in politics – that is not her cup of tea – but I know she supports me. She makes sure I come to parliament in the morning looking reasonably well dressed, because I more than likely to grab a shirt out of the cupboard and throw it on. She makes sure I am looking spic and span.
She has always been my strong supporter. As I said – and I think the member for Araluen said the same thing – this job takes you away from your home, more so with ministers and people from Central Australia. Whilst I may not travel as much as those people, there is not a lot of time at home in between working days. People are asleep when you get home and sometimes they are asleep when you get up. There are times when I do not see my wife as much as I should, but I appreciate all her support.
Madam Speaker, there are also my constituents. I have a great lot of people out there. I am not being too biased, but rural people are different. Rural people are very passionate about the rural area. If the minister for Lands and Planning wants to know why I am so passionate, it is because I believe the rural area is a great place to live, and so do many of the people who live there.
They will be passionately fighting against the rural area being turned into a suburb of Palmerston or urbanised in the southern part of the shire. We do not want to see 70 000 to 100 000 people take over the rural area. The rural area is a special place. Sometimes I do not know whether members of the government understand that. I have lived for nearly 30 years in the rural area. Unless you have lived out there and enjoyed that bit of freedom and the open space and compare that with people who live side by side in some of our so-called affordable housing subdivisions, than I do not think you understand why people in the rural area are different.
They are great people. You only have to go to the Rural Garden Club, the Humpty Doo Fibre Craft Guild, the Rural Potters, the Humpty Doo Bowls Club or some of the sporting events, or the Girraween Primary School Field Day and you will see how different and special it is. I will passionately try to retain that rural-ness as I believe it is a great place to raise families. You see so many children in the rural area riding horses or on motor bikes. Sometimes it drives me nuts, but they have the space to do it. There are so many people who keep some bush on their block, and you will see signs up in the rural area ‘Land for Wildlife’.
It is a great community and those people support me. I appreciate the support they give me and I try to serve them the best I can. I have my failings like anyone else, but I appreciate the support I get from rural people. The comments and the constructive criticism I receive are all things that make it good to be a member of parliament from the rural area.
I wish everyone left today, all my constituents, my family and my staff a very happy Christmas and a safe new year.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson, and that includes all your constituents in Wallaby Holtze Road.
Mr WOOD: Yes.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016