2012-05-02
DEBATES – Wednesday 2 May 2012Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of very nice looking young students, wearing a standout uniform, from Year 5/6 and Year 6 OF Wanguri Primary School, accompanied by Ms Samantha Brannelley and Ms Shannon Russell. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Mr Henderson: Including my daughter, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: And the Chief Minister’s daughter is particularly welcomed.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move –
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill puts in place several minor measures to clarify the operation of the Payroll Tax Act and Gaming Control Act.
The Northern Territory is committed to maintaining a harmonised approach to payroll tax legislation in line with all Australian states and the Australian Capital Territory. Pursuant to that commitment, this bill makes amendments to the Payroll Tax Act to clarify the operation of the maternity, adoption, and paternity leave exemptions.
These harmonised payroll tax exemptions are for a maximum of 14 weeks, or an equivalent period of time, where an employee takes leave at a reduced rate of pay. By way of example, the exemptions may extend to 28 weeks for employees who take parental leave at half the usual rate of pay.
However, a technical interpretation of these payroll tax exemptions raises doubt over whether the exemption would apply as intended to part-time employees when extended leave is taken at less than the employee’s normal rate of pay. Accordingly, the bill clarifies the operation of these provisions to ensure the exemption is available to part-time employees in the same manner as for full-time employees.
The proposed parental leave exemption amendments are based on model legislation drafted by Victoria which will be adopted by most states as part of payroll tax harmonisation arrangements.
The bill also makes minor amendments to the Gaming Control Act. These amendments promote investment in the Territory by clarifying the operation of the taxation provisions of that act.
The Gaming Control Act provides the minister with the power to collect fees and taxes for certain gaming licences. These licences include casino licences, online lottery licences, and mail order lottery licences. The bill clarifies the minister may establish fees and taxes on any lottery agreement which may be entered into with the Territory.
The bill also ensures the standardised administrative practices of the Taxation Administration Act apply to taxes and levies operating under the Gaming Control Act. Currently, only Part 7 of the Taxation Administration Act, which relates to the payment and recovery of taxes, applies to taxes and levies operating under the Gaming Control Act. Other administrative requirements, such as record keeping and penalty tax provisions, are currently subject to individual commercial agreements.
To improve equity among taxpayers, transparency in the taxation regime and the promotion of efficient taxation administration, the bill provides for the improved integration of the Gaming Control Act and the Taxation Administration Act. To ensure no current licence holders are unduly affected by these amendments, the newly integrated provisions of the Taxation Administration Act will not apply to agreements entered into prior to 1 May 2012.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Budget Reply by Leader of the Opposition
Madam SPEAKER: I remind honourable members that at 11 am, during Government Business, I will ask whoever is on their feet to stop and to continue their remarks after Question Time to allow the Leader of the Opposition to speak.
Yes, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, as a point of clarification so we are absolutely certain on this, the standing orders require the second speaker be given 45 minutes in any bill. I noticed several speeches were made yesterday, and I wanted to confirm the Leader of the Opposition would be extended the full 45 minutes?
Madam SPEAKER: Absolutely.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
At the August 2011 Council of Australian Governments meeting, the Chief Minister signed the National Health Reform Agreement which initiated fundamental reform to the national health system. The bill before the House today implements a key element of the National Health Reform Agreement. It puts in place the national legislative framework for the funding of public hospitals in the Territory which is to commence from 1 July 2012.
Importantly, the new funding arrangements will provide for greater transparency and accountability of public hospital funding. There will be a clear line of sight of Commonwealth and Territory government funding contributions to Territory hospitals. In addition, the new funding arrangements will drive efficiencies within the hospital network while ensuring Territorians continue to receive the appropriate level of care.
In summary, the bill will provide for:
the establishment of a National Health Funding Pool for public hospitals;
the establishment of the Territory’s State Pool Account with the Reserve Bank of Australia; and
In order to establish a national system for the funding of public hospitals, the Commonwealth and each state and territory government is enacting common legislation. The bill before the House today implements the Territory’s commitment to the new national arrangements.
I will now address the bill in more detail.
A key feature of the bill is the National Health Funding Pool. The national pool comprises individual state and territory accounts, referred to as state pool accounts, held with the Reserve Bank of Australia.
Accordingly, the bill before the House today provides for the establishment of the Territory’s pool account with the Reserve Bank. The Territory’s pool account will receive all Commonwealth health reform-related funding, as well as the Territory government’s share of activity-based funding for public hospitals. This will ensure Commonwealth and Territory contributions to public hospital funding can be clearly identified and reported on.
Importantly, as Minister for Health, I will have control of how all funding in the Territory’s pool account is disbursed throughout the Territory’s public hospitals. This recognises, under the National Health Reform Agreement, the Territory retains the role of manager and planner over the public hospital system.
The bill also provides for the appointment of an administrator of the National Health Funding Pool. The administrator will be an independent statutory officer appointed by unanimous agreement of Commonwealth and state Health ministers. The primary function of the administrator is to monitor and report on Commonwealth and state funding paid into, and from, each state’s pool accounts and state-managed funds. The administrator, under direction from me or my delegate, will also be responsible for dispersing funding to the Territory’s hospital networks or to the Department of Health. The administrator will also calculate and advise the Commonwealth Treasurer of the Commonwealth government’s share of public hospital funding to be paid into the state pool accounts in accordance with the provisions of the National Health Reform Agreement.
The bill also establishes the Territory’s State Managed Fund. The fund will fall under the auspices of the Department of Health. The State Managed Fund will receive all Commonwealth and Territory government block funding for public hospitals, as well as funding for teaching, training, and research within the hospital system.
The introduction of this bill upholds the Territory’s commitment to COAG’s National Health Reform Agreement. The new funding arrangements will provide greater transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the hospital system.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany this bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to bring before the Legislative Assembly the Adult Decision Making Bill 2012. The bill will replace the current Adult Guardianship Act. The bill retains the primary purpose of ensuring there is a legal mechanism for decisions to be made on behalf of adults whose capacity to make decisions for themselves is impaired, and also provides for a new and expanded alternative decision-making model.
The bill provides for the establishment of a Tribunal for Adult Decision Making, appointed by the Administrator. Members of the tribunal will include an experienced legal practitioner, medical practitioner, and one other member with relevant experience. The tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with and determine all matters coming before it under the bill, and its decisions may be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Currently, Adult Guardianship Orders may only be made by a Magistrate of the Local Court after the Adult Guardianship Panel has made recommendations to the court. It is anticipated the tribunal will provide a less formal setting, and applications may be dealt with more speedily.
The bill provides for the establishment of an independent Commissioner for Adult Decision Making and Advocacy. The commissioner has a number of functions including advocating on behalf of adults with impaired decision-making capacity, providing advice and support for Alternate Decision Makers, and acting as an Alternate Decision Maker when no other suitable Alternate Decision Maker is available.
The bill provides a new legal framework for adults with capacity to appoint an Alternate Decision Maker to make decisions on their behalf if the adult’s decision-making capacity becomes impaired in the future, by completing and signing a life management document. The bill has a new provision for an adult with decision-making capacity to make a written advance care directive outlining how the adult wishes to be cared for in the future in the event of the loss of their decision-making capacity, or loss of their ability to communicate, in line with a National Framework for Advance Care Directives. This can be included in the life management document.
The bill introduces a legal framework for three types of Alternate Decision Makers:
Alternate Decision Maker (Tribunal) may be appointed by the tribunal for an adult who has impaired decision-making capacity;
Alternate Decision Maker (Substitute) who may be appointed by an adult whilst the adult has capacity through a written life management document; and
The bill has a new provision which authorises a tribunal to appoint an Alternate Decision Maker for a child with impaired decision-making capacity who has attained the age of 17 years and six months, and the order made will come into effect on the child’s 18th birthday, allowing for a smooth transition of decision-making from childhood into adulthood.
The bill provides a legal framework for the appointment of either the Public Trustee or a licensed trustee company as an Alternate Decision Maker with financial powers to manage the estate of an adult with impaired decision-making capacity. This appointment may be made by the tribunal or by an adult with a capacity under a life management document.
The bill defines a set of decision-making principles that guide the Alternate Decision Maker when exercising their authority, which include:
acting in the best interests of the adult;
in exercising authority, preserving the adult’s freedom of decision and action to the greatest extent practicable.
The Adult Decision Making Bill has been developed in consultation with key stakeholders. A consultation process was undertaken in February and March this year on the draft bill, which has enabled the key stakeholders to identify potential deficits or gaps in the draft bill, and has allowed them to be addressed prior to finalisation. The feedback on the draft bill and the consultation process undertaken has been positive. All stakeholders have welcomed the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the draft bill as it embraces a number of sectors including disability, the medical profession, the legal fraternity, and seniors and ageing.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement that accompanies the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill constitutes part of the government’s response to the report by the Council of Territory Cooperation (the CTC) Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee. I advised the Assembly in December last year the government would be moving in two stages to address the CTC recommendations.
Members are aware the government has previously committed significant additional resource allocations to the Animal Welfare Unit and made improvements to across-agency operational methods. It is apparent these improvements and the review undertaken by the CTC have resulted in greater public awareness of animal welfare issues.
The Animal Welfare Authority has investigated and prosecuted an increased number of cases. In addition, the Animal Welfare Unit of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services has intervened in many emerging cases of welfare concern to ensure animals are being cared for and breaches of the act do not occur.
In its report on animal welfare governance, the CTC made 21 recommendations. The government has moved immediately to implement the majority of those recommendations. Some of the recommendations have been addressed through increased resources in the Animal Welfare Unit and improved operational methods between the relevant government agencies.
Many of the recommendations for improvement are being addressed through the provisions of this bill. In some cases, the government has decided to go further than the CTC’s recommendations. These additional amendments will further strengthen the Animal Welfare Act and the operational arm of the Animal Welfare Authority. More complex amendments and operational reforms are being assessed for introduction and implementation in the future.
I now turn to the content of the bill.
The bill clarifies the roles, functions and powers of the Animal Welfare Authority. The functions of the Animal Welfare Authority include ensuring compliance with the act, appointing inspectors and animal welfare officers, administering the licensing regime for premises used for teaching or research, as well as the general administration of the act.
The proposed amendments provide the Chief Executive Officer of the agency administering the act - currently the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services - must provide the Animal Welfare Authority with staff and facilities to enable it to properly perform its functions. In addition, the Animal Welfare Authority may appoint staff in any Northern Territory government agency as authorised persons with the agreement of the Chief Executive Officer of the relevant agency. The proposed amendments also give the Animal Welfare Authority the power to collect information, make inquiries, and consult.
To ensure authorised persons possess appropriate skills, the bill clarifies that when appointing a person as an authorised officer - that is, as an inspector or an animal welfare officer - under the act, the Animal Welfare Authority must be satisfied the person has the necessary skills, qualifications, training and experience to carry out their duties. In addition, these authorised officers, whether they are staff of the Animal Welfare Unit or not, must, as soon as practicable, report to the authority any offence against the act.
Time limit for commencing proceedings: under the current act, proceedings in respect of an offence are to be commenced not more than 12 months after the date on which the offence is alleged to have occurred. The proposed amendments extend this period to 24 months.
Licences to conduct scientific research using animals: under the Animal Welfare Act, a person using premises for teaching or research involving animals is required to be licensed by the Animal Welfare Authority. Exemptions are provided for childcare and educational institutions unless the animals are used for scientific teaching purposes.
The current act has a number of deficiencies in this area, and the government is moving to reform the monitoring of licensees and their animal ethics committees. The bill clarifies the requirement for all licensees to have an animal ethics committee (AEC).
In Australia and around the world, animal ethics committees are independent bodies responsible for the oversight of any research on, or teaching with, animals. In Australia, they must comply with the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes. This code of conduct establishes rigorous requirements for the membership of animal ethics committees and their reporting requirements.
AECs can be situated in any state or territory of Australia, or even overseas. As such, it is not possible to provide for legislative oversight of every AEC. It is also not appropriate to require licensees to only obtain AECs that are only situated in the Territory, as these would unnecessarily restrict research in the Territory and could have significant funding implications for both current and potential licensees. To this end, the bill imposes an obligation on a licensee to provide information on the AEC to the Animal Welfare Authority.
The Animal Welfare Regulations will be amended to prescribe the type of information that licensees must supply in relation to the functions performed by their AECs. It is anticipated this will include the AECs’ annual reports, audits and details of external reviews. Of note, AECs are currently required to provide this information under the Australian code and, as such, this requirement will not impose an unnecessary burden on licensees.
In addition, the proposed amendments allow for the application, adoption or incorporation of a code of practice, standard or other document.
The bill also imposes an obligation on licensees to report to the Animal Welfare Authority a person the licensee has employed or engaged, or who has committed an offence reportable under the act. This further highlights to licensees the importance of animal welfare considerations in their operations.
I now turn to proposed amendments that are additional to the recommendations of the CTC report and which will further strengthen the Animal Welfare Act.
The proposed amendments impose a duty of care on the owner or a person in charge of an animal. It then provides for what a minimal level of care entails. To be properly cared for, an animal must be treated appropriately; that is, it must have food, water, accommodation, and be given necessary medical treatment and exercise. To ensure what is appropriate for an animal, the amendments define what a minimum level of care is, and enable the regulations to specify something not to be appropriate. This will allow the act to be clear about current expectations, and also to keep pace with technology and community standards.
The inclusion of a ‘duty of care’ is similar to provisions in other jurisdictions. This requirement improves the current provisions which specify a person must not ‘neglect’ or commit any act of ‘cruelty’. The proposed amendments also improve the current cruelty offence provisions in the act. ‘Cruelty’ to an animal is now defined as an intentional failure by a person in charge of an animal to ensure an animal is properly cared for.
‘Aggravated cruelty’ is created by the bill as a third level of offence after breach of the duty of care and cruelty. A person commits the offence of aggravated cruelty if they are intentionally cruel to an animal and the cruelty causes the death of, or serious harm to, the animal.
These three levels of offence - duty of care, cruelty, and aggravated cruelty - provide a significant improvement on the current act. These reforms reinforce the intent of those CTC recommendations aimed at making the Animal Welfare Act stronger and more transparent.
The bill also introduces new section 74A that allows the court to convict in the alternative for these offences. Thus, where the court is not satisfied a person is guilty of the offence of aggravated cruelty, the court can find the person guilty of the alternative charge of cruelty or breach of duty of care. Similarly, the court may find a person charged with cruelty to be guilty of the alternative offence of breach of duty of care. This will minimise the number of prosecutions which fail due to legal technicalities, and strengthen the enforcement provisions of the legislation.
The bill makes provision for how animals or things - such as horses’ bridles and other such items – which are seized by an authorised officer are to be dealt with. This includes retaining an animal in order to alleviate an animal’s suffering, or as evidence for the purpose of prosecuting an offence against the act. In addition, the proposed amendments also require the seized animal or thing to be returned to the owner or person entitled to it if its retention is no longer necessary. The bill also allows for the sale or disposal of the animal or thing. Furthermore, the bill allows the authority, the authorised person, or any other person, to be reimbursed for any reasonable costs incurred in relation to the seizure of the animal or thing.
These amendments represent one element of the government’s response to the CTC report on animal welfare governance. In some areas, the government has decided to go beyond the CTC’s recommendations. This will result in an even stronger and more effective Animal Welfare Act than that envisaged by the CTC in its report. I thank all the members of the Council of Territory Cooperation Subcommittee on Animal Welfare Governance for its report.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to members, and table the explanatory statement that accompanies the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move –
I trust those terms were acceptable to members opposite and the Independent member.
There are some minor amendments to the terms of reference of last year. As members would be aware, as per last year, Estimates will be held over two weeks in June - Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of each week. The timetable this year is probably better for everyone. All members of the committee have had input into that change of timetable over time.
Last year, I believe we saw the highest level of scrutiny of government spending in the allocation of time through the Estimates process. Our government has embraced the Estimates process and, since coming to government, we have continued to improve that process as an open and transparent government should.
In line with last year, the global time limit is 60 hours. I hope I am not verballing the shadow Treasurer, but he said last year:
Hopefully, we are in agreement on that particular issue. I look forward to Estimates every year, and I know the opposition also does.
The terms of reference this year maintain the increase in time limits that were set last year for the Chief Minister and the Treasurer of eight hours each. Again, as last year, there is a maximum time limit of seven hours for the Speaker, each other minister for the Estimates Committee hearing and the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee. In essence, the terms of reference are the same as 2001 with, as I said previously, some minor modification to update the language and remove some of the repeated …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I hope that was a misread. The terms of reference are the same as 2001?
Dr BURNS: No, I thought I said 2011, I am sorry.
Mr Elferink: No, no that is fine; I just wanted to make sure.
Dr BURNS: Oh goodness me, a bit of dyslexia creeping in there. New glasses, member for Port Darwin. I will read it again so there is no doubt.
In essence, the terms of reference are the same as 2011 with minor modifications to update the language and remove some of the repeated provisions in the resolutions.
I thank the staff of the Clerk’s Office who play an enormous role during Estimates. They also assist with their advice during the development of the terms of reference for the Estimates process.
Finally, for all members to note, the procedures for a member being named have been clarified, as this has not been previously provided. I hope, of course, there will be no need to use this particular section at all during the Estimates process.
Madam Deputy Speaker, our government looks forward to Estimates and wholeheartedly supports examination of government expenditure, department by department, line by line. I encourage the public and the media to come to Estimates hearings that will be of interest to them. We look forward to the questions from the opposition and the Independent member for Nelson during this Estimates period. I commend this motion to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): I will keep it brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank the Leader of Government Business for bringing this motion before the House, because it has to be brought before the House to enable the Estimates Committee to be established.
The old system that was used prior to 2001, of course, is the Estimates process was pursued in the Chamber. Now, we retire to a comfortable room upstairs. However, there are some important differences to the old system. One of the important differences is we are enabled, by and large, to ask direct questions of public servants, which is an important component.
However, I flag there is an important discipline all members must bring to the Estimates process: questions relating to policy issue should, essentially, be reserved for the ministers, and process is generally the realm of the public servants. I hope we do not see examples of ministers being asked specific questions about their opinion on policy issues, only to have them refer the matter to the departmental CEO. I still believe, in the system of responsible government, it is the minister, ultimately, on top of the food chain who must be answerable for the policies of the government of the day, and that handballing these sorts of things to senior bureaucrats actually diminishes the role of the minister. I am sometimes concerned that ministers see their role little more than as figureheads of departments, rather than the people who are elected by the people of the Northern Territory and their leader to provide ministry to the Crown or to the Crown’s representative, the Administrator in the Northern Territory.
It is an important distinction to make. I am not entirely sure ministers entirely get it all the time; that when we ask a question about policy it is not automatically left to a public servant to answer the question. The public servant applies policy; the minister is responsible for the policy. If that distinction is remembered by ministers, then we will get along famously.
I note there is the addition in relation to naming members and, with the Leader of Government Business, I also hope there is no requirement for it to be used. I am not sure, and I have no recollection, of any member ever being named through the Estimates process. There have been a couple of occasions where the Estimates Committee has had to resolve itself into the Public Accounts Committee to deal with issues of management. Fortunately, the wise heads on the Public Accounts Committee have been able to steer around those problems in the past.
I put on the record again what I said the last time we completed the Estimates process; that is, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the member for Fannie Bay, guides or steers the ship of the Estimates Committee with a fair and reasonable hand. I am sure we can look forward to that attitude prevailing again.
I stand by what I said last year that 60 hours should be sufficient to be able to prosecute any arguments or run any inquiries in relation to how the budget is put together. However, with one proviso; that is, I hope ministers will restrain themselves to answering questions rather than using long-winded speeches that stray far and wide from the questions asked, purely with a view to chewing up time and that 60 hours. It has been the inclination of ministers in the past to speak for 10 or 15 minutes on a very straightforward yes or no question. We, on this side of the House, will find objection to that and will turn to the chairman of the committee to apply the standing orders as they are intended to be applied when it comes to long and rambling answers.
Beyond that, the Estimates Committee will get to examine a budget which is, in my opinion, a poor budget, from what I have read so far, particularly in the government’s incapacity to deal with issues of debt. I do not doubt, after the Estimates process, I will have more to say about that when we report back to this House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also support this motion, naturally. I might be regarded as a sick puppy, but I actually look forward to the Estimates Committee. It is a very important part of parliamentary process and one of the few chances of getting government ministers and CEOs to answer specific questions about areas of expenditure. At the same time, since we have had a system of accrual accounting since I came to parliament, we can ask ministers about policies. It is about inputs and outcomes, and it is important we find out where government has spent its money, how it has spent that money, and it can show us whether there was any benefit to the community in the expenditure of that money. That is important as well.
It gives us an opportunity to do things we cannot do in parliament in Question Time because of the limitations on the time we have – one hour. Naturally, from an Independent’s point of view, there are fewer questions. In Estimates, we are able to expand on Question Time, and require ministers and departmental people to answer questions directly in relation to their departments.
I note the member for Port Darwin spoke about long-winded answers. There are times when ministers actually have a tactic to stretch the answer out a lot longer than required. I believe the standing orders we use in Question Time about relevance are important and, perhaps, could be maintained in the Estimates Committee. I would be guilty, at times, of long-winded or repetitive questions which can be a problem at times. I believe it is beholden on both sides during Estimates Committee to use the time as efficiently as possible, to gain as much information as possible during the time we have with each minister and department.
I do not believe the fault is just on one side; faults can be seen on both sides at times. We should work to ensure this important time, the 60 hours, is used as efficiently as possible so the scrutiny of the government can be done to the best advantage.
As the Independent, I will be sitting down with the opposition to develop an informal process to allow the opposition to have its fair share of questions, but to also allow me to have the opportunity to ask my fair share of questions. It is a long process, especially for an Independent who has to cross all portfolios when it comes to the Estimates Committee.
It might be a bit strange, but I enjoy the process even though the hours are long. For me, it is a very important part of my role as a member of parliament to question government, its policies, and its expenditure.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the motion before us.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the support of the opposition and the Independent for this motion. Like the member for Nelson, I enjoy Estimates. It is a very important time for government, opposition, and the Independent, but also for departments. In the preparation I try to undertake for Estimates, I like to spend a great deal of time with the department going through the issues, line by line, asking questions. Then, during the Estimates process, there are often things that pop up - whether from opposition or from the Independent member - that are of interest to me. Sometimes, there are angles or issues a minister may not necessarily be aware of because, let us face it, departments are made up of a multitude of programs and expenditure, they interface right across the Territory, and there may be issues related to the roll-out of those programs and the conduct of departments which are of interest to ministers.
It is an important forum for departments to actually shine, to prove they are efficient, that particular officers are across all the detail, and particularly those at the executive level have a handle on their programs and can answer the reasonable questions put to them on process issues in the Estimates Committee. This is my last estimates. It is also an opportunity for a minister to demonstrate they know what is going on in their portfolio, and they are well versed in the policies of government. They are able to explain and defend those policies.
The job of opposition is to ask piercing, important questions. It is also an opportunity for individual shadow ministers to shine. It is a very important forum. It is a forum in which we, as politicians, look at how others are doing - departments, ministers and shadow ministers. That is especially so during this election year because not only is the opposition scrutinising government, which is fair enough, opposition itself will be under a fair bit of scrutiny and people will be watching the performance of the shadow ministers.
It is sometimes not enough to have political huff and puff. If you are going to demonstrate you are a good alternative as a minister, you have to demonstrate you understand budgetary processes. You have to understand policy processes and the implementation of that policy. For their part, the public service also looks very closely at what happens in Estimates. In times gone by, various personalities have been unhappy at the way they have been treated by some opposition members within the Estimates process. I am not naming anyone, but I know some people have been quite rude and offhand to public servants. That is not the way to go. However, it is an election year and, for my part, I welcome the scrutiny by opposition.
We have policies in the education area, and certainly have expenditure. As I am wont to do, I will be reflecting on the shadow, the member for Brennan, and asking what his policies are and how he is going to fund them, in a comparative way that is still relevant to the questions being asked. The public of the Northern Territory deserves to know what the alternatives are between government and the opposition. It is an important process and I am looking forward to it. Seven hours in the chair is a very long time.
I have to admit, member for Nelson, I was hooked on the Estimates process from the time we went to Tasmania all those years ago in 2001, and we saw both the Tasmanian Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council Estimates. They were almost like two different spheres. The Legislative Council was very polite and gentlemanly. I have the very clear recollection of the Legislative Assembly, and the late Jim Bacon and the Opposition Leader, whose name eludes me, having a stoush on the floor of the Estimates. In my book, Jim Bacon certainly won that encounter.
I also remember Michael Hodgman and the then Attorney-General having a stoush in Estimates, and Michael Hodgman detailing everything he was going to do when he became Attorney-General in Tasmania. The then Labor Attorney-General asked the attendant to draw the curtains in the magnificent room where the Estimates were held. He looked up at the sky and said: ‘Unfortunately, Mr Hodgman, I cannot see any pigs flying today’. That was the end of that conversation.
Madam Speaker, there is a place for humour and drama but, essentially, it is a place for information and scrutiny. I commend this motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 27 March 2012.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his last report. I will be speaking today on my portfolios of Justice and Essential Services.
The Auditor-General’s March 2012 report to the Assembly discusses results of the audits of the financial statements conducted over the period 1 July 2011 to 31 December 2011. The report includes an audit into the records of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission.
The Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission is established under the Legal Aid Act and its charter is to ensure people in the Northern Territory have access to services to protect and enforce their legal rights and interests. This is a vital community service as it provides essential legal representation and services to those in our community who are the most vulnerable. The commission’s links with other community-based social services providers often makes Legal Aid the first point of call for Territorians requiring legal services and advice. While the Auditor-General’s report did not identify any material weaknesses in the commission’s controls, it reports a deficit of $767 344 in the commission’s budget.
This government, in partnership with the Commonwealth, recently completed an extensive review of legal aid funding, and Budget 2012-13 delivers a $900 000 increase in the Territory government’s funding of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission. This brings the total in Northern Territory government funding to the commission to $4.7m per annum.
In addition to the increased funding, Budget 2012-13 delivers an annual indexation model to ensure the Territory’s funding increases are in line with the EBA negotiations, and also CPI. This enables the Legal Aid Commission to continue to provide its valuable services to the community and ensures that Territorians will continue to have access to affordable legal aid services well into the future. I thank the Auditor-General for his comments about the Legal Aid Commission.
I move now to Power and Water. The Power and Water Corporation performed well. The Auditor-General, in his key findings, found no identifiable material weaknesses in their controls. We are on the record as saying Power and Water does not recover all of its costs; it is provided with a subsidy. Impairment losses can be explained as being the result of an accounting requirement. As income stream from water assets is below the replacement value of the assets, we would expect this to be the case in relation to water.
Increase in energy and material relates principally to the increase in the fuel source for generation - that being gas - and increase in revenue certainly is positive for the Power and Water Corporation.
I thank the Auditor-General for his report. It is a good indication for the government and the public about where the government institutions are actually travelling in the future.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Auditor-General’s report.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 and Year 9 to 11 Batchelor Area School students accompanied by Ms Carol Beckett, Mr Bruce Garnett and Mr Ross Dudgeon. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, the Auditor-General’s March 2012 report to the Legislative Assembly includes two matters relating to my portfolio responsibilities. The first is the Jabiru Town Development Authority.
The Jabiru Town Development Authority is chaired by a representative of the NT government. Until recently, this position was held by Ms Fran Kilgariff. Ms Kilgariff has moved on from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services, and I take this opportunity to thank Fran for her time as chair of the authority and wish her well in her new role. The new chair is the Executive Director Arnhem Region, James Rogers, in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services, and I welcome him to this role.
Under the Jabiru Town Development Act, the Jabiru Town Development Authority has overall responsibility for the maintenance and development of the town of Jabiru, the issue of subleases of land in the township, and for the administration, management, and control of the town. The authority continues to hold the lease for the land used for Jabiru town purposes, and to administer the 1985 cost-sharing agreement relating to the establishment of the town.
The Auditor-General has undertaken an audit of the authority’s 2010-11 financial statements which resulted in an unqualified, independent audit opinion. The Auditor-General found the financial statements comply with the Australian Accounting Standards. As the Auditor-General has noted in the past, while the audit of the JTDA was unqualified, the authority’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on the continuation of a moratorium on the authority’s future interest and repayment of loans due to the Northern Territory government, totalling $8.8m.
In the course of establishing Jabiru, the then Northern Territory government, through the NT Treasury, provided loan funds to JTDA to fund over-design services - mainly water supply and sewerage services - constructed to meet the expected population needs of the town. It was expected, at the time, the NT would recoup this investment as further development occurred in the Kakadu region. In 1986, the government granted JTDA a moratorium on the repayment of the loan and interest payments in acknowledgement that the anticipated growth of the town had not occurred.
Each year, the authority’s auditors request the Northern Territory Treasury for confirmation of the status of the moratorium. In respect of this audit, the Northern Territory Treasury has confirmed the moratorium on the interest payment and loan repayments is ongoing. The authority remains capable, as it has in the past, of operating and performing its functions in relation to the administration and development of Jabiru while the government maintains its moratorium on the repayment of the loan. This situation will continue until it is resolved in the context of the review of the 1985 cost-sharing agreement involving Energy Resources of Australia, the Commonwealth government, and the Northern Territory government, and decision-making about the future of the Jabiru lease arrangements.
The second matter mentioned in the Auditor-General’s report related to my portfolio responsibilities is Territory Discoveries. Territory Discoveries is the commercial wholesaling arm of Tourism NT and operates as a government business division. Territory Discoveries was established in 1998 to 1999 to address market failure in small- to medium-sized tourism businesses accessing the domestic tourism distribution system. The Auditor-General’s report states the financial report presents fairly in all material aspects, and the financial position of Territory Discoveries as of 30 June 2011, and of its financial performance and its cash flows for the year then ended, are in accordance with Australian accounting standards and the Financial Management Act. Territory Discoveries financial statements will be tabled in the Legislative Assembly as part of Tourism NT’s annual report.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased there were no issues requiring clarification or explanation. I take this opportunity to thank the Auditor-General and his staff for their work and diligence in reporting to the parliament on the expenditure of public monies.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I commend the Auditor-General’s report. There are three elements in that report which relate to my portfolios.
The first one on page 87 relates to the Auditor-General’s audit findings and analysis of the financial statements of the NT Home Ownership Scheme. Basically, the key finding of the Auditor-General was the audit did not identify any material weaknesses in controls.
The second element relates to the department of Housing’s tenancy management system. The Auditor-General identified some weaknesses in that particular audit. He found, first, that there was an absence of a formal and consistent change control process that could result in unauthorised or untested changes being introduced in the system’s production environment. That, in turn, was considered to have the potential to lead to processing errors or to functionality that may fail to meet the department’s expectations. Second, there was an absence of a formalised user access management procedure. Third, there was inappropriate access to agency data transferred between the system and Centrelink.
The Auditor-General made these findings available to the department. He said recommendations in respect of each of the issues outlined above were made to the department, which has responded appropriately, in the view of the Auditor-General.
The third aspect is very interesting. It related to the BER; that is, $204m of expenditure in every primary school across the Northern Territory. I will detail this. I know I am running out of time. Basically, he commended the department for their management of that budget. It was a budget which came onto the books very late and very quickly, and had to be expended very quickly in consultation with schools and school councils. It worked out very well. There are very few outstanding projects from that $204m expenditure.
I ask a rhetorical question before I sit down. This was expenditure that was opposed at a national level by Tony Abbott and his mob, which reflected in the CLP locally. We are about to hear a budget reply from the Opposition Leader. The question I ask is: would they have knocked back $204m of expenditure in every primary school in the Northern Territory? Would they have knocked back that expenditure? That is an important question. It would have been irresponsible for them to do so.
Madam Speaker, the time is drawing close to 11 am and I will let the Opposition Leader get on with his Budget reply which I am very interested in. I will continue my remarks at a later date.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it now being 11 am, I will be calling the Leader of the Opposition, but before I do so, I acknowledge these students. They are from Year 5/6 Milkwood Steiner School, accompanied by Ms Jan Harrington. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from 1 May 2012.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, what was most striking about yesterday’s budget was the lack of imagination. This is a government lost for ideas. The increase in debt and deficit was a very predictable Labor response that is no different, whether it is Gillard and Swan, or Henderson and Lawrie. This is what we have come to expect. It is what Labor governments are best known for. Seriously, people will forgive you for spending beyond your means if they can see a clear link between that spending and a meaningful purpose or benefit to them. It must be defendable on the basis of a bigger plan and a vision for the future. However, this budget, Madam Speaker and colleagues, has no plan and no vision, just a motley collection of patches and bandaids designed to prop them up for the last five minutes before the siren.
The people of the Northern Territory deserve better. No carefully crafted spin can hide the shocking fact of a massive debt obligation. Labor’s budget is a con job – out came the numbers and clever words, but nothing changed. Families are still hurting, violent crime is a deepening community concern, rents are the highest in the country, the cost of living is on the up and up, and the most telling is Territorians are choosing, sadly, to leave because they cannot afford to live here. The Territory we all love has gone backwards over the past 10 years, whether it is law and order, the cost of living, our lifestyle, or basic economic management.
I am not going to go through the budget papers line by line arguing over figures. That is what Labor does: rolls out some big number, tells a grand story, and thinks it is a job well done. The only job done well is the sell and spin, but nothing happens. Labor boasts of record infrastructure spends - but have a look around, the words do not match the result. Where has the money gone? I will mention a couple of numbers from the budget. They are very big and they are to do with our debt. It is the bottom line that tells the story.
The Country Liberals understand the value of money to a hard-working family; that to get ahead you must spend less than you earn, that borrowed money comes at a great cost, and has to be paid back one day. The shortfall for this financial year is $491m. That is what Labor spent over and above what they received, and it is more than $100m above their own estimates. What could go so wrong, and where has the money gone?
It gets worse. In 2010, Labor told us the Territory’s general government sector nett debt for 2013-14 would be $1.6bn. Now, they are saying the nett debt will, in fact, be $3.1bn - nearly double, and a very dangerous trend. Debt must be managed or it will manage you and restrict your options.
Territory Labor had its well-rehearsed lines - you can give it points for that - about deliberately stepping into debt. It is as though they actually believe those lines. Those words do not hide a total lack of budget discipline spanning 10 years, nor prevent a day of reckoning bearing down on the Territory, unless this is brought under control.
Have a look at the prison. If anyone is in any doubt about the financial incompetence of this Labor government, then I urge you to listen now. Having spent all their money and then buried us in debt, Labor has put the new prison on the credit card. The most expensive prison in Australia, paid for on high finance - top dollar for a public private partnership deal. They saw this Labor government coming. Here is the deal: $60m a year for the next 30 years, and you get a $1.8bn gaol - a non-productive asset that decreases in value over time, and is full to capacity on the day it opens.
Many are now very concerned about this Labor government’s poor management of the Territory’s finances. They have squandered massive GST windfalls and turned it into a massive debt. All of this in 10 years! No Territory government has ever had the level of income this Labor government was entrusted with - no government ever! A mountain of debt stands as a damning legacy of Labor’s budget ill-discipline and mismanagement. It is time to draw a line in the sand.
Today, the Country Liberals will place 27 important questions on the Parliamentary Record; questions crucial to the financial future of the Northern Territory. They are questions which have not been addressed in Labor’s budget. They must be answered so Territorians know the true state of the Territory’s finances, not just the headline announcements they choose to release.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table these questions. The media and important Territory stakeholders will also be provided with copies. I hereby put this tired Labor government on notice. We expect you, on behalf of Territorians, to provide answers to these 27 questions publically or risk forever to be known as the cover-up artists we have come to expect you are. Chief Minister, you have two weeks.
We have identified six major areas that need urgent investigation. These are: the budget black hole; Territory government borrowings; off-budget funding; the prison project; the waterfront project; and the Power and Water Corporation.
Let me turn to the budget black hole. In 2001, this Territory Labor government needed to find, in its own words, $147m to balance the books of the non-financial public sector - $147m. The budget now before the House has the Labor government borrowing just shy of $500m to balance the books of general government, and that blows out to $783m when you add in the additional borrowings across every government agency. Including the last two budgets, the Territory government has increased its overall nett debt by $1522m just to balance the books.
It gets worse. Looking at the forward estimates for the years ahead, the borrowing binge by this government continues. How deep will Labor dig its budget black hole before it is not the Treasurer, Treasury, or the Labor Party, but someone else such as the moneylenders, perhaps, who does something about this unsustainable debt position?
Regarding government borrowings, the result of these deficit budgets for years to come is an ever-growing pile or mountain of debt - debt young Territorians may be paying back over decades. Those decades of payments will be the real legacy of 10 years of Labor. The debt across all government agencies is now projected to increase to $5.6bn by the end of 2015. That is nearly $25 000 per person - man, woman and child - in debt. That is just debt, not the liabilities like the billion dollar prison or the extra billions in superannuation payments. It is the liability iceberg that could sink the Territory following another high-debt, high-risk Labor spending budget.
Here is a question for government. I heard the Chief Minister and Treasurer both try to explain that this government debt is not personal debt. There are many Territorians out there who take this personally. Chief Minister, is $25 000 a reasonable amount Territory families would happily put on their credit card, because that is what you have done on their behalf? You had your chance to pay back the debt, to bring the budget back into balance. I have been in this Chamber for 12 years. I remember the windfall after windfall after windfall, and the call from the opposition to make use of that windfall to retire debt and put us into a better position for the difficult times. You failed to heed it!
The Northern Territory has now become a beggar facing escalating borrowing costs to reflect a higher risk of default. Or will it face lenders turning off the funding tap altogether? We are in a risky position - and you have put us in that risky position. Territory families do not consider this growth in Territory debt justified and sustainable. Territorians demand that government lives within its means, and shows some fiscal discipline.
Regarding off-budget funding, we are using this budget reply to call on the Treasurer to prepare a report on the totality of the public sector and those bodies in which the government has some involvement, or in which it at least has some significant interest. Territorians have a right to know where the contribution made from or to the 2012-13 budget, or other parts of the public sector, may be found in non-budget sector entities such as Darwin Waterfront Corporation, Northern Territory Major Events Company, Power and Water Corporation, TIO - and there are a dozen or more others you will see in the tabled questions. Where is the transparency in government reporting that shows the flow of funding between the whole-of-government and its owned and operated corporations, entities, and agencies? That needs to be seen, to be brought out into the light, so we know the true state of play in the Northern Territory. Why is it that payments and receipts to these organisations are shrouded in secrecy, and Territorians are kept misinformed by this Territory Labor government?
Funding the prison project: when addressing the spending of this Labor government, some serious questions arise. I look forward to the answers. For example, why did the government not trust the NT public service to build a new Darwin prison or refurbish the existing prison? First and foremost when looking at this massive expenditure over the next 30 years, can we get out of this prison deal now, and what would it cost to do so? If, in the future, we reach the conclusion it was sensible to repay the $495m prison debt, would government be able to do so without penalty? Just what have you signed us up to? If refinancing of the debt should become necessary or desirable, what is the potential financial exposure of the Northern Territory government? What have you promised Territorians will pay? What have you committed us to? These are questions we are asking that need to be answered - and now.
If the Northern Territory government had borrowed, for example, $495m that will be added to the Territory debt in 2014, and built the prison itself, the annual repayments would have been, at current interest rates, around $36m per year. However, the mid-year report says the forward estimates of expenditure already include $60m per year for the prison project. There is a difference. Territorians need to know; bring this out into the open so we can see it clearly. What is this extra $24m? What is it being spent on, and who is receiving it? Will you be honest and transparent in your budget presentations and with Territorians? You have an opportunity - you have two weeks.
Funding the waterfront project and precinct is another example of this government’s transparency failure. Do the debt figures in the NT budget include the cost of the Convention Centre in the same way as they appear for the new Darwin prison? If not, why not? How much should now be added to total debt? How much has the government spent to date on the Convention Centre in yearly contributions? Bring that out. How much has the government spent to date on community infrastructure activities in yearly contributions? What revenue has been returned to the budget, and where does it appear?
Budget 2012-13 for the Chief Minister’s Department contains over $17m towards management of the waterfront precinct and the operating payment for the Darwin Convention Centre; for how many years will this payment be made? Including the cost of community infrastructure such as the wave pool, it appears that over 25 years the government will be paying well over the $144m upper limit stated in your 2006-07 budget papers. That is on the record - please explain! How much will that extra payment be and how can Territorians be assured this drain on the public purse, like the ever-growing debts of Labor, will come to an end?
I turn now to our concerns about the sustainability of the Power and Water Corporation, where government should clearly state in the budget document how much it gets, how much it spends, and how it is funded - not buried in footnotes and departmental allocations. It is an organisation that should stand and be measured on its own merits, and not have its accounts protected from clear scrutiny.
It is true that borrowings by the Power and Water Corporation were $332m in 2006, and have more than tripled to over $1bn in 2012. Territorians have a right to ask who will be paying for this, and who will guarantee that current and future generations will not be asked to wear even higher power and water charges as a result of bad decision-making? When and by how much can Territorians expect some positive outcomes from this massive spending spree in improved reliability and reduced costs? How much will the series of planned equity injections into Power and Water Corporation amount to? On what basis has the amount been calculated, and when are they to occur?
We ask, on behalf of Territorians, for the Labor government to frankly and honestly tell Territorians of the full implications of these peculiar gyrations, both for Power and Water’s commercial viability and the bottom line for the Territory budget. Tell the truth.
All this budget reporting serves to hide, rather than reveal, the truth about the Territory’s finances. We need to know. Territorians have been plunged into massive debt, according to Labor, because of the GFC. We ask this government to explain the links between the faraway events in Europe three years after the GFC, or even a possibility of another GFC, and this government’s actual, real, weak, fiscal outcomes and lacklustre development of the Territory.
The truth is Labor’s mismanagement, reckless spending, failed policies, and lack of vision have failed Territorians. Accept responsibility.
A Country Liberals government will not ignore the real cost of living pressures facing Territorians. We will not ignore the stress on young families caused by both partners working full-time just to keep a roof over their heads. Young parents tell of the little time they can spend exploring the bush or even going out to catch a fish with their kids because they need that weekend job just to make ends meet. Sadly, many are forced to leave the Territory because of the high cost of living and unaffordable housing. That is a shame.
We know of small business owners whose businesses are crippled because they cannot employ young people to grow their businesses because those young people cannot afford to live here.
Our suburban parks should be places where children play, couples exercise, and dogs are walked. It is reasonable to expect that play equipment not be covered in graffiti, and lawns not be strewn with rubbish, broken bottles, and layabout drunks.
The Country Liberals will do things differently. First priority is to keep people safe; clean up our streets and parks; drive down the cost of living for families; make housing affordable by returning the balance of supply and demand to land release and create new options in the marketplace; create jobs through a strong and well-managed, balanced economy; invest in roads, rail, ports and other income-producing infrastructure; capitalise on our natural resources; and protect our unique lifestyle. Most importantly, the Country Liberals take long-term strategic planning very seriously.
This current Labor government has littered the Territory with one policy failure after another. This neglect of law and order defines this government. The prison is a monument to that failure. They have ignored community standards and we have grown used to daily encounters with abusive drunks, even outside this parliament, property crime is taken for granted, and high fences and large dogs have come to characterise too many of our suburbs. It needs to change and, under a Country Liberals government, it will change.
I am very concerned, as my fellow Territorians and colleagues are, that the cost of living is out of control, that debt is soaring to record levels, and that no one in this Labor government has ever been held accountable or taken responsibility for wasting opportunity, wasting taxpayer’s money, or for failing to actually deliver for Territorians.
For approximately half-an-hour on Tuesday morning, yesterday, Territorians were subject to yet another very slick presentation from the Treasurer and this Labor government. The government is claiming it handed down a budget for the future, but we have heard these words before. The fact is, we are actually going backwards financially. This Labor government has been living on credit, and Budget 2012-13 is no different. Once again, the Treasurer has delivered a budget that pawns our future to pay for promises of tomorrow. Pushing up debt to record levels is not hard, it is simply irresponsible, and our children will pay long into the future. The government has simply lost control of its spending.
Because of this government’s complete inability to manage the budget, Territorians are forced to pay $572 000 a day interest - every day. That adds up to more than $4m a week in interest payments alone. When the Treasurer talks about growth, the Treasurer neglects to mention how much the economy has shrunk, when 3500 Territorians have packed up and left in the past three years because it is too expensive to live here. Our hospitals, police service and schools will all suffer because the Labor government is spending our money on interest bills.
If this is not bad enough, we have Labor’s carbon tax to come. We know this Labor government supports a carbon tax. What we do not know is how they are going to make us pay for the impacts of this tax - what it will have on government, on families, all Territorians, and the Territory economy.
Carbon-based industries such as energy and LNG are essential to our future prosperity. This government has failed to plan for Labor’s carbon tax and to even consider the effect it would actually have on our economy. Despite our constant questions in and outside the parliament, Labor still does not know what impact their carbon tax will have on the cost of building a new house, or the price of a litre of milk.
Unlike the Labor Party, the Country Liberals believe in accountability in government. We believe ministers should be held accountable for wasting money, implementing failed policies, or making poor decisions. Have it out in the open.
Small businesses are actually hurting. Shops in the mall remain empty, yet this government continues to spend and waste their money happily. Brand new air-conditioners had to be ripped out of Nemarluk School and replaced at a cost of $800000 because they were too noisy. That is just another example of taxpayers’ money being wasted. The Country Liberals will make it a priority to stop waste.
The Country Liberals will stand up and fight for Territorians, unlike Labor, which does whatever its federal masters tell it. Labor supports a carbon tax; they also support Julia Gillard’s minerals resource rent tax. Both are coming into effect on 1 July, and struggling families and businesses will be hard hit. Electricity, already up by 25%, is going to go up again. That is a tax on government, business, families, hospitals, schools, tourism - a cascading tax. Everyone will be forced to pay more for their power, and this Labor government supports it.
This government puts the Labor Party first - always has done. They put politics ahead of people; their own self-interest ahead of Territorians. They do not stand up to Prime Minister Julia Gillard. They pretend to, but the facts tell an entirely different story ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr MILLS: I have, yes.
I turn to the cost of living. Labor has no plans - no real plans - to deal with the cost of living increases. We are very aware Territorians are feeling the pain of everyday living expenses - and you should know it; they are. We talk to Territorians wherever we go, and we are hearing their fears and concerns for the future. No wonder debt was the headline last night, because they are concerned - stories of how mums and dads, shop owners, pastoralists, taxi drivers, hairdressers, small business owners, and the elderly are hurting. We have spoken firsthand to business people who are worried sick about their future, and the shop owners in Palmerston, where I live, who are not only doing it tough, but are robbed and assaulted as they go about their daily tasks.
We are not pretending for a moment there is an easy fix to the cost of living pressures, but we will start by breaking down Labor’s culture of spending borrowed money on non-performing assets. We will install a disciplined balance to the budget and government process, and turn around Labor’s dangerous downward trend.
Regarding housing affordability, the biggest impact on the cost of living is housing - make no mistake. This is one of the most significant of Labor’s great failings. It is not that we have a shortage of land. The lack of affordable housing is a real concern for many young Territorians who want to be a part of the great Territory story. Labor’s failed land release policies have driven up the cost of owning a home and young people are leaving because of it. Shame!
The Country Liberals will focus on cutting the cost of building new homes by dealing with red tape and supply side factors relating to development, compliance costs, land supply, and zoning for density development. There needs to be increased flexibility to raise building height levels. This will reduce the amount of new land needed for development and will increase the supply of residential housing. Streamlining authority processes in order to reduce compliance costs will also improve housing affordability. It is an objective which can be achieved in the Northern Territory. If there is a will, there is a way.
Balancing the budget: after years of reckless spending, the Treasurer has failed to properly detail how the Treasurer will bring the NT budget back into balance. The government does not have a plan to deal with the carbon tax it supports, and will cost Territorians dearly. We oppose the carbon tax because it is a bad deal for Australia and a terrible deal for the Northern Territory and its families.
The Country Liberals commit to generate wealth, prosperity, and jobs for all Territorians. Our economic vision plans for change and growth in a strong and sustainable way which means balancing the budget. We will target a return to surplus by the end of our first term in government.
Regarding the future, as an incoming government, if elected, we will seem destined to be placed in a very similar position to a family whose breadwinner has frittered and gambled away all of its savings, as well as maxing out the credit card. In the first instance, the reaction is likely to be along the lines of: ‘Why did you do it? What on earth were you thinking?’ In our case, the answers are glaringly obvious: the members opposite acted out of arrogance and greed and, indeed, if they were thinking, it was only of themselves.
Most people placed in this position are faced with the conclusion there is little they are able to do. We do not have that luxury. We simply must do something - and we will. Our response will be twofold. First, we will have to cut government spending. Unlike Labor, we will not take the easy way out. There will be no oversimplistic across-the-board efficiency dividends which are quite inequitable and ineffective. There will be no ERCs or massive sackings. We will not tinker around the edges of the problem. We will launch an all-out attack on duplication and waste which is absolutely rife under this government.
Like the family I alluded to earlier, we will not penalise the innocent. The vast majority of middle- and lower-income earners come to work each day to receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. It is not their fault the government is reeling out of control, and I will not allow them to pay the price for it. I will personally ensure no pay or conditions will be eroded, or any compulsory redundancy visited upon any public servant earning $110 000 or less. This very important group is not only the engine room of our public sector, it is the backbone of our community.
However, I am not able to give a similar guarantee to the highly-rewarded senior executives within this sector. That is not to say there are no senior executives well and truly worth their salt – indeed, there are, and they know who they are. They have absolutely nothing to fear. In fact, I am aware of senior managers who are well and truly ready to accept greater responsibility in the Northern Territory.
I will move immediately to review all government expenditure where those programs do not offer direct services or benefits to business or the community. A prime example will be the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars wasted on public relations, media, or just plain political spin aimed primarily at the self-promotion of the minister or, even worse, the bureaucracy. This has to stop; we cannot afford it. Conversely, where services are being delivered which are of real benefit to the community such as health, education, and policing, they will be exempt from such cuts and, in some cases, will receive increases in funding for key services when they can be afforded.
Our second major initiative will be to increase government revenue. Once again, we will not follow the Labor model of increasing taxes and charges - your default position; the default position of the left. We are all sick to death of such impositions and, quite frankly, most families and businesses simply cannot afford it. No, we will achieve growth in revenue through growth in the private sector. Let us grow the private sector. This will not mean a wholesale sell-off of government assets, as has happened elsewhere. It does mean we will focus on private sector growth and diversification through wise investment, creativity, innovation, and strategic planning. This will certainly include partnerships with my government, if elected, on a win/win basis.
Profit, where earned, is not a dirty word. We simply have to move away, for example, from being a resource quarry for the rest of the world. We have a great future, we have great opportunities, but there are challenges. We are prepared to take those challenges full on.
We will not be a one-trick pony and rely exclusively on INPEX to carry us through, although, of course, we are very grateful to that company for priming the pump for our economy. We will look to a wide range of initiatives to value-add to our mineral and offshore activity which can provide skilled jobs to Territorians. We will provide the necessary stimulus to education and training to at least keep pace with those emerging needs.
As far back as the time of self-government, our first Chief Minister, Paul Everingham, recognised the tourism industry and its potential to grow our economy. Apart from the obvious direct benefits, this industry has the greatest multiplier effect in the creation and growth in employment opportunities across the community. Jobs of the widest possible skill sets - from students supplementing their income waiting on tables to senior and specialist executives in the highest quality establishments - could reach into every remote corner of the Territory. It is, therefore, quite astounding that tourism has declined every year since Labor took office, despite them spending around $0.5bn. They spent $0.5bn in that time. Spending, unfortunately, is something Labor is very good at, but value is where they strike out.
Previous CLP governments delegated the majority of decisions relating to tourism to the Tourism Commission, a body truly representative of the industry, which insisted on quality and value for money, especially in marketing and industry standards. Labor abolished the commission and replaced it with a toothless advisory body which has proved to be ineffective despite its best efforts, and ceded the decision-making powers of the bureaucracy. We will reinstate the commission and, with their input, do everything in our power to increase the diversity and breadth of the tourism product, which is the responsibility of government. This will include placing a higher priority, both in policy and resourcing, into highlighting and maintaining our incomparable parks to an international standard.
We will also move quickly to do all in our power to assist our struggling primary industry sector. Labor, both here and in Canberra, has all but decimated our burgeoning live cattle industry in the name of pandering to The Greens. We will be doing all we can, both in Canberra and by direct and meaningful relations with our Southeast Asian neighbours, to re-establish and strengthen these markets. This unique Territory industry needs to be given the opportunity to reposition itself as a key economic driver, most significantly for the regions.
We will place much more emphasis on our other food production industries. Although members opposite are totally cynical about the Territory’s potential to become a significant food bowl for the region we, on our side of the House, are not. We will immediately commence talks with both Canberra and Western Australia to resurrect the Territory component of the Ord River Scheme.
We will undertake a major assessment of our water resources with a view to both satisfying our long-term urban needs but also maximising the economic benefit and job creation which can flow from an effective use of water. Water is, potentially, the most valuable resource in the world, and those of us who are blessed with it should accept the responsibility to utilise it in the most economical, environmentally acceptable way.
My government will also have a major focus on planning and development. This will not be done by sacrificing our pristine natural environment or adversely affecting our unique lifestyle. We will create an independent planning commission comprised of the highest calibre and breadth of relevant industry experience we can gather. The commission will have the responsibility for the development and custodianship of town plans across the Northern Territory, including the essential role of earmarking land for future infrastructure development and transport corridors. The commission will also be the authority charged with the responsibility for assessing complex and sensitive development proposals.
That is not to say we do not value the work of the Development Consent Authority. In fact, that body does an excellent job under difficult policy and political constraints. We will work with them to continue this role with the vast majority of development proposals where compliance is the key assessment criteria. The commission will only become involved when merit and community benefits may be the overriding considerations. This, most likely, is to occur in the CBD where a formula-based assessment often restricts architects from providing design outcomes which may achieve a better outcome across the board.
Never before have Territorians been in so much debt, and with a bleak outlook on the debt front. This scandalous mismanagement of the Territory’s finances can be summed up in these simple facts. They do not talk much about the GST, unless it is threatened - and it is not threatened. It delivered more money to the Territory than at any other time in our history. Under Labor, that money has gone and been replaced with the biggest-ever debt in the history of the Northern Territory - that is it; as simple as that: the biggest drain on our public purse ever, and monumental amounts paid on interest.
To put this staggering financial mismanagement into some perspective, total interest payments across government in 2015-16 are estimated to be - and hear this - $406m interest repayments in 2015-16. That is double the amount this year. It will exhaust almost the entire taxation revenue expected to be raised in 2015-16. That is unsustainable. One thing is certain: it took Labor 10 years to get us to this uncertain and risky fiscal position, and Labor cannot get us out of it.
Madam Speaker, it is certainly time to change, and our future depends on it.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I will resume where I left off, which was about the BER, and the Auditor-General’s comments on it and the department’s and government’s management of it. I reiterate what I said before: Tony Abbott and the Liberal National Party in Canberra absolutely opposed the stimulus package including the BER. They ran a campaign against it in the media. Likewise, in the Northern Territory, the CLP did not support the BER. We had a motion before this parliament which was not supported by the CLP.
It comes down to ideology. We heard the ideology of the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply. It is all about what he calls fiscal management. If it was up to them, the stimulus package would never have occurred; it would never have been delivered by the federal Labor government. If the CLP had been in power in the Northern Territory, I doubt whether they would have accepted the $204m for upgrades in each primary school across the Northern Territory.
As I look across the primary schools in my electorate, and as I attend BER openings in Palmerston, or wherever it might be, I get a sense of excitement. I get a sense of accomplishment from the schools, the teaching staff, the principals but, most importantly, the school councils. They can all recognise the importance of a stimulus package. They can also recognise the importance of investment in infrastructure, and this is exactly the principal of what this government has done in its budget.
If you want to talk about responsibility and irresponsibility, it is demonstrated on your side, in spades, through your attitude to the BER. I have also noticed, as I have been to a number of BER openings, the presence of opposition members there smiling, nodding, congratulating, so ...
Mr Tollner: It is public money; it was not your money.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: ... there are double standards here ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Well, you are a gun for hire. You will say and do anything you can to keep your seat. That is what you are ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister well knows the rules pertaining to directly addressing members. Those rules exist so this sort of behaviour does not occur and diminish this House. I ask you to direct the minister to comply with standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you can just direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, of course I will.
The key findings of the Auditor-General in relation to DET’s performance management in relation to the BER program are as follows. He found that:
the systems put in place to monitor the program were necessary to satisfy the DEEWR information requirements. Nevertheless those systems were adequate
in terms of their ability to enable DET to monitor the progress of the BER;
States, Territories and the Commonwealth.
the DET’s objectives and performance measures in relation to BER program should have been clarified in the divisional operating plan;
more transparent reporting, including public disclosure, in relation to BER program was required;
information systems supporting the BER reporting could have been enhanced; and
findings from the midpoint review facilitated could have been addressed on a more timely basis.
The Auditor-General pointed out how the BER program basically happened. It happened very quickly, and it was incumbent on government to deliver these infrastructure works very quickly.
I remember well a meeting convened upstairs in the reception area in this Parliament House, which included business and public servants. I think it occurred on a Sunday, a day or so after the stimulus package was announced by the federal government, and all the major players in the construction industry were present - both companies and organisations. There were senior officials from Treasury and Construction and Infrastructure. The Chief Minister facilitated that particular meeting and an action plan was agreed upon that day.
All the people I have spoken to in industry since then agreed government acted swiftly, in collaboration and consultation with business, and the result was a great result for Territory business. There was over $204m of expenditure, both in government and non-government primary schools.
I have not really heard of any one of the particular projects within the Northern Territory that came to grief in any way. There was a comment, I believe, in a national audit undertaken of the BER program on the high cost of construction in our remote areas in the Northern Territory. We, in this House, are very aware of those particular aspects.
The Auditor-General commented:
That occurred in the Northern Territory. After the amount of negativity we heard from the opposition recently, I commend our public service in the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth officers they work with. I commend industry on the very important work it did in relation to the BER, delivering it in diverse situations across the Northern Territory.
He summarised some of the aims of the BER:
the Northern Territory. He talked about the process in regard to the procurement approach; that it built on our existing procurement processes through the Department of Construction and Infrastructure for the delivery of capital works projects. If the BER demonstrated anything, it was the capacity of our public servants and our processes to handle what really was a massive injection of funds - over $200m worth of funds - to be delivered in very quick time right across the Territory.
It also demonstrated the management at the individual school level because it was not just a matter of someone in Construction and Infrastructure saying: ‘We are going to put a library here or a covered outdoor learning area there’. This involved very close consultation with each and every individual school. All of us as members would be aware of school councils. Some of us attend school councils. I am told there are some members who do not attend, almost out of principle, their school council meetings, but that is a matter between them and their school councils. Most of us pride ourselves on the fact we attend as many school councils as we can. It was great to see those school councils, the parents, and the teachers, engaged in the discussion about infrastructure that was needed in their individual schools to cater for the educational needs of their students.
Each school has done it differently. Each school has done it according to what it required and its philosophy - not only the philosophy of the teachers, but also of the parents. There is a sense of delight I experience when I go to each and every BER opening.
There were quantity surveyors - and I was sitting next to a quantity surveyor today at the budget breakfast - and they have a very difficult task. They have to, sometimes, estimate a project that is not occurring for 12 months, in relation to materials and their delivery in quite remote areas. They do a fantastic job. There was a quite stringent focus on value for money and, as was said here:
There was quite an element of ruthlessness to get value for money out of this very important expenditure by the Commonwealth government.
Turning to page 41, you can see the scale of the projects within the Northern Territory. It is not only the BER, it is also the National School Pride expenditure which, from memory, was expenditure up to $200 000. The number of projects in the Northern Territory totalled 293, which was in government and non-government schools. The non-government and the Catholic sector used the government systems to actually assist them with delivery of this project. The message I received from the Catholic sector, in particular, is they are quite satisfied with the delivery of those projects.
There were 293 projects across the Northern Territory and, as of August 2011, 275 of those were completed, with 18 in progress, and 94% complete. That is a wonderful testament to all those players I mentioned before: the departments. The Education Department, the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, and Treasury were very closely involved at all stages, monitoring the progress, the expenditure and, of course, the schools themselves.
The department has learnt by this particular process and I quote from their response:
The BER funding was also reported in the relevant years in Budget Paper No 4, which is the publication for accountability and transparency of the infrastructure program. Reflecting, I suppose I am still thinking about what was said prior to this debate. This government is very focused on transparency and the integrity of our reporting system.
That is why we, as a government when we came into power in 2001, brought in the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, because there was a whole series of very obscure things that members who were on the Public Accounts Committee, at the time, can well remember. They were around CLP budget processes, particularly in the last budget they handed down before the 2001 election, where things were inflated for ‘presentational purposes’ to make it look as though there had been increases in expenditure in education, health, and police.
Well do I remember that, and the feeling of relief and pride I felt when, as a government, we introduced and passed the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act which, essentially, means coming into an election process all the figures of government have to be made known so the public can make decisions based on the policies of the two parties in their expenditure and what effects their expenditure is going to have on the bottom line.
Well do I remember talk of a black hole. The whole reason why the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act was brought into this parliament and passed by the Clare Martin government in those early days, was a very black hole that emerged within the CLP’s last budget before they lost power in 2001. From memory, it was $130m …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: They like to deny it still ...
Mr Elferink: You made the decision, you fool!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: You are the one who brought back the black hole!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: They did not ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause, Leader of Government Business.
Member for Port Darwin, I remind you of the very standing order you raised some 15 minutes ago about directing your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr Elferink: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you also remind him …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, no. That is a frivolous point of order. Order!
Mr Elferink: … about the obligation to tell the truth in this House, because he is not doing it ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat! Resume your seat immediately. Leader of Government Business, you have the call.
Dr BURNS: Well, you could do it by substantive motion if you like. I would welcome that debate.
Mr Elferink: Would you like me to?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I would certainly bring out ...
Mr Elferink: Would you like to spend the rest of lunch dealing with it?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You do not have the call, member for Port Darwin!
Dr BURNS: I would certainly bring out all the evidence of the Public Accounts Committee at that time, and the debates that occurred at that time ...
Mr Elferink: Stacked by you mob to get the solutions you wanted.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: ... regarding the $130m black hole that existed ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting!
Mr Elferink: He should start telling the truth.
Dr BURNS: ... within the last CLP budget. He does not like to hear about it, but I remember ...
Mr Elferink: No, I just want you to tell the truth!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I remember it well …
Mr Elferink: You have an obligation to tell the truth!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: ... beyond doubt about what happened in ...
Mr Elferink: You are being dishonest!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I remind you of Standing Order 51. You are on a warning, thank you.
Dr BURNS: I got a bit of a response there ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member’s time has expired; he should sit down.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, your time has expired.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 11 The Essington School Legal Studies students, accompanied by Miss Mali Grossman. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am going to respond to the comments by the Leader of Government Business more than I am to the Auditor-General in the first part of my contribution here today. I listened with great care to the Leader of Government Business and the way he banged on about the BER, and how anybody who turned up to a BER launch was automatically a hypocrite if they were from this side of the House. What arrant nonsense! That is the usual tripe he trawls out because the shallow husk left behind of the well-intentioned minister as he limps towards his retirement is engaged in nothing more than doing the Labor Party’s nasty work so everybody else on that side of the House can be washed clean.
I do not believe he believes half the things he says in this House. Behind the scenes he will say: ‘I am only doing my job’. If that is what he thinks his job is, then he has lost his way. Our job is to work for the - goodness gracious, we say a prayer every morning in this House - true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. I find it disappointing the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory, from the Leader of Government Business’ perspective, is nothing than more sitting in his ivory tower sniping at the passing innocents who happen to be walking by.
This business about the BER exposes two things. First, yes, I have been to a BER launch. I was unsure if it was a BER launch at the time I was invited along but, clearly, it was. The argument has always been run from the other side of the House that we needed to go into debt to save the Australian economy. However, some of the BER projects were being rolled out long after it was realised in Canberra the underwriting of the economy was not as necessary as originally thought.
I do not hear the minister making other comments about what was being done when the federal government was rolling out $200bn worth of debt, with another potential $100bn on the credit card, with the gift of $900 to everyone who paid tax in the last few years - or whatever the arrangement was. That went more to paying off existing credit cards for money that already had been spent, and for consumer goods which helped protect jobs in China - not in Australia. I did not hear a whisper about that from the Leader of Government Business.
He, basically, banged on about how dreadful it was that the CLP members had the audacity to turn up to these functions. We welcome new schools. What it also enabled governments to do was set aside some of the money they had reserved for building educational infrastructure and spend it somewhere else, using the BER money to underwrite the school infrastructure. Of course, it was welcomed by Labor governments at the time. However, I still remain critical of the logic behind the so-called necessity for this thing.
The only difference between Santa Claus and a Labor government is the Labor government actually exists. The problem is also when a Labor government dishes out the gifts, what they have not and do not mention - and they continue to not mention - is someone has to pay the piper. What is so hard about the logic that they suddenly use the word ‘responsible’ in relation to a spending decision and, therefore, it is right?
I will quote the federal Treasurer, Wayne Swan, in relation to matters surplus:
That was reported on 17 April this year.
If the federal Treasurer thinks anything other than a surplus is nuts, then what is this government doing? According to the federal Treasurer, what the government is engaging in is, essentially, lunacy. I am unimpressed with a minister who has had his day in the sun, slithering into this House, trotting out old arguments, when he should be working for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
The Auditor-General has made his usual careful examination of various issues. What is missing in this report - it is not mentioned in this report specifically but it is touched on - is the security of government computer systems. I am somewhat concerned about the security of government systems. Over the last few reports the Auditor-General has presented to this place, the security of various government systems has been a consistent theme.
Every government department, according to Treasurer’s Directions, should now have an audit committee in place that meets four quarters a year. Part of that auditing process those audit committees should have must include a review of things such as computer security systems. I find it disturbing that throughout government, time and time again, the Auditor-General finds shortcomings in the security of our computer systems. The fixes to some of these issues are very simple, indeed. It could be something as simple as locking a door or making sure that passwords are not sticky taped to the sides of the machines, and those sorts of things. However, I find it a consistent theme that seems to be coming out of the Auditor-General’s reports; that computer systems continue to be vulnerable.
I am concerned about that. Systems such as TRIM, which are used by the Northern Territory government for all sorts of purposes but, also, I understand, document storage for things such as preparations for the Estimates process, have certain weaknesses to them. I wonder if that is the reason the government has determined it is necessary to start transferring certain documents from the TRIM system and putting out instructions, as I understand it, that those documents are now to be lodged on the SharePoint system.
I am curious as to why the government is making those requests of public servants. Is there a problem with TRIM? Is there a problem with TRIM that there is some component to it that means certain documents cannot be stored on the TRIM system? What is the advantage of SharePoint over TRIM? I would like to hear that explained by the minister with carriage of technological issues in response to this debate, because it seems to be an odd instruction.
TRIM, as a system, has been around for quite some time, and has been a useful system. I am just curious as to why TRIM, all of a sudden, is being seen - if what I am being told is correct - as a system which is in some way vulnerable to something. I would like to hear an explanation from government as to what the vulnerability of TRIM is, and exactly what SharePoint is. I have never heard of SharePoint, but I am sure it is one of the new whiz-bang systems around. It probably has advantages over TRIM I do not know. However, I would like to hear some explanation from the government in relation to why SharePoint is a preferred system, if indeed, they are instructing their public servants to store information on SharePoint, particularly in relation to the Estimates process, rather than on TRIM.
The theme continues. If you look through the Department of Business and Employment, you will notice the Auditor-General made some comments in relation to the billing and payment system. It said the system is able to fulfil its objectives, but there are opportunities to improving system controls. Again, this theme of a weakness in the departmental system controls are an ongoing problem the Auditor-General pursues.
The Jabiru Town Development Authority is an ongoing problem. I was under the impression - but, clearly, I am wrong – that the whole thing was written off about four or five years ago. I am looking at the member for Nelson here to see if he can indicate whether I was wrong or right. I am getting the shrugging of shoulders. I believe this House and government, and everybody, has long accepted the odd - what is it? - $8m that is attached to the Jabiru Town Development Authority is a write-off. As far as I understood, it had been written off the books some time ago, so I was surprised to see a reference from the Auditor-General to it. Perhaps it is my memory which has decayed somewhat.
I am also interested in the NT Build observations by the Auditor-General. This raises the issue I have so often seen around the traps; that is, the you-beaut programs run by government. They have a program or policy for absolutely every occasion. I am surprised we do not actually have an appropriate checklist to follow now if we go to the toilet, from first advance to the porcelain to the final washing of hands, which has to be then filled out in triplicate and supplied to the appropriate department.
The portability of a long service scheme in the construction industry, introduced by Syd Stirling, if memory serves me, in about 2002, has now seen a substantial amount of money go into the scheme. As predicted at the time by members on this side of the House, the contributions have been made - and they have been another burden on business - but there seems to be almost no one - well, that is not correct; I will rephrase that - there is only a small percentage of people actually touching the scheme itself. Levy contributions for the year 2010-11 were $9.9m; the benefit paid out from the scheme was $0.5m. At the moment, based on that logic - and if that is a consistent set of numbers - there is now a reasonable argument to essentially argue for the levy on business to be reduced substantially - actually to a factor of 20 times, as $0.5m is essentially 1/20th of $10m.
I ask the government to turn its attention to that and bring in the appropriate amendments. The burden on businesses has been just another burden. At the time the argument was run that it was only a small burden, but those burdens from every one of these new decisions by government to protect rights and do other things like that, have done nothing to protect the rights of businesses to go about their business. It turns out this cost impost, some would argue - I would argue tax - on businesses is now producing far too great an income than the drawdown. What will, effectively, happen is eventually the contents of that trust account, for a lack of better words, will become too tempting for the avaricious eyes of government. Will that money ever find its way back to the businesses that paid the tax? I suspect not.
The Power and Water Corporation continues to be of concern to me. Should I become the Treasurer of the Northern Territory if certain dominoes were to fall in place and that were to occur, as the potential shareholder of the Power and Water Corporation, I still have some concerns about its financial position. I met with the Board of the Power and Water Corporation today and listened to what they had to say. I am concerned that after 11 years of being a government-owned corporation, the corporation still continues to develop into a corporation at an almost tectonic pace. I am worried the expectations on the corporation by government will place the corporation in a difficult situation. Some steps need to be taken to resolve some of those issues.
I make no comment about the Territory Insurance Office. I have spoken to the representatives from the insurance office in the recent past, and I am satisfied - without reference to the Auditor-General’s report at all - the organisation is running well. I pause briefly to congratulate Richard Harding. He put much work into restructuring the organisation which has placed the organisation in an excellent position. I wish it well in the future.
Territory wildlife parks are government business divisions. Neither is performing, certainly in a financial sense. Both the wildlife parks - the one in the Top End at least, is looking a little tired. Government has to start thinking about how it is going to respond to the Auditor-General’s comments. I have heard no comments in relation to it at this point. I was not here for the whole of the debate when the motion was introduced – have we debated this prior to today? No, we have not. I saw the Minister for Parks and Wildlife on his feet; I was not entirely sure whether it was in relation to this or not. Clearly, whoever is in government, the wildlife parks will present the Territory government with some important issues.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am not going to talk about the financial position of the Northern Territory here and now simply because it is going to be hashed and rehashed between now and June ad nauseam. The Auditor-General made some observations about it. I remain concerned about the fragile nature of the Territory’s budget and budgetary status, and I hope and pray whoever forms a government after the next Territory election, it will turn its mind to the containment of the issues facing our budget, because the idea of paying more than $1m every day in interest is not something that rests well with me. I can tell you, it is a threshold issue which will not rest well with many people out there in taxpayer land.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will talk on two areas of the Auditor-General’s report. One is the section on the TIO. I recall, some years ago when Mr Syd Stirling was the Treasurer, there was a campaign, the slogan of which was ‘TIO not for sale’. The member for Brennan was involved in that, and I had some influence in that area from the point of view of trying to gather support from the community to ensure TIO was not sold. It is really pleasing to see in the Auditor-General’s report he said:
Much of that stems back to the management of Richard Harding:
He went on to say:
I believe that is great news. All those people across the Territory who signed those petitions to retain the TIO were validated, and this report shows it. There were, I suppose, issues about the management and the future of TIO in the early 2000s, but I believe the government made the right decision by reversing what it was going to do; to sell off TIO. They changed their minds. As I said before, with people like Richard Harding at the helm, the future for TIO is looking good.
Of course, any insurance company will have its ups and downs; that is the business it is in. When you have a cyclone or some other disaster, obviously, money has to be spent. There will be times when there are no disasters and less money required and then the financial side of TIO improves. It really was good to hear from the Auditor-General that TIO is going well. To all those people who made the effort to sign the petitions and tell the government we did not want to lose all those Territory families or a Territory company, all the effort put in has come to fruition.
The other area I will talk about is the Territory Wildlife Park. The member for Port Darwin mentioned it. It does not look particularly good. The Auditor-General made a note:
There is no doubt there has been a drop-off in the number of people who have gone to the Territory Wildlife Park - I am referring to the one in the Top End. It may be due to quite a number of reasons. The government has to work out the future of this park. When it first started it was extremely popular. In fact, I was offered a job by Russell Anderson - the CEO of Litchfield Council at the moment - to work there. When I was on Litchfield Council I was involved, at least from the point of view of being informed of what was happening by the then park director, whose name I cannot remember - he came from New Zealand - who set up the park as we see it today, although there have been some changes since then.
The government really needs to work out whether this should be a GBD. Basically, GBDs are supposed to make a profit. The problem is if you do not allow the business to operate like a business, it is very hard for it to make a profit. One example is the Territory Wildlife Park has to lease its cars from NT Fleet. It does not have the ability to go somewhere else in the private market and say: ‘Would you do a deal for us with our vehicles?’ It is stuck with a fixed process which, from a business point of view, is not really competitive. If you have to get your cars from one place only, you are dealing with a monopoly and that makes it very difficult for a business to operate.
You do not see much promotion of the park these days. That may be because they simply do not have the money. I will have to have another look, but I am sure there are still three signs on the highway which promote the Territory Wildlife Park. They used to have those great three dimensional signs with the python, but the pythons kept getting stolen - someone has stolen pythons at home. Unfortunately, the uniqueness of those signs was the attraction for people to take parts off the signs. We have signs now, but they certainly are not as attractive as the original signs.
We have to ask how much the government has invested in the Territory Wildlife Park. Last time I was there, there were buildings with white ants in them and you could not go into them because they were dangerous. Has the government kept up the maintenance and improvements in the park to make it an attraction? I am not sure it has. Therefore, you have to ask the government: ‘Have you put enough money in, or are you simply relying on the concept of being a government business division so the park will make its own way?’ Unfortunately, if you look at the Auditor-General’s report, you will see, of course, it is losing money.
If you throw in things such as the 3% dividend efficiency requirement, you end up losing positions. If places such as the wildlife park are to meet those efficiencies – well, they just do not replace staff. If they are getting behind in the budget, if a staff member leaves they do not replace that person. This also does not help the running of the park; it affects morale. It will be interesting to see what the morale of staff at our wildlife park is, especially if they know some buildings need maintenance and the numbers of people visiting are dropping off, and tightening budgets means some of the programs they want to run are not being run as well as they should be. That does not do anything for morale.
If staff have ideas about how to make the park run, are those ideas listened to? Can the park be opened up in the evening for dinners? It used to be once a upon a time; I am not so sure it is done now. I remember being part of a Christmas party there for the community from Berry Springs. Are those sorts of things still happening? I do not know.
Animals which are not native to the Northern Territory used to be resident in the park. They had banteng, Timor ponies I think, buffalo, pigs, and wallaroos. They do not appear to be in that park anymore. One of the great attractions is to have wallaroos, members of the kangaroo family, because, for many of our international visitors, it would be one of their first opportunities to see those animals close up. However, it did not quite fit within the new philosophy or thinking of the park and, so, there are empty exhibits - the buffalo are not there anymore. I am not sure whether they had donkeys. Those animals which were not native were, basically, removed from the park because they did not seem to fit into the management view of how the park should be run.
You can get a little too fundamentalist. People come to a park; you want them to come through the front door. You can show them Australian native animals, and there is nothing wrong with showing other animals species which have lived in the Northern Territory for a long time, which are very much part of the Territory history. It was a shame to see those animals removed.
Of course, this park is not just a tourist park, it also has a certain amount of wildlife research. In fact, a friend of mine who worked in the aquarium section of this park is going back there soon for a contract period because they do research into wildlife at the park. However, that research is also spread over a number of places. The question is: why do you not make the Territory Wildlife Park the centre of wildlife research? That, in itself, will boost the knowledge which would come from that park, and give it a higher rating; then it is just not a tourist park but a place of learning, education, and science. If more could be done to bring as much of the wildlife research to the park - which is a very large park, by the way; it is over 400 acres of land - that would contribute to, perhaps, increasing the number of people who visit the park.
Another area which could be looked at is speeding up the bituminising of the Litchfield Park loop road. There is some money in the budget for another 6 km. The road is being slowly bituminised. There will have to be some sort of bridge across the Finniss River. However, if the main group of tourists who travel into this area go to Bachelor, Litchfield Park, turn around and go back out via Batchelor to Darwin, they avoid that gravel section of the road which goes right past the Territory Wildlife Park. If that loop was completed, then there is a fair chance you would increase the number of tourists who could, after travelling to Litchfield Park, drop in to the wildlife park on the way home. There are opportunities to increase the numbers of people.
We also do not have a public bus service there. I have said for many years you could combine a public bus service for the people of Berry Springs with a bus service to the wildlife park. The government allows a public bus to go to Crocodylus Park, which is private land. Obviously, they do that to help boost the numbers of people going to that important tourist facility. Why do they not do it for Berry Springs? You could include it as part of a public bus service for that area, allowing people from Berry Springs to catch the bus to Humpty Doo, Palmerston, or into Darwin. At the same time, you could pick up people who do not have a vehicle who would like to take the public bus service to the wildlife park. I have said that for many years. I am not sure whether the government is concerned about the private companies.
If this facility was both a tourist and a wildlife research facility, then it should be entitled to government support as is given to other facilities.
Of course, it is the competition that has probably reduced numbers - from Crocodylus Park and Crocosaurus. Today, a tourist does not have to travel 50 km down the track to see some of these animals such as crocodiles. In the case of Crocodylus Park, you can see lions and all sorts of creatures. It is very easy for people to get to those facilities than to travel to the wildlife park. The government has to make up its mind: you either close this park down or you invest. Do you say it is worth operating as a government facility with a certain amount of commercial activity, or close it down? I believe that is where we are at this moment.
Personally, I would hate to see it close down. It fulfils a role the other parks do not. The other parks tend to be more ‘in your face’ with the bigger animals. If you go to the wildlife park, you see many small fish of the aquarium size, larger fish, and animals more in their natural state in comparison with the other parks - which are in big pools of water you can see into; they are very artificial and more zoo-like. The Territory Wildlife Park is in a far more natural setting and a lot more in keeping with what you would think a wildlife park should be. The government really has to sit down with some people who have a bit of vision, and are willing to look at ideas about how we could attract more people.
This is not the only place which has reducing visitor numbers. The Desert Wildlife Park is worse than the Territory Wildlife Park. We have an issue for the Desert Wildlife Park also.
The government has a deficit. It needs to make a decision: does it continue losing money on this particular wildlife park, or does it invest in such a way it will boost the numbers again, and make it attractive? Will it advertise that it exists? Will it put in a public bus service? Will it finish the Litchfield loop road? Will it become a centre for scientific research? Will it fix up many buildings which are below standard? If you are going to have something you think is worth selling, you have to put the money in, you have to go out and sell it, and you have to get excited about it. I do not hear much excitement about the Territory Wildlife Park anymore, except at certain times of the year.
We used to have ‘adopt an animal’. I adopted a sea eagle once upon a time. I even wanted to adopt a one-eyed sea eagle once upon a time, but we will not go into that ...
Ms Purick: Not the blind one!
Mr WOOD: A semi-visually impaired sea eagle, if you do not mind. I need the truth to come out in parliament as there is much exaggeration here from time to time.
There were programs where businesses could sponsor animals. What happened to that program? Gone!
The government really has to make up its mind: are we full-on supporting our wildlife parks, or are we just going to let them go down the path of a slow death? Personally, I believe you have to make the effort; they are worth keeping. They are great educational facilities, they can be even better - school kids love going out there. You have to make it a reasonable price so you do not inhibit families because of the price to enter. You can make it attractive. I believe you can make it work. It will not be my decision, it will be the government’s decision. It needs to say what its vision is for our wildlife parks, and what it is going to do. I do not see anything in the budget which says it is going to do anything.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, if government members want to go to the next election and tell people what their vision is, they should put the wildlife parks on their agenda, and say whether they are going to close them or move on and make them better places.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will address some of the statements made by the member for Johnston during this debate, specifically in relation to the BER. The member for Johnston has stated, basically, any opposition member who went to a BER opening is a hypocrite ...
Dr Burns: I never said that.
Mr STYLES: Oh, that is what I have. I was not actually here for that part of the debate, but my colleagues tell me he said it. I will check Hansard as soon as we can get a copy. Irrespective of that, the comments have been made previously about a number of members on this side, me included, going along and supporting the opening of the BER facilities at a particular school.
The member for Johnston is actually the Minister for Education and Training. I just wonder if he actually realises who his target market is. His target market is actually kids - young people in the Territory who go to school to get an education. I attended the BER opening at Wulagi Primary School the member for Johnston mentioned previously. I was very proud to be there and I took a great deal of video footage of the kids on behalf of the school. I sent that to the school to distribute to the kids so they have a record of a particular performance they gave for that opening.
It is about young people. I hear the minister continually reminding us in this House of the government’s policy, Every Child, Every Day. That should give him some indication as to who he is actually supposedly representing. It is about those young people, and recognising the effort they put in.
At any of the debates, assemblies, or the classrooms I have visited at schools in my electorate and, in fact, at Wulagi - I do not think the BER has been a topic of discussion by the young people who gave the performance at the BER opening at Wulagi Primary School the member for Johnston was speaking about.
Those kids were told by teachers and, obviously, the senior people in the school there was an occasion, an opening. I do not know whether all those kids fully understood what it was about. I feel confident most of them do not understand the politics of what is going on between the Australian government and the Territory government. However, they did do as they were asked. They were asked to put on a performance that befitted the opening of a new section of their school, and that is exactly what they did. It was an excellent performance; something I enjoyed. Everyone was happy. I believe even the government people who were there enjoyed the performance as well. It was a performance by kids for a specific opening and an occasion. Those young people probably were not aware of the exact nature of that particular opening. It was a great thing.
I went along, not because I necessarily agreed with the BER, but to support the young people. They had put an enormous amount of work into the performances. There were a number of performances, a number of songs that were sung, and they worked very hard. For anyone who has a leadership role to snub those young people in that electorate because they do not agree with something most of those young people do not understand, I believe would be creating a bad impression for those young people to whom we are trying to set an example.
For the member for Johnston to call us hypocrites for supporting the very people he is supposed to be supporting and representing – it is appalling he would draw that conclusion. We can have the arguments about the BER in this House and in the newspapers, but when you are going along to support young people in schools and recognising the hard work and effort they put into their performance for an occasion, it is appalling the member for Johnston thinks we are all hypocrites. I suggest he needs to look at himself in the mirror.
While I am on the subject of the BER, I remind the minister of one occasion where they got it totally wrong. There are many, and I have spoken about this before, but it is appropriate for me to remind the minister.
Ngukurr has quite a number of basketball courts now. I do not know whether the minister has been there. If he has, he certainly did not pull the curtains open in the school, because behind the curtains you will find broken windows. If you go into other areas of the school you will find there are things that really need to be replaced so young people can have a reasonable facility. What did they get? They got another basketball court. They had basketball courts; now they have another one. I am led to believe this is the fourth basketball court built at Ngukurr. Did the minister or the federal people listen to parents, principals, teachers or staff? I do not know whether they did or not. The people and students there did not get some of the very basic infrastructure improved or built so they could enjoy the full amenities of their school.
Where did they build the basketball court? Smack bang in the quadrangle of the school is my information. I have not been to Ngukurr since that was built; I had been there once prior to that. I am reliably informed the basketball court is in the quadrangle. Sadly, teachers are saying they have kids in classrooms looking out the window all day watching other kids play basketball. These are just some of the issues.
The other thing the member for Johnston raised in his debate was the fact he attends school council meetings. I concur with him, he does. We have a shared electorate and every school council meeting I attend, he attends. We both go along; we have an interest. However, it is our responsibility to listen to the principals, teachers, staff, and parents to give them the amenities they believe are the most important for their young people.
Sadly, there were a number of occasions where the member for Johnston has not listened and people have received something they did not need, did not want, or did not suit the highest priority of the school council. They were told: ‘This is what you will be getting’, etcetera. I am assuming, although grateful for something, some people did not get what they believed was the highest priority infrastructure item the school and the school community needed.
It is about listening to people. I hope the member might think again about calling anyone who turns up to these functions hypocrites. It is about supporting young people, young Territorians, and giving them the confidence that leaders in the community believe what they are doing is important. We should stop doing the things we believe are important and show them we are here to support them. We want them to be recognised as young people who contribute to the Territory and, in the future, will contribute to the Territory lifestyle.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, while the member for Sanderson checks on his, ‘He said that she said that you said that I said’, I will respond to the BER debate.
However, the debate is around the Auditor-General’s report. I will start by acknowledging the Auditor-General, his office, and his staff for the incredible work they do providing that open and accountable system for government. I first met the Auditor-General when I arrived in this House in 2008 and was appointed to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. Needing to do my research thoroughly and to learn quickly on my feet, I went to people I could learn from. The Auditor-General was a great help - an extremely professional person – in training me on how to conduct myself in my position as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
It was after that I was honoured to be sworn into Cabinet. Unfortunately, I did not see so much of the Auditor-General other than now, at the other side of the business, where he and his team look at departments I work with, and provide a report to this House on the systems we operate, our accountability, our efficiencies, and provide great advice to me, as the minister, and the departments on how to do things better.
In the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, the report covers the Construction Division undertaking the project management of the government’s capital works and repairs and maintenance programs. The host agency is the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, and the audit for the year ended 30 June 2011 resulted in an unqualified, independent audit opinion which was issued on 17 October 2011. The audit did not identify any material weaknesses in controls.
The Construction Division surplus before income tax for 2010-11 was $1.424m, compared to a figure of $4.57m for the prior year. The decline was largely due to the reduced number of projects managed during the year. That takes me to the Building the Education Revolution projects, because the Department of Construction and Infrastructure was integral in developing what has been the best infrastructure investment in the Northern Territory in the past 30 years.
I can speak from experience. I am not going to go down the ‘he said that she said that you said that I said’ role. I am going to speak from experience. What the member for Johnston outlined to this House was the fundamental difference in political policy. I have been in this House since 2008 - a newcomer - but I have spent a great deal of time on my feet and in my seat representing the Barkly and learning the roles and responsibilities of this place.
I remember clearly the attacks from the other side, trotting out the liberalist theories coming straight out of Canberra. I remember clearly where the member for Braitling was even describing the construction of a McDonald store as a failed educational infrastructure project. The construction of a McDonald store - flippant, irresponsible, just purely focused on making mischief; complete media spin. The member for Sanderson comes in here and talks about ‘how dare we denigrate any student activity’. Well, if we want to talk about the word ‘hypocrite’, the member for Sanderson needs to talk to some of his colleagues and get a dictionary out and find out the meaning.
The Building the Education Revolution throughout the bush is just amazing when you see what targeted education infrastructure has done for improving educational outcomes. Let us talk about Ngukurr and the example from the member for Sanderson, where there is ‘a basketball court plonked in the middle of a quadrangle’. Let me deconstruct the actual infrastructure you are theorising about. My first question is: does it have a roof? Is it really a multipurpose facility? I go around now and see kids in the bush protected from the sun and using these facilities, not only for basketball, but for assemblies and organised activities. I was in Borroloola last week, and there were a number of teachers running structured, physical activities, and they were under cover. They were, as part of their planned program, delivering real educational outcomes. It is a far cry from my time in the Territory as a teacher, in silver bullet caravans - at one place next to the rubbish dump.
We do not like to talk about the CLP. We are criticised when we talk about the CLP and the history of the Territory. So, let us get positive about the CLP. They took over the Territory in 1978 with self-government, and they inherited considerable capital investment from the Commonwealth. They were building schools ...
Mr Styles: And debt!
Mr McCARTHY: From the Commonwealth? Listen, member for Sanderson ...
Mr Styles: Absolutely, go back and check your records.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: Listen, member for Sanderson, I am talking about self–government in 1978 ...
Mr Styles: That is right. Inherited the debt.
Mr McCARTHY: I am talking about what you do not understand. You were building schools in those days because I was in one of them. It was a Canberra-designed, Canberra-built school in Tennant Creek, and it was a great school. By the way, a member of your administration closed it. That was a bit unfortunate; it was a great school. Pity about the architecture too; it did not quite work out. If you want to talk about infrastructure that is not appropriate for the school needs - we will not go back and talk about Canberra schools implanted on the Territory under the Country Liberal Party administration. We will talk about they were good places because we made them good places – until, of course, Kargaru school was closed by the CLP government. I am not rewriting anything. You do not have to check the Parliamentary Record for this; I lived through it.
As a member of parliament, I go around the Northern Territory to see the best investment in educational infrastructure across the board, not only in our superb urban schools, but also our dynamic regional and remote schools across the Territory - building the regions. I see places such as Minyerri which has multipurpose facilities - basketball, performing arts, structured areas for health and physical education programs, assembly areas - places that are welcoming of parents and the school community.
Yes, I see a broken window from time to time. I have run schools for 30 years and windows do get broken. Do you know what, member for Sanderson? The government provides you with the repairs and maintenance budget to fix them. That is the way it works and it is not a problem. It is not a problem at all. Do you know what? It employs people and there are jobs out of it.
We will move on because you do not want to get dragged down into the negativities of members opposite who want to trot out that liberalist spin. I do say be careful of what you say. When you have members on that side who want to continually run down the BER program, compare construction of important educational infrastructure to McDonald stores, then it is about the pot calling the kettle black.
I will also talk about the Auditor-General’s report regarding the Darwin Bus Service. The audit findings and analysis of the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2011 have shown the Darwin Bus Service as a government business division which is audited, and has been audited, on an annual basis. The audit of the Darwin Bus Service for the year ended 30 June 2011 resulted in an unqualified independent audit opinion which was issued on the 10 October 2011. The audit did not identify any material weaknesses in controls. In the performance, the financial position of the Darwin Bus Service continues to be sound with nett assets increasing by $262 000 in the 2010-11 financial year.
I comment on that as well in relation to the Henderson government and its policy of free bus travel for students, seniors, and carers. Let us focus on students because the members for Sanderson and Port Darwin talked about the Building the Education Revolution. We will link that to the running of a public bus service in the Territory, where a government went out of its way to provide extra subsidies for parents and extra support for families, and encourages another important link in the chain for school attendance and engagement and participation; that is, free travel for students. We are very proud of that. The Treasurer has outlined in Budget 2012-13 existing subsidies and further subsidies which are being rolled out to support Territory families.
The member for Port Darwin was interesting - one of the bigger hitters on the other side. He is a person people listen to. I found his comment very interesting where he said possibly the fiscal stimulus package within the Commonwealth government’s plan was not needed, or it was not needed in its entirety, or maybe it was only needed a little. I found that amazing because the member for Port Darwin normally does not do things by halves - he says it or he does not say it. He looked a bit shaky on that ground.
I remind the member for Port Darwin that the Australian government, in its fiscal stimulus strategy - which was to protect jobs, build jobs, and deliver the legacy of a Labor government in targeted strategic public infrastructure - did not do things by halves with the BER. It went into the most remote parts of Australia, into the big end of town, and delivered infrastructure which was appropriate and negotiated with school communities. You will find people who will go on the media and make complaints, but that is the nature of a democracy and what we celebrate here: our freedom of speech. Of course, the media pick up on any opportunities they can. They have their job, they love to create conflict, they like to sell newspapers and attract listeners and a television audience. However, at the end of the day, we are talking about the Northern Territory and targeted educational infrastructure which was negotiated with school communities and has been rolled out across the length and breadth of the Northern Territory. I am glad to say a stimulus fiscal plan from the Australian government was not a little stimulus fiscal plan, it was a sensational plan when you see the results and the legacy of social and public infrastructure across our school communities.
It was a period of great joy for me to attend a few openings. I missed a few because I work on a patch that is one-and-a-half times the size of Victoria. It was always wonderful to go into schools after the completion of these construction projects and share with the school communities just what that infrastructure has added. It was good to sit down and talk about the memories, about the days under the Country Liberal Party where I operated schools in the bush in 40 ft caravans which were manufactured in Victoria. I debated and I lobbied against an administration which had a policy of no secondary education for remote communities. We can discuss history, and I love Territory history. I have only been a very short part of it, just over 30 years, more than half of my life. I enjoy talking about it in this House when anybody has the audacity to try to defend what has been now nearly four years of absolute diatribe from people on the other side who talk rot and want to walk away with no responsibility.
I understand the public record. I came into this job with a very serious attitude to representing the people of the Barkly and I maintain that. Unlike the CLP, I would not, for a minute, place a great deal of the tripe on the public record of this House. Unfortunately, it is coming back to haunt those on the other side. What you sow, you shall reap, so they say. I am not sure how an opposition does business, but I have learnt, in this term of parliament, the Eleventh Assembly, how not to do business as an opposition, that is for sure.
I encourage members opposite, in what is the last sittings for this term of parliament - other than the Estimates Committee, and we will come back for a last day to pass the Appropriation Bill - to reflect on those last four years and seriously think about what is on the public record. I will be encouraging Territorians for generations to come to read about the Eleventh Assembly, because I will be able to give them a running commentary, having done a live show - I was here, I witnessed it. I sit here regularly as a government member, and listen carefully and watch. Just as I learnt from the Auditor-General - and I thank him for his support and the lessons he provided where I needed it early in this job - those others would be very welcome to share in those lessons any time. A bit of self-reflection always goes a long way.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the Auditor-General’s report. I thank him for delivering the report which we accept with great importance. It advises us, it guides us, and it represents the open and accountable nature of our government.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the Treasurer’s budget statement for 2012 delivered in the House yesterday. The Treasurer made no bones about the fact that this has been a tough budget to put together. However, we know this is a responsible budget which aims to help and support families, build on opportunities for businesses and, most importantly, keep people in jobs as we gear up for growth. We are now entering in this phase of unprecedented growth in major projects such as INPEX having been secured in January of this year.
Around the world, we see countries struggling to recover from the global financial crisis. Australia, as we know, has fared far better than most and, indeed, the Northern Territory has fared way better than other jurisdictions. This is because the Australian government’s response to the global financial crisis was a fiscal strategy designed to create jobs through the economic stimulus package, which meant capital spending on infrastructure.
We also know it is because of the good management of the Northern Territory government and the sensible policy around forming budgets and how we spend money which has supported growth and kept people in jobs. We will continue to see the benefit of that spend in Budget 2012-13, with $1.3bn for infrastructure which will support and build on the thousands - I believe the Treasurer said 13 000 jobs - which have been created in the Northern Territory since the global financial crisis hit.
Keeping people in jobs is absolutely critical. If we ask families if they want a budget surplus or a job, we can be fairly certain how they will respond. Of course people want a job. People I talk with tell me they are not interested in deficits or surpluses but, most importantly, they are interested in jobs. It is all about jobs and it is what goes to the heart of what the Labor Party, quite literally, stands for: Labor means jobs.
Despite that fact, this is a tough budget but we still see a record spend across the key areas of education, health and safety. The record spend in education of $950m will benefit students across the Territory. It is certainly a long way from the $350m, or thereabouts, which was the budget in 2001 which we inherited from the CLP.
We have heard the commitment from the Treasurer and the Education minister that the Budget 2012-13 investment includes just over $6m to support reengagement and positive behaviour initiatives and $9.86m for special education infrastructure as part of a $30m program over five years for our kids with special needs. There is also an ongoing commitment to support our hard-working teachers of $3.87m, with professional development with evidence-based literacy and numeracy methodology, and funding also to boost training and support for our ESL students.
Knowing early childhood years are absolutely critical in a child’s development, the funding of child and family centres to the tune of $16m in our remote communities at Yuendumu, Gunbalanya, Maningrida, and Ngukurr will help families achieve the best outcomes for their little ones by developing the skills parents need to ensure their kids can get to school every day. I also welcome the announcement of around $1m for an early learning centre for children on Elcho Island, including homelands kids.
This government is serious about best outcomes for young Territorians and takes very seriously its role to provide a pathway from early years through to school and a job, wherever they live in the Territory. This government, since 2001 - when we inherited the mess left by the CLP, particularly in the area of education, including the shameful legacy of not providing secondary education to Aboriginal students in our remote communities - has worked hard to deliver education infrastructure and to recruit and support additional quality teachers; in fact, an extra 465 teachers since 2001. Budget 2012-13 sees that investment, that commitment, continue because education is at the core of growing the Territory and securing a prosperous future for individuals, families, communities and, indeed, the Territory. As you know only too well, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is education which is the cornerstone of the Labor government’s Territory 2030 strategy.
The federal government investment in education, through the Building the Education Revolution, has continued to deliver improvements to school infrastructure. This includes, in my electorate, Nhulunbuy Primary School which has seen the very recent completion of a $2.5m upgrade to its school hall. The upgrade is very similar to that delivered at Millner Primary School and, with it, solar panels to enable the school to harness the sun’s energy and utilise that power and, in turn, reduce its own power bill.
I was absolutely delighted to see a local business from Nhulunbuy, B.I.G. Carpentry Pty Ltd, owned and operated by Brett Grieve and his wife, Donna-Marie, as the successful tenderer to construct this project. It delivers not only a facelift and a fantastic new hall for the school and its 500-plus students, but it has supported the local economy and jobs in my electorate and, with it, a local supply chain in the construction sector. If I were to ask Brett Grieve - better known as Grievesy - whether he preferred the construction project he tendered for or living in the Territory without that work, comforted in the knowledge the government have reduced a deficit budget – well, again, I can guess what his reply would be.
It is just amazing the members opposite could not bring themselves to support the BER scheme, but it has never stopped them from getting along to BER openings in their electorates and others. As a bush member representing a very diverse constituency with the mining town of Nhulunbuy at the centre, and the growth towns of Yirrkala and Galiwinku on Elcho Island …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
Mr Conlan: Oh no, it is so excruciating.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Under standing orders, once the bells have rung, no member is to leave the House when a quorum has been called.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is right.
Mr Conlan: They just never learn. Keep calling it and calling it and calling it until you have 10 people in here …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You have called your point of order, member for Greatorex. The bells are ringing and we will wait for a quorum.
A quorum is present.
Ms WALKER: As I was saying, as a bush member representing a very diverse constituency with the mining town of Nhulunbuy at the centre, the growth towns of Yirrkala and Galiwinku on Elcho Island, and most of the Laynhapuy and Marthakal Homelands in between, it is this government’s commitment to the bush of which I am particularly proud.
We have achieved incredible things. This has also been bolstered by the support of a federal Labor government since late 2007, which has partnered with our government to deliver what has previously been unseen commitment to funding and growth to improve the lives of people in these communities and, indeed, to develop our growth towns. I doubt very much we would ever have been able to achieve what we have in the bush without the strong partnership and commitment with our federal colleagues across health, education, housing, policing, and roads.
Under our A Working Future policy, Budget 2012-13 delivers $433m to continue to invest in providing improved services in the bush, and to improve the lives of Indigenous Territorians.
The week before last, I made a three-day visit to Elcho Island to the north of my electorate, and was invited to attend the housing reference group meeting which had convened to discuss, along with representatives from the Department of Housing and also Territory Alliance, the final stages of SIHIP. That community has been quite literally transformed thanks to the building of 19 new homes, 52 refurbishments, and a number of rebuilds. Alongside the airport is a beautiful new subdivision where families are now moving into fenced modern homes with gardens growing and real evidence of home and community pride.
There is no escaping the fact that the program - the single biggest housing program in the history of our nation - has had its challenges. However, as it nears completion, the good people of Galiwinku at Elcho Island recognise they are fortunate to receive new and refurbished housing, which goes a long way toward addressing overcrowding issues and providing healthier homes for families and children. Hopefully, it will play a big part in addressing the issue of non-attendance amongst our children in communities such as Galiwinku.
Quite apart from the investment in new and refurbished housing at Galiwinku, there has been significant spending on infrastructure to ensure essential services like power and water have been upgraded to enable the additional homes to function.
I have previously visited the upgraded powerhouse at Elcho Island where more than $3m was spent to ensure it had adequate capacity to generate and reticulate power to this growing community. Similarly, on my last visit, I was taken on a site visit and inspected a new water tank being installed to provide additional capacity, along with new trenches for water mains pipes which were being laid to carry water to the new subdivision. Quite literally, much work has happened beneath the surface to ensure these homes are ready for families and new tenants.
The story of housing at Galiwinku is one part of a much bigger story. The Territory and Commonwealth governments continue to deliver record investment in remote housing to support A Working Future through the National Partnership Agreement on Remote …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells. Stop the bells, we have a quorum.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, the story of housing at Galiwinku is just one part of a much bigger story. The Territory and Commonwealth governments continue to deliver record investment in remote housing to support A Working Future through the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing - NPARI, as the acronym is - with $1.7bn over 10 years.
To date, under NPARI, we have seen 603 new houses and 2108 rebuilds, and refurbishments have been completed as well. A further 71 new houses and 29 rebuilds and refurbishments are under way. My constituents at Yirrkala and Ski Beach look forward to seeing NPARI deliver new and refurbished houses by 2013, as do the builders and suppliers in Nhulunbuy.
Under NPARI, we see $162m to improve remote Indigenous housing and related infrastructure and $26m to provide land, servicing, and essential services infrastructure in Territory growth towns. $44.4m is also provided to build new, and upgrade existing, government employee housing in the remote parts of the Territory. The additional investment in government employee housing is welcomed because I know from living in a remote electorate one of the challenges of delivering important government services, especially in areas like health, education, and care and protection of children, is our capacity to house public servants in this area.
That said, I applaud the efforts of the dedicated public servants and representatives from NGOs who regularly visit remote communities and stay in visiting officers’ quarters. Sometimes, they even stay in swags with shared bathrooms and communal kitchens. I routinely see these people on my visits in my electorate to places like Galiwinku. I have shared the VOQs with the likes of nurse lecturers from Batchelor College, researchers from Menzies School of Health, and attendance and truancy officers from the Department of Education and Training.
I have been impressed with the attendance and truancy officers I have met on my travels who stay in these VOQs. They work hard with children, families, police, schools, and everybody who has a vested interest in seeing children get to school, about getting those kids back to school. What they are doing is hard work but they are, I believe, making a difference. That is why the minister for Education has announced there is an additional $790 000 in this particular budget which will go to employing an extra eight attendance truancy officers to be based in Arnhem, Barkly and also Katherine, taking the total number of attendance and truancy officers to 30.
Last week, on 24 April, I listened with great interest to an interview on ABC radio where the shadow Education minister for the opposition, the member for Brennan, was being interviewed about the Every Child, Every Day strategy and the effectiveness of attendance and truancy officers. He was disappointingly very negative - but, I should say, not surprisingly. Also, I guess not surprisingly, ill-informed. In fact, it was the interviewer who actually had to correct the member around comments he made about the act, and the effectiveness and powers of the attendance and truancy officers. He said:
I was flabbergasted when I heard this on the radio. Obviously, the journalist was far better informed than the shadow minister for Education, because she said ..
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Honourable members! Member for Brennan! Member for Brennan!
Ms WALKER: Madam Speaker, the shadow minister backpedalled a bit and bluffed his way through the next minute or so of the interview. He said:
Members interjecting.
Ms WALKER: Madam Speaker, I have sought a briefing from the Education minister’s office ...
Mr Giles: Well, you are very fortunate.
Ms WALKER: ... given that I had actually - I will pick up on the interjection. As we know, any member can seek a briefing, and I encourage the member opposite ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members! Member for Brennan! Member for Arafura!
Ms WALKER: This was based upon the anecdotal evidence I had received, having shared VOQs on a night with two attendance and truancy officers. Over dinner, we had a conversation. They were well aware what my position was. These people shared with me – obviously, I cannot mention families and communities - some of the really good successes they are having out there about seeing children to school, and families respond. One mother in particular was in tears when she was given an infringement notice and was most apologetic to the truancy officers that she had failed to meet a conferencing meeting. Given that notice, she attended the next conferencing meeting.
I take my hat off to these attendance and truancy officers who are working their backsides off to do this job, to meet the obligations under the act, and to utilise the toolbox they have which is making a difference to getting children back to school. These two particular women were staying in VOQs for one week - that is one week away from their families - travelling with their own food and their own belongings, working with families, and working hard to get children back to school.
Since 1 June 2011, there have been 1483 meetings conducted with parents. There have been 303 compulsory conferences which have been conducted. There have been 344 attendance plans which have been developed and are being implemented. A total of 364 young people have been re-engaged with school since 1 June 2011. Going on from there, their attendance is being very closely monitored.
In 2011, the focus was on Darwin and Palmerston because that is where 52% of Northern Territory school enrolments are located. This year, 2012, the focus is on regions and our 20 growth towns. Infringement notices to date - 64 infringement notices have been issued since 1 June 2011 in relation to 72 children.
I could go on here, there are further statistics. However, I wanted to highlight the fact of the government’s policy, and the amendments to the Education Act around getting children back to school and re-engaging students is working. On that note, I applaud the additional funding put to employ attendance and truancy officers to ensure we are getting children to school. Let us not forget, we are dealing with quite a legacy out there in the bush, but we are definitely turning things around.
Galiwinku was also one of the first growth towns to benefit from an investment for community safety with a permanent police presence which delivered a brand new police station and four police houses in 2009. I am very pleased to see this commitment to deliver similar infrastructure for residents at Ramingining and Gapuwiyak for those constituents in my neighbouring electorate of Arnhem. In fact, I made an unscheduled visit to Gapuwiyak recently trying to dodge storms while flying between Gove and Elcho Island, and was pleased to see the site works for the new police station and police houses were well under way.
The record spend in safety for Police, Fire and Emergency Services - some $328m as outlined by the Treasurer in her speech - delivers for all Territorians right around the Territory. We are certainly in catch-up mode when it gets to delivering these services around safety out in the bush.
In the record spend in Health - $1.2bn - we see a new $6.4m health clinic for my constituents at Elcho Island - Ngalkanbuy Health Clinic operated by Miwatj. I take this opportunity to pass on my congratulations to Miwatj as they approach their 20th anniversary with celebrations planned for 28 May. I look forward to attending the event which will be held at Miwatj. Miwatj has a proven record in delivering a primary healthcare service to the Yolngu people of northeast Arnhem Land, a service which also integrates children and family, family health and wellbeing programs, as well as support for health and wellbeing programs which are engaged with sport and recreation and targeted programs in that area. The Ngalkanbuy clinic is servicing a population of more than 2000 at Elcho Island in a clinic which is definitely in need of replacement and a contemporary purpose-built facility to provide the very best primary healthcare service it can.
Further commitment to health funding in northeast Arnhem Land includes $28.34m for acute care services which include patient travel. When the federal government money comes through following an announcement last year, we look forward to seeing a major upgrade to the accident and emergency department at Gove District Hospital, as well as visitor accommodation for patients having to travel from outlying communities.
In the budget we see $22.25m for non-acute health and community services within the region. I am delighted to see $560 000 for an upgrade to the Nhulunbuy special care centre which will include delivery of a multipurpose shed and security cameras. This is a very important facility in Nhulunbuy. It is a rehabilitation facility as well as a sobering-up shelter. Given we have had, effectively, a Banned Drinker Register in Nhulunbuy since 2008, this particular centre has a particularly important role to play in providing rehabilitation services.
I will conclude for the time being ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, you can continue your remarks at a later hour. Thank you very much.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise of the death, on 14 January 2012, of Mr Peter Murphy OAM.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members I advise you of the presence in the gallery of family and close friends of the late Mr Peter Murphy OAM.
I acknowledge particularly the widow of Mr Murphy, Mrs Lani Murphy; his daughters, Ms Kelly Murphy, Ms Siobhain Murphy, Ms Donnagh Murphy and husband, Mr Ian Brewster; the Murphy grandchildren, Master Leo Murphy Loftus, Master Matthew Brewster and Miss Emily Brewster; and the sister of Mrs Murphy, Mrs Carmen Couche.
I have also received apologies from some members of the family: Mr Murphy’s son and daughter-in-law, Mr Sean Murphy and Mrs Helen Murphy who live in France and, I understand will be listening to the broadcast today; Mrs Eileen Kassulke and Mr Lyal Kassulke, the sister and brother-in-law of the late Mr Murphy; and also Mr Chris Loftus, the son-in-law of Mr Murphy.
I also draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of former Speakers, Hon Nick Dondas, and Hon Roger Steele, and Mrs Janette Steele. On behalf of all members, I send you a very warm welcome
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Hon Daryl Manzie and Mrs Maureen Manzie; Hon Grant Tambling and Mrs Sandy Tambling; and the member for Solomon, Mrs Natasha Griggs MP and Mr Paul Griggs. I also extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there are also many other friends and extended relatives who are here today to listen to this condolence motion. I extend to you a warm welcome from the parliament. I advise at the end of the condolence motion there will be some refreshments in the main hall for which I hope you will join honourable members.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move –
That this Assembly -
(a) express its regret at the passing of Mr Peter Murphy OAM, a long-time Territorian and recognised and respected journalist and political advisor; and
Peter Joseph Murphy OAM was born in Cairns on 2 October 1945. After matriculating from St Teresa’s Agricultural College, Abergowrie, Queensland, Peter gravitated to journalism. It was a natural move; he had a love of language and of writing. He told ABC radio:
However, as is the case in any job, things did not always go well for the young reporter. He also told the ABC one of the worst jobs he had in his newspaper life was doorknocking the relatives of soldiers from Brisbane after the Battle of Long Tan. Three of the nine families he called on that day had not yet been told their son had been killed.
Peter began his 40-year career as a journalist in the most unlikely of places: TV Week in Brisbane. His career in newspapers saw him cover some of the biggest stories of the 1960s and 1970s, including the long and bitter miners’ strike at Mount Isa and the historic Wave Hill walk-off. His first taste of the Territory came during a stint at the NT News between 1966 and 1967. This was the NT News of the rather colourful editor, Jim Bowditch. Given the personalities involved in the paper at that time, it would be hard to imagine it not having an effect on the young Peter Murphy. Despite their politics, Peter always spoke highly of Jim and of the NT News of those days.
In 1967, Peter’s life took a change of direction. He was conscripted into the Australian Army, going on to serve in Malaysia where he was based at the Tenendak Garrison. Following his two-year stint as a National Serviceman in 1969, Peter was back in Darwin and the NT News.
By 1970, Peter was on the move again. This time it was to South Australia where he began a five-year stint with The News in Adelaide. It was during this period he became a police reporter. This proved to be a formative period. Friends say Peter revelled in the role of police roundsman because he had a natural affinity with police, and loved talking to people. Those close to him say this was undoubtedly one of the periods which shaped the Peter Murphy known to Territorians.
In 1976, it was back to Darwin. This time, though, it was in the role of newspaper editor. Peter found himself in charge of The Star newspaper operated by Kerry Burns who, nowadays, is a nursery owner and one of ABC radio’s talkback gardeners on Saturday mornings. Darwin of 1976 was still recovering from the devastation of Cyclone Tracy less than two years earlier.
In 1977, the Territory went to the polls to vote for its second fully-elected Legislative Assembly as the elected body of the day before self-government. The result was fascinating. Although the Country Liberal Party won, five of its seven executive members or ministers, lost their seats. One of the casualties was CLP leader, Dr Goff Letts. He was replaced by Paul Everingham, who became the Territory’s first Chief Minister at self-government in 1978.
According to those in the know, the new Chief Minister was not at all impressed with the editorial line of The Star newspaper, where Peter was writing politics and just about everything else, including the food column in which he assessed local eateries under the pseudonym, Gourmet George. Either because of, or despite, The Star’s editorial line, Chief Minister Everingham approached Peter to become his press secretary. An interview on ABC radio suggests Peter anguished over the decision. It was six weeks before he finally accepted the job. The relationship the pair forged was professionally formidable and close at a personal level. When Paul Everingham switched to federal politics, Peter went as well.
Peter went on to serve with a further four CLP Chief Ministers. This put him at the heart of the majority of the major political events in the Territory until 2001.
A close friend has observed that one of the more interesting and challenging periods of his career as a political advisor must have been during the debate on voluntary euthanasia being led by then Chief Minister, Marshall Perron. Peter was a committed Catholic and strongly opposed to the prospect of voluntary euthanasia.
After leaving politics after the 2001 election, Peter established Murphy Media, which enjoyed some significant commercial success.
In 2007, he was awarded the Order of Australia Medal for service to the community of the Northern Territory through journalism and as a political advisor.
There is no doubt Peter lived through, and played a part in, some of the most fascinating events in the Territory’s recent history. Not so long ago, a former colleague and Peter were discussing their time as political advisors. The friend told Peter he had not enjoyed the role at all and asked Peter whether, if he had the chance over, whether he would put himself through it again. Peter apparently did not hesitate with his response; he said he would do it again in a shot.
Madam Speaker, and family and friends, there are many people here who will speak much more personally about Peter Murphy than I am able to. However, there is no doubt he lived a very full life. He made a significant contribution to the Country Liberal Party. Once again, I offer my condolences to Peter’s family, Lani, Kelly, Sean, Donnagh, Siobhain, all of his other family who are here and his many friends.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the government for this condolence motion.
Welcome, Lani, Peter’s daughters, the many grandchildren, the family and friends who have gathered here, particularly those who have travelled to the Northern Territory to visit the place where the mark of Peter will remain for many years to come.
Special acknowledgements to former Speakers of this parliament, Nick and Roger - welcome. To former members and ministers, Daryl, Grant, and the member for Solomon, Natasha - welcome.
The parliamentary wing of the Country Liberal Party share our combined sadness at the passing of Peter. We thank you sincerely for taking the time to come here today, to allow us to pause.
I could probably predict Peter would not be particularly fussed one way or another. I recall the Mass in Victoria where he was quite particular about how long people should speak. He did not pass that onto me, and I will talk while that clock is giving me a bit of time.
We need to stop and remember his contribution to journalism, self-government of the Northern Territory, and the economic development of the Territory. He was many things to many people, a man of real character - character I admire and has given me something I carry into parliament with me. He was a man of substance, of good but gruff humour, and a sparkling intellect. He served the Northern Territory, its people, and the parliament with a mixture of dedication, deep enthusiasm, and rigour.
To me, he was a bloke with an eye for detail who provided me with plenty of sound and gruff advice in my early days as I started in this parliament. I was elected to the Northern Territory parliament in a by-election in July 1999, the same time as the member for Wanguri. At that time, the Country Liberals had enjoyed 21 years of unbroken administration in the years after self-government. I was new. It was about the time the Territory and the Commonwealth governments were finalising the Alice Springs to Darwin railway deal. We had managed to secure the Prime Minister, John Howard, to come to Darwin for a fundraiser.
At about that time, I had been involved in the creation of a song. I had written the music, someone else had written lyrics, and someone thought it would be a jolly good idea if that song was sung at the fundraiser. New to the job, keen to contribute, grateful that someone had asked, I accepted the offer. However, one very senior advisor I had known of by reputation had asked me to come and have a talk to him about ‘this damn song’. So, I confronted him. I had to stand in front of the desk and he said something to the effect: ‘It has a reference in the song to “little Johnny” and that is not particularly appropriate, because the Prime Minister knows he is a bit small and you do not have to go and belt him around the head with it. So, I think you can sing another song’. I said: ‘Well, it is actually okay, we can change the lyrics. I know the bloke who wrote the lyrics, we could change that’. He gave a gruff response and we proceeded with changed lyrics. The night passed, I am happy to report, without incident.
In the years before his death, he had developed a high media profile across the Northern Territory with a very well-read column in the Sunday Territorian and regular spots on the ABC radio discussing the issues of the day. However, it was an interview with Leon Compton on the ABC radio’s Guestroom program which really shone a light on the Peter Murphy many of us did not know. It was a terrific interview - the gruff veteran of backroom Territory conservative politics with Leon Compton, the affable ABC presenter with a green stripe. Compton had, obviously, struck a very special rapport with his subject, introducing Peter as someone who he spoke to all the time about the issues of the day, who was now in a position to find out what really made him tick. Anybody who spent that time to find out what made Peter tick was in for a treat, just as I am sure Leon Compton discovered - as have I and many others.
Peter took people back through his life, about his early years in Queensland, and how his father drove engines that ran power stations, sawmills and milk factories in places like Cape Rivers outside Charters Towers, Thursday Island, the Daintree, and finally settling in Cairns. He told how his mum looked after the kids, did charity work. He grew up in a bookish house with lots of newspapers and lively conversations.
His first job after school, ‘to stop him bludging on his parents’, in his words, was to pick tobacco, which paid 2 during the week and 5 on Saturday. He told of being offered an engineering internship by the Queensland Irrigation Commission and was attending university at night, but he spent lunchtimes knocking on the doors of various newspaper offices around Queensland trying to find a cadetship.
I pause to digress. Attending the funeral in Maldon in Victoria, there was something that struck me with the three men who, when I entered into a conversation with them, were childhood friends of Peter. They went to school together and their bond was very strong. I went away with the knowledge that the quality of a man is measured by the quality of his friends. The strength of that friendship and bond was something that was deeply impressive.
His attraction was his love for the written word, a love for the world around him, and a desire to be there covering the issues as they broke and writing about them. He said his mother had other ideas; however, believing journalists drank too much, mixed with the wrong type of women; preferring her son to become a bank clerk or a schoolteacher.
Eventually, he landed a job with TV Week in Brisbane in the early days of television whilst still aspiring to get into serious journalism. Peter learnt how to conduct an interview and the principles of accuracy and checking. He recounted with pride meeting the three English migrants with buck teeth who approached him asking if he would write a story about them. In an early example of cash for comments, he wrote a feature in exchange for beers. The Bee Gees later became one of Australia’s largest ever musical exports.
Peter explained most newspaper editors of the day were very sceptical about university trained reporters; it was a hard-drinking, hard-working, hard-smoking trade that was not suitable for toffs.
His shift to the Territory, therefore, was part of a highly-planned exercise in career enhancement. He was called up for National Service during the Vietnam era, and was concerned he would be 21 when he returned to Australia, which was too old to be working at a teeny bopper title like TV Week. To avoid that fate, Peter secured a transfer to the Mt Isa Mail but the paper closed, and he had to set his sights on a job going at the Northern Territory News under legendary editor, Jim Bowditch. As a youngster, Peter had been attracted to Darwin by stories recounted in the Ion Idriess book Forty Fathoms Deep which told the story of northern Australia’s pearling industry.
One of his earliest stories at the NT News was the one that continues to have a significant impact on the Northern Territory to this very day. As a 19-year-old newbie to the Territory, Peter was sent to cover the Wave Hill walk-off. The good folk at the Parliamentary Library were able to dig up a sample of some of Peter’s copy from the Northern Territory News not by-lined as was the fashion of the day, but written with the air of someone who has much more experience. The copy was detailed, dense and, above all, interesting, telling readers in the third paragraph:
He quoted the walk-off spokesman, Vincent Lingiari saying to Vestey’s management the protestors wanted 25 a week paid every fortnight. Peter had the capacity to see both sides of the story. Wave Hill manager, Tom Fisher, was mostly portrayed by the southern media as the villain of the piece. Peter reported Tom provided strikers and their families with beef which he attributed to the old country loyalties.
I seek leave, Madam Speaker, to table a copy of that article.
Leave granted.
Mr MILLS: Thank you. In 1967, Peter was conscripted into the Australian Army. After an initial six-months training at Puckapunyal in Victoria, Peter found himself in Holsworthy Barracks along with 400 others waiting to be posted to a battalion. He sought a deferment which, ultimately, prevented him from being posted with 6 Battalion to Vietnam, thereby missing the deadly battle of Long Tan which saw at least 18 Australians lose their lives.
Back in Brisbane, he worked as a roundsman with the now defunct Sunday Mail.
One of the worst jobs, as the Chief Minister mentioned, was his requirement to provide what was the so-called death knock: banging on the doors of family members of the deceased seeking a few quotes for the paper and a photo. This task fell to Peter in the wake of Long Tan. As the Chief Minister referred to, this had him knocking on the doors and being the first to advise the families the news of the deceased. However, with typical good sense he pointed out he, too, could have been in Vietnam, and helped the families through the ordeal by persuading them to provide tributes of their lost sons to the rest of the world; he had that connection. As he explained, it was a terrible part of the job but it had to be done.
He was not sent to Vietnam; one of a number who went to Malaysia instead. By his own account, a sergeant walked into the barracks one day and asked for five volunteers for service in Malaysia. Four hundred of the 400 hands went up. Peter said no one wanted to be posted to Vietnam.
To the day he died, he supported the social and physical benefits derived from National Service and its positive impact on character development and fitness. When he was discharged from the Army in 1969, he went to Adelaide to recommence his journalistic career. He made it back to Darwin after Cyclone Tracy and, in 1977, he was approached to become a press secretary by the Territory’s first Chief Minister, Paul Everingham. When Peter asked why Paul would want someone on his staff who did not, necessarily, agree with his political point of view, Everingham explained he did not want a CLP cheerleader; he wanted a man who could walk both sides of the street.
The first street he had to walk both sides of was on the one he lived. Peter reckoned it took him about six weeks to convince Lani he should put politics ahead of principles and accept the job as media manager with the Country Liberals’ government. Peter Murphy was the NT government’s go-to man during the Lindy Chamberlain trials, and served five of the first six Country Liberals’ Chief Ministers - Ian Tuxworth the one missing out on his wisdom and wit.
It was in the area of Asian Relations and Trade that Peter left his biggest mark. As a part of a process of forging links with our near neighbour, Peter led an advance party from the Territory to present a stud Brahman bull to the Indonesian President Suharto. It was this type of grassroots politics that forged the strong relationship that has always existed between Indonesia and the Territory. Coincidentally, I heard the news of Peter’s passing whilst in Jakarta, and had to cut my time short. I came directly from Jakarta to Melbourne. I thought that was a nice touch, with acknowledgement of his special love for Indonesia.
In the years immediately after self-government, the Territory was on the Asian stage with links into Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia and China, and we were very much more visible than we are now. If the Country Liberals win government, as well as sorting through the domestic issues we have, I will be working hard to continue that fine legacy started by the likes of Paul Everingham, with the assistance of Peter, to develop and strengthen ties with our near neighbours in Asia. His memory will live on.
It was great that Peter’s achievement in public life saw him awarded an Order of Australia in 2007; that in retirement, Peter and Lani sought a bush retreat in central Victoria where they could enjoy the climate, books, and each other’s company.
Peter was a real friend of the Country Liberals, and he was also a very good friend of the Northern Territory. His advice was always welcome, and I sought counsel from him on a number of occasions after my first meeting with him in 1999, regarding that song.
The response to Peter’s death in January said a great deal about the cache of respect which had built up for him over the years. It was quite extraordinary to see that deep respect which flowed through public comment in the media. His former employer, the NT News, ran a number of pieces, and ABC broadcaster, Julia Christensen, spoke highly of Peter, describing him as ‘a fascinating, humble, and charming man’. The obituary penned by Leon Compton after Peter’s death began by saying:
Madam Speaker, it takes a pretty good spin doctor to earn that level of respect - and he did. Peter was very much loved, and I believe he died very much in the knowledge that his place in the Territory’s history was secure. I also understand he was secure in his faith at the time of his passing.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I also contribute to the condolence motion before this House at the moment. As with the Leader of the Opposition, I met Peter Murphy almost the day after my political career started. However, I start with the reason it is worthwhile remembering Peter Murphy in this House.
Peter Murphy’s DNA is inexplicably linked with the success of the Northern Territory as a jurisdiction. You will not see the plaques with his name emblazoned upon them - that was for the Chief Ministers he served. You will not see large attributions to him for the successes of the governments between 1978 and 2001. The reason you will not see that is because it is not the way an advisor of that nature seeks to express himself - nor was it in the nature of Peter Murphy to seek to express himself in that fashion.
By way of example, a good parallel would be the current Chief of Staff to the Chief Minister; a fellow by the name of Dennis Bree - well-regarded, highly-respected throughout the community – whose DNA finds its way into some of the good decisions governments make.
That was the case with Peter Murphy, but it went on for decades. We will not see plaques with his name emblazoned upon them, or tributes to Peter Murphy, but his mark is indelibly left on the decisions taken by the governments of those days. His presence was enormous, yet, utterly understated. Beyond being an advisor, he was a confidante and the source upon which many ideas were road tested before they went anywhere beyond the Chief Minister’s Office. That is an enormous influence to have. It is not something that will be immediately remembered but, as a consequence of that, this House should take the time out to remember the enormous contribution he made by being the source of wisdom so many Chief Ministers would turn to - to have ideas knocked out or advanced - in the pursuit of the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
For that reason, members of this House rightly take time out of a busy working day to cast their minds to Peter Murphy’s contribution and this House should stop to ponder and reflect on the contribution he made. However, Madam Speaker, I am going to be selfish because I will also briefly talk about the effect Peter Murphy had on me.
Without referring to it in too great a detail, one of the first things which happened to me in politics - literally, the very first phone call I received - when I took over Neil Bell’s office in Alice Springs when I became the new member for Macdonnell, was a phone call from the police. It was a phone call that set in train a series of events which left me feeling very isolated and deeply exposed. I rang the then Chief Minister and said: ‘Shane Stone, you need to know this is happening’. Shane said: ‘Get yourself on a plane, get yourself to Darwin’. The first person I sat down in front of was a bloke by the name of Peter Murphy who made no judgments, no comments, no slights, and said nothing about that particular matter other than: ‘How can we help you?’ The greatest frustration I have is today, while I was sitting here thinking about this condolence motion, I realised I never actually stopped to thank him for his dignity and for what he extended to me to enable me to get through that process and continue on to be what, I hope, is an effective contributor to the people of the Northern Territory. I am irritated at myself for not actually having taken the time out to thank him for it. Nevertheless, he was there, he was not judgmental, and he was, in many respects for that following few months, my protector.
Shane certainly made sure Peter was doing everything Peter had to do, but that was all being done by Peter anyhow. By the time I got off the plane in Darwin and reported to the Chief Minister’s Office upstairs, everything had been set up, all the protections were in place, all the plans on how to deal with this particular issue if it was going to erupt into a story were dealt with. I owe him an enormous debt of gratitude which I never thanked him for.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to Peter’s Catholicism. After the loss of government in 2001, I stayed in contact with Peter Murphy repeatedly and regularly over the years, particularly when he was running his media business out of his Briggs Street office. During that period, I sought his advice on any number of issues. He became my sounding board, and his advice was always forthright, honest, and often compelling. The thing that struck me in the last days of speaking to him was that he was reconciled with what was happening. He knew that he was going to die. I wished I could offer him some sort of comfort but, in truth, there was no comfort to offer him because he knew what was occurring.
His Catholic faith resonated with me. I am a Catholic, occasionally practising. When he needed his faith it was there. When I attended his funeral Mass in Maldon, there was a reading. It is a reading about those who are faithful in the Catholic faith, and it bears reading into the Parliamentary Record. It is from the Book of Wisdom, Chapter 3, Verses 1 to 9:
Ralph Waldo Emerson once made the observation that the ornament of a house is the friends who visit it. I look around this House, which for this hour or so is Peter Murphy’s, and I see the friends who visit it and realise this House is well ornamented.
Madam Speaker, my strong feelings go out to the Murphy clan, particularly you, Lani. I place on the record my personal debt to him as well as the debt of the Northern Territory’s population. I wish to place on the record my admiration for his faith in his Catholicism. As I said, my only regret is I never properly thanked him for standing by me through a particularly difficult period. However, I know you are listening Peter, and thank you for standing by during a particularly difficult period.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I offer my heartfelt thanks to the Chief Minister for bringing on this motion. I understand, at times, the way political parties work. Thank you so much, Chief Minister, for this motion. It means so much to me, and I am sure it means so much to everyone here. I thank you.
Murph was a good friend of mine too. I had a lot to do with Murph at the start of my political career. As the member for Port Darwin just said, when I first got into politics, Peter Murphy was one of the first people I met, which was the point John made, and also the Leader of Opposition. It seemed that anyone who was elected or preselected prior to 2001, was shipped in there and sat down with Murph, who would give you some tips and tell you how the world worked, what sort of party you had joined, who was who in the zoo, and who to take advice from and who to be a bit wary of.
He was a true Territorian. He was a dead-set Territorian; there were no airs and graces about Murph, he was an easy going fellow. He was gruff, there was no doubt about that, but he had a good sense of humour and a good nature. Nick Dondas told me they used to refer to him as ‘the enforcer’. I was not fortunate enough to be around in those wonderful early years and never saw Murph as an enforcer. However, I imagine he would be a fairly daunting fellow to get into an argument with or to try to defy.
Murph was one of that rare breed of Territorian - I am almost loathe to say – where the era has passed with Murph’s passing. When I was elected to the federal seat of Solomon I was as green and new to the job as anyone. One of the first things I did when elected was start looking around for people who had a clue because, at that time, I did not. I had a few things I wanted to do and achieve, but how you actually did that was beyond me. The first person I grabbed at the time is here today - Roger Steele, who I have enormous respect for as a bloke who knows the Territory and Territory people. The second fellow I employed was Paul Cowdy.
Paul Cowdy, Peter Murphy and Jim O’Brien worked together for pretty well three solid decades and were pretty well the heart, soul, and backbone of the Country Liberal Party for so long. I have not met people of such intellect who had such touch with Territorians, such a feeling for the Territory as did Paul Cowdy, Peter Murphy and Jim O’Brien.
I also see sitting in the gallery Senator Nigel Scullion’s Chief of Staff, Ron Kelly. Ron, of course, was employed as well as Jim O’Brien in the early days when Nigel Scullion was first elected. Having Jim O’Brien and Paul Cowdy around, it was very difficult not to also share a close relationship with Peter Murphy. Those guys, to me, were amazing characters. They embodied everything it meant to be a Territorian, and embodied everything I thought the Country Liberal Party stood for - getting out there, having a go, believing in the Territory, believing we could create a better place. That is what really drove them.
The Chief Minister made reference to some of the articles Murph wrote at the Darwin Star. I have heard it said before Murph got involved with the Country Liberal Party he was a Labor man. Many people would not identify Murph as a Labor man. Talking to Roger Steele, he said when the Country Liberals were formed they probably had 40% Liberals, 40% Country Party, and the other 20% came from Labor. He said they did not really have a political ideology; they all just believed in the Territory. The Territory is what drove the man.
I was sitting down last night talking to my good friend, Ron Kelly, saying: ‘I am going to talk tomorrow about Murph; what should I say? Do you remember anything in particular about him?’ Ronnie said to me: ‘The thing that grabbed Murph was he was so proud to be involved in forming Australia’s newest democracy, the Northern Territory’. When these guys turned up in 1978, I remember talking to Paul Cowdy and he said: ‘At the time, I was in PNG; I had been working with Michael Somare delivering self-government there. Then the call came through the Northern Territory had self-government’. He thought: ‘Blow it all. I am going back home and I am going to help usher in this new democracy in North Australia’.
That is really what sets guys like Peter Murphy, Paul Cowdy and Jim O’Brien apart; they were all so dead-set keen to get involved and create this new democracy. What a wonderful motivation it must have been at the time; to start with a clean slate. I am sure the Chief Minister would love to start with a clean slate. All Chief Ministers would love to start with a clean slate. However, in this particular case, they started with a clean slate and they did a damn good job.
As the member for Port Darwin said, Murph’s passion was not about money or notoriety. His passion was clear: it was to make life better for Territorians - a fairly simple passion. That was his overriding, driving goal: to make life better for people in the Northern Territory. Think about what life was like in the 1960s and the 1970s. We really were an outpost, a frontier, so to speak. They had dreams of this wonderful cosmopolitan society we live in today. We owe so much of our current lifestyle to Murph because he really did get in there. Anyone involved in the political struggle - and I am sure on that side as well as on this side - we all realise we are only as good as the people who are behind us.
I tell you, I am no rocket scientist and my only chance in life is to ensure I have many smart people around me. I have been very fortunate to have some of the best in the business around me, and I count Murph right at the top of that list. He was a fellow who had insights into the way the Territory worked, like no one else. Working with Murph, Cowdy, Jim O’Brien, really opened my eyes, not just to the realities of the Territory now, but also how the Territory was created. They had an unbelievable understanding of Territory history and why we are at the place we are.
I remember sitting down with Murph and Cowdy in the early days talking about land rights. I had absolutely no idea about land rights. They told me the story and put things into context. You can only understand things if you put the things in context of its time and the place where it happened. Some of the things we battle with these days, we shake our heads and wonder how the hell these things came about. It is only if you look at history and you understand the history of the times and what people were doing at the time that you actually understand. Murph had an incredible grip on all that.
Murph will be hugely missed by the cattle industry in the Northern Territory. The most recent crisis in the live export industry had Murph well and truly fired up, I can tell you. He had a really deep connection with the Northern Territory cattle industry. Seeing things fall to bits with our relationship with Indonesia, exports stop, and the struggles people on the land were going through at the time had a real impact on Murph, and it really set him alight and got him fired up.
One thing I can tell people here today - and I understand I am somewhat unique, although we have Nick Dondas here who spent a period in the federal parliament, and other people here have contacts with people in the federal parliament - Murph was highly respected nationally as well. He was not just an icon in the Northern Territory, but a bloke who did so much nationally. He came to the attention of the federal Liberal and National Parties. He went to Canberra with Paul Everingham and Paul Cowdy and they worked together for the term Mr Everingham was in Canberra. They both developed an understanding of the way the federal parliament works, how it all comes together. They did not just develop an understanding, they developed some connection. Murph was a bloke who had an enormous amount of connection federally.
He was often called in to run local campaigns in various parts of the country. My good friend Alby Schultz in New South Wales often tells me of the magnificent job Murph did - I think it must have been the 1998 federal election – in assisting him to be re-elected. Murph was not just doing local campaigns, he became a regular at campaign headquarters for the Liberal Party in federal elections. He was highly respected, highly regarded, not just for his writing ability but for his political nous. Right to the end, Murph’s heart was in the political struggle. He was working for Senator Bridget McKenzie, the Victorian Senator in Bendigo. Bridget McKenzie is a new Senator, completing her first term at the moment. I do not think a new member of parliament could get a better bloke to sit beside them than a fellow like Murph who had such a lifetime of experience.
It is amazing to look around politics - and I do not think it matters which side of politics - you often have the young guys who are jumping out of their skins to get involved, but it is rare to see an older person stick in the political game. Generally, you do your time in politics and move off with some large organisation or get involved somewhere else. Blokes who hang around, develop and grow in that job are few and far between, and that type of experience is a rarity, indeed. I know Murph is most missed by Paul Everingham, Porky. When you catch up with him from time to time, there is always a story about Murph and the times they shared in there somewhere. I used to sit on flights coming back from Canberra with Paul Cowdy, and there would often be stories about the good old days with Paul Everingham, Nick Dondas, Roger Steele and Murph. No one ever left Murph out of any context when they were talking about the good old days.
Recently - when I say recently, probably 15 years ago now - Murph worked with Shane Stone. They developed a strong bond, and Shane was one of Murph’s greatest allies and supporters. They worked together in Shane’s office in Darwin. Shane assisted Murph with Murphy Media and a range of other things. Shane Stone is very cut up about the loss of Murph. We have come to an end of an era in the making of the Northern Territory with the passing of Murph. He was a tower of strength for all those on this side of the political divide. I do not think he was driven by party politics; he was driven by the simple thing I said before: making life better for Territorians and for people everywhere he worked.
Madam Speaker, Lani and the rest of his family will miss Murph greatly. I am heartened to see so many of his close friends here today. I would love to have the time to put all your names on the Parliamentary Record. I do not think that would be fair, but I am glad to see so many people have turned up to this parliament to recognise Murph. Again, thank you very much, Chief Minister, this motion is much appreciated.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I contribute to this condolence motion for Peter Murphy OAM. I am carrying a number of messages, and I am going to speak on behalf of not only me but other people. I was overseas when I learnt of Peter’s death, and I was very saddened. It caused my partner, Linda Fazldeen, and I to sit down over dinner and discuss the contribution he made to both our lives.
I met Peter Murphy over 30 years ago, of all places, as a young policeman in the Police Club, also known as the Temple of Truth. The old Police Club in Cavenagh Street was an interesting place in those days. Friday nights was always a good night to get many of the senior police officers and the junior police officers together to talk about the issues and the concerns in the community. There was one person who always used to turn up, and that was Peter Murphy. As a brand new police officer, I asked the question: ‘Who is that bloke over there?’ A few people would nudge and say: ‘Oh, that is Peter Murphy. If he says anything to you, you should listen to him’.
There would be Peter; with his earpiece in his ear, listening to the radio reports and listening to you - probably doing about three or four different things at any one time. The one thing I noted about Peter Murphy in those days was he always listened to you, and he always took notice of what you said. The good part about young police officers then was, when you came across problems and issues, and you had the opportunity to talk to Peter on a regular basis on a Friday night, you more often than not, in a very short period of time, saw something was done about it. Not only did he listen, but he actually worked. He worked for the people of the Northern Territory, because not only did we raise problems which were concerning us, but also people in the community. It was one way to get that information straight back to government.
The earpiece was always good. Quite often, when he was talking, if the news came on, he would just say, ‘Just push the pause button’, and he would come back to you in a few moments. That was the nature of the guy; he was always on to everything. As a result of whatever you spoke about, and if you wanted advice on issues, you always knew it was full and frank advice. That advice came, often freely, right through to almost recent years when I used to see him to get advice when I became a member of the Legislative Assembly.
My partner, Linda Fazldeen, worked with Peter Murphy through the 1980s and 1990s when Linda was a ministerial officer and worked with four previous ministers. She also discussed over dinner the full and frank advice you got from Peter Murphy. He did not pull any punches; he never pulled the wool over your eyes. He was always one of those open and honest people who would tell you what he thought, what he believed other people were thinking. He would give advice to you whenever you needed it and, sometimes, when you did not need it, he would still give it to you.
The other person I want to speak on behalf of is the former Senator, Grant Tambling. When I arrived back from overseas, I ran into Grant and spoke to him about Peter’s passing. We talked about things. Grant is one of those people who has served, not only in the Legislative Assembly and the House of Representatives, but also in the Senate, so he has been right across those three parliaments. Grant had a long political and personal association with Peter, both in the Territory and in Canberra. He reminded me that Peter Murphy played a very significant role in not only the federal parliament debates on NT constitutional affairs and statehood, but also in relation to native title, Mabo issues, the north/south railway, and especially the controversy over the rights of the terminally ill which dealt with euthanasia.
Grant Tambling said:
It goes back to discussions I had where you always received full and frank advice from Peter Murphy. That is where most people I know, even if they were adversaries, held him in such high regard because he was very straight and you received free advice.
In 2007, he was awarded an OAM for journalism as a political advisor. I thought that was very well deserved for someone who made such a huge contribution to the Territory, and can proudly say he was a very committed Territorian.
I recall in 1997 when I was preselected - like my colleague the member for Port Darwin - I spoke to Shane Stone just after preselection and he said: ‘There is someone you need to talk to’. This was Peter Murphy who had much free, good advice which is still holding me in good stead and is something I will treasure from one of the few people who gave me open and honest advice.
It is sad he has passed. I believe quite often people, especially family, are interested to know what people think. ‘How do they see our father, brother, husband?’ How do we see those people? What do people think after he goes? The measure, quite often, is what people say at your funeral or after. Many things have been said today; however, the message I send to Lani and the family is everyone I know, and everyone who knew Peter, would say he was a really good bloke. All the things people have said, and will say today, revolve around the fact that your father, husband, uncle, friend - whatever relationship you had with him - Peter Murphy will be remembered by most people in Australia, particularly in the Northern Territory, as a man who was a good bloke.
Madam Speaker, I send condolences from my partner, Linda, and me to Lani and the family, and from the good Senator, Grant Tambling.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will say a few words and, as the member for Brennan said, that is how Peter would have like it. Before I start, I advise there will be a memorial Mass of Thanksgiving for Peter Murphy at the St Mary’s Cathedral tomorrow at 12.10 pm.
Peter Murphy probably knew me better than I knew him. Why? Because he wrote about me more than I wrote about him. I knew Peter not so much from politics, but from other things such as his involvement in drumMUSTER and his writings in the North Queensland Register, where he covered Northern Territory rural matters. For those who do not know what drumMUSTER is, it is a method of trying to return used herbicide and chemical containers from farms back to the manufacturers so they are not dumped into our landfill.
I always found him willing to discuss matters, sometimes willing to debate matters, and sometimes just tell you what he thought, no matter what. I was mentioned at times by Peter in his regular NT News columns, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. It was his job to write an opinion; it was my job to cop it - although I did not always take it lying down, but that is politics. Of course, Peter was involved in politics long before I came on the scene, and his contributions to the Territory will be remembered by those who worked with him, as has been said today.
He was, obviously, not always loved by everyone, especially as he was the press secretary for the CLP, and he would be the author of things not exactly supportive to those on the other side. However, if we dwell on that we miss the bigger picture. He was a man making a lasting contribution to the Northern Territory through his job. He had a vision some may not have agreed with, or the way in which he promoted it, but he left us with a view of the future of the Northern Territory so others could be stimulated to think about and debate where the Territory should be heading.
Peter Joseph Murphy - and with a name like that he had to have a touch of Catholicism in him - was a man with a strong Catholic faith who I saw, along with Lani, many times at Sunday Mass at Palmerston. It was this faith that helped him the most when he was diagnosed with cancer and, in the end, knew he was going to meet his maker.
As I said before, I did not know Peter really well, but well enough to know he was a decent and passionate man who left his mark on, and loved, the Territory.
Peter, I never had a chance to say when you were with us, so this will be my last chance now. You said in your regular NT News column the agreement I had with the Chief Minister would not last more than one mango season. That was the country in him. However, it has lasted three mango seasons, so I had at least one win on you. Peter, I enjoyed your writings, whether agreeing with them or not. I enjoyed our conversations, especially about matters pertaining to things rural. I enjoyed your company. I thank you for the contribution to the welfare of the Northern Territory.
To Lani and all the family, my deepest sympathy, and may Peter rest in peace.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also extend my condolences to the family and friends of Mr Murphy. I knew Peter not terribly well but, probably for most of the 27 years I have lived in the Territory, through a mutual friend who is here today, Jan Stafford. I knew him in a social context. I remember when I was preselected, he was incredibly shocked because he thought I was a member of the CLP. He got over it, though. Like the member for Nelson, I certainly I copped it a few times from Peter as well. May he rest in peace.
His biggest achievement is something which has not been mentioned here today; the fact that he was married for 46 years - that is a huge achievement for anyone. As someone who deals with cancer, when people are looking back on their death bed, I do not think they are thinking about the comments you made to people in the political context. They are thinking about your wife, your family and friends. He did very well. May he rest in peace.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to.
Members stood in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, honourable members. I thank all members for their contribution to the motion today, and I invite all family and friends to join us in the main hall for light refreshments.
The Assembly suspended.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move –
Bernie tells me the Aboriginal Development Foundation is an association made up of Aboriginal people from three town camps and Adelaide River, and they have representatives on the board. He said they meet regularly and focus on one community each meeting. He said in the 1960s these places were set up for itinerants and a place for drinkers to be safe. They had tarps and pit toilets, so they were very basic. One Mile Dam is only about three minutes away from here near the Duck Pond. The main person in the community is David Timber, who comes from a group of people from the Cox Peninsula area. Unfortunately, I do not know the group he belongs to.
Knuckey Lagoon has traditionally been Daly River, Adelaide River, Port Keats/Wadeye people. It is sometimes called the Palmerston Indigenous Village but, generally, is called the 15 Mile. It has an Aboriginal name, which is probably more appropriate, Gurdoorka. It is a bit mixed up; it has people from Maningrida, occasionally Tiwis, and some people from Murrenunggu. There was also another site, originally, at Lee Point, which was set up for people from the leprosarium but does not exist today.
The Aboriginal Development Foundation does not receive any funding, but owns the lease over the land. It also owns the Aboriginal Development Foundation headquarters on Foundation Road, Holtze, as freehold. I believe that parcel of land once belonged to Jackaroo Homestead, a tourist resort.
ATSIC took over responsibility for housing some years ago. When ATSIC folded, Yilli Rreung took over responsibility for the houses, which is what occurs today. However, ADF still owns them. ADF has a service level agreement with Yilli Rreung. Bernie Valadian says if Yilli Rreung took over the land it would have to deal with the social problems. I asked him: what if Yilli Rreung had ownership over the land? I am not saying he agreed with that, but he was highlighting the fact that if you are going to own the land, you are also going to cop the responsibility of dealing with the many issues that occur in these communities.
I will give a rundown of what exists on these communities. The 15 Mile community, or Gurdoorka, has 19 houses, 12 of which are new. The other seven houses are sometimes called legacy houses and are quite reasonably well-constructed. They would never blow away in a cyclone, but tend to have ARC mesh walls and are fairly basic. There is no reason why they could not be upgraded. The original 15 Mile was on the other side of the existing Stuart Highway. The camp was near where the old Stuart Highway turned off towards Palmerston.
Knuckey Lagoon community has 16 houses, five of which are old. They have two harmony houses owned by the Larrakia Nation - I will speak on that a little later. One Mile Dam has, I believe, one new house and the rest is a bit of a mixed bag. They have some shelters and some old legacy-style houses, but that is about it. Not all these older houses are lived in. Originally, those older houses were built without showers and toilets, because in the centre there were communal showers and toilets. Those showers and toilets still exist, although I do not know whether they are used much today.
One of the things you will see when you go into these communities is, generally, the roads are a mixture of good and bad. One Mile Dam has a bitumen road which goes in and out. It is only a short road, because it is only a very small community. Knuckey Lagoon has some bitumen, some of which is quite broken up; there have been no repairs to it. There are roads to some of the other houses you would not call a road, they are simply tracks. They fill up with water in the Wet Season and are certainly a very poor standard.
The 15 Mile, or Gurdoorka, has no legal access to any road. Recently, an ambulance could not get down to the 15 Mile because an easement collapsed after much rain and had to be repaired. I thank the Department of Local Government for getting in there quickly to repair that ‘road’. The 15 Mile is a Power and Water easement, part of which is in Litchfield Shire and part in the Palmerston City Council area. However, it is not a road, and it is not really the responsibility of either of those councils to maintain it. Traditionally, Litchfield has graded its portion but the road has deteriorated and there needs to be some resolution of the problem.
As an aside, because there has been an announcement that the government is going to duplicate the road between the Stuart Highway and Whitewood Road, that is, it is going to duplicate Howard Springs Road where you turn off to the 15 Mile, there is an opportunity for a formal access road to be built to this community.
In relation to One Mile Dam, as Bernie said, there has been opposition and I was part of that opposition some years ago when the former member for Katherine originally announced he was going to shift the people out of that area. The government had grand plans to develop that whole area where the fuel tanks were. My concern at that time was not so much about moving people, but there needed to be a negotiated movement. That is, they needed to be offered something reasonable to replace what was a refuge close to Darwin city. It appeared to me at the time it was more a case of needing to move these people out of the way because they would not fit in with our new beaut suburbs we were building in that area. That was an inappropriate reason for shifting people. If those people were to be shifted and given decent housing in a different place - I am listening to what Bernie Valadian is saying here - there could be room for negotiation about going to a different place. That is a summary of what Bernie told me when I met with him.
I also met with Mr Colin Tidswell from Yilli Rreung. He had strong, forthright views about how Yilli Rreung could look after these places. Yilli Rreung looks after an existing affordable housing community at Berrimah, once called the Summer Institute of Linguistics property, which was sold to Mr John Anictomatis and perhaps other people - I am not sure. They lease it to Yilli Rreung, and there is some quite reasonable housing in that area. Some of it is old, it is basic, but it is quite acceptable and Aboriginal people can rent houses in that area at a reasonable price. As Colin said, it is unfortunate many people will not rent to Aboriginal people - it is a fact of life - because they think half the countryside is going to come with them, they are scared of them, or simply do not like black people. It is sometimes very difficult for an Aboriginal family to rent a house on the private market. Colin sees that community at Berrimah as a good way for people to be able to rent housing in the private market.
Although Yilli Rreung has money from the government, is not a government organisation. Colin believes, if government considered it, if they controlled housing at these communities they could set up tenancy arrangements so people who were not looking after these houses properly could be removed. At the moment, you have this funny situation. Yilli Rreung does the maintenance, but the Aboriginal Development Foundation owns the house and land. The Aboriginal Development Foundation, technically, is the only one that can kick people out of the houses. You have one owner and one company maintaining the houses. That is a major problem for going forward in these communities. Yilli Rreung is saying if it had the opportunity to run these communities similar to the way they run the community at Berrimah there would be better outcomes, which is part of the discussion that has to be had.
It should be noted that all these communities come under the Commonwealth intervention. In theory, there should be no liquor or pornographic material in those communities. If you go to those communities it is obvious those signs are a waste of time because there is a great number of beer cans lying around the communities.
You also have to go back to the history of these communities. They were, basically, communities where people found shelter. If they had been on a drinking binge somewhere, they knew they could go back to this community and sleep it off.
There is history that these communities were associated with alcohol. We have now built new houses in those communities and are attempting to turn them into normal communities. It is not quite as simple as that. In some places there is supposed to be CDEP. If you go there and see the amount of rubbish lying around and the long grass, you would wonder what people do for their CDEP payments. It is very hard to justify something is happening. Yilli Rreung slashes the grass once in a while, but the communities are not tidy in between the times Yilli Rreung turns up. There is certainly much rubbish around.
Even though there are good people in these communities, there does not seem to be a real sense of direction. I will give you an example. We have the so-called harmony houses at Knuckey Lagoon built with a grant - I do not know whether it was from the NT or Commonwealth government - to the Larrakia Nation. It was part of the idea of helping homeless people. It, basically, has not worked. These houses were connected to another house. No one paid the electricity bills. They fell into disrepair because they were not being looked after by Yilli Rreung; they did not belong to them. Larrakia Nation seemed to not want to take great responsibility. I started receiving phone calls about the power being off. As the minister and his advisor would know, he received some late night phone calls, usually on a Friday night when everyone was hoping nothing would go wrong, saying the power was off. The reason the power was off was because no one had paid the bills. The reason no one had paid the bills was because there were no meters on the individual houses. People were living there, and whoever had the meter at the far end would have to pay the bill. There were some problems which have, at least, been sorted out.
I am unsure where ownership of those houses is at. Technically, I cannot say ownership because I do not know how this works. If the Aboriginal Development Foundation owns the lease, technically, anything on that lease, under law, would belong to the Aboriginal Development Foundation, unless there is a sublease. I do not know of any subleases on those communities. Technically, as Bernie said, the Aboriginal Development Foundation owns all the houses there now. I presume they will own the harmony houses. Again, we have the issue of control over people on the land, control over people in the houses, and control over the maintenance of the houses.
I emphasise there are good people in these communities, but they are overwhelmed by the problems there. They are not the majority. The majority, unfortunately, have problems with alcohol and other substances. These communities have people drive in, make themselves at home, probably bring grog, or go to the pub and come back and problems occur. There is much gambling. There does not seem to be a direction from within, or from the government, as to where we should go with these communities.
People have been working with these communities and I will give you an example. Last year, 17 students from the University of Melbourne came to Gurdoorka, 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon and built media centres. When I say media, they were like community centres as well. At the university, they designed two recycled containers. They built a structure over the top of them. If you see them today, they have some fancy welding and design on the front. They set them up so people could use computers and have a media learning community area. Where it is at now, I could not tell you. Good playgrounds were put in, but I do not see kids play there very often. The shade cloth has come down in one place and I am unsure if it has been replaced. A nursery was built at Gurdoorka - 15 Mile. They built it, took photographs of it – a great start, then everything died, the weeds grew and that was it. Somebody cleaned it up again, but it is a higgledy-piggledy approach.
There are some great houses in those communities - top class houses – and there are some second rate houses. Unless there is some direction and control those houses will deteriorate, as happened with the harmony houses. The cost of repairing the harmony houses was around $150 000. That is a large amount of money to repair a relatively new house.
Why do we need a review? Things are clearly not right and we need to ask what purpose these communities serve today? Not so much what was in the past, but what purpose they serve today? What purpose should they serve? What is the reason for the communities being there? Should they be part of an open community where rates are paid and roads and any open space are maintained by local government? That is what is happening in Alice Springs. That is the theory. Should more houses be built and who is responsible for them - Yilli Rreung, NT Housing, the Aboriginal Foundation or should there be private ownership? Where will the money come from?
Yilli, presently, does not have enough funds. My sisters live in a house with solar power and batteries at Bulgul. As far as I know, they have power during parts of the day and the rest of the time it does not work. They have told me Yilli does not have enough money to maintain the houses. If we are going to hand these houses over to someone else, will they have enough money to maintain them? Where will that money come from? Should the land remain with the Aboriginal Development Foundation or should it be owned by the government through NT Housing or Yilli Rreung?
If the government decided the Aboriginal Development Foundation should withdraw from these communities, what is the cost? Technically, they have either a perpetual lease or a 99-year lease, and all the infrastructure on those communities belongs to them. What would that mean? Would the government have to pay the Aboriginal Development Foundation for the lease, or would it have to pay the lease plus the houses? I do not have an answer to that. These issues would need to be discussed by people with a good knowledge of leasing and the responsibilities that go with leasing.
It is clear a change in strategy is needed, perhaps a change of management overall, with clear goals such as affordable housing, tenancy agreements and an understanding by residents of their responsibility.
I have not said too much, but there may be an opportunity for people who can look after their houses to gain ownership of them. The 15 Mile - Gurdoorka - is going to be built about 100 m to 200 m away from the suburb of Johnston where it meets the Stuart Highway. It will be a peculiar situation because it will look like First World, and 200 m across the road, Third World.
When I travel around the country I notice some of these communities look no different to the community in my back yard. Sometimes, we focus on the remote but forget in our back yard there are similar issues which need to be fixed. At the moment the good people suffer. The children do not have a chance to move out of this continuous cycle of disadvantage, and if nothing is done we will be debating this issue for a long time to come. If for no other reason, we need this review for the children.
My wife would go on the bus to Knuckey Lagoon community to pick up kids when she was working at Sacred Heart, Palmerston. I would love to know where those kids are today. Have they achieved anything? When I was there the other night, kids were still in their school uniform. A group of people were playing cards. Have they the opportunity to advance? They live near Berrimah Farm, Allora Garden Nursery and the airport, and up the road is Harvey Norman. We have this little community, and you would hope these people have opportunities to get a job, to advance from ‘poverty’. Poverty is interesting. Are they really poor, or are they simply not able to take advantage of the opportunities to improve their lives?
There are plenty of people who help these communities from time to time. Ronnie Agnew, who I have always had time for, has many problems with his family and the community. He is the unofficial leader of Knuckey Lagoon. I was there when he had an open day, and he brought all the people with some involvement in this community together. You would be amazed how many agencies are involved in these communities. There is Amity, and groups to help Aboriginal people learn about banking. A great range of people are paid to help Aboriginal people in our community. You have to ask: if there are so many people out there doing all these things, why do we still have major problems? Nothing seems to have changed. We have this agency, this agency, this agency - health agencies, social security agencies, and financial agencies. Many of them are focused on Aboriginal people - that is what they are there for. Yet, we have a place that really is depressing.
It is time we sat down with the genuine people in the communities, the good leaders. We do not pick anyone; we need to ensure we select the genuine person who wants to do something. We get Yilli Rreung, the Aboriginal Development Foundation, the government departments - but not too many. Perhaps we have a representative from government departments so we are not drowned with bureaucrats - 20 bureaucrats and five people from the community. It should be thought through so we can work on these issues.
Colin Tidswell was saying if Yilli Rreung had ownership of the houses and set up tenancy agreements, we could go somewhere. He might be right. However, we need to think a little before that, to ask what is the future of these communities? One sits under the flight path, has no sewerage; only has septic tanks. If the 15 Mile became full is that it? It is a relatively small piece of land. What is it? Is it just an enclave, a ghetto, a place for Aboriginal people to stay. What is this community going to be? The One Mile Dam will eventually be dwarfed. The landowner next door is Frank Morandini, the developer - right next door. Obviously, he will not be sitting around scratching his head wondering what to do; he will have something in mind. That area is going to be developed.
I do not have all the answers; I would not have raised this motion if I did. There needs to be a positive, practical, and real approach to the future of these communities. It does not need to drag on forever. We do not need to have a meeting and, in six months, have another meeting. We need to set an agenda which says at the end of 12 months, or at the end of six months, we will have a plan and the government will stick to it. This year’s budget is very tight, it might require a fair bit of financial assistance, and it might mean you have to wait for next year’s budget. At least have a plan of action.
When you see the road you wonder who is going to maintain it. In theory, Yilli Rreung is going to maintain the road but it will cost $10 000, $20 000, or $30 000 to repair and they do not have that money. All these issues need to be put in the boiling pot and people need to come without pre-determined ideas and see what comes out.
I am putting ideas forward today, but there might be other people out there who have some really good ideas as well. Colin Tidswell is one. The Aboriginal Development Foundation might have a role to play. Phillip Goodman from 15 Mile, Ronnie Agnew and David Timber from the One Mile might be able to give us an idea of which way we should go.
The motion is to encourage discussion and debate tonight, and to put to the government that we cannot sit around hoping things will happen. Things will not happen unless there is a positive approach, a goal to turn the visionless society in these communities into something we can be proud of and people, especially children, can be happy to live in.
Ms McCARTHY (Indigenous Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for raising this very important issue. I welcome it. Part of my brief over the last three years has been to travel across the Northern Territory with two of the largest reforms of our government, that is, local government reform and A Working Future policy.
I said to my staff towards the last quarter of last year that now we have progressed across the Northern Territory trying to grow the regions I wanted to focus specifically on the town camps, not only in the Darwin region, but also Katherine, Tennant Creek and Borroloola.
Your concern about the future of town camps in the Darwin region is genuine. You have brought this motion in the context of your electorate, as Knuckey Lagoon and 15 Mile are both within your constituency. You also have an eye on the Aboriginal Development Foundation property of One Mile, or Railway Dam, in the city centre.
Our government supports this motion. It is timely given we are currently reviewing our joint government arrangements with the Commonwealth in the context of the end of the Northern Territory Emergency Response intervention and negotiation of a new 10-year funding agreement to address Indigenous disadvantage in the Northern Territory.
I would, however, like to move an amendment. I move – Omit all words after ‘That’ and insert in their stead:
(a) future expansion plans;
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, is there a signed copy of that motion circulated to members?
Ms McCARTHY: It is coming now.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is coming around now.
Ms McCARTHY: The important point to note is I am calling for the Commonwealth to be very much a part of this review, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The member for Nelson has reminded us of the unique history of these communities and, importantly, understands the history and the need for joint and cooperative work to create the kind of bright future and prosperous connection to the broader Darwin community we all want for the residents of these communities. That is, a clearer and optimistic future with more choice and opportunity for residents and future residents, as well as clear acceptance of roles and responsibilities by everyone with an interest and a responsibility in these areas.
This issue is fundamentally about families; recognition of families, connection to place, quality of life, access to services, participation in all Darwin has to offer, and optimism about the future. In the context of the future of town camps in the Darwin region, we are also talking about land tenure and property rights, history, and for many long-term residents, a strong sense of belonging to the place they call home, population growth, infrastructure, pathways to home ownership, youth and family services, and fuller employment for residents of these places.
This work cuts right across government and involves many areas of government. Future work will not be about what I, as Minister for Indigenous Development, do after today. It will hinge on how the three levels of government work together and with other key partners to develop, coordinate and progress the necessary plans and investments. Cooperation, coordination and sequencing of investment, as well as commitment to shared objectives, are really the ways to move forward.
In recent times, the key focus of our Indigenous development work has been on A Working Future and our Territory growth towns, on building strong local government, land tenure reform and local economic development, and an unprecedented investment in improving Indigenous housing and addressing Indigenous disadvantage in the bush. There has also been tremendous work done under the umbrella of the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, including real progress with improvements to Alice Springs town camps. We are also coming to a threshold in housing with SIHIP and with the Stronger Futures new funding.
We have to move onto the next phase of our work and further work with housing associations, service providers and residents regarding the ongoing development of urban Indigenous living areas. We should also acknowledge there has been much work happening in relation to town camps across the Territory, work that can inform our next steps here.
In Alice Springs, housing works are nearly complete, with a total of 86 new houses built, 103 homes rebuilt, and 32 homes refurbished across the town camps. We are exploring options for new forms of land tenure and subleasing enabling family home ownership. In Tennant Creek, a total of 78 houses have been rebuilt, along with two new houses.
Tenancy sustainability programs have been provided to families in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek community living areas to assist in maintaining tenancies and safe and healthy family homes. Borroloola is earmarked for new and refurbished housing as part of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, and consultation is well under way with the key groups and stakeholders in this area. Land leasing needs to be secured for new public housing and, when leasing is finalised, the housing work in Borroloola will commence.
As noted in a debate earlier this year, the Northern Territory has already made available $4m to upgrade services and infrastructure at the Bagot Community in Darwin. This has been a great investment, leading to important improvement in areas such as street lighting, fencing, water metering and improvements to sporting and community facilities. There is much more to do. In discussions with Lyle and Helen out there, we were able to look at the plans Yilli Rreung has for those areas. In fact, I am looking forward to having more of that discussion with Yilli Rreung in the coming weeks. Yilli Rreung Housing Association has its own initiative of working with the Bagot Community to develop a draft town plan outlining future development options. We heard the member for Nelson talk about those plans he has obviously been briefed on. I look forward to meeting up with Colin Tidswell and doing the same.
Also in the Darwin region, Yilli Rreung has been working hard on improving housing maintenance and municipal and essential services at all Darwin region town camps, and the development of options for affordable housing for their clients. It is time to expand and build on that work.
Improving town camps and a stronger connection of our town camp communities to our broader communities is critically important work. That is why I thank the member for Nelson for keeping this issue before us. The health, safety and wellbeing of Territorians who live in town camps are crucial to closing the gap of Indigenous disadvantage in the Northern Territory. It is core business for our government - continual improvement in infrastructure, services and opportunities for all Territorians no matter where they choose to live. The difference is our government takes a collaborative approach to planning which is supported and developed by local people. You have to walk and work with the people on the ground, as we have been doing across the Northern Territory trying to grow the regions.
We can learn from the recent history of the Alice Springs town camps. An Alice Springs task force was led by the now NT Coordinator-General, Olga Havnen. The task force had a plan for the future which changed with the intervention because the Alice Springs housing associations, and similar landholders in Darwin, have legal rights, property rights, that Australians expect will always be taken seriously by governments, rights that are protected as a core element of our Australian Constitution. In late 2007, we had a change of government in Canberra and this resulted in a hard but fair negotiation process that ultimately led to the Alice Springs Transformation Plan.
In looking at options for the future we must include the aspirations of the local people. We should encourage pride in place and home ownership as an achievable goal, and we should reach agreement on community development, but we should also do this with the people who are the community. Our approach has been, and will continue to be, to work with people on what they want to see in their place, to have local people contribute to planning and shared ownership of the goals we are working towards. We have certainly done this in developing the local implementation plans for our growth towns, and we have been working with local people about their priorities. This is what we have also done in the Alice Springs town camps. It is about coordination and sequencing to properly ensure the roles of non-government organisations, the private sector, and the three tiers of government are focused and move forward together.
Alice Springs town camps are now on the path towards improved amenity, a brighter future, and better connection to town services and development opportunities. We have to look at what has happened in Alice Springs town camps. We know the investment that has gone into Alice Springs and the improvement we have seen. The way it has happened in partnership with those people and organisations involved is something we can learn from in the work we want to do in the town camps around Darwin. We do not want the town camps and resident families to feel they are being left behind. Comment has been made in regard to the incredible investment that takes place in the regions, even in Alice Springs. When you visit some of the town camps here and talk to local Indigenous families, they are always asking when that massive injection of investment will happen.
In considering this brighter future of town camps for the Darwin area, issues like leasing and land tenure are crucial. As I have said before, we must respect the property and legal rights of landowners in working through these issues. As my colleague, the Minister for Public and Affordable Housing has noted before in this House, land tenure reform is a sensitive and complex issue which needs to be worked through. People are naturally worried about what new leasing or land tenure arrangements might mean for them and their families, and the organisations holding title to this land have property rights, rights protected by our constitution and the laws of the land.
The member for Fong Lim has previously asked about Bagot in this House: ‘How hard can it be? Bagot is on a special purpose lease and does not belong to them’. In the context of town camps, we are not only talking about special purpose leases. Land tenure also includes the Crown land lease in perpetuity, so some of the holders of that land have a form of title which implies they have that land in perpetuity. Sometimes, that is the complexity in trying to deal with negotiations that have to take place with some of the different organisations. That, added to the fact you have different groups in those town camp areas.
If we are to progress, which is what we want and why I welcome the motion put forward by the member for Nelson, we have to take all that into consideration and the complexities of keeping people at the table to talk through these issues so we can improve the town camps around Darwin. We will work through those challenges building on our recent experiences in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, and Bagot. We do not shy away from what can be new and difficult conversations about change and the best way forward. We have shown that in the work we have been doing across the Northern Territory in regard to the growth towns.
Regarding home ownership, different approaches can be used to facilitate access to home ownership. For example, the Tangentyere Council has put forward a community housing association model which could manage housing on town camps. This example was put forward in Tangentyere’s submission to the Stronger Futures inquiry. I am very pleased to see local people putting forward ideas and solutions which can work. Whether this model is suited to the Territory more broadly also needs to be discussed. However, the fact these things have occurred in Alice Springs gives us models to see if we can replicate in other parts of the Northern Territory. These are the discussions we need to have in moving forward with Darwin town camps.
I also note recent comments by Ron Morony in The Australian newspaper on home ownership. Ron Morony is the Chair of my Indigenous Economic Development Taskforce. His comments were on the difficulties associated with promoting Indigenous home ownership. In the context of the Australian government Home Ownership on Indigenous Land (or HOIL) program. Mr Morony commented:
I believe every member in this House knows there are many complex issues that need to be worked through. We are keen to ensure we have those conversations, put these things on the table and have action as a result of those discussions.
The vision for our growth towns in the bush is they have the same services and facilities as any other similar-sized town across Australia. The vision is also that they are connected - smaller communities with the local growth town, the growth town with the larger regional centre, with our outstations and homelands and so on, so people have pathways to opportunities. The same applies to town camps. It is important that town camps are better connected to the broader community through schools, jobs, transport and local government services. In planning the future of town camps we will work with local people and residents, service providers, government agencies and non-government organisations. We have this as a key priority to build on the work to date on town camps and to improve the lives and opportunities of Territory families, wherever they may be living.
It is our intention this work progresses as a key joint government priority. It will be a key focus for us very early in the next term of the Henderson Labor government. We will also work to progress improvements in other regional sites such as Elliott, Pine Creek, and Katherine through the 10 years of the new partnership agreement with the Commonwealth, as well as ongoing work on developing public and affordable housing in these centres.
In closing, I am very pleased the member for Nelson has brought this motion before the House. I will be instructing the department to begin work on what that review may look like and the discussions that need to take place with all the stakeholders - not only the families themselves, but the organisations involved with each of these town camp areas around Darwin.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind you, member for Fong Lim, given there has been amendment moved by the minister, you may wish to qualify if you are speaking to the original motion and/or the amended motion.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am speaking to both the member for Nelson’s motion and the amendment put forward by the minister.
First, thank you very much to the member for Nelson. I am very pleased the member for Nelson has put this motion to the parliament. It is a motion worthy of discussion. I wish more people in this parliament took a greater interest in the town camps across the Northern Territory. At times, people say: ‘Out of sight, out of mind’. It is obviously a Labor government ploy that the out of sight, out of mind attitude continues. The only significant thing the government has done for the Bagot Community in the 10 years it has been elected is to stick a fence along the front of Bagot Road to ensure people in Darwin cannot see in. They cannot see the filth and squalor behind the fence, and the dreadful conditions people are forced to live in at the Bagot Community. Some people think it is a wonderful thing to whack up a fence to hide the filth and squalor. I believe more would be done for people’s living conditions if we were to drive past and see the mess behind the fence.
The minister talked about street lighting, the wonderful fences and all the great improvements. I do not know the last time the minister went to Bagot to look around, but it is not much different now than 10 years ago. Things have become much worse in the period of the Labor government. Apart from building a fence at Bagot, it has done practically nothing, and life has continued to deteriorate for people living at that location.
I say time and time again, the biggest cause of concern for people in my electorate is the noise, antisocial behaviour, fighting, drunkenness and the filth that emanates from the Bagot Community to all the residents around it. I receive at least one phone call a week from someone with a complaint. It is not unusual to get four, five, or six telephone calls from various constituents who live in houses that adjoin the Bagot Community in a single night - a single night!
Residents next door to Bagot have phoned me at 3 am out of their minds. They cannot sleep; the screaming, the noise, the fighting from that community keeps them awake all hours of the night. I do not know how many times a fellow has to come into this House, complain about it, ring people and ring the police. Nothing seems to happen; nothing changes. The minister says: ‘We are doing things in Bagot’. If you are, you have not even scratched the surface because life is dreadful for the people who live inside that community.
At lunchtime today, I drove to One Mile Dam camp. I am unsure how many people in this House would know where it is. It is likely 95% of Territorians would not have noticed One Mile Dam. It is another one of those out of sight, out of mind places. If you talk about One Mile Dam to your friends, to your colleagues, quite often people look at you with curiosity wondering where the hell this place is - One Mile Dam. It is not a front-of-mind issue for most people. I drove there at lunchtime and have to say the changes to One Mile Dam - I have been going there for 10 years or so now, on and off. It has degenerated incredibly. Unfortunately, I have misplaced my phone because I took photos as I was horrified by some of the things I saw. The place is a public health risk. I cannot imagine how government can allow anyone to step foot on that land. It is an outright public health risk.
There are abodes you could call a house - all the walls have been ripped out - a roof with a couple of tarps for walls and some mattresses. I would not go anywhere near one of those mattresses, but people sleep on them. It is absolutely disgusting. The filth in that place - you have to see it to believe it. There are two waterways under the road. If a child fell in, they would have to be admitted to hospital immediately. The disease, the filth, shopping trolleys, beer bottles and beer cans, goodness me! I dread to imagine what is at the bottom of One Mile Dam. It seems to be the local rubbish dump. It is a disgusting place.
In response to this very good motion by the member for Nelson suggesting a review into these places, that we actually look at them, the minister says: ‘Oh no, no, no. I want to amend that motion to include the Commonwealth government’. I scratch my head thinking: ‘What has the Commonwealth government got to do with this?’ Why would you want to amend the motion to include the Commonwealth government? This has nothing to do with the Commonwealth government. If you are talking about fixing houses on Aboriginal land rights land, the Territory government has very little say in Aboriginal land rights land. We need permits to enter. It is very hard to deliver services. If you are looking for excuses for not doing things on Aboriginal land, there are plenty out there.
You can have an enormous number of excuses for not doing things on Aboriginal land because it is so hard to get anything happening, particularly when you need permits to go everywhere or sit down and negotiate everything. You cannot compulsorily acquire land for public purposes and the public cannot drive into these places. I understand there are many excuses the government has for not doing anything on Aboriginal land, but to say in relation to town camps in Darwin: ‘Oh, we need the Commonwealth to do something about town camps in Darwin’, goodness me, what a cop-out!
Dr Burns: What about Mal Brough? You appeared in the photo with him.
Mr TOLLNER: I am glad the Leader of Government Business has dropped in to interject. He says: ‘What about Mal Brough and the intervention?’
Dr Burns: Yes, he was there with you in the photo.
Mr TOLLNER: He was there. I am so glad the minister interjected. He has pulled out a bunch of papers now. He is going to show us Mal Brough, with his intervention, legislated for the ability to act on town camps. Why would Mal Brough do that? Why would Mal Brough say: ‘The Commonwealth wants the ability to do things in town camps?’ I can tell you why, you old Leader of Government Business, because your government was doing nothing; you were ignoring the problem. A minister from Canberra takes a couple of trips to the Territory, looks around and sees the dysfunction, the filth, the squalor, the dreadful living conditions and, in horror, says: ‘Oh my God, we have to do something. I cannot turn my back on this place. I will legislate to have responsibility to fix some of these problems’. He would not have done that if the Northern Territory government had been doing its job. Thank you, Leader of Government Business, you understand the issues better than most people here. You must be ashamed to be a member of a government that allows people to live in filth, degradation and squalor under your watch. It must be highly embarrassing to be a minister in a government which allows that to occur.
The One Mile Dam area is a beautiful piece of Darwin land. There is beautiful rainforest and a beautiful dam. It presents huge opportunities for a growing vibrant city - you could put a beautiful park there with swings. There is a huge subdivision next door at Frances Park. We are going to need parkland. This place should be cleaned up.
I am led to understand the one true resident and his family who live there would be quite prepared to move from One Mile Dam if suitable accommodation facilities were found somewhere else. However, One Mile Dam is not the home to just one Indigenous family; it is home to a range of other long-grassers, very few of whom are Indigenous. This is the home base of the Darwin Longgrass Association. Every feral across Darwin bases themselves out of One Mile Dam and how we can turn a blind eye to what seems to be occurring in that community I cannot follow. Bagot community is the same.
Finally, we had the admission today from the Chief Minister that the government has broken an election promise about the police post at Bagot. It was a rather extraordinary Question Time because at the same time we had the admission the government broke its election commitment on that, we also had an admission that it had broken its election commitment on the Katherine Boot Camp and broken its commitment on the Myilly Point development. What a horror day! There is nothing in the budget, minister. You could not say where it was in the budget ...
Mr McCarthy: No broken promise.
Mr TOLLNER: Hang on; you were going to build a police post at the Bagot community in 2009-10. Where is it? Is it there? No, it is not. What does that mean, minister? That means it is not there. That means you have broken an election commitment from 2008. What about the redevelopment of Myilly Point? Has it happened? No, it has not. Is it in the budget to happen? No, it is not. What does that mean? That means you broke an election commitment. I do not know how much clearer you can be about it. To say: ‘Oh, no, we have not done it. We said we would do it, but we have not broken any commitment’. Goodness me, it is hard to understand. The reality is, people out there know when you say you are going to do something there is very little chance of it happening. They know it is all bluff and bluster. It is being said to quell the masses. If you stand still long enough, hopefully they will forget. That is the way you guys operate.
Most of these town camps are a direct responsibility of the Northern Territory government, which turns its back on them. Look at Kulaluk - Minmarama. It would be good to know how much funding the Northern Territory government provides to fix the houses, ensure the sewerage and water are connected, and a whole range of things. No, they get very little there. Look at the Bagot Community: we ploughed $4.5m in there for street lights and fences. You would not know where it went.
Look at One Mile Dam. There is not a community more degraded, a greater health hazard. This is a public health hazard - I cannot say this strongly enough. This place is a public health hazard, should be shut down, cordoned off and a bunch of health inspectors need to get in there. A bunch of other people rugged up in overalls and masks need to get in there and clean the dump out. It is full of filth, disease and degradation and it is on your watch. It is land you are responsible for and people you are responsible for.
It is disgusting to see people are allowed to live in conditions like that on something directly controlled directly by the Northern Territory. They are special purpose leases. You can move in tomorrow and move them out. You can find that one Indigenous family a decent house; put them somewhere, and get the place cleaned out. No, we have a minister saying: ‘Oh, no, no, no. We cannot do it. It has to be the Commonwealth’. She has the audacity to complain about Mal Brough and his intervention. What a joke you are: ‘Mal Brough was a cruel bully because he came in here and did things we should have been doing ourselves’. Goodness me! You people are a cruel joke on Territorians - an absolute cruel joke.
I would love to get a group of Territorians, march them down to One Mile Dam and show them the way some of their fellow Territorians live, and the filth, degradation and disgusting conditions they are supposed to put up with.
I have had a chat with the member for Nelson. In my view, the 15 Mile camp and Knuckey Lagoon are reasonably well-kept communities but, obviously, an enormous amount of work needs to be done in those places. The member for Nelson mentioned sewerage and all the other things - water connections and electricity. They are not happening on those communities.
I imagine One Mile Dam and Bagot are out of sight, out of mind. About 20 000 Territorians drive past Bagot every morning and see nothing because there is a big fence in front and all that filth and squalor is hidden from their view. The fact is, 99% of Territorians would not have a clue where One Mile Dam is. You are quite happy to live with that out of sight, out of mind. However, in place like Knuckey Lagoon or the 15 Mile camp, there are no big fences and people can see in so they are probably reasonably well-kept. The member for Nelson assures me a heap of work needs to be done on those places as well.
Rather than the Territory government buckling under and saying: ‘Okay, things are tight at the moment. We have sold the farm; we will be insolvent in two year’s time. We cannot do anything’, no, the government says: ‘No. We have to rope in the Commonwealth to do the review’. What happens when the Commonwealth says: ‘You are hopeless. Forget your plans for statehood. Forget your plans for self-government. Things would be far better if we just stepped in and ran the place ourselves. You are bankrupt, the cost of housing is through the roof, crime is everywhere, and public drunkenness is everywhere. You people are hopeless’. I can imagine the Commonwealth saying something like that. You would have to say it would be near right.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for introducing this motion. I am honoured to talk about what is happening out there because, clearly, there are people in this House who are not remotely interested in what is happening in some of the town camps, or the conditions people are forced to live in. It is about time these issues were discussed. If the member for Nelson wants to bring similar motions, I will be glad to talk on them as well.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, my offering to this debate will be very short. ‘Epiphany’ is a wonderful word. An epiphany is a sudden realisation of a profound truth that has been around for a long time. The member for Fong Lim, formerly the member for Solomon, never raised these issues, with the exception of Bagot, when he was member for Solomon and has suddenly had a great realisation. The problems at One Mile Dam, Knuckey Lagoon and beyond …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The minister is misleading the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not given you the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not given you the call, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister is clearly misleading the House. He only has to check on the federal Hansard and the Territory Hansard. Check out any of the media. See what I have said about One Mile Dam in the past. See what I have said about 15 Mile, Knuckey Lagoon, the camps in Alice Springs, and anywhere else across the Territory. If you stand here and shoot your mouth off saying I have had an epiphany, you are sadly mistaken.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat please It is not a point of order, but should you wish to make a personal explanation, you can approach the Speaker at a later time.
Dr BURNS: The member for Fong Lim, during the 2007 election campaign, appeared at Bagot with the then minister Mal Brough, with an apparition of the good Lord behind him - a couple of saviours had come in. What I saw there was, essentially, a land grab for Bagot – a naked land grab. It was a way of working through an issue that was too hard for them to work through for a long, long time. The problems at Knuckey Lagoon, Bagot and One Mile Dam have been around for a long time. They are, to some degree, very complex issues regarding the land tenure. The member for Nelson recognised that, and here we have a way through, a proposal, an amendment to the motion of the member for Nelson. Of course, it needs the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has the resources. We are talking about large amounts of money.
I have been to Bagot, I have been to Knuckey Lagoon, and I have certainly been to One Mile Dam. The amount of infrastructure works required there, a whole range of things - the land tenure issue - some of those rest with the Commonwealth, and there is strong Commonwealth interest regarding the funding that flows through some of the organisations. The Commonwealth has to be involved and it is ludicrous for the member for Fong Lim to suggest otherwise.
I support this motion and the amendments put forward. We are getting close to an election, and we can see the member for Fong Lim trying to shore up his vote in a couple of places. However, he will be found wanting because the whisper is people are very sceptical about the plans the member for Fong Lim has for Bagot. They are formulating their plans for development their way forward, and they are very good plans which deserve support.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I said I would be brief. I support this motion, and certainly support the amendment to the motion.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion on, which I will be supporting. It is a very good idea you have brought forward. It is a constructive approach to advancement without having a deconstructive attitude to dealing with issues of land tenure and home ownership. You have raised important issues. I have always been a supporter of home ownership, having worked in public, private, and Indigenous housing for several years.
These things do not move quickly and I would like to see progression in many other areas of the Northern Territory. How that prevails in the time frames and what that looks like will be different in all locations but, in some ways, there always has to be a light on the hill, or a pilot, or someone to set an example of how to make that happen and these approaches are positive. What is required in many areas where advancement is required, whether it is Aboriginal affairs or elsewhere, is competition and competitive models. They are a positive way forward, and if something can work in this area, other people learn from that and may want to take on those measures as well.
That is why I support the approach of regional councils and regional development. If we can get regions up and working we present a competitive model where other regions and people within want to take on that one-upmanship - that willingness to achieve more for their people and region, which is another model. That is one of the reasons we support a regional council approach rather than the super shires. I am not saying all shires do the wrong thing; many shires are not supported by the people on the ground, and many of the shires are not supporting their communities as much as they should be.
So much more could have been included in this debate tonight. Areas such as CDEP could have been well-considered in the motion. The mix up of all the things Labor is doing federally in the first and second intervention is causing great harm across the Northern Territory. CDEP is one of those areas.
I have always supported full employment away from Newstart. Everyone knows my mantra about no more sit down money, people not sitting on the dole for the rest of their life with remote area exemptions and trying to drive people into employment. In 2007, that was one of the things Mal Brough, who has been spoken about in this House several times tonight, was driving. He wanted to see people transition from CDEP and into full employment, but that has not occurred. The employment was never generated and those job opportunities have never been created.
It is very hard to find job opportunities anywhere in the Northern Territory outside the urban centres and, where you do, you still have this prism of welfare where government is reluctant to apply mutual obligation requirements on people and get them out to work. The government is talking about new employment services model in the bush, and rationalising from four, or three or two, or whatever service providers down to one. That model will be a good thing. If the federal government properly funds service providers to have an office in specific locations, it will be a good thing.
I know from my experience, both working for a provider and previously in government, the biggest problem on both sides of the fence was no providers ever had the money or resources to set up an office and deliver those services - they were always fly-in fly-out.
The payment structure model I was critical of when I was in government, and have been critical of since being an employer and out of that role, is the model where people are paid based on signing someone up to the books, or getting a payment outcome at three months or six months. That is a negative approach, particularly when there is a lack of private sector employment.
On the CDEP side of things, the structure at the moment is CDEP employees - the ones not grandfathered on wages - the ones in more recent times and any new person who comes on is put on Newstart and has their income facilitated through Centrelink and then income-quarantined. This is completely negative and provides a disincentive to people to participate in CDEP. CDEP is a transitionary model; it always has been. It has not always worked as effectively as it could in some locations in the Northern Territory, but in a number of locations it has worked outstandingly. The changes to it are having a detrimental effect on people’s welfare and livelihoods, and also the development of their communities.
The member for Arafura is a big supporter of BAC, Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation. They have a very vibrant community and CDEP, in part, has been a backbone to driving development in that community. It is a positive model we should support. Now, if someone signs up for CDEP and misses a day, they have their pay docked and their income quarantined. It is proving to be a real disincentive for people to want to be on CDEP. It is much easier to stay on welfare – on Newstart. Yes, you are quarantined, but you do not have to go to work, and if you miss a day - not that we want people to miss a day - you do not have your payment docked. You receive the welfare and this cycle of poverty and misery continues. Employment service providers are trying to do the right thing and get people into work. They sign someone up, go home because they have done their job, but they cannot manipulate the system to get people into work, they cannot motivate people, they cannot get Canberra - through Centrelink, where decisions are made about participation reporting and the mutual obligation concept - they cannot make decisions for that person to have their welfare stopped.
It is like the SEAM trial - welfare and quarantining for kids who do not go to school. I might be corrected on the number, but I believe around 13 parents in the Northern Territory have had their payments challenged because their kids have not attended school. This has been going since 2007, and in five years you would think there would be more than 13, especially when you see the attendance numbers of Indigenous kids in the Northern Territory at 22% for middle years - the member for Brennan might correct me on that. I believe it is 22% school attendance for Nguiu Indigenous students, which includes the town kids in Darwin, Alice Springs Katherine and Tennant, but when you go out bush it is much worse. I will touch on those issues during the estimates process.
I call on the federal government to remove welfare quarantining from CDEP participants, remove people from Newstart, get people back on wages, make CDEP a transitionary program where it is an incentive to work, and stop people sitting down on Newstart and having their welfare quarantined. This is, fundamentally, stopping people participating in their community, participating in work, participating in development, and is driving people to be on welfare for life.
We are seeing people moving out of their communities, away from their outstations, out of their towns into the big urban centres. People are being dislocated and CDEP is part of that. CDEP disincentives - Newstart and quarantining – are encouraging the move to urbanisation where people are free to come and go as they please. I do not have a problem with that; however, we have mass populations supported by the shire model and the dislocation the shires create by moving people into town. We are seeing people on the fringes, living rough, participating in the cycle of welfare, poverty and misery, alcohol consumption and engagement with the justice system. The crime on our streets is largely because of Labor’s failure to develop in the bush and support people in the bush. That is why I have been working very hard with Terry Mills, Leader of the Opposition, and the Country Liberal Party, to drive forward an assistance package for homelands.
The government turned its back on homelands. It stopped supporting homelands, removed its policy on homelands and stopped funding homelands. Where the Territory government has said it would put $10m in over 10 years - $1m a year - the Country Liberals will put in $12.5m every year over the first term of our government to provide assistance to people who want to live on homelands. We will put money into repairs, maintenance and upgrade of houses. Organisations that manage and facilitate the administration of those funds will be required to do a number of things, including develop an asset management plan, and are free to set aside any funds out of that for upgrade, redevelopment or renewal of housing stock or replacement of stock.
That will be their choice, but we are committing $5200 for every homeland house with the criteria of the asset management plan - kids have to go to school, and we want people participating in their economy through CDEP, employment, or training. That is our commitment to assist people who want to live on their country. We recognise, myself particularly, that strong cultural connection to land, language, law and culture is important. It is important we acknowledge and facilitate that.
This comes up in this debate because town camps in Darwin, like town camps right across the Territory, are feeling the pressure of urban drift; urbanisation of people who have been forgotten or overlooked in the bush. Many people say: ‘We give people money all the time’. We have to develop, and we have to put in the fundamentals to get development happening. However, by removing the earth from underneath people’s feet, you are forcing them into town through will or otherwise.
If the shires were working I would not be condoning them. I am reflecting the views of the people on the ground. People hate the shires. I do not want to put a knife in the shires, but I want to reflect the views of constituents who say they have taken away people’s voices, taken away their assets, taken away their buses, their tractors to work on the roads, and they have taken away their jobs.
People are unhappy about these things. If the shires cannot facilitate educating people about a new way of doing business through local government and shire reform, or if they cannot facilitate improving the service delivery – this is why we say things may have to change. We have not said every shire will go. We will offer regional councils where an interest is expressed. We will not be going back to the old model; we will be looking towards a new model of regional governance. We are not going to be specific. We are not going to say: ‘This is it, my way or the highway’. This will not be happening. We will be working with people.
When you talk about housing, it is very hard not to talk about SIHIP. I was interested in many of the comments raised by the member for Nelson in his tabling of the CTC final report yesterday. One of the things he spoke about was the Indigenous employment level. I am paraphrasing, member for Nelson, as I do not have the Hansard, and correct me if I am wrong, but the member for Nelson said the government is claiming employment targets, but, in fact, it is right down the bottom. It is not what the government is saying. We have known that for a long time.
Talk to Tangentyere, which looks after the town camps in Alice Springs, and they will tell you 49 trainees started and four or five finished, but they still claim to have a 30% employment target outcome. That is not the case at all. We know that, but we have saturated the media with SIHIP and its maladministration and non-performance. People know it is a dead program. They know the pink batts program was a dead program. It has not delivered on its outcome. Tragically, under the pink batt program, people lost their lives. Fortunately, that has not happened under SIHIP. However, in an administrative sense, the program should have been delivered much better than it was.
We talk about the urban drift model, the impact of shire reforms, the impact of not having a homelands policy and not supporting homelands, the lack of economic development, the quarantining role, and the stores. All these things have occurred. People would be interested to know there has not been a new house built in the Barkly electorate for 11 years - not one. The population has increased, but not one house has been built. SIHIP spent $36.5m in Tennant Creek and there is not one extra house in the Barkly region.
Look at the housing outcomes in Budget Paper No 3. The minister for Housing likes to suggest the CLP did this with housing, the CLP did that. I have looked through public housing dwellings on page 117 of Budget Paper No 3. Public housing dwellings have gone from 5161 to 5080. They seem to have lost 81 houses over the last 12 months. Managed accommodation beds provided has gone from 728 to 674. New households assisted in urban public housing have gone from 586 to 485. You start to wonder where all the houses have gone. If you go to page 118, Remote Public Housing, Key Deliverables, remote public housing dwellings have gone from 6924 to 4906. We seem to have lost 2018 houses. Footnote 1 says: ‘Amended measure. Estimates have been revised ...’. You have lost 2018 houses in the bush. How do you revise 2018 houses? Were you lying in the last budget? I am not sure. That will be a very interesting question at estimates time.
SIHIP has built 750 houses. We have just lost 2018 in that one line, and we know there have been a number of new houses built, particularly in Alice Springs town camps. They did not build any in Tennant or any other town camps. In Alice they built 85. They are all being repaired at the moment because they did not build them properly. The town camp community living area housing dwelling numbers have gone from 621 down to 447. We seem to have lost 180 houses. How do we lose 180 houses on town camps? I do not understand how that can happen.
The planning exercise the member for Nelson has put forward is really important so we can start to work out these issues. We can start working out future expansion plans if people keep moving into town because there will be increased pressure. These will be: the future land tenure structure in leasing arrangements; private ownership; communal ownership and how that works; how you get banks involved if it is a leasing arrangement or fixed land tenure; IBA involvement; what the local governance structures of those organisations will be; does the same model continue? The member for Nelson might have a different idea on how that may work into the future.
I is not just restricted to Darwin. This issue is across the Northern Territory. You only have to look at the electorate of Nhulunbuy and the town area of Yirrkala. Yirrkala was completely excluded from SIHIP. The biggest issue for people at Yirrkala is they were not included in SIHIP; they do not have a new housing development. The government is reluctant to change land tenure structure to bring in place private sector funding to build houses. It wants to keep it on the welfare base model. That is its choice, but it has to assist through SIHIP.
This was an emergency in 2007. Mal Brough started it as an emergency, and put billions of dollars into housing as part of the intervention to try to accommodate children. There are so many places in the Northern Territory which have not been supported.
Under SIHIP, housing work at Yuendumu and Hermannsburg has not even commenced. Yirrkala was not in the mix, and Yirrkala is an important part of the landscape of the Northern Territory. Many areas of the Northern Territory have not been touched and children are at risk. The member for Araluen, the shadow minister for Children and Families, is very concerned about this. This was an emergency and we had to provide extra bedrooms so kids could get a good night sleep to go to school. This has not happened under this government’s watch. I am not going to go into the ins and outs of SIHIP, but I reiterate the Country Liberals are committed to acknowledging the cultural connection to land.
We will be supporting homelands. We have provided that commitment. Labor is committing $1m per year. It is not a money competition, but the Country Liberals are committing $12.5m per year to support people to live on their land and their country. It is important - we will do that. That is our commitment every year in our term of government. We will be supporting people to stay there.
We are calling on the federal government to change the rules around CDEP - to remove Newstart from CDEP income and remove quarantining from CDEP. We want people to have an incentive-based program to get off welfare, enter a transition program with CDEP, and get into work. That follows a similar model of advocacy the combined Aboriginal organisations are promoting with the land councils - AMSANT and NAAJA. These are positive steps to get people working and out of the poverty and misery cycle. These elements need to be included in this motion.
Thank you very much, member for Nelson. I am not going to talk specifically about the Darwin town camps, but it is an important area to discuss. A cohesive approach with the organisations rather than an attack-based approach to try to change things is the way forward in these areas because we have to work together.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all speakers for contributing to the debate. For clarification - and I am probably talking from a CTC point of view - the reason only two houses were built in Tennant Creek was a decision of Julalikari Council. The CTC queried that, but it was their decision and the reason why there are only two new houses.
The member for Braitling spoke about CDEP. I raised that in my debate as well. He might be interested to know I have always been opposed to welfare. However, while you have councils and resource centres, they should be the centres of employment. They already exist, they are local, they know the people and, to be honest, I am sick and tired of the Commonwealth government bringing people from outside to create jobs that, in many cases, do not exist. If you attach that to the responsibilities of a shire, or a resource centre, at least people will get work when they turn up for it. There are plenty of opportunities for work in these communities, especially council work, and those types of things. I thank you for your contribution on that area, which is worthy of debate at another time.
The minister has changed the original motion. I do not have a problem with that because the amendment included Bagot and other communities I did not. I am happy for that to be part of this. I will ask about the Commonwealth role when it comes to town camps because I did not include it in my initial motion. It would be good to know the role, besides sticking a sign up saying ‘no grog, no pornography’. The land belongs to the Aboriginal Development Foundation so why was the Commonwealth allowed to intervene. It was not Aboriginal land. It never has been Aboriginal land, except before white people arrived. It is leasehold, so how did the intervention occur on those parcels of land?
I was at One Mile Dam today. There is a great big sign there. There are two big signs at Knuckey, and there are two signs at 15 Mile. It came to my notice when the member for Fong Lim was talking – why does the Commonwealth have the right to put signs on those blocks of land? Maybe someone in the government could answer that for me at another time. I would be interested to know the reason.
This whole debate is coming down to deciding the future of these places. What are they for? We need to decide whether we continue with them, we expand them, or pull them down and forget about them altogether? Once we have decided what they are there for, we then move in a positive direction to make them operate as a community where people, and families, can grow in a safe way. At present, these communities do not fit that description.
First, someone has to take a leadership role. The Territory government, not the Commonwealth, should be doing that. It should be working out the future of these communities. When that has been decided, plan which will to make it happen. If that means private ownership of the land, so be it. If that means an affordable housing complex, so be it. If that means acquiring the land from the people who own it now, so be it. We have to go A, B, C, D, and not waffle too much. There needs to be some certainty in these communities.
The member for Braitling raised urban drift. That is what these communities have always been about. Many times, it was not so much about employment; it was about being able to get grog. That is why people came. They got grog at Casey’s store. If they were at the 15 Mile they went to the Howard Springs Tavern, or they could go to One Mile Camp.
Their main reason for existence was so people - they had a place to sleep, they were safe - had access to alcohol. Some of the boys I had in the dormitory many years ago used to stay at Knuckey Lagoon. I remember one good fellow was killed - hit by a car trying to cross the road. Look at the number of people who were killed at 15 Mile community. The government spent a fortune putting all those lights along the highway. Why? I am unsure how many people were killed or injured, but there were quite a few. Why did they site the community on that side of the highway? They put it …
Mr Elferink: When are these people going to be responsible?
Mr WOOD: I know that, but they were not responsible for the siting of the land, and the highway was shifted.
Mr Elferink: Yes, but the government put land on the other side of the highway.
Mr WOOD: Whist I accept responsibility should be taken, who is responsible? These communities do not have any leadership. People drift in and drift out. People come in for a bludge and then move out. People come in and cause fights and move out. At 15 Mile community, you have periods where a group of young people come in, park themselves on someone’s front veranda, cause trouble and leave. These communities have a core group of people who are permanent, but they also have people drifting in and out.
The member for Braitling is partly right in that one of the problems we have is a welfare society which is not encouraging people to take up work. That is the area we really have to work on. There is employment, especially through shires. Shires in Queensland used to be where people would go to get a job on the roads, to get a job somewhere. That is one of the roles shires should have because they are local. They are not that local, to be honest with you. They are big. When they were smaller they were more local. That is a role they should have.
Coming back to the issue we are debating today, if people went into these communities they would be scared. I go into those communities. Sometimes the dogs worry me, and I have learnt how to handle dogs. Usually the people say to me: ‘Don’t go near that house No 3, there’s a cheeky dog’. Sometimes it is the drunks. Most times I am quite happy to go into the communities.
Although we have been talking about the future of these places, I do not want it said there are not good people there. There are some good people, such as the ladies I met the other day at Knuckey Lagoon when I was delivering the newsletter. They are fine people who would like their community to be safe but do not have control over that community. There are people drifting into the community who are causing problems and no one is controlling that. What kind of community is this? It is very difficult for those people to have peaceful lives and raise their children.
The next motion will be about child welfare. That is part of the reason I say something has to change because those kids have very little chance of succeeding in life unless things turn around in these communities.
I say to the government, it is not just about the adults; it is about the families and the children. That is why we have to make these places much better than they are. If it means we have affordable housing projects like Yilli Rreung, where tenancy agreements can be put in place and people who are a nuisance or are destroying houses can be removed, so be it. At the moment, there is very little control over those communities and I worry about the future of the young children in them. Some of the adults do not set a good example for them.
I am pleased the minister has agreed to the review. I will have to wait until after the election before I find out if there is a review. At the earliest opportunity, I will be asking whichever government is in power to start this review quickly and make decisions as soon as possible. I do not want it to go on forever. The time for change is now.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move – That the Minister for Child Protection be called upon to appoint the Children’s Commissioner to monitor the implementation of the semi-urgent and important, but not urgent recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report.
This motion has reached to the top of the pile on the GBD agenda in a very timely fashion. It has only been in the last 24 hours that I have managed to extract a copy of the latest Child Protection Reform Progress Report Volume 2 released by the Northern Territory government.
For some background to what has been happening in child protection, in October 2010 the Growing them strong, together report, the board of inquiry report into child protection, was released, which included 147 recommendations. These recommendations were broken up into three categories. Thirty four of the urgent recommendations were to commence implementation by 18 April 2011. The semi-urgent recommendations were to commence implementation by 18 April 2012. The not-urgent recommendations of the report are to commence two to three years after the report is released, which is October 2012 to 2013. Here we have the latest report from the government, the latest report card on how it is travelling in the implementation of the 108 semi-urgent recommendations of the Board of Inquiry Report into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory.
It is very interesting to read through this document - it is 39 pages. Volume 1 was 41 pages; they are quite substantial documents. For the most part, the government has successfully dotted every ‘i’ and crossed every ‘t’. It has covered off on every aspect of the 108 semi-urgent recommendations it needed to report on. Some questions need to be raised, and I am sure I will do that in length at some other opportunity.
However, the issue is not about how the government is travelling in each and every one of these recommendations; it is about the principle of accountability, and of having an external and independent mechanism in place to truly monitor and assess how this government is going. How do we know these facts and figures within this report are true? How do we know it is an accurate reflection of how the government is travelling? The answer is we do not.
The government has set up a system whereby it expects us to take its word on how it thinks it is progressing in reform. Given the track record of this government over the last 10 years, we cannot trust it to do this. It is unreasonable to expect the people of the Northern Territory to expect this government to portray itself in a fashion which truly reflects its performance. The reason is there has been report upon report, independent inquiry after independent inquiry outlining the dismal track record of this government in child protection for over a decade. For over 10 years, we have documented proof of how this government has failed in its business of carrying out child protection in the Northern Territory.
Therefore, when we look at this report, we cannot fully accept what it contains, because it really is the government’s appraisal of itself, which will always be positive. That will always be a gold-star performance because that is what the government needs to tell people. It needs to tell people how well it is going, how successfully it is reforming the child protection system. It needs to give its members a pat on the back and convince the people of the Territory it has suddenly been able to miraculously reform the system it mismanaged for so many years. If it does not, it is in serious trouble at the next election. We all know that. It is in serious trouble, anyway, after the last 48 hours in this parliament, where it presented the most appalling budget of all times - the black hole of Delia Lawrie. I do not want to digress; I will present what I have to say in a fairly succinct fashion.
The government has been very cunning when it comes to child protection. In October 2010, the Chief Minister, red faced and blustering as usual, said: ‘We accept all of the 147 recommendations of this report without reservation. We will implement each and every one of those recommendations’. Why? He was ashamed and embarrassed by the latest report outlining this government’s failure in child protection, so he undertook to implement each and every one of those 147 recommendations without dispute, without any debate over how relevant or irrelevant, or how practical or impractical, each and every one might be.
Very quickly, we saw a major backflip. We remember that because it came so quickly after the Chief Minister basically lied, or misled parliament. The recommendation that was …
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Mrs LAMBLEY: I withdraw. I withdraw.
Mr Knight: What do you withdraw?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Implying the Chief Minister lied.
Mr Knight: You did not tell the truth.
Mrs LAMBLEY: He did not carry out the undertaking he gave the people of the Northern Territory. He did not necessarily lie, but he changed his mind.
Very quickly, we heard recommendation 136 was not going to be implemented; that the aspect of that which pertained to the Children’s Commissioner was going to be ignored. They were not going to place the Children’s Commissioner in the role of monitoring the implementation of Northern Territory government decisions arising from any inquiry in relation to the child protection system or the wellbeing of children under the Inquiries Act. The government decided not to give the external monitoring role to the Children’s Commissioner, contrary to its undertaking to employ or implement each and every one of those recommendations. There was a major backflip, and we have spoken about that many, many times in parliament.
In its place, the government decided, in its wisdom as a failure in child protection, to set up the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. This committee is made up of very distinguished people who have given a significant part of their life to the child protection industry. There are some people on the committee I have the utmost respect for. This committee took a long time to come together, well into 12 months after the release of the report. The government struggled, stalled, and finally put together the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. I have argued many times in parliament that this committee is far from independent. It has no function at all, at present, as an independent monitor of how the government is performing. The government told this committee some time ago that in order to do its job it needed a framework to assess the government. It was decided the government would put together the framework by which the committee would assess government, which would take at least 12 months. Strangely enough, the completion date for this assessment framework is after the election.
You have a committee that is not assessing, or monitoring, the performance of the government because it does not have an assessment tool. That tool will not be available until after the election in August this year. The government has set up a system where no one is monitoring its performance. There is no independent or external monitoring system in place. No one is assigned to sincerely and genuinely oversee this process because the government has set it up so no one can do it.
The government needs to be exposed. People of the Northern Territory need to fully understand this government has escaped scrutiny for some time - impartial, independent scrutiny since the release of the Growing them strong, together report just over 18 months ago.
No one has been assigned to truly take on this responsibility. The Children’s Commissioner was thrust aside. The government did not want him to do it because, at the time, it said there was some type of conflict; that he was too close to the game because he was Chair of the board of inquiry. The government felt he was, perhaps, too knowledgeable about how inadequate and how inept the government was in child protection and the provision of child protection services. The government blatantly removed him from the whole equation of being an independent monitor. It then set up the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, an absolute toothless tiger, with no mechanism in place until after the election to scrutinise and monitor what the government is up to.
The Ombudsman, the thorn in the side of the government when it comes to child protection, was thrust aside also. She was brilliant in her summation. She was very scientific in her approach. She systematically went through cases, pulled them apart, and examined exactly what the child protection services were doing in cases around Central Intake, case management plans and time frames. She did a wonderful job in her last report into child protection, A Lifelong Shadow. This was the report of a partial investigation of the child protection authority of the Northern Territory. What did the government do? It did not accept most of her recommendations. It accepted 40% of the Ombudsman’s recommendations because she was too good, was she not? She was too good at pulling the eyes, ears and teeth out of the problems in the system. This government cannot handle any more criticism when it comes to child protection because it is extremely embarrassing. It is extremely humiliating to be put through yet another rigorous report, a rigorous assessment into how it is travelling with the child protection service.
What do we have left? Who is putting the spotlight on child protection services? Who is truly watching and assessing what is going on? I am doing my best, but I only have what the public has. I only have what can be found or extracted from the government when it comes to self-reporting. I only have Volume 1 and Volume 2 of the Child Protection Reform Progress Reports. I only have the monthly progress reports the minister sends out. I only have the government’s word on how it is progressing.
This is not a democratic and fair process. It is not transparent. It is not good governance when you remove every mechanism open to scrutinise, fairly and independently, child protection in the Northern Territory. This is not fair. It is not fair for the children and the families of the Northern Territory, and this government should be deeply ashamed of the fact it has deliberately set this system up. The government has deliberately removed any hope of fair scrutiny of how it is travelling.
When I look at these reports, when I read through every word - which I have attempted to do today - when I look at how the government describes its interventions, its intention to review, to reform, to monitor, to implement - all the words are there. I have read ‘review’ in this report perhaps 20 times and I wonder: ‘Haven’t there been enough reviews? Should it not be about improving things and getting things right rather than continuing this process of review?’
I look at it and wonder what the truth is? What is the truth behind what we read? What is the truth behind what is happening within the child protection system in the Northern Territory? The only truthful information coming to me as shadow minister for Child Protection in the Northern Territory comes from people who have the courage and conviction to ring me, to talk to me, to tell their story about what is really happening behind the scenes. I receive calls from people you would not believe. That is nothing, necessarily, to be proud of. I do not say this as a good thing; it is a necessary thing. These people need an outlet and need to be heard. These people need to tell their stories of what is going on behind the scenes. They know what we are reading and hearing from the government is not impartial, it is not independent, and is not necessarily the truth.
It is with great passion and conviction I put to this parliament the Minister for Child Protection be called to appoint the Children’s Commissioner, one of the true captains of this industry in the Northern Territory, to monitor what is going on. I say that because the Children’s Commissioner put out a splendid report in 2010-11. It is probably one of the best reports I have read since becoming a member of parliament 18 months ago. The office of Children’s Commissioner was set up in 2008 and, since then, the Children’s Commissioner has been monitoring the recommendations of the Little Children are Sacred report, and does it brilliantly. How the Office of the Children’s Commissioner undertake this very important social duty of monitoring the implementation of this report is to be highly commended. They preface their role as monitors of this report by saying:
They are very clear on their parameters. They do this in a very fair and systematic way. They go through each recommendation they are reviewing. Each year they have staggered the way they undertake the review. They have increased the number of recommendations reviewed over each successive year. There are 97 recommendations in the Little Children are Sacred report, and this coming year will be the last year they review and monitor how those recommendations are implemented. They have done it in a very practical, clear and concise way. If you take the time to read this report - and I call upon all members of the House to look at how well the Children’s Commissioner does this - you can see they outline the recommendation. They then outline the Northern Territory government response to that recommendation, and give a succinct summary of how they see the Northern Territory government is progressing with the implementation of the recommendation.
Finally, they give an outcome. That might be substantially achieved, partially achieved, or fully achieved. Once again, they give an explanation. It is very well written. This group of people headed up by the Children’s Commissioner know their business. They know how to go about the business of fairly scrutinising these things.
The Children’s Commissioner is more than equipped to take on the role of monitoring how this government is implementing the semi-urgent recommendations, the urgent, and the important-but-not-urgent recommendations of the board of inquiry report. His office is equipped, experienced, and can do it. I am showing you this book which contains absolute proof they can do it. There is no doubt in my mind the Children’s Commissioner should have this role.
The only reason this government could debate against my motion is fear of being exposed ...
A member: The culture of cover-up.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The culture of cover-up is rife. The only thing the Minister for Child Protection will show by the government not supporting this motion is fear he will be exposed, once again, and that there will be more scrutiny. There will be more trouble coming his way because what is contained in this report may not be as accurately presented as it should be.
The Country Liberals undertake to put in a far more transparent system when it comes to child protection, for several reasons. The main one is we do not have anything to hide when it comes to child protection. This government has been at the helm for 11 years now, and has made a complete and utter mess - regardless of what the minister will tell you in a few minutes about what happened in 2000, 1995, 1987 or 20 years ago, because that is all he has to hang on.
The truth is, we do not have anything to hide. If we gain government in August, we will come with a clean slate. We will expose the truth of what is going on, because we have to assess the mess, the damage, that is really there - not what the government tells us is there, not what the spin doctors and the people on the 5th floor want us to believe. We will have to see what the damage is and assess it. We will not be employing a culture of cover-up. That is not only damaging to the people within the bureaucracy, the child protection industry, and the Department of Children and Families, it is, first and foremost, damaging the lives of children and families we are here to serve and protect as they are notified to this department.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with the utmost conviction that I put this motion to parliament tonight for debate. It is a matter of urgency that the Children’s Commissioner be brought back into the realm. I challenge the Minister for Child Protection to be courageous, honest, and up-front, and demonstrate his true commitment to child protection in the Northern Territory. Bring the Children’s Commissioner back into the fold. Let him honestly scrutinise these words in these reports. Let him honestly tell the people of the Northern Territory what is going on, so we all know what we are working with and we can all restore some hope and confidence to the child protection system.
Mr VATSKALIS (Children and Families): Madam Deputy Speaker, no, the member is wrong. I am not going to go back to 1987, 1995, or even 2001. On many occasions I have mentioned what happened in 2001, and I am not the only one to say it. In front of me I have a report by the agency titled State of Denial: The Neglect and Abuse of Indigenous Children in the Northern Territory. I will table the report. If you want to find out what happened then you can. I am going back to more recent times, less than a year ago, when members opposite rubbished the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, alleging the government ‘wined and dined them’, and that is why it gave a glowing report to the government.
The member for Araluen repeats the same thing, not in the same words, but that somehow the committee is a toothless tiger, the committee is not assessing anything, the committee is a cover-up for the government. This is an affront to Dr Vimpani; an affront to Frank Hytten, CEO of the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care; to Terry Murphy, Director General of the Department for Child Protection, Western Australia; to Teresa Neihus, President, Foster Care NT; to Jacqui Reed, Chief Executive Officer of CREATE Foundation; to Dr Sven Silburn, Director, Centre for Child Development and Education, Menzies School of Health; Danny Munkara and Joyce Taylor.
To accuse these people, who are not paid - they form the committee and have done so much work – that this committee is not allowed, or does not examine what government is doing and gave a fake report, is embarrassing. It is embarrassing for the member. She has no conviction and all she does is chase headlines. She has been caught out before with allegations in this parliament about child prostitution in Alice Springs. When challenged to provide evidence, she was nowhere to be found. On 1 May, the member opposite issued a media release calling on the minister to produce Volume 2 of the Child Protection Reform Progress Report because the government had not produced it.
Unbeknown to her, because she did not do her job properly, that report was on the department’s website on 19 April. It was produced, and was placed on the website immediately. Volume 2 is here, member for Araluen. If you had done your job properly, you would have been able to see it, read it, copy it and have it with you. I do not believe you have the conviction. As a matter of fact, I do not believe you really care about child protection. If you really care about child protection, you and your party would not issue a three-page policy on child protection. The only thing you talk about is an extra $9m, nothing much. It is waffle with nothing much about children.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government set up the board of inquiry and committed to implementing all the recommendations of the board of inquiry. No, we have not gone back on any of those recommendations. We will not go back because we are serious about child protection in the Territory. We have put in the effort, and we will put money where our mouth is.
There is a $177m investment in child protection in the Northern Territory. What does your party have to show for it? Nothing! There was $7m in 2001, and that was about it! There were fewer than a 100 people in child protection; we have nearly 500 people in child protection. We are prepared to strengthen the child protection system in the Northern Territory even further, not only by employing people from Australia and overseas if necessary, but training our own people to work in child protection - Indigenous people. We have various positions in child protection where Indigenous people are actively encouraged to study to become child protection workers. We are going to provide child protection in the communities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there were 147 recommendations divided into urgent - to be commenced immediately to less than six months - 34; 108 recommendations were semi-urgent and to be commence within 18 months; and five were important, but not urgent, and had to be commenced within two to three years.
On 14 April 2011, I released the government’s first report on the progress of implementing the urgent recommendations of the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory. There were 34 recommendations the board of inquiry considered should commence within six months, and we commenced on all urgent recommendations within this time frame. The second progress report on all 147 recommendations has now been released. It was on the web on 19 April and, yesterday, 1 May, you issued a media release saying: ‘Where is it?’ Here is your media release; it has your name on it. I quote from your media release:
The report was released on 19 April and, if you had taken the time and effort to read the web page, you would have found it. You have no commitment to child protection. You neither took the time nor made the effort to find out what was happening in the child protection area. That much commitment from the member opposite - she loves the headlines, she does not like the truth.
I have received a further report on the progress of the board of inquiry implementation from the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. The report commends the extensive effort of the Northern Territory government to progress the reforms, and acknowledges the hard work of the Department of Children and Families. The Assembly is well aware the committee comprises prominent and highly-regarded experts in the field of child safety, wellbeing and protection and mentions their names. They are not paid. They make the effort because they believe in child protection. I do not believe any member of the committee would give the government a good report card if it did not do the work as promised and required to protect children in the Northern Territory.
The committee met four times in 2011, and has already met this year in Tennant Creek, with some members meeting with departmental staff, and residents and stakeholders in Kalkarindji and Ti Tree. It has heard extensively from government and non-government stakeholders, service providers, peak bodies and, importantly, departmental staff, on how the reform process is progressing. This includes what is working, what is not working, where additional focus and resources are required, and so on.
I am advised the member for Araluen finally took the time to meet with the committee in December 2011. Well done, I am glad you did. I know you are busy, but I am glad you met with the committee. I hope the committee spoke to you and you understand the committee is independent of government. It has nothing to do with me; I do not direct it and will not direct it. If I ever tried to direct it, I doubt the members would take it kindly. This committee does not belong to the government. It is not a government subcommittee, it is an independent committee - a truly independent committee.
I do not think Terry Murphy, Director General of the Department for Child Protection in Western Australia, would take it kindly if a minister of the Territory government told him how to write a report. He would be rather upset, and most likely would walk. The fact we have someone who works for the Liberal government in Western Australia to be part of an external committee of the Territory shows how independent the committee is. It also shows how this government is determined to make inroads into child protection, appointing people like him from a Liberal government. It shows this government truly believes in child protection and is prepared to take tough action if necessary.
Recently, a woman was charged with neglect of a child. I made it clear to my department I would not tolerate any other incident like that and wanted the book thrown at her. The police investigated and took it to task.
I reject any suggestion from the member opposite the committee is not independent. It is independent. It has the power to investigate if the government is doing the right thing or not. The fact it has twice said the department is doing the right thing is a tick for the department. We are on the right track.
In late 2011, an invitation was extended to the Children’s Commissioner, allowing him to attend meetings with the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee as an observer when items are of interest or relevance to his position. The commissioner accepted this invitation and attended the first day of the committee’s recent Tennant Creek meeting. This involvement will not only assist the commissioner in fulfilling his statutory obligation, but further enhance the transparency and accountability of this reform agenda. The commissioner took part in a meeting of the independent committee in Tennant Creek. By asserting the committee, somehow, is not independent and did not do its job properly means the commissioner was part of this conspiracy and has not done his job properly. That is a very interesting idea, member opposite.
The government has rejected past suggestions from the opposition that the Children’s Commissioner should have, as a formal and additional function, monitoring responsibility in relation to implementation of the board of inquiry recommendations. I have said previously, there is a clear potential for conflict of interest to arise with a statutory officer like the commissioner being appointed to the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. I am certain I said the same when you were calling for the Ombudsman to be appointed to a similar position. It is not appropriate for the commissioner’s statutory function and independence to be impeded or compromised through such an appointment.
Further, legislative amendment came into effect on 1 July 2011 corresponding to board of inquiry recommendation 136, incorporating a new function for the commissioner to deal with issues relating to government implementation of the board’s recommendation insofar as the submission relates to the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable children. So, no backtracking on that recommendation, member for Araluen.
It is consistent with the objects of the Care and Protection of Children Act that the Children’s Commission is established to ensure the wellbeing of vulnerable children. The commissioner has broad powers to assess, analyse, and provide advice and recommendations to me on matters related to government implementation of the board of inquiry recommendations. This broad power is only to be exercised insofar as it relates to the wellbeing of vulnerable children. This not only maintains the jurisdiction and responsibilities of existing statutory office holders and authorities in relation to the board of inquiry recommendations, it also ensures the Children’s Commissioner can focus on his or her most critical role of ensuring the wellbeing of vulnerable children. The act is clear that any submissions received by the commissioner which relate to implementation of the board of inquiry recommendations are to be referred to the minister. The minister then provides them to the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee so all members are kept informed of issues or concerns being raised by the commissioner and can deal with these issues as part of their monitoring functions.
The government is absolutely committed to assuring internal and external accountability and transparency of this reform process. Detailed progress reports are provided quarterly by the Department of Children and Families to the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. The Council of Territory Cooperation has called for reports and briefings on aspects of the implementation of the board of inquiry recommendations.
In addition to this high level reporting, the Department of Children and Families’ electronic newsletter, DCF Connect, is distributed every four weeks to key child protection system stakeholders. Monthly reports of marked progress against board of inquiry reforms are made available on the department’s website each month.
The inaugural Department of Children and Families Annual Report 2010-2011 incorporated progress and performance information as required by the relevant board of inquiry recommendation, as will future reports.
Further, the government’s response to the board of inquiry report, Safe Children, Bright Futures Strategic Framework 2011 to 2015 outlined the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee would work with the department in 2011 to develop a performance measurement and evaluation framework to measure the success of reforms to the child protection and child and family support systems. Not the recommendation, but to measure the success of the reforms to the child protection and child and family support systems. Your allegation that the committee does not have a performance measurement evaluation framework is absolute rubbish with a capital ‘R’.
The framework will address board of inquiry recommendation 145, which is that a framework involving performance measures in the domains of input, process, outcome and impact is adopted and appropriately resourced. The board recommended the framework be developed to assess the success of the reforms and the family support systems.
We expect this framework to be in place in early 2013. There can be no doubt the government is committed to an open and transparent process which assures the highest degree of accountability and scrutiny of this important reform agenda.
The member opposite has been caught out again. She has been caught out many times. She loves the headlines. She does not like it when she is questioned about the headlines, about her statements. She supported the Ombudsman against the Children’s Commissioner, and has now changed her tune and supports the Children’s Commissioner being a part of this committee. This is the same committee she says is not independent because it was wined and dined by the government. She said that last year; it is in the Hansard. I am happy to read it line by line - she would not like that. Now, she says there is no monitoring tool for the committee to work with. She probably did not understand the framework is not in relation to the board of inquiry recommendations, but about systems we have put in place as a result of these recommendations. She has been caught out again.
Yesterday, she put out a hilarious media release. I thought it was not 1 May, but 1 April - April Fools’ Day. Who in their right mind would issue a media release asking for the government to release something which had been released 20 days earlier? The media found out about it and had a field day.
No, we are not going to support this motion. This motion is full of rubbish with a capital ‘R’.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the situation is even worse than I thought. What the minister described is far worse than I imagined. You are right; I thought the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee was waiting on the performance management and evaluation framework as a tool with which it could evaluate the government’s implementation of the recommendations of the board of inquiry report. It is not going to use it for that. Gee whiz, it is worse than I thought. The minister has just described to the people of the Northern Territory a situation where the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee will never be monitoring how the government is implementing the 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report.
I am even more appalled than I was 15 minutes ago. There is no mechanism in place for anyone to properly assess how this government is travelling. Thanks to the minister, it is now utterly clear.
The minister questioned my credibility ...
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I put on the record that I came to the Northern Territory almost 20 years ago to be the senior social worker at the Alice Springs Hospital. A large part of that role was managing the social work services of the paediatric ward. I worked with Aboriginal women and children in that hospital for years. I supervised the practice of many social workers and many Aboriginal liaison officers, including the two children of the member for Macdonnell. Two of her children were my staff, and I supervised how they worked with people throughout the hospital. As I said, a large proportion was working with women and children - children who were suffering from failure to thrive, children who were neglected, abused and requiring the care and protection of the government.
When the Minister for Child Protection questions my credibility in this parliament, might I suggest my credentials, my experience, my understanding, is far greater than most people’s in this room when it comes to child protection and the function of Children and Families in the Northern Territory.
I suggest the minister has no credentials whatsoever in this area. He does not come from a health or welfare background. His direct work experience, clinical experience in this area, is next to nothing! When I hear members from across the other side of the Chamber yell abuse and ridicule me - with my very strong record in the area - it confirms this government is an absolute and utter joke! You contradicted yourself. You have made yourself look even worse than before I started this debate.
Regarding being caught out with the media release I issued last night, it was absolutely amazing. The information I received is this report, the Child Protection Reform Progress Report Volume 2, was placed on the Intranet to all staff last week. Correct? Correct! All staff within the Department of Children and Families had access to this report last week. I did a ring around …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I am objecting to the interjections here, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, because it is a simple way of trying to deflect from the government’s inadequacies when it comes to child protection.
I did a quick ring around of key stakeholders in child protection before I issued that media release. No one had seen it, no one knew anything about it, and no one had read it - including me. I am the shadow minister for Child Protection. That report was due on 18 April 2012, almost two weeks ago. I had not seen it. I had not heard of it. It was very difficult to find. I dispute the fact it was on the website last night until the media release was issued. I am almost certain tonight, and say publicly and truthfully, it was not there until I issued the media release; however, 1% of me is unsure, so I will not stand my ground too strongly on that. This document profiling the performance of this government, its assessment of its performance, was not publicly and freely available until I issued my media release. So, you were caught out, not me. You were flimsy and negligent in your duty to publicly account for your continuing failure when it comes to child protection.
Strangely enough, when asked for an interview by an ABC journalist, the first thing he said to me was: ‘Robyn, I can’t find it either’. We stood at the computer and he asked me where to look. I told him to look in various places. He said: ‘According to the minister’s media officer, it is definitely on the Internet’ and I said: ‘Well, I maintain it is not because I spent half the day on this’. Lo and behold, miraculously it appeared. It was incredible. We could not believe it. The ABC journalist and I found the document and, lo and behold, we looked at each other as if to say: ‘Well, isn’t that curious?’ It was just a little suspicious that two intelligent people who have a great interest in child protection, both fairly computer savvy, could not find it until 9 pm last night when, I suggest, the Minister for Child Protection put it on the Internet, but I am willing to let that go. He was caught out, not me.
The dirt is dripping off your hands, not mine. When it comes to child protection, this is further evidence you cannot trust what you read or hear. It is likely to be a load of fabricated nonsense when it comes to child protection in the Northern Territory.
The Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee is a highly-esteemed, highly-professional, experienced group of individuals, but when it comes to the Children’s Commissioner, you say he has a conflict. He is too close to child protection in the Northern Territory. In that case, why do you have any people from the Northern Territory child protection industry on your external monitoring and reporting committee? You are totally contradicting yourself. You are leaving yourself open. What you are saying is nonsense. It does not follow any rational argument to say Howard Bath has a conflict of interest but Charlie King, Donna Ah Chee and various other people from the Northern Territory do not when they have given their life, soul, and a great proportion of their career to child protection.
What is good for the goose is not good for the gander. You are contradicting yourself. It is blatant. It is plain to see, and you are embarrassing yourself even more than you have in the past. It is truly shameful.
When it comes to this government, you cannot trust what you read, you cannot trust what you hear, and we need someone like the Children’s Commissioner to be on the side of the people of the Northern Territory. He has a history of reporting accurately, fairly, and scientifically on the implementation of the recommendations of the Little Children are Sacred report. Why can he not do it for the Growing them strong, together report?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Minister for Child Protection be called upon to appoint the Children’s Commissioner to monitor the implementation of the semi-urgent and important, but not urgent, recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report.
The Assembly divided:
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Tonight I will fulfil a promise I made. I had this bill ready in February, but in an effort to be complete and thorough, I ran it past interested parties, which is why I had to wait until today to bring it before the House.
I thank those people who looked at the bill and gave advice in relation to it. As it turns out, it was a worthwhile exercise. I also note at the outset the government today introduced a bill titled the Adult Decision Making Bill 2012 (Serial 210). I have a sneaking suspicion this is going to touch on precisely the same issues as the bill I am introducing today.
Before I go into the details of the bill, I want to make some general observations. As a matter of public importance, late last year I raised in this House the issue of medical and enduring powers of attorney. These are, essentially, the living will concepts which exist in all other jurisdictions. Since that time, I have had representations from various people, but would like to specifically mention a lady by the name of Susannah, a registered nurse. She had a very unfortunate incident whereby, had this legislation been in place and her husband taken advantage of it some years ago, it would have been possible for her to avoid a very nasty time in a coronial court being accused of conduct she simply did not deserve by a reckless and thoughtless lawyer.
I take my hat off to the Coroner, Mr Greg Cavanagh, who was very clear to point out to Susannah that her conduct was not consistent with the allegations put to her by that reckless and thoughtless lawyer. Sometimes, I wish lawyers would be more considerate of the effect their line of questioning has on people who give evidence before any number of courts, particularly coronial inquiries, because they are not inquiries of a criminal nature.
The bill before the House introduces the concept of AHDs. The reason we have called it an AHD rather than a medical enduring power of attorney is so there is a clear understanding this is different to a power of attorney. This is what we would call an Advanced Health Directive.
The intent of this bill is to build on the common law principle that every person of sound mind has the right to determine what should be done with their body by allowing that person to give directions for a future where they may not be legally capable. The bill allows a person to achieve this in a number of ways:
1. by giving a specific direction on their future healthcare in an Advanced Health Directive;
2. by appointing a health guardian to make healthcare decisions on their behalf; and
Every adult is considered to have the capacity for decisions relating to their healthcare unless otherwise demonstrated. The powers conferred by this bill will only apply when the donor is not legally capable of making those decisions, as stated by Justice McDougall of the New South Wales Supreme Court:
There will be circumstances where it may not be possible for a care provider to discover whether a patient has a valid AHD, or whether an AHD contains the directions for a given situation. This could include a paramedic at the scene of an accident, or a person whose identity may not be known presenting for care at a hospital or a remote health clinic. In such cases, the presumption will be to provide the best practice and care, and the provider will be protected from any liability for breaching an instruction in the AHD.
The provisions of this bill do not affect the operation of the common law directions about healthcare in a form other than provided in this bill. Instructions in an AHD can only enable the dying process to take a natural course and cannot be used to facilitate voluntary euthanasia - and I stress that. This is not about voluntary euthanasia. It is not designed to be about voluntary euthanasia; it is about a person’s death taking a natural course.
Without going through the specific clauses at length, I will touch on the functional clauses of the bill. New section 21B defines the term ‘life-sustaining measures’ used within the part. To avoid doubt, this section lists cardiopulmonary resuscitation, assisted ventilation, assisted hydration and nutrition as life-sustaining measures. A blood transfusion is not categorised as a life-sustaining measure. This is to provide flexibility to accommodate religious convictions which prohibit the acceptance of blood and blood products.
New section 21C allows a person of sound mind to make pre-emptive decisions about their future healthcare. An Advanced Health Directive will operate at any time the person has lost legal capacity to make decisions relating to their healthcare. The document may also nominate a person, or a health guardian, to act as a decision-maker on their behalf. If a health guardian is nominated, a person must indicate acceptance of their responsibilities by signing the acceptance form set out in Schedule 1A of the act - I refer members to clause 6.
New section 21D allows a person to give pre-emptive directions and instructions about their future healthcare. This includes directions relating to life-sustaining measures and special health measures. Special health measures cover the following areas of healthcare:
(1) removal of tissue from the person while alive for donation to someone else;
In new section 21E, in addition to, or in lieu of providing detailed specific instructions regarding their future healthcare, a person may appoint a person to be their health guardian. This person is the donee of an enduring power of attorney for health matters. The healthcare guardian may make decisions on behalf of the donor within limitations of the terms of their appointment. Decisions relating to special health matters cannot be made by a health guardian, but the health guardian may be authorised to give directions regarding their healthcare, despite the donor’s objection to the care during the period of incapacity.
An alternate health guardian may be nominated in an AHD if the appointed health guardian is unable to fulfil that role due to death, incapacity, or such circumstances, or if the Supreme Court is required to make an alternative appointment under section 21K. The donor may also request specific persons be excluded from being appointed as a health guardian. The donor needs to be confident the court will be able to appoint a person most capable of understanding and carrying out their wishes.
New section 21F allows that during periods of incapacity, the AHD provide authority over the provision of healthcare equivalent to that enjoyed by the donor were they legally capable. The health guardian, within terms of their appointment, has the power to do anything the donor would be able to do for themselves, such as providing consent to treatment.
Before a direction to withhold life-sustaining measures can be implemented, there must be an agreement between the donor’s treating doctor and one other doctor that the donor has no reasonable ability to regain legal capacity. Starting or continuing life-sustaining measures would be inconsistent with good medical practical practice and that the donor is:
1. suffering from an irreversible or incurable terminal illness or conditions that death is expected within 12 months, even with life-sustaining measures;
2. in a persistent vegetative state, due to severe and irreversible brain damage despite other bodily functions sustaining life; and
3. in a coma due to brain damage with no reasonable prospect of regaining consciousness; and
New section 21G defines if a health guardian is unavailable to make decisions in any period during a donor’s incapacity, the public guardian appointed under the Adult Guardianship Act may act as the person’s health guardian unless specified by the AHD.
New section 21H allows that existing provisions within the act specified by the section relating to the creation, revocation, execution, and registration of enduring powers of attorney may also apply to an AHD created in this part.
New section 21K gives the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to vary or revoke terms of an AHD if the donor is incapacitated. The court may choose to vary or revoke the terms it sees fit on application of the public guardian or other person with a close connection to the donor. This includes the power to appoint an alternative health guardian. A health guardian must apply to the Supreme Court if they wish to retire from the role.
New section 21J enables instruments making advanced health directives or appointing a health guardian which has been executed under the legislation of another Australian jurisdiction to be recognised in the Northern Territory.
Section 21L allows that an AHD may be revoked on the death of the donor or an order is made by the Supreme Court to revoke the order.
Section 21M ensures the protection of a person who is ignorant of a person’s AHD and the healthcare provided in contravention of the AHD in certain circumstances. This section will apply to a person providing emergency care such as a paramedic, first aider, or when there is no reasonable way they could be notified of the existence or the contents of an AHD. The protection will also extend to health professionals if they are operating outside a system that can provide information about the patient’s AHD in a timely manner.
New section 21N protects a person providing healthcare from liability if they act in good faith upon the information contained in the AHD that has been varied or revoked. This protection only applies to circumstances where the healthcare provider or health guardian has not received notice of the change or revocation, and is operating outside the system which could inform them of the changes in a timely manner.
New section 21P ensures the act does not affect the right of a person of sound mind to accept or refuse medical surgical treatment. Nor does it change the legal consequences of taking or withholding therapeutic measure for a person with a terminal illness, or taking life-saving measures if the person has not made an AHD which directs to the contrary. Despite the provisions of this act, instructions about healthcare which are valid under common law may still be recognised.
New section 21Q ensures that a person acting in good faith under the direction of an AHD and this act to withhold life-sustaining measures is not liable to criminal offences. This would ensure the direction to withhold artificial ventilation or not commence artificial nutritional hydrations provided under the AHD would not be considered the cause of a person’s death.
Without going into section 21R, which relates to savings and other provisions, the thrust of this legislation is very straightforward. It is about the capacity of a person to say what happens to them, should the capacity to make decisions for their own wellbeing and ongoing medical care be taken away by illness, injury, or accident.
This should not be a controversial piece of legislation. I note the Attorney-General had laid on the table a fairly lengthy bill today relating to adult decision-making.
I presume the government’s bill is also in response to increasing pressure it will have received from quarters affected by this. I say to people with an interest in this, it is unlikely either of these bills will be passed into law prior to the next Northern Territory election. Should the Country Liberal Party be given power by the people of the Northern Territory, we will examine both these bills, go back to the interested parties and talk to them about the bills, and let them determine which is better for their cause.
The government and the opposition are not too far apart on this issue. I acknowledge that, but this is an important matter and I would be comforted if, in the real world, by Christmas this year no matter who should be in government this legislation, in whatever form, becomes a law of the Northern Territory. As a jurisdiction, we have been slow to capture this idea. It is well within the ideological construct of a Liberal Party to enable people to make determinations for their own wellbeing, even beyond the realms of their capacity, and we have no ideological problem with people making these decisions.
Before anyone becomes hysterical about this exercise, I do not believe the government’s bill is in any way a frolic into the area of voluntary euthanasia. That is not what the issue is about. It is about people being able to determine the quality and type of healthcare they receive into the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move –
growth in educational facilities;
growth at Coolalinga Centre, Girraween subdivision and potential subdivision at Howard Springs pine forest;
AAco abattoirs; and
increase in US troops at Robertson Barracks.
I realise this is probably the last motion of a General Business Day of the sittings of this Assembly, so I will be as quick as I can. The minister will have an answer.
One of the unfortunate things with this is ministers have a prepared answer. There may be some questions the minister can answer off the written response, because since this motion was first put there have been some changes. The member for Goyder wanted to have a few words as well.
Minister, I am very pleased that money has been set aside for the duplication of Howard Springs Road between the Stuart Highway and Whitewood Road. You have been out there with me and the amount of traffic is considerable and only getting worse. I appreciate there is a considerable amount of money in the budget for an upgrade. The problem is not just Howard Springs Road; it is the flow of traffic on the Stuart Highway which, at times, has built up as far back as Virginia Road, partly because of the inability to get traffic out of Howard Springs Road quickly.
I put it to one of your advisors, and he showed me some rough plans for, possibly, four lanes out of Howard Springs. The development of the Good Shepherd Lutheran College means there is quite a considerable amount of traffic going back to Palmerston after dropping children off at the college. They are blocked from going there by trucks turning right and, because they are in that lane, are also blocking vehicles that would like to turn into the Stuart Highway towards Darwin.
On top of that is the new Mary MacKillop Catholic College just down the road in Lambrick Avenue. There will, no doubt, be quite a number of people from the rural area sending their children to that new school. Again, that will increase the amount of traffic. I have put it to the department, through your advisor, minister, that the government should look at the possibility of four lanes - two lanes to the right, one lane dedicated to Palmerston, and the other lane going to the left towards Coolalinga.
An area I want to discuss with the government is the possible extension of Temple Terrace from Palmerston through to the base of the new prison site. That road has been on the plans for a long time, but it would alleviate some of the traffic coming from both the prison and Howard River Park.
Ms Purick: It would upset my neighbours, though.
Mr WOOD: Yes, your mother. The reality is, that road was moved south to cater for what most of the residents agreed to. There is a possibility that land could be sold to help pay for the cost of developing the road. The road will have to go through some time; there is no way Howard Springs Road can be the main road to Gunn Point. The original plan for the extension of Temple Terrace was for it to be the main route through to Glyde Point and Gunn Point - either residential development or industrial development. When the government is looking at a whole-of-traffic approach, it needs to look at the possible extension of Temple Terrace.
I am interested to know whether INPEX, in relation to Thorngate and Tulagi - I gather an agreement has been reached, although, unfortunately, I was not invited to the meeting. I do not think anyone from Wallaby Holtze Road was invited, but I gather there has been a traffic management plan agreed to, to bring material from near Robertson Barracks down Thorngate Road, across Tulagi Road and onto the Stuart Highway.
Was there any contribution from INPEX in relation to repair work of that road because it is a fairly heavily-trafficked road? It shows some wear and tear, especially at the southern part of Thorngate Road at the present time.
Another area left off the agenda for some time is the service roads at Coolalinga. Coolalinga is developing extremely fast. You have a new residential development on the northern side and, possibly, a new shopping centre on the northern side. However, there is an old service road that may have been sufficient in days gone by to serve the stock foods and a few shops at Stavri’s, but now it is going to take an increasing amount of traffic. It is within the Stuart Highway reserve.
There also needs to be, on the southern side of Coolalinga, some rationalisation of the service road because it is inside the car park then it is outside the car park. That area needs some assistance from the government. Part of that service road is in the Stuart Highway reserve, and part of it zips back into the car park near Woolworths. Those areas need some attention.
I would also like to know if there is going to be a new crossing between the service roads at Coolalinga. My understanding is when there was to be a new shopping centre and residential land at Coolalinga North, the existing crossing to United service station was to be moved further towards Darwin by about 50 m and would have traffic lights. Is that still on the plans?
In relation to the abattoirs, I read in the paper today the government is not going to contribute towards the cost of infrastructure for the abattoirs. I do not have a problem with that; abattoirs are businesses and have to stand on their own feet. That is not to say the government cannot give assistance; however, you have to be very careful once you give money to one business, another business will ask for exactly the same thing. Was any assistance given to improve the entrance off the Stuart Highway? Was that part of any arrangement with the abattoir? Will the abattoir have to do that as part of its development application?
There, possibly, are other roads; however, time is not with us. I will leave those matters with you, minister. If you have answers in relation to some of those matters they would be appreciated.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, in the interests of time, I will be quick. I want to talk on many issues in regard to the rural area - road infrastructure and the services, but I will highlight two areas.
Could the minister comment on what I call the feeder roads into the Stuart Highway and the Arnhem Highway, being Virginia Road and, more importantly, Bees Creek Road? It is a busy intersection. I have said previously how there needs to be slip lanes or better access onto the highway, particularly from Bees Creek Road, which has two schools and a childcare centre. There is a primary school on Freds Pass Road, and off Freds Pass Road are two churches and a high school. With the increased traffic on the Stuart Highway, there will have to be safer access to the highway. Virginia Road is not quite so busy, but still is a very busy road.
The other area I wanted to talk briefly about - I will write to you, minister, or talk to your office - is the business on the corner of the Arnhem Highway and Stuart Highway, the Didgeridoo Hut, which has had communication with the department. We are trying to get signs on the road saying ‘Keep Clear’. It has taken nearly three months of dialogue with the department to get a sign on the road. I ask if this could be looked at. Also, I will be writing to you because this business is close to the intersection. It would like to have the public bus stop inside its premises. There is plenty of space. Public buses already go into Crocodylus Park to drop off and collect people. The precedent has been set in regard to public transport.
All the issues could be worked out within government, whether it be liability - will the buses crash into a public residence or something like that. I ask you to look into it. Dialogue with this business started on 22 March. The last correspondence was on 2 May. The department is citing liability issues and access: ‘We are a bit worried the buses might wreck your road’. I do not see how a bus can wreck a road. The tourist season is coming. It is an Aboriginal-owned enterprise. I ask, minister, if your office and the department could look at it and expeditiously sort it out. They want a sign on the road to say ‘Keep Clear’. With the increased road train traffic on the Arnhem Highway, it will be blocked from the lights for probably 1 km.
This issue is indicative of the growing pressures on the rural area and our roads infrastructure. There is more traffic because of industrial developments, whether it is road-train, residential, or any other kind of traffic. Could you investigate what is happening there? I am happy to talk to your office regarding this.
In regard to the main feeder roads onto the Arnhem Highway - Freds Pass Road, Virginia Road and Bees Creek Road – can you look at how they can be improved to accommodate growth in the rural area and the traffic we know is coming - heavy industrial traffic meaning road-trains, more light industrial and more vehicles.
I would like to have spoken more, Madam Deputy Speaker, but in the interests of time I will leave it at that. I ask the minister to consider those few issues.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I remind you we are due to wind up at 9 pm.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): I have 10 minutes, I believe, if I want to complete my remarks. I will …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is the last General Business Day, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: I understand that, and, if 9 pm comes and I still have something to say, I can quit and wait for the next General Business Day, or be given 10 minutes to complete my comments.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You may be given 10 minutes.
Mr TOLLNER: That would be lovely, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker ...
Mr Wood: They might wipe the agenda.
Mr TOLLNER: You might not like that, member for Nelson.
What a curious motion this is, put forward by the member for Nelson. The members for Goyder and Nelson, I am sad to say, are barking up the wrong tree if they think the Minister for Transport is going to deliver anything. You are sadly deluded, because the minister is the whipping boy for the Labor Party. He is the one who takes all the hits. The prison camp in Katherine is not in the budget, nor is Myilly Point. He proclaimed he would have things done or fixed, but alas nothing happens.
My advice to the members for Goyder and Nelson is do not hold your breath expecting this government to do anything. It is a curious motion from the member for Nelson because he considers himself the king maker. He has kept this shoddy, dodgy, moribund, unworkable government in office. He has lent his support to this dreadful government we have and is keeping them in office as we speak.
The member for Nelson has known for 18 months or so he could easily bring this government to an end and see things done in the rural area. No, he wanted to dance with the devil, and is now reaping the rewards. The member for Nelson has been a complete failure as a member of his local area. He started the term saying: ‘no, we do not need a new prison’. Halfway through, he backflipped and found a prison going in his back yard along with an increased amount of traffic. He did not want a workers camp for INPEX built in his electorate, but now we find there is a workers camp being built in his electorate ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 67, Digression from subject.
Mr Tollner: This is about traffic, and he was talking about prisons and INPEX.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am listening to the point of order, thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Dr BURNS: The motion relates to plans for upgrade of roads in the greater Darwin rural area. There is a fair bit of latitude, but I ask you to keep an eye on the member for Fong Lim. I have the feeling in the time remaining he is going to continue to digress. I will be watching very carefully, but it appears he is beginning to digress in a major way.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to bring your comments back to the subject at hand.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. My comments were in relation to this motion, suggesting what a curious motion it is. The person who had the ability to get something done brings motions to the Chamber about upgrading roads now all the things he was completely opposed to - which he is now supportive of - are occurring in his electorate.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Relevance. If you read the motion, it is about costings of roads.
Mr TOLLNER: It has a big preamble, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, if you could come back to the subject at hand. You are straying off the track.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am talking about the prison. I am talking about the INPEX workers camp. I am about to talk about INPEX and where it is getting rock. I understood it would come from Mount Bundy. No, they are dragging it from Yarrawonga, and I wonder where the trucks are going to go for that. They will go straight through the middle of the member for Nelson’s electorate. Is it any wonder he is bleating about the roads not being fixed. The roads are not adequate. I know a few people in the rural area; I lived there for some time myself. I stood as an Independent candidate for that electorate. I maintain contact with people out that way who constantly tell me the elected member is a complete failure ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Matters relating to me bear no relation to the motion before us. My point of order is on relevance.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Fong Lim, given it is 9 pm, pursuant to standing orders ...
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like a further 10 minutes to complete my remarks if that is possible.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I discussed the finishing time with your Whip earlier and agreed 9 pm would be a suitable finishing time.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is convention that normally we are allowed 10 minutes to complete our remarks.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is at the discretion of the Speaker. I will allow you five minutes, no longer.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will have to be quick.
The member for Nelson hates to hear this, but people in his electorate are saying he has failed them. They are saying that because they are concerned about having to travel down roads on their way to work in Darwin, being stopped by buses from the workers camp, paddy wagons from the prison, and cars from both the workers camp and the prison. We now know there are trucks dragging rock out of Yarrawonga quarries.
The member for Nelson has been good enough to put a few other congestion items on that list as well, such as growth of educational facilities, growth of the Coolalinga Centre, Girraween subdivision, potential subdivision of Howard Springs pine forest, the AAco abattoirs and the increased US troops at Robertson Barracks. He has covered it all, and now has the audacity to put this curious motion asking the government to detail its plans and costings for upgrading the roads. If he was a decent electorate member, he would be fighting against all the things he said he would at the start of the term. What a failure the guy is ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Are we to infer from what the member said that he opposes the INPEX development?
Mr Tollner: Is that a point of order?
Dr BURNS: I will interject. Are you opposed to the INPEX development?
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, normally these frivolous points of order are booted ...
A member: That is right; a frivolous point of order.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I will call the judgments as I see fit, member for Fong Lim. You have three minutes remaining.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is really galling the Leader of Government Business, and what would be even more galling to the Leader of Government Business is if I started talking about the lack of capacity to pay for these so-called road upgrades. As we know, this government has no capacity to pay for any upgrades on any of the roads referred to in this motion.
It is absolutely appalling. We know, by the Treasurer’s own figures, that in two years time this government will be insolvent if it is allowed to keep going down this track. We will have debt repayments higher than our own source revenue. To me, that is another word for insolvency ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The motion is about the costing of roads in the rural area. My point of order is on relevance.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, if I could respond to that point of order, please. You have been called on relevance on at least three occasions. I ask you to please bring your comments back to the motion.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, the motion says ‘detail what their plans are and the costings for the upgrade of roads in the greater Darwin rural area’. Asking how much it is costing and who is going to pay is pretty relevant to this motion. Goodness me! You can interject and say I am not being relevant, but we know you have no capacity to upgrade any roads in the member for Nelson’s electorate. Why? Because you have already sold the farm. What is worse about this whole debacle is we have always had this freewheeling, free spending Labor government but we no longer have a back stop.
You can always look at the Howard government to step in with money, but we know the federal government is broke as well. What are the chances of these upgrades occurring? Zero - absolutely zero. The poor people in the rural area will have to endure congestion for at least another five years because this government has failed to plan, failed to upgrade, and failed to have a jot of concern for the member for Nelson.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat, thank you.
Debate adjourned.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with Standing Order 41A, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, the federal minister for local government, Hon Simon Crean MP, recently announced the category winners of the National Awards for Local Government. The 27 category winners were judged by independent judging panels and include 11 winning councils with fewer than 15 000 rateable properties. In the category of Improving Services to Remote Communities, I am pleased to congratulate, by way of placing on the public record, a small council winner, the Barkly Shire Council, for its Animal Health Program. The Barkly Shire is one of the largest local government areas in the world and, at 323 514 km2, the shire area is 42% larger than Victoria, yet has a population of 8137. The shire stretches from the Queensland border over 620 km to the west of the Stuart Highway, and from north of Elliott 570 km southwards on each side of the Stuart Highway to Barrow Creek. The largest town in the shire is Tennant Creek, located on the Stuart Highway.
The Barkly Shire Animal Health Program evolved to tackle various dog problems in larger urban areas throughout the shire, and the increasingly poor level of animal health in many dogs on Indigenous communities within the shire. The background to the development of the program related to:
health agencies becoming increasingly alarmed at the growing incidence of animal-related injuries presenting at Tennant Creek Hospital and community health centres;
The Barkly Shire Animal Health Program took a broad consultative process from early 2009 in which extensive participatory approaches were used to ensure Indigenous people had control over the program and its direction. Council sought assistance from appropriate partner agencies such as Animal Management in Rural and Remote Indigenous Communities (AMRRIC) and Anyinginyi Health Aboriginal Corporation, who were involved in health promotion in the region, the environmental health section of the NT Department of Health, and Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education.
To partially fund the program, including support for the establishment of a local veterinary practice and veterinary services throughout the region, a shire-wide rate levy was introduced and the cost of dog registration was heavily reduced to encourage widespread registration. An additional animal ranger was recruited for Tennant Creek, and an animal control branch established to serve remote communities.
In areas like Utopia, a cluster of small outstations spread over an area of 400 km2, the Barkly Shire worked with local health services in conjunction with AMRRIC and visiting veterinarians from interstate to carry out intensive canine desexing procedures and animal health clinics to which the shire contributed its own veterinary services, equipment and staff. After two visits, almost 300 dogs were desexed throughout the area and many more treated for zoonotic parasites making a significant impact on local ongoing animal management.
Currently, the program routinely visits a separate community every fortnight. The team includes one or more veterinarians - shire and AMRRIC - council rangers, Indigenous animal management workers and Indigenous environmental health workers. The program includes immediate animal treatment, surgical desexing and health promotion activities. The Barkly Shire Council deserves credit for attracting a veterinary practice to commence at Tennant Creek. This has provided a much-needed local service. AMRRIC has contracted with the Barkly Shire to financially support the program over the next three years and provide mentoring and support for Indigenous animal management workers, who will play an increasingly important role in the program.
In early anecdotal evidence, 12 months into the operation in the urban area of Tennant Creek the number of monthly presentations at the local hospital with dog-related injuries reduced from 22 to seven. While this is a large improvement, the program continues to strive for further improved results.
In relation to an early assessment of a remote community program initiative relating to the first community visit to Ampilatwatja, the team desexed over 37 dogs, 21 of which were female. To quote Dr John Skuja from AMRRIC in 2011:
The Barkly Shire Council has been recognised at a national level for its facilitation of a participatory development model in animal health which is culturally centric and encompasses sustainable, adaptable mechanisms, and acknowledges the diversity of each of its participating communities.
It is also important to note, in national awards for local government, four NT shire councils received awards. Commended was the Roper Gulf Shire youth services, and the Victoria Daly Shire for its project RIBS and Recreation Combine. Winning the small council section was the Barkly Shire for its animal health program. Another winner in the small council section was the East Arnhem Shire for their Many Voices One Journey project. Commended in another section was the Tiwi Islands Shire Council for its Tiwi Local Government Women as Leaders, another commendable project I am proud to put on the public record.
I received this information from Mr David Shoobridge, CEO of the Barkly Shire Council, who was very proud to explain not only the program, but also the award received. He made mention of the website, which I researched. I found those other great commendations and wins by our shires across the Northern Territory. It is great to see just one example of our shire system and shire managers working with constituents to develop programs and services within their own capabilities and budgets to make a real difference. It is a pleasure to be able to put that on the public record in commendation of the great, innovative work the shires are doing across the Northern Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to more successes as the shire model - very much a pioneering model - develops further.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge a number of people from the Darwin North RSL Club. I was invited to give an address there at the Anzac Day Dawn Service. It was a very great privilege to talk to people about some of my experiences at dawn services, both as a child with my father, and also as an adult going to many dawn services in Darwin and, in fact, two dawn services at Gallipoli in my lifetime. I consider myself very lucky to have been able to get to Gallipoli and experience some of the things our Diggers experienced when they landed at 4.28 am on 25 April.
I acknowledge several people who put a great deal of work into Anzac Day, and have done for some years - Kirsty McGregor-Dey, manager at Darwin North RSL Club, and the many staff who do not get paid on Anzac Day, but make the day what it is.
It is a little different to the Darwin city RSL, which has a large grassed area around the main building where kids are encouraged to come along and play, enjoy the day, and get used to the significance of the occasion. Also, the magical two-up is played there every Anzac Day. The staff - most are not paid - work extremely hard to provide a service for the huge crowd that gathers every Anzac Day. I commend the Darwin City Brass Band, and Ron Roberts and his team of dedicated people who play all afternoon for the enjoyment of ex-Diggers, service people, Legacy people, and the public who hear about what is going on and want to share in a very special day on the Australian calendar.
The highlight of the day was the Dawn Service, but once the march was over and people returned to the Darwin North RSL, a number of speeches were made. I was very touched by the address given by the oldest Digger, Mr John Moyle who, at 93, is still sharp as a tack and very sprightly. I want to be like John Moyle when I am 93 - if I am still here. I would like to be doing the type of things he does. He spoke about the history of the Dawn Service. I did not realise John knew one of the people the Dawn Service is accredited to. I went to the www.anzacday.org site and printed off information about the Dawn Service because I could not remember everything he said. I will put this on the record as something given out there and something we in this House probably should be aware of, and I am grateful to him for raising this.
I will quote from the information from the website:
I will read the article about Reverend White from the website. This is pertinent because he is the gentleman John Moyle knew and grew up with in Albany. He went to many a Dawn Service in Albany when the Reverend White was around:
In November 2014, a group of ships will gather in Albany harbour and will set course exactly as the ships that took troops to the Middle East and on to Gallipoli did. It will be a sight to behold. That was the last sight of Australian soil for some of the soldiers. When you visit Gallipoli and walk up the hills, you do so during the day on man-made tracks, a far cry from what it must have been like when those soldiers were there.
Going to the Dawn Service on Anzac Day is something I do every year. When I first arrived in the Northern Territory in the early 1980s, one of the first things I attended was the Dawn Service, and I have been ever since except for three or four occasions. Once it was cancelled because of a cyclone. On another occasion, I had the flu and could not get out of bed. On the other two occasions I was at Gallipoli.
When I started attending the Dawn Service in Darwin there were 400 or 500 people present. I now see thousands of people. I am encouraged by seeing many young people. You see parents with young children, as my father took me when I was just short of three years of age. We are encouraging our young people to understand the sacrifices people make so we can enjoy the freedom of democracy, which gives me the ability to speak on behalf of my constituents in this House. That is one of the great things about the country we live in. I always remember the sacrifices people have made, are making, and will in the future make to keep us safe.
Talking about the Dawn Service at Gallipoli, the youth of this country is now going to Gallipoli in ever increasing numbers. You see thousands of young people - backpackers and young tourists - going on their first or perhaps second trip around the globe, and they are fortunate to do so. Gallipoli is not on the way to somewhere else. You have to make the effort to go there; get on the bus, drive into the national park, attend the Dawn Service and then go back to Istanbul. I commend those young people who make the trip. Well done to the Darwin North RSL.
I will now speak about graffiti. I am seeing more graffiti in my electorate and the northern suburbs. Recently, I spent time trying to have graffiti removed. I had trouble with some shop owners, and people short of money; however, I would like to commend Bobby and Karen Hayes from Total Painting Solutions who recently gave up their Saturday morning. They brought their airless spray guns and equipment along, provided the paint, and painted the Wagaman shops. We now have people in the Wagaman shops with huge tins of left over paint, and they will be cleaning up graffiti first thing every morning to discourage people. So far we have been very lucky and not had too much graffiti. It has been covered up and the shops look fabulous. Again, thanks to Bobby and Karen Hayes from Total Painting Solutions.
Madam Deputy Speaker, time prevents me from raising a number of other issues.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the Henderson government has stepped in to save the Barunga Sports and Culture Festival this year. As the local member, I was not going to let the Territory’s longest-running Indigenous sport and cultural event sink without a trace. I am proud to inform everyone that the Barunga festival will run from 8 to 10 June in Jawoyn country.
This iconic festival has become a Territory institution and ensures Barunga, and the region, has a vehicle to showcase its art, culture and sporting achievements. The festival brings Indigenous and non-Indigenous people together over a weekend defined by harmony, sportsmanship and, importantly, the presentation of culture up close. Try spear throwing, didgeridoo making in a beautiful setting at the lily ponds where Queenie and Margaret tell the stories that transport you to another time, or try some bush turkey and fresh barra at the bush tucker tent, or some weaving.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as you would know, festivals are an important part of life in Indigenous communities. They contribute to wellbeing, resilience and capacity, while promoting a healthy lifestyle. With all this in mind, and the understanding that the people on the ground at Barunga wanted the festival to go ahead, the Northern Territory government brokered an outcome that will see support from a range of organisations, including Katherine Regional Arts Inc, Skinnyfish Music, Arts NT, the Jawoyn people and many more to ensure the 2012 festival can be realised with the support and direction of the Barunga Festival Steering Committee.
I thank and congratulate the Barunga Festival Steering Committee made up of many Jawoyn people across Jawoyn communities. I also thank members of those communities, particularly the elders from the Barunga region who, in initial discussions, were enthusiastic for the 2012 Barunga festival to go ahead. My colleague, the Minister for Arts and Museums, has been enormously supportive, as have colleagues on this side of the House, to ensure the Barunga festival goes ahead. I also like to acknowledge the efforts of Alan James and Jo Nicol in working with stakeholders behind the scenes to make this event happen.
Since its inception in 1985, the Barunga festival has become one of the most significant celebrations of Aboriginal culture, art, music and sport in the Top End. It connects Aboriginal communities from across the Northern Territory including the Katherine region, east Arnhem Land and the Tiwi Islands in the north, Central Australia in the south, and the Kimberleys in the west. While government is not in the business of running festivals, it has a duty to facilitate and ensure this historic landmark continues to be celebrated and communities have every opportunity to proudly showcase their dynamic, creative environments.
As the local member for Stuart and the Barunga area, I am pleased we have been able to work with the people of Barunga and Katherine to ensure this iconic festival goes ahead. Now in its 26th year, this festival has all the ingredients to be the best yet.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to thank the Alice Springs community for such a wonderful and warm turnout to the Anzac Day service and the activities run around Anzac Day. RSL president, Peter Goodwin, did a fantastic job. We had a very good service on Anzac Hill on the eve of Anzac Day for Kapyong. We had a great turnout for the Anzac eve dinner. It used to be called the Kapyong dinner, now it is called the Anzac eve dinner. That was another good event facilitated by the RSL and Peter Goodwin. It was great to see Mayor Damien Ryan there, and my colleague, Matt Conlan was MC. Mike Bartholomew came from Pine Gap, and Colonel Parker flew in especially from Florida for the Anzac Day festivities. DET 421 was there, also 1RSU.
It was really good to see the people participate once again. At the Dawn Service there were about 2500 people on Anzac Hill - once again, a crowded house. Not everyone could get to the top of the hill; there were many people down the stairs and the ramps. For the morning service it is estimated there were 2200 - RSL number counts - and that was after the march. Anzac Day is a very sombre occasion, and it is great to see so many people from Alice Springs participate. I have been a big supporter of Anzac services and, for the last few years, have sponsored schools in my electorate with wreaths and invited the school captains to come along, which they do.
This year we had Larapinta Primary School, Braitling Primary School, Living Waters Lutheran College and OLSH from my electorate. It was fantastic to see. Other schools participated as well. This year, Braitling school did not just send the school captains, it also brought the SRC. I encourage as many schoolchildren as possible because it is really important kids understand Anzac Day and be involved in the services and some of the festivities.
I also congratulate the RSL for putting on a good do after the morning service, and also NORFORCE, who put on a good service. NORFORCE is a very ‘under the radar’ operation in Alice Springs. It does a great job and facilitates much great work in other areas of the Territory, particularly Borroloola, where it has a high level of representation. I understand the people at Borroloola who participate in NORFORCE do a great job too.
I was sickened today to hear about the alleged attack on two ladies in Alice Springs overnight. Two tourists were camping and were attacked by three people and sexually assaulted. There is also an allegation of a rifle, a gun, or some sort of weapon. That is a significant concern for Alice Springs. We have been crying out for a long time for resolution of our law and order issues. I have said publicly there are three key decision-makers in our town: the Minister for Central Australia, the member for Lingiari and the Alice Springs Town Council. Recently, I called for greater decisions to be made to try to respond to the law and order crisis in our town.
The council has been doing more since that conversation. I have spoken at length with Mayor Damien Ryan and many other people on the council about the concerns I have. This is not a deliberate attack on any one of those decision-makers or bodies; it is about saying the community has had enough and wants something done. I, as a representative of one of the electorates in Alice Springs, can lobby, talk up, scream out, and advocate as much as I like, but we need people to take action. There is a responsibility across the board from those three key decision-makers.
Similarly, as with the conversation I had with town council representatives, I would like to see greater action taken by the federal government and its representative, the member for Lingiari, particularly around the areas of Centrelink income management and the way Centrelink funds are distributed.
I had a very good meeting with Andy Hood of the Central Australian Football League last week. I spoke to him about the Lightning Carnival in particular, but also football and how we manage population movements for participants and spectators - how we get people in and out. I will not go through the details of that conversation, but I was concerned to learn the Chief Minister’s Office in Alice Springs, and the minister for Sport, do not play a role in the logistical management of those sporting events. There needs to be greater effort in the future.
I propose calling a meeting between me, the Minister for Central Australia, the Mayor, the Commander of Police southern region, and the Central Australian Football League to work out how we can better facilitate sporting events into the future. It is not my role, but the town is saying: ‘What is going on with all these sporting carnivals? They are bringing trouble to town?’ We need to be smarter in the way government does business, so I am will try to call that meeting for next week, get the stakeholders around the table and work out how we can facilitate this better into the future.
Every time these events are on people are left stranded in town, cannot afford to go home, and the law and order issues and antisocial behaviour for many of those stranded escalates and causes problems for everyone - not just the residents of town, but also the people who are stranded. They do not want to be involved in this trouble either. Many people want to go back out bush, so we have to work out smarter ways to do business. That is one way we can do that into the future, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be leaving tomorrow afternoon for a ministerial council, so this is my opportunity to pay tribute to three amazing colleagues on our team. When I reflect on the three to four years of this term of government, it has been an incredible journey. I want to pay tribute to our three colleagues who will not be standing at the 25 August election.
First, the member for Nightcliff, Madam Speaker. She truly has made this the people’s house, and has done so throughout her term as Speaker. The House is here for all people of the Northern Territory to visit, but her active role in encouraging people to attend the various functions is her attempt to always open this House at the beginning of each year with much celebration, especially this year when we saw the many different cultural groups welcome members of this House.
Our Madam Speaker has been a strong example of great dignity in this House and always encouraged each and every member, regardless of the many fierce debates and undignified acts which take place in this House. She has carried out her duty with great dignity and, given her own personal challenges - her health and family challenges - she is an amazing woman. She will stay in my mind as a woman who has carried out the responsibilities in her role as Speaker of the House in the Northern Territory Assembly very well. I wish her well in the coming months and years ahead.
I recollect some of the exciting events, like turning parliament pink. She has been behind many charity causes, and has encouraged every member of this House to wear a white ribbon on White Ribbon Day or the red nose fundraising. Madam Speaker has always encouraged each and every member of this House to remember the people. I thank you, Jane, for the work you have done for the people of the Northern Territory.
To our Leader of Government Business, Chris Burns, you are the rock that keeps our team strong on the parliamentary floor. You have proved that with the incredible challenges our team has had to face in the last three years in particular, but especially in 2008. You are always ready to correct the record from uninformed criticism opposite, and you have exemplified in your role as a minister in Health previously, where I witnessed you carry the load in many of those crises that had to be dealt with, and also with housing and SIHIP across the Northern Territory.
On behalf of the people of the Northern Territory I say thank you, Chris, for the work you have done to improve the disadvantage of Indigenous people across the Northern Territory, and your commitment and dedication to wanting to improve the disadvantage of all people across the Northern Territory. Also, for your firm belief and commitment to the Labor Party and in this team to always stand strong. I thank you for being the example you have been as a senior minister in the Henderson Labor government.
Our third colleague is the member for Arafura. She is also stepping down before the 25 August election. She is our first Indigenous Deputy Chief Minister, our first Indigenous Leader in an acting Chief Minister capacity, and the first Indigenous woman to be a minister in any government in this country. What an extraordinary achievement, and what an honour to work beside this pretty amazing lady, Marion Scrymgour, and observe her struggles throughout her 10 or 11 years as the member for Arafura in this House.
It is important to note the member for Arafura, in particular, represents not only the struggle women in leadership and women in politics go through, but also Indigenous women aspiring to rise above the poverty and disadvantage which keeps Indigenous people down.
I say thank you to the member for Arafura for believing in the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory and for striving to want to see good done no matter the decisions made. Her persistence in continuing and finding a way forward has always been a remarkable example to so many people. In fact, it was probably one of the reasons I came into government in 2005. As one of our first Indigenous women in the parliament, she was certainly an inspiration for me to put my hand up for the seat of Arnhem.
I place on the Parliamentary Record, on behalf of not only the people of Arnhem but the people of the Northern Territory, my thanks to Marion Scrymgour, Chris Burns and Jane Aagaard. I wish each and every one of you, with your families, well in the future. Your legacy will live on, not only with our team, but all those who will come behind us. Thank you.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of very nice looking young students, wearing a standout uniform, from Year 5/6 and Year 6 OF Wanguri Primary School, accompanied by Ms Samantha Brannelley and Ms Shannon Russell. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Mr Henderson: Including my daughter, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: And the Chief Minister’s daughter is particularly welcomed.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Routine of Business – Condolence Motion for Mr Peter Murphy OAM
Routine of Business – Condolence Motion for Mr Peter Murphy OAM
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move –
- That the Routine of Business of the Assembly Government Business Notices and Orders of the Day be rearranged or suspended if a question or debate is before the Chair, so as to permit the Chief Minister to move a Motion of Condolence for Mr Peter Murphy at 4.30 pm this day, 2 May 2012.
Motion agreed to.
REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 211)
(Serial 211)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill puts in place several minor measures to clarify the operation of the Payroll Tax Act and Gaming Control Act.
The Northern Territory is committed to maintaining a harmonised approach to payroll tax legislation in line with all Australian states and the Australian Capital Territory. Pursuant to that commitment, this bill makes amendments to the Payroll Tax Act to clarify the operation of the maternity, adoption, and paternity leave exemptions.
These harmonised payroll tax exemptions are for a maximum of 14 weeks, or an equivalent period of time, where an employee takes leave at a reduced rate of pay. By way of example, the exemptions may extend to 28 weeks for employees who take parental leave at half the usual rate of pay.
However, a technical interpretation of these payroll tax exemptions raises doubt over whether the exemption would apply as intended to part-time employees when extended leave is taken at less than the employee’s normal rate of pay. Accordingly, the bill clarifies the operation of these provisions to ensure the exemption is available to part-time employees in the same manner as for full-time employees.
The proposed parental leave exemption amendments are based on model legislation drafted by Victoria which will be adopted by most states as part of payroll tax harmonisation arrangements.
The bill also makes minor amendments to the Gaming Control Act. These amendments promote investment in the Territory by clarifying the operation of the taxation provisions of that act.
The Gaming Control Act provides the minister with the power to collect fees and taxes for certain gaming licences. These licences include casino licences, online lottery licences, and mail order lottery licences. The bill clarifies the minister may establish fees and taxes on any lottery agreement which may be entered into with the Territory.
The bill also ensures the standardised administrative practices of the Taxation Administration Act apply to taxes and levies operating under the Gaming Control Act. Currently, only Part 7 of the Taxation Administration Act, which relates to the payment and recovery of taxes, applies to taxes and levies operating under the Gaming Control Act. Other administrative requirements, such as record keeping and penalty tax provisions, are currently subject to individual commercial agreements.
To improve equity among taxpayers, transparency in the taxation regime and the promotion of efficient taxation administration, the bill provides for the improved integration of the Gaming Control Act and the Taxation Administration Act. To ensure no current licence holders are unduly affected by these amendments, the newly integrated provisions of the Taxation Administration Act will not apply to agreements entered into prior to 1 May 2012.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Budget Reply by Leader of the Opposition
Madam SPEAKER: I remind honourable members that at 11 am, during Government Business, I will ask whoever is on their feet to stop and to continue their remarks after Question Time to allow the Leader of the Opposition to speak.
Yes, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, as a point of clarification so we are absolutely certain on this, the standing orders require the second speaker be given 45 minutes in any bill. I noticed several speeches were made yesterday, and I wanted to confirm the Leader of the Opposition would be extended the full 45 minutes?
Madam SPEAKER: Absolutely.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
NATIONAL HEALTH FUNDING POOL AND ADMINISTRATION (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 212)
(Serial 212)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
At the August 2011 Council of Australian Governments meeting, the Chief Minister signed the National Health Reform Agreement which initiated fundamental reform to the national health system. The bill before the House today implements a key element of the National Health Reform Agreement. It puts in place the national legislative framework for the funding of public hospitals in the Territory which is to commence from 1 July 2012.
Importantly, the new funding arrangements will provide for greater transparency and accountability of public hospital funding. There will be a clear line of sight of Commonwealth and Territory government funding contributions to Territory hospitals. In addition, the new funding arrangements will drive efficiencies within the hospital network while ensuring Territorians continue to receive the appropriate level of care.
In summary, the bill will provide for:
the establishment of a National Health Funding Pool for public hospitals;
the establishment of the Territory’s State Pool Account with the Reserve Bank of Australia; and
In order to establish a national system for the funding of public hospitals, the Commonwealth and each state and territory government is enacting common legislation. The bill before the House today implements the Territory’s commitment to the new national arrangements.
I will now address the bill in more detail.
A key feature of the bill is the National Health Funding Pool. The national pool comprises individual state and territory accounts, referred to as state pool accounts, held with the Reserve Bank of Australia.
Accordingly, the bill before the House today provides for the establishment of the Territory’s pool account with the Reserve Bank. The Territory’s pool account will receive all Commonwealth health reform-related funding, as well as the Territory government’s share of activity-based funding for public hospitals. This will ensure Commonwealth and Territory contributions to public hospital funding can be clearly identified and reported on.
Importantly, as Minister for Health, I will have control of how all funding in the Territory’s pool account is disbursed throughout the Territory’s public hospitals. This recognises, under the National Health Reform Agreement, the Territory retains the role of manager and planner over the public hospital system.
The bill also provides for the appointment of an administrator of the National Health Funding Pool. The administrator will be an independent statutory officer appointed by unanimous agreement of Commonwealth and state Health ministers. The primary function of the administrator is to monitor and report on Commonwealth and state funding paid into, and from, each state’s pool accounts and state-managed funds. The administrator, under direction from me or my delegate, will also be responsible for dispersing funding to the Territory’s hospital networks or to the Department of Health. The administrator will also calculate and advise the Commonwealth Treasurer of the Commonwealth government’s share of public hospital funding to be paid into the state pool accounts in accordance with the provisions of the National Health Reform Agreement.
The bill also establishes the Territory’s State Managed Fund. The fund will fall under the auspices of the Department of Health. The State Managed Fund will receive all Commonwealth and Territory government block funding for public hospitals, as well as funding for teaching, training, and research within the hospital system.
The introduction of this bill upholds the Territory’s commitment to COAG’s National Health Reform Agreement. The new funding arrangements will provide greater transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the hospital system.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany this bill.
Debate adjourned.
ADULT DECISION MAKING BILL
(Serial 210)
(Serial 210)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to bring before the Legislative Assembly the Adult Decision Making Bill 2012. The bill will replace the current Adult Guardianship Act. The bill retains the primary purpose of ensuring there is a legal mechanism for decisions to be made on behalf of adults whose capacity to make decisions for themselves is impaired, and also provides for a new and expanded alternative decision-making model.
The bill provides for the establishment of a Tribunal for Adult Decision Making, appointed by the Administrator. Members of the tribunal will include an experienced legal practitioner, medical practitioner, and one other member with relevant experience. The tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with and determine all matters coming before it under the bill, and its decisions may be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Currently, Adult Guardianship Orders may only be made by a Magistrate of the Local Court after the Adult Guardianship Panel has made recommendations to the court. It is anticipated the tribunal will provide a less formal setting, and applications may be dealt with more speedily.
The bill provides for the establishment of an independent Commissioner for Adult Decision Making and Advocacy. The commissioner has a number of functions including advocating on behalf of adults with impaired decision-making capacity, providing advice and support for Alternate Decision Makers, and acting as an Alternate Decision Maker when no other suitable Alternate Decision Maker is available.
The bill provides a new legal framework for adults with capacity to appoint an Alternate Decision Maker to make decisions on their behalf if the adult’s decision-making capacity becomes impaired in the future, by completing and signing a life management document. The bill has a new provision for an adult with decision-making capacity to make a written advance care directive outlining how the adult wishes to be cared for in the future in the event of the loss of their decision-making capacity, or loss of their ability to communicate, in line with a National Framework for Advance Care Directives. This can be included in the life management document.
The bill introduces a legal framework for three types of Alternate Decision Makers:
Alternate Decision Maker (Tribunal) may be appointed by the tribunal for an adult who has impaired decision-making capacity;
Alternate Decision Maker (Substitute) who may be appointed by an adult whilst the adult has capacity through a written life management document; and
The bill has a new provision which authorises a tribunal to appoint an Alternate Decision Maker for a child with impaired decision-making capacity who has attained the age of 17 years and six months, and the order made will come into effect on the child’s 18th birthday, allowing for a smooth transition of decision-making from childhood into adulthood.
The bill provides a legal framework for the appointment of either the Public Trustee or a licensed trustee company as an Alternate Decision Maker with financial powers to manage the estate of an adult with impaired decision-making capacity. This appointment may be made by the tribunal or by an adult with a capacity under a life management document.
The bill defines a set of decision-making principles that guide the Alternate Decision Maker when exercising their authority, which include:
acting in the best interests of the adult;
in exercising authority, preserving the adult’s freedom of decision and action to the greatest extent practicable.
The Adult Decision Making Bill has been developed in consultation with key stakeholders. A consultation process was undertaken in February and March this year on the draft bill, which has enabled the key stakeholders to identify potential deficits or gaps in the draft bill, and has allowed them to be addressed prior to finalisation. The feedback on the draft bill and the consultation process undertaken has been positive. All stakeholders have welcomed the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the draft bill as it embraces a number of sectors including disability, the medical profession, the legal fraternity, and seniors and ageing.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement that accompanies the bill.
Debate adjourned.
ANIMAL WELFARE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 209)
(Serial 209)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill constitutes part of the government’s response to the report by the Council of Territory Cooperation (the CTC) Animal Welfare Governance Subcommittee. I advised the Assembly in December last year the government would be moving in two stages to address the CTC recommendations.
Members are aware the government has previously committed significant additional resource allocations to the Animal Welfare Unit and made improvements to across-agency operational methods. It is apparent these improvements and the review undertaken by the CTC have resulted in greater public awareness of animal welfare issues.
The Animal Welfare Authority has investigated and prosecuted an increased number of cases. In addition, the Animal Welfare Unit of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services has intervened in many emerging cases of welfare concern to ensure animals are being cared for and breaches of the act do not occur.
In its report on animal welfare governance, the CTC made 21 recommendations. The government has moved immediately to implement the majority of those recommendations. Some of the recommendations have been addressed through increased resources in the Animal Welfare Unit and improved operational methods between the relevant government agencies.
Many of the recommendations for improvement are being addressed through the provisions of this bill. In some cases, the government has decided to go further than the CTC’s recommendations. These additional amendments will further strengthen the Animal Welfare Act and the operational arm of the Animal Welfare Authority. More complex amendments and operational reforms are being assessed for introduction and implementation in the future.
I now turn to the content of the bill.
The bill clarifies the roles, functions and powers of the Animal Welfare Authority. The functions of the Animal Welfare Authority include ensuring compliance with the act, appointing inspectors and animal welfare officers, administering the licensing regime for premises used for teaching or research, as well as the general administration of the act.
The proposed amendments provide the Chief Executive Officer of the agency administering the act - currently the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services - must provide the Animal Welfare Authority with staff and facilities to enable it to properly perform its functions. In addition, the Animal Welfare Authority may appoint staff in any Northern Territory government agency as authorised persons with the agreement of the Chief Executive Officer of the relevant agency. The proposed amendments also give the Animal Welfare Authority the power to collect information, make inquiries, and consult.
To ensure authorised persons possess appropriate skills, the bill clarifies that when appointing a person as an authorised officer - that is, as an inspector or an animal welfare officer - under the act, the Animal Welfare Authority must be satisfied the person has the necessary skills, qualifications, training and experience to carry out their duties. In addition, these authorised officers, whether they are staff of the Animal Welfare Unit or not, must, as soon as practicable, report to the authority any offence against the act.
Time limit for commencing proceedings: under the current act, proceedings in respect of an offence are to be commenced not more than 12 months after the date on which the offence is alleged to have occurred. The proposed amendments extend this period to 24 months.
Licences to conduct scientific research using animals: under the Animal Welfare Act, a person using premises for teaching or research involving animals is required to be licensed by the Animal Welfare Authority. Exemptions are provided for childcare and educational institutions unless the animals are used for scientific teaching purposes.
The current act has a number of deficiencies in this area, and the government is moving to reform the monitoring of licensees and their animal ethics committees. The bill clarifies the requirement for all licensees to have an animal ethics committee (AEC).
In Australia and around the world, animal ethics committees are independent bodies responsible for the oversight of any research on, or teaching with, animals. In Australia, they must comply with the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes. This code of conduct establishes rigorous requirements for the membership of animal ethics committees and their reporting requirements.
AECs can be situated in any state or territory of Australia, or even overseas. As such, it is not possible to provide for legislative oversight of every AEC. It is also not appropriate to require licensees to only obtain AECs that are only situated in the Territory, as these would unnecessarily restrict research in the Territory and could have significant funding implications for both current and potential licensees. To this end, the bill imposes an obligation on a licensee to provide information on the AEC to the Animal Welfare Authority.
The Animal Welfare Regulations will be amended to prescribe the type of information that licensees must supply in relation to the functions performed by their AECs. It is anticipated this will include the AECs’ annual reports, audits and details of external reviews. Of note, AECs are currently required to provide this information under the Australian code and, as such, this requirement will not impose an unnecessary burden on licensees.
In addition, the proposed amendments allow for the application, adoption or incorporation of a code of practice, standard or other document.
The bill also imposes an obligation on licensees to report to the Animal Welfare Authority a person the licensee has employed or engaged, or who has committed an offence reportable under the act. This further highlights to licensees the importance of animal welfare considerations in their operations.
I now turn to proposed amendments that are additional to the recommendations of the CTC report and which will further strengthen the Animal Welfare Act.
The proposed amendments impose a duty of care on the owner or a person in charge of an animal. It then provides for what a minimal level of care entails. To be properly cared for, an animal must be treated appropriately; that is, it must have food, water, accommodation, and be given necessary medical treatment and exercise. To ensure what is appropriate for an animal, the amendments define what a minimum level of care is, and enable the regulations to specify something not to be appropriate. This will allow the act to be clear about current expectations, and also to keep pace with technology and community standards.
The inclusion of a ‘duty of care’ is similar to provisions in other jurisdictions. This requirement improves the current provisions which specify a person must not ‘neglect’ or commit any act of ‘cruelty’. The proposed amendments also improve the current cruelty offence provisions in the act. ‘Cruelty’ to an animal is now defined as an intentional failure by a person in charge of an animal to ensure an animal is properly cared for.
‘Aggravated cruelty’ is created by the bill as a third level of offence after breach of the duty of care and cruelty. A person commits the offence of aggravated cruelty if they are intentionally cruel to an animal and the cruelty causes the death of, or serious harm to, the animal.
These three levels of offence - duty of care, cruelty, and aggravated cruelty - provide a significant improvement on the current act. These reforms reinforce the intent of those CTC recommendations aimed at making the Animal Welfare Act stronger and more transparent.
The bill also introduces new section 74A that allows the court to convict in the alternative for these offences. Thus, where the court is not satisfied a person is guilty of the offence of aggravated cruelty, the court can find the person guilty of the alternative charge of cruelty or breach of duty of care. Similarly, the court may find a person charged with cruelty to be guilty of the alternative offence of breach of duty of care. This will minimise the number of prosecutions which fail due to legal technicalities, and strengthen the enforcement provisions of the legislation.
The bill makes provision for how animals or things - such as horses’ bridles and other such items – which are seized by an authorised officer are to be dealt with. This includes retaining an animal in order to alleviate an animal’s suffering, or as evidence for the purpose of prosecuting an offence against the act. In addition, the proposed amendments also require the seized animal or thing to be returned to the owner or person entitled to it if its retention is no longer necessary. The bill also allows for the sale or disposal of the animal or thing. Furthermore, the bill allows the authority, the authorised person, or any other person, to be reimbursed for any reasonable costs incurred in relation to the seizure of the animal or thing.
These amendments represent one element of the government’s response to the CTC report on animal welfare governance. In some areas, the government has decided to go beyond the CTC’s recommendations. This will result in an even stronger and more effective Animal Welfare Act than that envisaged by the CTC in its report. I thank all the members of the Council of Territory Cooperation Subcommittee on Animal Welfare Governance for its report.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to members, and table the explanatory statement that accompanies the bill.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Estimates Committee 2012-13 and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee 2012-13
Estimates Committee 2012-13 and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee 2012-13
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move –
- That the Assembly appoint an Estimates Committee 2012-13 and a Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee 2012-13 pursuant to the terms circulated to members yesterday.
I trust those terms were acceptable to members opposite and the Independent member.
There are some minor amendments to the terms of reference of last year. As members would be aware, as per last year, Estimates will be held over two weeks in June - Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of each week. The timetable this year is probably better for everyone. All members of the committee have had input into that change of timetable over time.
Last year, I believe we saw the highest level of scrutiny of government spending in the allocation of time through the Estimates process. Our government has embraced the Estimates process and, since coming to government, we have continued to improve that process as an open and transparent government should.
In line with last year, the global time limit is 60 hours. I hope I am not verballing the shadow Treasurer, but he said last year:
- … the truth is that 60 hours spread over two weeks should be sufficient time for any effective opposition to raise issues that are important to it.
Hopefully, we are in agreement on that particular issue. I look forward to Estimates every year, and I know the opposition also does.
The terms of reference this year maintain the increase in time limits that were set last year for the Chief Minister and the Treasurer of eight hours each. Again, as last year, there is a maximum time limit of seven hours for the Speaker, each other minister for the Estimates Committee hearing and the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee. In essence, the terms of reference are the same as 2001 with, as I said previously, some minor modification to update the language and remove some of the repeated …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I hope that was a misread. The terms of reference are the same as 2001?
Dr BURNS: No, I thought I said 2011, I am sorry.
Mr Elferink: No, no that is fine; I just wanted to make sure.
Dr BURNS: Oh goodness me, a bit of dyslexia creeping in there. New glasses, member for Port Darwin. I will read it again so there is no doubt.
In essence, the terms of reference are the same as 2011 with minor modifications to update the language and remove some of the repeated provisions in the resolutions.
I thank the staff of the Clerk’s Office who play an enormous role during Estimates. They also assist with their advice during the development of the terms of reference for the Estimates process.
Finally, for all members to note, the procedures for a member being named have been clarified, as this has not been previously provided. I hope, of course, there will be no need to use this particular section at all during the Estimates process.
Madam Deputy Speaker, our government looks forward to Estimates and wholeheartedly supports examination of government expenditure, department by department, line by line. I encourage the public and the media to come to Estimates hearings that will be of interest to them. We look forward to the questions from the opposition and the Independent member for Nelson during this Estimates period. I commend this motion to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): I will keep it brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank the Leader of Government Business for bringing this motion before the House, because it has to be brought before the House to enable the Estimates Committee to be established.
The old system that was used prior to 2001, of course, is the Estimates process was pursued in the Chamber. Now, we retire to a comfortable room upstairs. However, there are some important differences to the old system. One of the important differences is we are enabled, by and large, to ask direct questions of public servants, which is an important component.
However, I flag there is an important discipline all members must bring to the Estimates process: questions relating to policy issue should, essentially, be reserved for the ministers, and process is generally the realm of the public servants. I hope we do not see examples of ministers being asked specific questions about their opinion on policy issues, only to have them refer the matter to the departmental CEO. I still believe, in the system of responsible government, it is the minister, ultimately, on top of the food chain who must be answerable for the policies of the government of the day, and that handballing these sorts of things to senior bureaucrats actually diminishes the role of the minister. I am sometimes concerned that ministers see their role little more than as figureheads of departments, rather than the people who are elected by the people of the Northern Territory and their leader to provide ministry to the Crown or to the Crown’s representative, the Administrator in the Northern Territory.
It is an important distinction to make. I am not entirely sure ministers entirely get it all the time; that when we ask a question about policy it is not automatically left to a public servant to answer the question. The public servant applies policy; the minister is responsible for the policy. If that distinction is remembered by ministers, then we will get along famously.
I note there is the addition in relation to naming members and, with the Leader of Government Business, I also hope there is no requirement for it to be used. I am not sure, and I have no recollection, of any member ever being named through the Estimates process. There have been a couple of occasions where the Estimates Committee has had to resolve itself into the Public Accounts Committee to deal with issues of management. Fortunately, the wise heads on the Public Accounts Committee have been able to steer around those problems in the past.
I put on the record again what I said the last time we completed the Estimates process; that is, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the member for Fannie Bay, guides or steers the ship of the Estimates Committee with a fair and reasonable hand. I am sure we can look forward to that attitude prevailing again.
I stand by what I said last year that 60 hours should be sufficient to be able to prosecute any arguments or run any inquiries in relation to how the budget is put together. However, with one proviso; that is, I hope ministers will restrain themselves to answering questions rather than using long-winded speeches that stray far and wide from the questions asked, purely with a view to chewing up time and that 60 hours. It has been the inclination of ministers in the past to speak for 10 or 15 minutes on a very straightforward yes or no question. We, on this side of the House, will find objection to that and will turn to the chairman of the committee to apply the standing orders as they are intended to be applied when it comes to long and rambling answers.
Beyond that, the Estimates Committee will get to examine a budget which is, in my opinion, a poor budget, from what I have read so far, particularly in the government’s incapacity to deal with issues of debt. I do not doubt, after the Estimates process, I will have more to say about that when we report back to this House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also support this motion, naturally. I might be regarded as a sick puppy, but I actually look forward to the Estimates Committee. It is a very important part of parliamentary process and one of the few chances of getting government ministers and CEOs to answer specific questions about areas of expenditure. At the same time, since we have had a system of accrual accounting since I came to parliament, we can ask ministers about policies. It is about inputs and outcomes, and it is important we find out where government has spent its money, how it has spent that money, and it can show us whether there was any benefit to the community in the expenditure of that money. That is important as well.
It gives us an opportunity to do things we cannot do in parliament in Question Time because of the limitations on the time we have – one hour. Naturally, from an Independent’s point of view, there are fewer questions. In Estimates, we are able to expand on Question Time, and require ministers and departmental people to answer questions directly in relation to their departments.
I note the member for Port Darwin spoke about long-winded answers. There are times when ministers actually have a tactic to stretch the answer out a lot longer than required. I believe the standing orders we use in Question Time about relevance are important and, perhaps, could be maintained in the Estimates Committee. I would be guilty, at times, of long-winded or repetitive questions which can be a problem at times. I believe it is beholden on both sides during Estimates Committee to use the time as efficiently as possible, to gain as much information as possible during the time we have with each minister and department.
I do not believe the fault is just on one side; faults can be seen on both sides at times. We should work to ensure this important time, the 60 hours, is used as efficiently as possible so the scrutiny of the government can be done to the best advantage.
As the Independent, I will be sitting down with the opposition to develop an informal process to allow the opposition to have its fair share of questions, but to also allow me to have the opportunity to ask my fair share of questions. It is a long process, especially for an Independent who has to cross all portfolios when it comes to the Estimates Committee.
It might be a bit strange, but I enjoy the process even though the hours are long. For me, it is a very important part of my role as a member of parliament to question government, its policies, and its expenditure.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the motion before us.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the support of the opposition and the Independent for this motion. Like the member for Nelson, I enjoy Estimates. It is a very important time for government, opposition, and the Independent, but also for departments. In the preparation I try to undertake for Estimates, I like to spend a great deal of time with the department going through the issues, line by line, asking questions. Then, during the Estimates process, there are often things that pop up - whether from opposition or from the Independent member - that are of interest to me. Sometimes, there are angles or issues a minister may not necessarily be aware of because, let us face it, departments are made up of a multitude of programs and expenditure, they interface right across the Territory, and there may be issues related to the roll-out of those programs and the conduct of departments which are of interest to ministers.
It is an important forum for departments to actually shine, to prove they are efficient, that particular officers are across all the detail, and particularly those at the executive level have a handle on their programs and can answer the reasonable questions put to them on process issues in the Estimates Committee. This is my last estimates. It is also an opportunity for a minister to demonstrate they know what is going on in their portfolio, and they are well versed in the policies of government. They are able to explain and defend those policies.
The job of opposition is to ask piercing, important questions. It is also an opportunity for individual shadow ministers to shine. It is a very important forum. It is a forum in which we, as politicians, look at how others are doing - departments, ministers and shadow ministers. That is especially so during this election year because not only is the opposition scrutinising government, which is fair enough, opposition itself will be under a fair bit of scrutiny and people will be watching the performance of the shadow ministers.
It is sometimes not enough to have political huff and puff. If you are going to demonstrate you are a good alternative as a minister, you have to demonstrate you understand budgetary processes. You have to understand policy processes and the implementation of that policy. For their part, the public service also looks very closely at what happens in Estimates. In times gone by, various personalities have been unhappy at the way they have been treated by some opposition members within the Estimates process. I am not naming anyone, but I know some people have been quite rude and offhand to public servants. That is not the way to go. However, it is an election year and, for my part, I welcome the scrutiny by opposition.
We have policies in the education area, and certainly have expenditure. As I am wont to do, I will be reflecting on the shadow, the member for Brennan, and asking what his policies are and how he is going to fund them, in a comparative way that is still relevant to the questions being asked. The public of the Northern Territory deserves to know what the alternatives are between government and the opposition. It is an important process and I am looking forward to it. Seven hours in the chair is a very long time.
I have to admit, member for Nelson, I was hooked on the Estimates process from the time we went to Tasmania all those years ago in 2001, and we saw both the Tasmanian Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council Estimates. They were almost like two different spheres. The Legislative Council was very polite and gentlemanly. I have the very clear recollection of the Legislative Assembly, and the late Jim Bacon and the Opposition Leader, whose name eludes me, having a stoush on the floor of the Estimates. In my book, Jim Bacon certainly won that encounter.
I also remember Michael Hodgman and the then Attorney-General having a stoush in Estimates, and Michael Hodgman detailing everything he was going to do when he became Attorney-General in Tasmania. The then Labor Attorney-General asked the attendant to draw the curtains in the magnificent room where the Estimates were held. He looked up at the sky and said: ‘Unfortunately, Mr Hodgman, I cannot see any pigs flying today’. That was the end of that conversation.
Madam Speaker, there is a place for humour and drama but, essentially, it is a place for information and scrutiny. I commend this motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s March 2012 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s March 2012 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from 27 March 2012.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his last report. I will be speaking today on my portfolios of Justice and Essential Services.
The Auditor-General’s March 2012 report to the Assembly discusses results of the audits of the financial statements conducted over the period 1 July 2011 to 31 December 2011. The report includes an audit into the records of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission.
The Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission is established under the Legal Aid Act and its charter is to ensure people in the Northern Territory have access to services to protect and enforce their legal rights and interests. This is a vital community service as it provides essential legal representation and services to those in our community who are the most vulnerable. The commission’s links with other community-based social services providers often makes Legal Aid the first point of call for Territorians requiring legal services and advice. While the Auditor-General’s report did not identify any material weaknesses in the commission’s controls, it reports a deficit of $767 344 in the commission’s budget.
This government, in partnership with the Commonwealth, recently completed an extensive review of legal aid funding, and Budget 2012-13 delivers a $900 000 increase in the Territory government’s funding of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission. This brings the total in Northern Territory government funding to the commission to $4.7m per annum.
In addition to the increased funding, Budget 2012-13 delivers an annual indexation model to ensure the Territory’s funding increases are in line with the EBA negotiations, and also CPI. This enables the Legal Aid Commission to continue to provide its valuable services to the community and ensures that Territorians will continue to have access to affordable legal aid services well into the future. I thank the Auditor-General for his comments about the Legal Aid Commission.
I move now to Power and Water. The Power and Water Corporation performed well. The Auditor-General, in his key findings, found no identifiable material weaknesses in their controls. We are on the record as saying Power and Water does not recover all of its costs; it is provided with a subsidy. Impairment losses can be explained as being the result of an accounting requirement. As income stream from water assets is below the replacement value of the assets, we would expect this to be the case in relation to water.
Increase in energy and material relates principally to the increase in the fuel source for generation - that being gas - and increase in revenue certainly is positive for the Power and Water Corporation.
I thank the Auditor-General for his report. It is a good indication for the government and the public about where the government institutions are actually travelling in the future.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Auditor-General’s report.
______________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 and Year 9 to 11 Batchelor Area School students accompanied by Ms Carol Beckett, Mr Bruce Garnett and Mr Ross Dudgeon. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
______________________
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, the Auditor-General’s March 2012 report to the Legislative Assembly includes two matters relating to my portfolio responsibilities. The first is the Jabiru Town Development Authority.
The Jabiru Town Development Authority is chaired by a representative of the NT government. Until recently, this position was held by Ms Fran Kilgariff. Ms Kilgariff has moved on from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services, and I take this opportunity to thank Fran for her time as chair of the authority and wish her well in her new role. The new chair is the Executive Director Arnhem Region, James Rogers, in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services, and I welcome him to this role.
Under the Jabiru Town Development Act, the Jabiru Town Development Authority has overall responsibility for the maintenance and development of the town of Jabiru, the issue of subleases of land in the township, and for the administration, management, and control of the town. The authority continues to hold the lease for the land used for Jabiru town purposes, and to administer the 1985 cost-sharing agreement relating to the establishment of the town.
The Auditor-General has undertaken an audit of the authority’s 2010-11 financial statements which resulted in an unqualified, independent audit opinion. The Auditor-General found the financial statements comply with the Australian Accounting Standards. As the Auditor-General has noted in the past, while the audit of the JTDA was unqualified, the authority’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on the continuation of a moratorium on the authority’s future interest and repayment of loans due to the Northern Territory government, totalling $8.8m.
In the course of establishing Jabiru, the then Northern Territory government, through the NT Treasury, provided loan funds to JTDA to fund over-design services - mainly water supply and sewerage services - constructed to meet the expected population needs of the town. It was expected, at the time, the NT would recoup this investment as further development occurred in the Kakadu region. In 1986, the government granted JTDA a moratorium on the repayment of the loan and interest payments in acknowledgement that the anticipated growth of the town had not occurred.
Each year, the authority’s auditors request the Northern Territory Treasury for confirmation of the status of the moratorium. In respect of this audit, the Northern Territory Treasury has confirmed the moratorium on the interest payment and loan repayments is ongoing. The authority remains capable, as it has in the past, of operating and performing its functions in relation to the administration and development of Jabiru while the government maintains its moratorium on the repayment of the loan. This situation will continue until it is resolved in the context of the review of the 1985 cost-sharing agreement involving Energy Resources of Australia, the Commonwealth government, and the Northern Territory government, and decision-making about the future of the Jabiru lease arrangements.
The second matter mentioned in the Auditor-General’s report related to my portfolio responsibilities is Territory Discoveries. Territory Discoveries is the commercial wholesaling arm of Tourism NT and operates as a government business division. Territory Discoveries was established in 1998 to 1999 to address market failure in small- to medium-sized tourism businesses accessing the domestic tourism distribution system. The Auditor-General’s report states the financial report presents fairly in all material aspects, and the financial position of Territory Discoveries as of 30 June 2011, and of its financial performance and its cash flows for the year then ended, are in accordance with Australian accounting standards and the Financial Management Act. Territory Discoveries financial statements will be tabled in the Legislative Assembly as part of Tourism NT’s annual report.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased there were no issues requiring clarification or explanation. I take this opportunity to thank the Auditor-General and his staff for their work and diligence in reporting to the parliament on the expenditure of public monies.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I commend the Auditor-General’s report. There are three elements in that report which relate to my portfolios.
The first one on page 87 relates to the Auditor-General’s audit findings and analysis of the financial statements of the NT Home Ownership Scheme. Basically, the key finding of the Auditor-General was the audit did not identify any material weaknesses in controls.
The second element relates to the department of Housing’s tenancy management system. The Auditor-General identified some weaknesses in that particular audit. He found, first, that there was an absence of a formal and consistent change control process that could result in unauthorised or untested changes being introduced in the system’s production environment. That, in turn, was considered to have the potential to lead to processing errors or to functionality that may fail to meet the department’s expectations. Second, there was an absence of a formalised user access management procedure. Third, there was inappropriate access to agency data transferred between the system and Centrelink.
The Auditor-General made these findings available to the department. He said recommendations in respect of each of the issues outlined above were made to the department, which has responded appropriately, in the view of the Auditor-General.
The third aspect is very interesting. It related to the BER; that is, $204m of expenditure in every primary school across the Northern Territory. I will detail this. I know I am running out of time. Basically, he commended the department for their management of that budget. It was a budget which came onto the books very late and very quickly, and had to be expended very quickly in consultation with schools and school councils. It worked out very well. There are very few outstanding projects from that $204m expenditure.
I ask a rhetorical question before I sit down. This was expenditure that was opposed at a national level by Tony Abbott and his mob, which reflected in the CLP locally. We are about to hear a budget reply from the Opposition Leader. The question I ask is: would they have knocked back $204m of expenditure in every primary school in the Northern Territory? Would they have knocked back that expenditure? That is an important question. It would have been irresponsible for them to do so.
Madam Speaker, the time is drawing close to 11 am and I will let the Opposition Leader get on with his Budget reply which I am very interested in. I will continue my remarks at a later date.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it now being 11 am, I will be calling the Leader of the Opposition, but before I do so, I acknowledge these students. They are from Year 5/6 Milkwood Steiner School, accompanied by Ms Jan Harrington. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
APPROPRIATION (2012-2013) BILL
(Serial 208)
(Serial 208)
Continued from 1 May 2012.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, what was most striking about yesterday’s budget was the lack of imagination. This is a government lost for ideas. The increase in debt and deficit was a very predictable Labor response that is no different, whether it is Gillard and Swan, or Henderson and Lawrie. This is what we have come to expect. It is what Labor governments are best known for. Seriously, people will forgive you for spending beyond your means if they can see a clear link between that spending and a meaningful purpose or benefit to them. It must be defendable on the basis of a bigger plan and a vision for the future. However, this budget, Madam Speaker and colleagues, has no plan and no vision, just a motley collection of patches and bandaids designed to prop them up for the last five minutes before the siren.
The people of the Northern Territory deserve better. No carefully crafted spin can hide the shocking fact of a massive debt obligation. Labor’s budget is a con job – out came the numbers and clever words, but nothing changed. Families are still hurting, violent crime is a deepening community concern, rents are the highest in the country, the cost of living is on the up and up, and the most telling is Territorians are choosing, sadly, to leave because they cannot afford to live here. The Territory we all love has gone backwards over the past 10 years, whether it is law and order, the cost of living, our lifestyle, or basic economic management.
I am not going to go through the budget papers line by line arguing over figures. That is what Labor does: rolls out some big number, tells a grand story, and thinks it is a job well done. The only job done well is the sell and spin, but nothing happens. Labor boasts of record infrastructure spends - but have a look around, the words do not match the result. Where has the money gone? I will mention a couple of numbers from the budget. They are very big and they are to do with our debt. It is the bottom line that tells the story.
The Country Liberals understand the value of money to a hard-working family; that to get ahead you must spend less than you earn, that borrowed money comes at a great cost, and has to be paid back one day. The shortfall for this financial year is $491m. That is what Labor spent over and above what they received, and it is more than $100m above their own estimates. What could go so wrong, and where has the money gone?
It gets worse. In 2010, Labor told us the Territory’s general government sector nett debt for 2013-14 would be $1.6bn. Now, they are saying the nett debt will, in fact, be $3.1bn - nearly double, and a very dangerous trend. Debt must be managed or it will manage you and restrict your options.
Territory Labor had its well-rehearsed lines - you can give it points for that - about deliberately stepping into debt. It is as though they actually believe those lines. Those words do not hide a total lack of budget discipline spanning 10 years, nor prevent a day of reckoning bearing down on the Territory, unless this is brought under control.
Have a look at the prison. If anyone is in any doubt about the financial incompetence of this Labor government, then I urge you to listen now. Having spent all their money and then buried us in debt, Labor has put the new prison on the credit card. The most expensive prison in Australia, paid for on high finance - top dollar for a public private partnership deal. They saw this Labor government coming. Here is the deal: $60m a year for the next 30 years, and you get a $1.8bn gaol - a non-productive asset that decreases in value over time, and is full to capacity on the day it opens.
Many are now very concerned about this Labor government’s poor management of the Territory’s finances. They have squandered massive GST windfalls and turned it into a massive debt. All of this in 10 years! No Territory government has ever had the level of income this Labor government was entrusted with - no government ever! A mountain of debt stands as a damning legacy of Labor’s budget ill-discipline and mismanagement. It is time to draw a line in the sand.
Today, the Country Liberals will place 27 important questions on the Parliamentary Record; questions crucial to the financial future of the Northern Territory. They are questions which have not been addressed in Labor’s budget. They must be answered so Territorians know the true state of the Territory’s finances, not just the headline announcements they choose to release.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table these questions. The media and important Territory stakeholders will also be provided with copies. I hereby put this tired Labor government on notice. We expect you, on behalf of Territorians, to provide answers to these 27 questions publically or risk forever to be known as the cover-up artists we have come to expect you are. Chief Minister, you have two weeks.
We have identified six major areas that need urgent investigation. These are: the budget black hole; Territory government borrowings; off-budget funding; the prison project; the waterfront project; and the Power and Water Corporation.
Let me turn to the budget black hole. In 2001, this Territory Labor government needed to find, in its own words, $147m to balance the books of the non-financial public sector - $147m. The budget now before the House has the Labor government borrowing just shy of $500m to balance the books of general government, and that blows out to $783m when you add in the additional borrowings across every government agency. Including the last two budgets, the Territory government has increased its overall nett debt by $1522m just to balance the books.
It gets worse. Looking at the forward estimates for the years ahead, the borrowing binge by this government continues. How deep will Labor dig its budget black hole before it is not the Treasurer, Treasury, or the Labor Party, but someone else such as the moneylenders, perhaps, who does something about this unsustainable debt position?
Regarding government borrowings, the result of these deficit budgets for years to come is an ever-growing pile or mountain of debt - debt young Territorians may be paying back over decades. Those decades of payments will be the real legacy of 10 years of Labor. The debt across all government agencies is now projected to increase to $5.6bn by the end of 2015. That is nearly $25 000 per person - man, woman and child - in debt. That is just debt, not the liabilities like the billion dollar prison or the extra billions in superannuation payments. It is the liability iceberg that could sink the Territory following another high-debt, high-risk Labor spending budget.
Here is a question for government. I heard the Chief Minister and Treasurer both try to explain that this government debt is not personal debt. There are many Territorians out there who take this personally. Chief Minister, is $25 000 a reasonable amount Territory families would happily put on their credit card, because that is what you have done on their behalf? You had your chance to pay back the debt, to bring the budget back into balance. I have been in this Chamber for 12 years. I remember the windfall after windfall after windfall, and the call from the opposition to make use of that windfall to retire debt and put us into a better position for the difficult times. You failed to heed it!
The Northern Territory has now become a beggar facing escalating borrowing costs to reflect a higher risk of default. Or will it face lenders turning off the funding tap altogether? We are in a risky position - and you have put us in that risky position. Territory families do not consider this growth in Territory debt justified and sustainable. Territorians demand that government lives within its means, and shows some fiscal discipline.
Regarding off-budget funding, we are using this budget reply to call on the Treasurer to prepare a report on the totality of the public sector and those bodies in which the government has some involvement, or in which it at least has some significant interest. Territorians have a right to know where the contribution made from or to the 2012-13 budget, or other parts of the public sector, may be found in non-budget sector entities such as Darwin Waterfront Corporation, Northern Territory Major Events Company, Power and Water Corporation, TIO - and there are a dozen or more others you will see in the tabled questions. Where is the transparency in government reporting that shows the flow of funding between the whole-of-government and its owned and operated corporations, entities, and agencies? That needs to be seen, to be brought out into the light, so we know the true state of play in the Northern Territory. Why is it that payments and receipts to these organisations are shrouded in secrecy, and Territorians are kept misinformed by this Territory Labor government?
Funding the prison project: when addressing the spending of this Labor government, some serious questions arise. I look forward to the answers. For example, why did the government not trust the NT public service to build a new Darwin prison or refurbish the existing prison? First and foremost when looking at this massive expenditure over the next 30 years, can we get out of this prison deal now, and what would it cost to do so? If, in the future, we reach the conclusion it was sensible to repay the $495m prison debt, would government be able to do so without penalty? Just what have you signed us up to? If refinancing of the debt should become necessary or desirable, what is the potential financial exposure of the Northern Territory government? What have you promised Territorians will pay? What have you committed us to? These are questions we are asking that need to be answered - and now.
If the Northern Territory government had borrowed, for example, $495m that will be added to the Territory debt in 2014, and built the prison itself, the annual repayments would have been, at current interest rates, around $36m per year. However, the mid-year report says the forward estimates of expenditure already include $60m per year for the prison project. There is a difference. Territorians need to know; bring this out into the open so we can see it clearly. What is this extra $24m? What is it being spent on, and who is receiving it? Will you be honest and transparent in your budget presentations and with Territorians? You have an opportunity - you have two weeks.
Funding the waterfront project and precinct is another example of this government’s transparency failure. Do the debt figures in the NT budget include the cost of the Convention Centre in the same way as they appear for the new Darwin prison? If not, why not? How much should now be added to total debt? How much has the government spent to date on the Convention Centre in yearly contributions? Bring that out. How much has the government spent to date on community infrastructure activities in yearly contributions? What revenue has been returned to the budget, and where does it appear?
Budget 2012-13 for the Chief Minister’s Department contains over $17m towards management of the waterfront precinct and the operating payment for the Darwin Convention Centre; for how many years will this payment be made? Including the cost of community infrastructure such as the wave pool, it appears that over 25 years the government will be paying well over the $144m upper limit stated in your 2006-07 budget papers. That is on the record - please explain! How much will that extra payment be and how can Territorians be assured this drain on the public purse, like the ever-growing debts of Labor, will come to an end?
I turn now to our concerns about the sustainability of the Power and Water Corporation, where government should clearly state in the budget document how much it gets, how much it spends, and how it is funded - not buried in footnotes and departmental allocations. It is an organisation that should stand and be measured on its own merits, and not have its accounts protected from clear scrutiny.
It is true that borrowings by the Power and Water Corporation were $332m in 2006, and have more than tripled to over $1bn in 2012. Territorians have a right to ask who will be paying for this, and who will guarantee that current and future generations will not be asked to wear even higher power and water charges as a result of bad decision-making? When and by how much can Territorians expect some positive outcomes from this massive spending spree in improved reliability and reduced costs? How much will the series of planned equity injections into Power and Water Corporation amount to? On what basis has the amount been calculated, and when are they to occur?
We ask, on behalf of Territorians, for the Labor government to frankly and honestly tell Territorians of the full implications of these peculiar gyrations, both for Power and Water’s commercial viability and the bottom line for the Territory budget. Tell the truth.
All this budget reporting serves to hide, rather than reveal, the truth about the Territory’s finances. We need to know. Territorians have been plunged into massive debt, according to Labor, because of the GFC. We ask this government to explain the links between the faraway events in Europe three years after the GFC, or even a possibility of another GFC, and this government’s actual, real, weak, fiscal outcomes and lacklustre development of the Territory.
The truth is Labor’s mismanagement, reckless spending, failed policies, and lack of vision have failed Territorians. Accept responsibility.
A Country Liberals government will not ignore the real cost of living pressures facing Territorians. We will not ignore the stress on young families caused by both partners working full-time just to keep a roof over their heads. Young parents tell of the little time they can spend exploring the bush or even going out to catch a fish with their kids because they need that weekend job just to make ends meet. Sadly, many are forced to leave the Territory because of the high cost of living and unaffordable housing. That is a shame.
We know of small business owners whose businesses are crippled because they cannot employ young people to grow their businesses because those young people cannot afford to live here.
Our suburban parks should be places where children play, couples exercise, and dogs are walked. It is reasonable to expect that play equipment not be covered in graffiti, and lawns not be strewn with rubbish, broken bottles, and layabout drunks.
The Country Liberals will do things differently. First priority is to keep people safe; clean up our streets and parks; drive down the cost of living for families; make housing affordable by returning the balance of supply and demand to land release and create new options in the marketplace; create jobs through a strong and well-managed, balanced economy; invest in roads, rail, ports and other income-producing infrastructure; capitalise on our natural resources; and protect our unique lifestyle. Most importantly, the Country Liberals take long-term strategic planning very seriously.
This current Labor government has littered the Territory with one policy failure after another. This neglect of law and order defines this government. The prison is a monument to that failure. They have ignored community standards and we have grown used to daily encounters with abusive drunks, even outside this parliament, property crime is taken for granted, and high fences and large dogs have come to characterise too many of our suburbs. It needs to change and, under a Country Liberals government, it will change.
I am very concerned, as my fellow Territorians and colleagues are, that the cost of living is out of control, that debt is soaring to record levels, and that no one in this Labor government has ever been held accountable or taken responsibility for wasting opportunity, wasting taxpayer’s money, or for failing to actually deliver for Territorians.
For approximately half-an-hour on Tuesday morning, yesterday, Territorians were subject to yet another very slick presentation from the Treasurer and this Labor government. The government is claiming it handed down a budget for the future, but we have heard these words before. The fact is, we are actually going backwards financially. This Labor government has been living on credit, and Budget 2012-13 is no different. Once again, the Treasurer has delivered a budget that pawns our future to pay for promises of tomorrow. Pushing up debt to record levels is not hard, it is simply irresponsible, and our children will pay long into the future. The government has simply lost control of its spending.
Because of this government’s complete inability to manage the budget, Territorians are forced to pay $572 000 a day interest - every day. That adds up to more than $4m a week in interest payments alone. When the Treasurer talks about growth, the Treasurer neglects to mention how much the economy has shrunk, when 3500 Territorians have packed up and left in the past three years because it is too expensive to live here. Our hospitals, police service and schools will all suffer because the Labor government is spending our money on interest bills.
If this is not bad enough, we have Labor’s carbon tax to come. We know this Labor government supports a carbon tax. What we do not know is how they are going to make us pay for the impacts of this tax - what it will have on government, on families, all Territorians, and the Territory economy.
Carbon-based industries such as energy and LNG are essential to our future prosperity. This government has failed to plan for Labor’s carbon tax and to even consider the effect it would actually have on our economy. Despite our constant questions in and outside the parliament, Labor still does not know what impact their carbon tax will have on the cost of building a new house, or the price of a litre of milk.
Unlike the Labor Party, the Country Liberals believe in accountability in government. We believe ministers should be held accountable for wasting money, implementing failed policies, or making poor decisions. Have it out in the open.
Small businesses are actually hurting. Shops in the mall remain empty, yet this government continues to spend and waste their money happily. Brand new air-conditioners had to be ripped out of Nemarluk School and replaced at a cost of $800000 because they were too noisy. That is just another example of taxpayers’ money being wasted. The Country Liberals will make it a priority to stop waste.
The Country Liberals will stand up and fight for Territorians, unlike Labor, which does whatever its federal masters tell it. Labor supports a carbon tax; they also support Julia Gillard’s minerals resource rent tax. Both are coming into effect on 1 July, and struggling families and businesses will be hard hit. Electricity, already up by 25%, is going to go up again. That is a tax on government, business, families, hospitals, schools, tourism - a cascading tax. Everyone will be forced to pay more for their power, and this Labor government supports it.
This government puts the Labor Party first - always has done. They put politics ahead of people; their own self-interest ahead of Territorians. They do not stand up to Prime Minister Julia Gillard. They pretend to, but the facts tell an entirely different story ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr MILLS: I have, yes.
I turn to the cost of living. Labor has no plans - no real plans - to deal with the cost of living increases. We are very aware Territorians are feeling the pain of everyday living expenses - and you should know it; they are. We talk to Territorians wherever we go, and we are hearing their fears and concerns for the future. No wonder debt was the headline last night, because they are concerned - stories of how mums and dads, shop owners, pastoralists, taxi drivers, hairdressers, small business owners, and the elderly are hurting. We have spoken firsthand to business people who are worried sick about their future, and the shop owners in Palmerston, where I live, who are not only doing it tough, but are robbed and assaulted as they go about their daily tasks.
We are not pretending for a moment there is an easy fix to the cost of living pressures, but we will start by breaking down Labor’s culture of spending borrowed money on non-performing assets. We will install a disciplined balance to the budget and government process, and turn around Labor’s dangerous downward trend.
Regarding housing affordability, the biggest impact on the cost of living is housing - make no mistake. This is one of the most significant of Labor’s great failings. It is not that we have a shortage of land. The lack of affordable housing is a real concern for many young Territorians who want to be a part of the great Territory story. Labor’s failed land release policies have driven up the cost of owning a home and young people are leaving because of it. Shame!
The Country Liberals will focus on cutting the cost of building new homes by dealing with red tape and supply side factors relating to development, compliance costs, land supply, and zoning for density development. There needs to be increased flexibility to raise building height levels. This will reduce the amount of new land needed for development and will increase the supply of residential housing. Streamlining authority processes in order to reduce compliance costs will also improve housing affordability. It is an objective which can be achieved in the Northern Territory. If there is a will, there is a way.
Balancing the budget: after years of reckless spending, the Treasurer has failed to properly detail how the Treasurer will bring the NT budget back into balance. The government does not have a plan to deal with the carbon tax it supports, and will cost Territorians dearly. We oppose the carbon tax because it is a bad deal for Australia and a terrible deal for the Northern Territory and its families.
The Country Liberals commit to generate wealth, prosperity, and jobs for all Territorians. Our economic vision plans for change and growth in a strong and sustainable way which means balancing the budget. We will target a return to surplus by the end of our first term in government.
Regarding the future, as an incoming government, if elected, we will seem destined to be placed in a very similar position to a family whose breadwinner has frittered and gambled away all of its savings, as well as maxing out the credit card. In the first instance, the reaction is likely to be along the lines of: ‘Why did you do it? What on earth were you thinking?’ In our case, the answers are glaringly obvious: the members opposite acted out of arrogance and greed and, indeed, if they were thinking, it was only of themselves.
Most people placed in this position are faced with the conclusion there is little they are able to do. We do not have that luxury. We simply must do something - and we will. Our response will be twofold. First, we will have to cut government spending. Unlike Labor, we will not take the easy way out. There will be no oversimplistic across-the-board efficiency dividends which are quite inequitable and ineffective. There will be no ERCs or massive sackings. We will not tinker around the edges of the problem. We will launch an all-out attack on duplication and waste which is absolutely rife under this government.
Like the family I alluded to earlier, we will not penalise the innocent. The vast majority of middle- and lower-income earners come to work each day to receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. It is not their fault the government is reeling out of control, and I will not allow them to pay the price for it. I will personally ensure no pay or conditions will be eroded, or any compulsory redundancy visited upon any public servant earning $110 000 or less. This very important group is not only the engine room of our public sector, it is the backbone of our community.
However, I am not able to give a similar guarantee to the highly-rewarded senior executives within this sector. That is not to say there are no senior executives well and truly worth their salt – indeed, there are, and they know who they are. They have absolutely nothing to fear. In fact, I am aware of senior managers who are well and truly ready to accept greater responsibility in the Northern Territory.
I will move immediately to review all government expenditure where those programs do not offer direct services or benefits to business or the community. A prime example will be the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars wasted on public relations, media, or just plain political spin aimed primarily at the self-promotion of the minister or, even worse, the bureaucracy. This has to stop; we cannot afford it. Conversely, where services are being delivered which are of real benefit to the community such as health, education, and policing, they will be exempt from such cuts and, in some cases, will receive increases in funding for key services when they can be afforded.
Our second major initiative will be to increase government revenue. Once again, we will not follow the Labor model of increasing taxes and charges - your default position; the default position of the left. We are all sick to death of such impositions and, quite frankly, most families and businesses simply cannot afford it. No, we will achieve growth in revenue through growth in the private sector. Let us grow the private sector. This will not mean a wholesale sell-off of government assets, as has happened elsewhere. It does mean we will focus on private sector growth and diversification through wise investment, creativity, innovation, and strategic planning. This will certainly include partnerships with my government, if elected, on a win/win basis.
Profit, where earned, is not a dirty word. We simply have to move away, for example, from being a resource quarry for the rest of the world. We have a great future, we have great opportunities, but there are challenges. We are prepared to take those challenges full on.
We will not be a one-trick pony and rely exclusively on INPEX to carry us through, although, of course, we are very grateful to that company for priming the pump for our economy. We will look to a wide range of initiatives to value-add to our mineral and offshore activity which can provide skilled jobs to Territorians. We will provide the necessary stimulus to education and training to at least keep pace with those emerging needs.
As far back as the time of self-government, our first Chief Minister, Paul Everingham, recognised the tourism industry and its potential to grow our economy. Apart from the obvious direct benefits, this industry has the greatest multiplier effect in the creation and growth in employment opportunities across the community. Jobs of the widest possible skill sets - from students supplementing their income waiting on tables to senior and specialist executives in the highest quality establishments - could reach into every remote corner of the Territory. It is, therefore, quite astounding that tourism has declined every year since Labor took office, despite them spending around $0.5bn. They spent $0.5bn in that time. Spending, unfortunately, is something Labor is very good at, but value is where they strike out.
Previous CLP governments delegated the majority of decisions relating to tourism to the Tourism Commission, a body truly representative of the industry, which insisted on quality and value for money, especially in marketing and industry standards. Labor abolished the commission and replaced it with a toothless advisory body which has proved to be ineffective despite its best efforts, and ceded the decision-making powers of the bureaucracy. We will reinstate the commission and, with their input, do everything in our power to increase the diversity and breadth of the tourism product, which is the responsibility of government. This will include placing a higher priority, both in policy and resourcing, into highlighting and maintaining our incomparable parks to an international standard.
We will also move quickly to do all in our power to assist our struggling primary industry sector. Labor, both here and in Canberra, has all but decimated our burgeoning live cattle industry in the name of pandering to The Greens. We will be doing all we can, both in Canberra and by direct and meaningful relations with our Southeast Asian neighbours, to re-establish and strengthen these markets. This unique Territory industry needs to be given the opportunity to reposition itself as a key economic driver, most significantly for the regions.
We will place much more emphasis on our other food production industries. Although members opposite are totally cynical about the Territory’s potential to become a significant food bowl for the region we, on our side of the House, are not. We will immediately commence talks with both Canberra and Western Australia to resurrect the Territory component of the Ord River Scheme.
We will undertake a major assessment of our water resources with a view to both satisfying our long-term urban needs but also maximising the economic benefit and job creation which can flow from an effective use of water. Water is, potentially, the most valuable resource in the world, and those of us who are blessed with it should accept the responsibility to utilise it in the most economical, environmentally acceptable way.
My government will also have a major focus on planning and development. This will not be done by sacrificing our pristine natural environment or adversely affecting our unique lifestyle. We will create an independent planning commission comprised of the highest calibre and breadth of relevant industry experience we can gather. The commission will have the responsibility for the development and custodianship of town plans across the Northern Territory, including the essential role of earmarking land for future infrastructure development and transport corridors. The commission will also be the authority charged with the responsibility for assessing complex and sensitive development proposals.
That is not to say we do not value the work of the Development Consent Authority. In fact, that body does an excellent job under difficult policy and political constraints. We will work with them to continue this role with the vast majority of development proposals where compliance is the key assessment criteria. The commission will only become involved when merit and community benefits may be the overriding considerations. This, most likely, is to occur in the CBD where a formula-based assessment often restricts architects from providing design outcomes which may achieve a better outcome across the board.
Never before have Territorians been in so much debt, and with a bleak outlook on the debt front. This scandalous mismanagement of the Territory’s finances can be summed up in these simple facts. They do not talk much about the GST, unless it is threatened - and it is not threatened. It delivered more money to the Territory than at any other time in our history. Under Labor, that money has gone and been replaced with the biggest-ever debt in the history of the Northern Territory - that is it; as simple as that: the biggest drain on our public purse ever, and monumental amounts paid on interest.
To put this staggering financial mismanagement into some perspective, total interest payments across government in 2015-16 are estimated to be - and hear this - $406m interest repayments in 2015-16. That is double the amount this year. It will exhaust almost the entire taxation revenue expected to be raised in 2015-16. That is unsustainable. One thing is certain: it took Labor 10 years to get us to this uncertain and risky fiscal position, and Labor cannot get us out of it.
Madam Speaker, it is certainly time to change, and our future depends on it.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s March 2012 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s March 2012 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I will resume where I left off, which was about the BER, and the Auditor-General’s comments on it and the department’s and government’s management of it. I reiterate what I said before: Tony Abbott and the Liberal National Party in Canberra absolutely opposed the stimulus package including the BER. They ran a campaign against it in the media. Likewise, in the Northern Territory, the CLP did not support the BER. We had a motion before this parliament which was not supported by the CLP.
It comes down to ideology. We heard the ideology of the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply. It is all about what he calls fiscal management. If it was up to them, the stimulus package would never have occurred; it would never have been delivered by the federal Labor government. If the CLP had been in power in the Northern Territory, I doubt whether they would have accepted the $204m for upgrades in each primary school across the Northern Territory.
As I look across the primary schools in my electorate, and as I attend BER openings in Palmerston, or wherever it might be, I get a sense of excitement. I get a sense of accomplishment from the schools, the teaching staff, the principals but, most importantly, the school councils. They can all recognise the importance of a stimulus package. They can also recognise the importance of investment in infrastructure, and this is exactly the principal of what this government has done in its budget.
If you want to talk about responsibility and irresponsibility, it is demonstrated on your side, in spades, through your attitude to the BER. I have also noticed, as I have been to a number of BER openings, the presence of opposition members there smiling, nodding, congratulating, so ...
Mr Tollner: It is public money; it was not your money.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: ... there are double standards here ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Well, you are a gun for hire. You will say and do anything you can to keep your seat. That is what you are ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister well knows the rules pertaining to directly addressing members. Those rules exist so this sort of behaviour does not occur and diminish this House. I ask you to direct the minister to comply with standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you can just direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, of course I will.
The key findings of the Auditor-General in relation to DET’s performance management in relation to the BER program are as follows. He found that:
the systems put in place to monitor the program were necessary to satisfy the DEEWR information requirements. Nevertheless those systems were adequate
in terms of their ability to enable DET to monitor the progress of the BER;
States, Territories and the Commonwealth.
- The audit did identify a number of issues in relation to governance, risk management and planning, and the response to the midpoint review of BER:
the DET’s objectives and performance measures in relation to BER program should have been clarified in the divisional operating plan;
more transparent reporting, including public disclosure, in relation to BER program was required;
information systems supporting the BER reporting could have been enhanced; and
findings from the midpoint review facilitated could have been addressed on a more timely basis.
The Auditor-General pointed out how the BER program basically happened. It happened very quickly, and it was incumbent on government to deliver these infrastructure works very quickly.
I remember well a meeting convened upstairs in the reception area in this Parliament House, which included business and public servants. I think it occurred on a Sunday, a day or so after the stimulus package was announced by the federal government, and all the major players in the construction industry were present - both companies and organisations. There were senior officials from Treasury and Construction and Infrastructure. The Chief Minister facilitated that particular meeting and an action plan was agreed upon that day.
All the people I have spoken to in industry since then agreed government acted swiftly, in collaboration and consultation with business, and the result was a great result for Territory business. There was over $204m of expenditure, both in government and non-government primary schools.
I have not really heard of any one of the particular projects within the Northern Territory that came to grief in any way. There was a comment, I believe, in a national audit undertaken of the BER program on the high cost of construction in our remote areas in the Northern Territory. We, in this House, are very aware of those particular aspects.
The Auditor-General commented:
- Building the Education Revolution (BER) was a macro-economic response to the global economic crisis of 2008, with the scale of the program and deadlines set for the delivery of capital works requiring a cross-agency and inter-jurisdictional response.
That occurred in the Northern Territory. After the amount of negativity we heard from the opposition recently, I commend our public service in the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth officers they work with. I commend industry on the very important work it did in relation to the BER, delivering it in diverse situations across the Northern Territory.
He summarised some of the aims of the BER:
- ‘The Building the Education Revolution (BER) program is the single largest element of the Australian government’s $42bn National Building Economic Stimulus Plan, with around 24 000 projects to be delivered in every community across …’
the Northern Territory. He talked about the process in regard to the procurement approach; that it built on our existing procurement processes through the Department of Construction and Infrastructure for the delivery of capital works projects. If the BER demonstrated anything, it was the capacity of our public servants and our processes to handle what really was a massive injection of funds - over $200m worth of funds - to be delivered in very quick time right across the Territory.
It also demonstrated the management at the individual school level because it was not just a matter of someone in Construction and Infrastructure saying: ‘We are going to put a library here or a covered outdoor learning area there’. This involved very close consultation with each and every individual school. All of us as members would be aware of school councils. Some of us attend school councils. I am told there are some members who do not attend, almost out of principle, their school council meetings, but that is a matter between them and their school councils. Most of us pride ourselves on the fact we attend as many school councils as we can. It was great to see those school councils, the parents, and the teachers, engaged in the discussion about infrastructure that was needed in their individual schools to cater for the educational needs of their students.
Each school has done it differently. Each school has done it according to what it required and its philosophy - not only the philosophy of the teachers, but also of the parents. There is a sense of delight I experience when I go to each and every BER opening.
There were quantity surveyors - and I was sitting next to a quantity surveyor today at the budget breakfast - and they have a very difficult task. They have to, sometimes, estimate a project that is not occurring for 12 months, in relation to materials and their delivery in quite remote areas. They do a fantastic job. There was a quite stringent focus on value for money and, as was said here:
- Where costs did not demonstrate value for money, tendered prices were negotiated or the project was retendered.
There was quite an element of ruthlessness to get value for money out of this very important expenditure by the Commonwealth government.
Turning to page 41, you can see the scale of the projects within the Northern Territory. It is not only the BER, it is also the National School Pride expenditure which, from memory, was expenditure up to $200 000. The number of projects in the Northern Territory totalled 293, which was in government and non-government schools. The non-government and the Catholic sector used the government systems to actually assist them with delivery of this project. The message I received from the Catholic sector, in particular, is they are quite satisfied with the delivery of those projects.
There were 293 projects across the Northern Territory and, as of August 2011, 275 of those were completed, with 18 in progress, and 94% complete. That is a wonderful testament to all those players I mentioned before: the departments. The Education Department, the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, and Treasury were very closely involved at all stages, monitoring the progress, the expenditure and, of course, the schools themselves.
The department has learnt by this particular process and I quote from their response:
- The announcement of the BER did not align with the whole of government budget four year rolling infrastructure plan maintained by NT Treasury or the infrastructure divisional plan of the DET.
- The BER performance measures, as determined by the Commonwealth, were reported quarterly to the DET Executive, as well as through NT Treasury budget and expenditure management systems and through the Chief Minister’s and National Coordinators General.
The BER funding was also reported in the relevant years in Budget Paper No 4, which is the publication for accountability and transparency of the infrastructure program. Reflecting, I suppose I am still thinking about what was said prior to this debate. This government is very focused on transparency and the integrity of our reporting system.
That is why we, as a government when we came into power in 2001, brought in the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, because there was a whole series of very obscure things that members who were on the Public Accounts Committee, at the time, can well remember. They were around CLP budget processes, particularly in the last budget they handed down before the 2001 election, where things were inflated for ‘presentational purposes’ to make it look as though there had been increases in expenditure in education, health, and police.
Well do I remember that, and the feeling of relief and pride I felt when, as a government, we introduced and passed the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act which, essentially, means coming into an election process all the figures of government have to be made known so the public can make decisions based on the policies of the two parties in their expenditure and what effects their expenditure is going to have on the bottom line.
Well do I remember talk of a black hole. The whole reason why the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act was brought into this parliament and passed by the Clare Martin government in those early days, was a very black hole that emerged within the CLP’s last budget before they lost power in 2001. From memory, it was $130m …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: They like to deny it still ...
Mr Elferink: You made the decision, you fool!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Elferink: You are the one who brought back the black hole!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: They did not ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause, Leader of Government Business.
Member for Port Darwin, I remind you of the very standing order you raised some 15 minutes ago about directing your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr Elferink: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you also remind him …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, no. That is a frivolous point of order. Order!
Mr Elferink: … about the obligation to tell the truth in this House, because he is not doing it ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat! Resume your seat immediately. Leader of Government Business, you have the call.
Dr BURNS: Well, you could do it by substantive motion if you like. I would welcome that debate.
Mr Elferink: Would you like me to?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I would certainly bring out ...
Mr Elferink: Would you like to spend the rest of lunch dealing with it?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You do not have the call, member for Port Darwin!
Dr BURNS: I would certainly bring out all the evidence of the Public Accounts Committee at that time, and the debates that occurred at that time ...
Mr Elferink: Stacked by you mob to get the solutions you wanted.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: ... regarding the $130m black hole that existed ...
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting!
Mr Elferink: He should start telling the truth.
Dr BURNS: ... within the last CLP budget. He does not like to hear about it, but I remember ...
Mr Elferink: No, I just want you to tell the truth!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I remember it well …
Mr Elferink: You have an obligation to tell the truth!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: ... beyond doubt about what happened in ...
Mr Elferink: You are being dishonest!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I remind you of Standing Order 51. You are on a warning, thank you.
Dr BURNS: I got a bit of a response there ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member’s time has expired; he should sit down.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, your time has expired.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 11 The Essington School Legal Studies students, accompanied by Miss Mali Grossman. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s March 2012 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s March 2012 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am going to respond to the comments by the Leader of Government Business more than I am to the Auditor-General in the first part of my contribution here today. I listened with great care to the Leader of Government Business and the way he banged on about the BER, and how anybody who turned up to a BER launch was automatically a hypocrite if they were from this side of the House. What arrant nonsense! That is the usual tripe he trawls out because the shallow husk left behind of the well-intentioned minister as he limps towards his retirement is engaged in nothing more than doing the Labor Party’s nasty work so everybody else on that side of the House can be washed clean.
I do not believe he believes half the things he says in this House. Behind the scenes he will say: ‘I am only doing my job’. If that is what he thinks his job is, then he has lost his way. Our job is to work for the - goodness gracious, we say a prayer every morning in this House - true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. I find it disappointing the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory, from the Leader of Government Business’ perspective, is nothing than more sitting in his ivory tower sniping at the passing innocents who happen to be walking by.
This business about the BER exposes two things. First, yes, I have been to a BER launch. I was unsure if it was a BER launch at the time I was invited along but, clearly, it was. The argument has always been run from the other side of the House that we needed to go into debt to save the Australian economy. However, some of the BER projects were being rolled out long after it was realised in Canberra the underwriting of the economy was not as necessary as originally thought.
I do not hear the minister making other comments about what was being done when the federal government was rolling out $200bn worth of debt, with another potential $100bn on the credit card, with the gift of $900 to everyone who paid tax in the last few years - or whatever the arrangement was. That went more to paying off existing credit cards for money that already had been spent, and for consumer goods which helped protect jobs in China - not in Australia. I did not hear a whisper about that from the Leader of Government Business.
He, basically, banged on about how dreadful it was that the CLP members had the audacity to turn up to these functions. We welcome new schools. What it also enabled governments to do was set aside some of the money they had reserved for building educational infrastructure and spend it somewhere else, using the BER money to underwrite the school infrastructure. Of course, it was welcomed by Labor governments at the time. However, I still remain critical of the logic behind the so-called necessity for this thing.
The only difference between Santa Claus and a Labor government is the Labor government actually exists. The problem is also when a Labor government dishes out the gifts, what they have not and do not mention - and they continue to not mention - is someone has to pay the piper. What is so hard about the logic that they suddenly use the word ‘responsible’ in relation to a spending decision and, therefore, it is right?
I will quote the federal Treasurer, Wayne Swan, in relation to matters surplus:
- ‘I’m about to head off to a meeting of the G20 ... If I was to sit there and take the advice of The Greens or a lot of other people around the place in a commentariat world, they would say to us you are nuts if you’re not coming back with a surplus on that timetable’.
That was reported on 17 April this year.
If the federal Treasurer thinks anything other than a surplus is nuts, then what is this government doing? According to the federal Treasurer, what the government is engaging in is, essentially, lunacy. I am unimpressed with a minister who has had his day in the sun, slithering into this House, trotting out old arguments, when he should be working for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
The Auditor-General has made his usual careful examination of various issues. What is missing in this report - it is not mentioned in this report specifically but it is touched on - is the security of government computer systems. I am somewhat concerned about the security of government systems. Over the last few reports the Auditor-General has presented to this place, the security of various government systems has been a consistent theme.
Every government department, according to Treasurer’s Directions, should now have an audit committee in place that meets four quarters a year. Part of that auditing process those audit committees should have must include a review of things such as computer security systems. I find it disturbing that throughout government, time and time again, the Auditor-General finds shortcomings in the security of our computer systems. The fixes to some of these issues are very simple, indeed. It could be something as simple as locking a door or making sure that passwords are not sticky taped to the sides of the machines, and those sorts of things. However, I find it a consistent theme that seems to be coming out of the Auditor-General’s reports; that computer systems continue to be vulnerable.
I am concerned about that. Systems such as TRIM, which are used by the Northern Territory government for all sorts of purposes but, also, I understand, document storage for things such as preparations for the Estimates process, have certain weaknesses to them. I wonder if that is the reason the government has determined it is necessary to start transferring certain documents from the TRIM system and putting out instructions, as I understand it, that those documents are now to be lodged on the SharePoint system.
I am curious as to why the government is making those requests of public servants. Is there a problem with TRIM? Is there a problem with TRIM that there is some component to it that means certain documents cannot be stored on the TRIM system? What is the advantage of SharePoint over TRIM? I would like to hear that explained by the minister with carriage of technological issues in response to this debate, because it seems to be an odd instruction.
TRIM, as a system, has been around for quite some time, and has been a useful system. I am just curious as to why TRIM, all of a sudden, is being seen - if what I am being told is correct - as a system which is in some way vulnerable to something. I would like to hear an explanation from government as to what the vulnerability of TRIM is, and exactly what SharePoint is. I have never heard of SharePoint, but I am sure it is one of the new whiz-bang systems around. It probably has advantages over TRIM I do not know. However, I would like to hear some explanation from the government in relation to why SharePoint is a preferred system, if indeed, they are instructing their public servants to store information on SharePoint, particularly in relation to the Estimates process, rather than on TRIM.
The theme continues. If you look through the Department of Business and Employment, you will notice the Auditor-General made some comments in relation to the billing and payment system. It said the system is able to fulfil its objectives, but there are opportunities to improving system controls. Again, this theme of a weakness in the departmental system controls are an ongoing problem the Auditor-General pursues.
The Jabiru Town Development Authority is an ongoing problem. I was under the impression - but, clearly, I am wrong – that the whole thing was written off about four or five years ago. I am looking at the member for Nelson here to see if he can indicate whether I was wrong or right. I am getting the shrugging of shoulders. I believe this House and government, and everybody, has long accepted the odd - what is it? - $8m that is attached to the Jabiru Town Development Authority is a write-off. As far as I understood, it had been written off the books some time ago, so I was surprised to see a reference from the Auditor-General to it. Perhaps it is my memory which has decayed somewhat.
I am also interested in the NT Build observations by the Auditor-General. This raises the issue I have so often seen around the traps; that is, the you-beaut programs run by government. They have a program or policy for absolutely every occasion. I am surprised we do not actually have an appropriate checklist to follow now if we go to the toilet, from first advance to the porcelain to the final washing of hands, which has to be then filled out in triplicate and supplied to the appropriate department.
The portability of a long service scheme in the construction industry, introduced by Syd Stirling, if memory serves me, in about 2002, has now seen a substantial amount of money go into the scheme. As predicted at the time by members on this side of the House, the contributions have been made - and they have been another burden on business - but there seems to be almost no one - well, that is not correct; I will rephrase that - there is only a small percentage of people actually touching the scheme itself. Levy contributions for the year 2010-11 were $9.9m; the benefit paid out from the scheme was $0.5m. At the moment, based on that logic - and if that is a consistent set of numbers - there is now a reasonable argument to essentially argue for the levy on business to be reduced substantially - actually to a factor of 20 times, as $0.5m is essentially 1/20th of $10m.
I ask the government to turn its attention to that and bring in the appropriate amendments. The burden on businesses has been just another burden. At the time the argument was run that it was only a small burden, but those burdens from every one of these new decisions by government to protect rights and do other things like that, have done nothing to protect the rights of businesses to go about their business. It turns out this cost impost, some would argue - I would argue tax - on businesses is now producing far too great an income than the drawdown. What will, effectively, happen is eventually the contents of that trust account, for a lack of better words, will become too tempting for the avaricious eyes of government. Will that money ever find its way back to the businesses that paid the tax? I suspect not.
The Power and Water Corporation continues to be of concern to me. Should I become the Treasurer of the Northern Territory if certain dominoes were to fall in place and that were to occur, as the potential shareholder of the Power and Water Corporation, I still have some concerns about its financial position. I met with the Board of the Power and Water Corporation today and listened to what they had to say. I am concerned that after 11 years of being a government-owned corporation, the corporation still continues to develop into a corporation at an almost tectonic pace. I am worried the expectations on the corporation by government will place the corporation in a difficult situation. Some steps need to be taken to resolve some of those issues.
I make no comment about the Territory Insurance Office. I have spoken to the representatives from the insurance office in the recent past, and I am satisfied - without reference to the Auditor-General’s report at all - the organisation is running well. I pause briefly to congratulate Richard Harding. He put much work into restructuring the organisation which has placed the organisation in an excellent position. I wish it well in the future.
Territory wildlife parks are government business divisions. Neither is performing, certainly in a financial sense. Both the wildlife parks - the one in the Top End at least, is looking a little tired. Government has to start thinking about how it is going to respond to the Auditor-General’s comments. I have heard no comments in relation to it at this point. I was not here for the whole of the debate when the motion was introduced – have we debated this prior to today? No, we have not. I saw the Minister for Parks and Wildlife on his feet; I was not entirely sure whether it was in relation to this or not. Clearly, whoever is in government, the wildlife parks will present the Territory government with some important issues.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am not going to talk about the financial position of the Northern Territory here and now simply because it is going to be hashed and rehashed between now and June ad nauseam. The Auditor-General made some observations about it. I remain concerned about the fragile nature of the Territory’s budget and budgetary status, and I hope and pray whoever forms a government after the next Territory election, it will turn its mind to the containment of the issues facing our budget, because the idea of paying more than $1m every day in interest is not something that rests well with me. I can tell you, it is a threshold issue which will not rest well with many people out there in taxpayer land.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will talk on two areas of the Auditor-General’s report. One is the section on the TIO. I recall, some years ago when Mr Syd Stirling was the Treasurer, there was a campaign, the slogan of which was ‘TIO not for sale’. The member for Brennan was involved in that, and I had some influence in that area from the point of view of trying to gather support from the community to ensure TIO was not sold. It is really pleasing to see in the Auditor-General’s report he said:
- TIO’s overall operating performance result improved in comparison to the prior year and the after-tax profits from banking, general insurance and the MAC Fund for the 2010-11 financial year were $2.6m, $5.12m and $44.3m respectively. This compares to after-tax profits from banking, general insurance and the MAC Fund for the 2009-10 financial year of $2.68m, $0.6m and $32.2m respectively.
The rise in insurance profits was assisted by improved case management.
Much of that stems back to the management of Richard Harding:
- The focus on refining the workers compensation and MAC case management models have seen more claimants able to return to health and work sooner than expected.
He went on to say:
- The performance in investment markets continued to have a significant effect on the TIO’s financial performance. With investment markets’ performance having improved during the year, TIO’s investment returns exceeded expectations by $13m.
I believe that is great news. All those people across the Territory who signed those petitions to retain the TIO were validated, and this report shows it. There were, I suppose, issues about the management and the future of TIO in the early 2000s, but I believe the government made the right decision by reversing what it was going to do; to sell off TIO. They changed their minds. As I said before, with people like Richard Harding at the helm, the future for TIO is looking good.
Of course, any insurance company will have its ups and downs; that is the business it is in. When you have a cyclone or some other disaster, obviously, money has to be spent. There will be times when there are no disasters and less money required and then the financial side of TIO improves. It really was good to hear from the Auditor-General that TIO is going well. To all those people who made the effort to sign the petitions and tell the government we did not want to lose all those Territory families or a Territory company, all the effort put in has come to fruition.
The other area I will talk about is the Territory Wildlife Park. The member for Port Darwin mentioned it. It does not look particularly good. The Auditor-General made a note:
- Visitor numbers to both the Alice Springs and the Berry Springs parks have declined in recent years, with aggregate numbers for 2010-11 being approximately 14% below those of 2008-09. These declines stem from a number of factors, including the Global Financial Crisis and the high value of the Australian dollar both of which have affected the level of inbound tourists to the Territory, changes in the behaviour of visitors to the Territory and the emergence of other venues and activities in competition to the parks.
There is no doubt there has been a drop-off in the number of people who have gone to the Territory Wildlife Park - I am referring to the one in the Top End. It may be due to quite a number of reasons. The government has to work out the future of this park. When it first started it was extremely popular. In fact, I was offered a job by Russell Anderson - the CEO of Litchfield Council at the moment - to work there. When I was on Litchfield Council I was involved, at least from the point of view of being informed of what was happening by the then park director, whose name I cannot remember - he came from New Zealand - who set up the park as we see it today, although there have been some changes since then.
The government really needs to work out whether this should be a GBD. Basically, GBDs are supposed to make a profit. The problem is if you do not allow the business to operate like a business, it is very hard for it to make a profit. One example is the Territory Wildlife Park has to lease its cars from NT Fleet. It does not have the ability to go somewhere else in the private market and say: ‘Would you do a deal for us with our vehicles?’ It is stuck with a fixed process which, from a business point of view, is not really competitive. If you have to get your cars from one place only, you are dealing with a monopoly and that makes it very difficult for a business to operate.
You do not see much promotion of the park these days. That may be because they simply do not have the money. I will have to have another look, but I am sure there are still three signs on the highway which promote the Territory Wildlife Park. They used to have those great three dimensional signs with the python, but the pythons kept getting stolen - someone has stolen pythons at home. Unfortunately, the uniqueness of those signs was the attraction for people to take parts off the signs. We have signs now, but they certainly are not as attractive as the original signs.
We have to ask how much the government has invested in the Territory Wildlife Park. Last time I was there, there were buildings with white ants in them and you could not go into them because they were dangerous. Has the government kept up the maintenance and improvements in the park to make it an attraction? I am not sure it has. Therefore, you have to ask the government: ‘Have you put enough money in, or are you simply relying on the concept of being a government business division so the park will make its own way?’ Unfortunately, if you look at the Auditor-General’s report, you will see, of course, it is losing money.
If you throw in things such as the 3% dividend efficiency requirement, you end up losing positions. If places such as the wildlife park are to meet those efficiencies – well, they just do not replace staff. If they are getting behind in the budget, if a staff member leaves they do not replace that person. This also does not help the running of the park; it affects morale. It will be interesting to see what the morale of staff at our wildlife park is, especially if they know some buildings need maintenance and the numbers of people visiting are dropping off, and tightening budgets means some of the programs they want to run are not being run as well as they should be. That does not do anything for morale.
If staff have ideas about how to make the park run, are those ideas listened to? Can the park be opened up in the evening for dinners? It used to be once a upon a time; I am not so sure it is done now. I remember being part of a Christmas party there for the community from Berry Springs. Are those sorts of things still happening? I do not know.
Animals which are not native to the Northern Territory used to be resident in the park. They had banteng, Timor ponies I think, buffalo, pigs, and wallaroos. They do not appear to be in that park anymore. One of the great attractions is to have wallaroos, members of the kangaroo family, because, for many of our international visitors, it would be one of their first opportunities to see those animals close up. However, it did not quite fit within the new philosophy or thinking of the park and, so, there are empty exhibits - the buffalo are not there anymore. I am not sure whether they had donkeys. Those animals which were not native were, basically, removed from the park because they did not seem to fit into the management view of how the park should be run.
You can get a little too fundamentalist. People come to a park; you want them to come through the front door. You can show them Australian native animals, and there is nothing wrong with showing other animals species which have lived in the Northern Territory for a long time, which are very much part of the Territory history. It was a shame to see those animals removed.
Of course, this park is not just a tourist park, it also has a certain amount of wildlife research. In fact, a friend of mine who worked in the aquarium section of this park is going back there soon for a contract period because they do research into wildlife at the park. However, that research is also spread over a number of places. The question is: why do you not make the Territory Wildlife Park the centre of wildlife research? That, in itself, will boost the knowledge which would come from that park, and give it a higher rating; then it is just not a tourist park but a place of learning, education, and science. If more could be done to bring as much of the wildlife research to the park - which is a very large park, by the way; it is over 400 acres of land - that would contribute to, perhaps, increasing the number of people who visit the park.
Another area which could be looked at is speeding up the bituminising of the Litchfield Park loop road. There is some money in the budget for another 6 km. The road is being slowly bituminised. There will have to be some sort of bridge across the Finniss River. However, if the main group of tourists who travel into this area go to Bachelor, Litchfield Park, turn around and go back out via Batchelor to Darwin, they avoid that gravel section of the road which goes right past the Territory Wildlife Park. If that loop was completed, then there is a fair chance you would increase the number of tourists who could, after travelling to Litchfield Park, drop in to the wildlife park on the way home. There are opportunities to increase the numbers of people.
We also do not have a public bus service there. I have said for many years you could combine a public bus service for the people of Berry Springs with a bus service to the wildlife park. The government allows a public bus to go to Crocodylus Park, which is private land. Obviously, they do that to help boost the numbers of people going to that important tourist facility. Why do they not do it for Berry Springs? You could include it as part of a public bus service for that area, allowing people from Berry Springs to catch the bus to Humpty Doo, Palmerston, or into Darwin. At the same time, you could pick up people who do not have a vehicle who would like to take the public bus service to the wildlife park. I have said that for many years. I am not sure whether the government is concerned about the private companies.
If this facility was both a tourist and a wildlife research facility, then it should be entitled to government support as is given to other facilities.
Of course, it is the competition that has probably reduced numbers - from Crocodylus Park and Crocosaurus. Today, a tourist does not have to travel 50 km down the track to see some of these animals such as crocodiles. In the case of Crocodylus Park, you can see lions and all sorts of creatures. It is very easy for people to get to those facilities than to travel to the wildlife park. The government has to make up its mind: you either close this park down or you invest. Do you say it is worth operating as a government facility with a certain amount of commercial activity, or close it down? I believe that is where we are at this moment.
Personally, I would hate to see it close down. It fulfils a role the other parks do not. The other parks tend to be more ‘in your face’ with the bigger animals. If you go to the wildlife park, you see many small fish of the aquarium size, larger fish, and animals more in their natural state in comparison with the other parks - which are in big pools of water you can see into; they are very artificial and more zoo-like. The Territory Wildlife Park is in a far more natural setting and a lot more in keeping with what you would think a wildlife park should be. The government really has to sit down with some people who have a bit of vision, and are willing to look at ideas about how we could attract more people.
This is not the only place which has reducing visitor numbers. The Desert Wildlife Park is worse than the Territory Wildlife Park. We have an issue for the Desert Wildlife Park also.
The government has a deficit. It needs to make a decision: does it continue losing money on this particular wildlife park, or does it invest in such a way it will boost the numbers again, and make it attractive? Will it advertise that it exists? Will it put in a public bus service? Will it finish the Litchfield loop road? Will it become a centre for scientific research? Will it fix up many buildings which are below standard? If you are going to have something you think is worth selling, you have to put the money in, you have to go out and sell it, and you have to get excited about it. I do not hear much excitement about the Territory Wildlife Park anymore, except at certain times of the year.
We used to have ‘adopt an animal’. I adopted a sea eagle once upon a time. I even wanted to adopt a one-eyed sea eagle once upon a time, but we will not go into that ...
Ms Purick: Not the blind one!
Mr WOOD: A semi-visually impaired sea eagle, if you do not mind. I need the truth to come out in parliament as there is much exaggeration here from time to time.
There were programs where businesses could sponsor animals. What happened to that program? Gone!
The government really has to make up its mind: are we full-on supporting our wildlife parks, or are we just going to let them go down the path of a slow death? Personally, I believe you have to make the effort; they are worth keeping. They are great educational facilities, they can be even better - school kids love going out there. You have to make it a reasonable price so you do not inhibit families because of the price to enter. You can make it attractive. I believe you can make it work. It will not be my decision, it will be the government’s decision. It needs to say what its vision is for our wildlife parks, and what it is going to do. I do not see anything in the budget which says it is going to do anything.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, if government members want to go to the next election and tell people what their vision is, they should put the wildlife parks on their agenda, and say whether they are going to close them or move on and make them better places.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will address some of the statements made by the member for Johnston during this debate, specifically in relation to the BER. The member for Johnston has stated, basically, any opposition member who went to a BER opening is a hypocrite ...
Dr Burns: I never said that.
Mr STYLES: Oh, that is what I have. I was not actually here for that part of the debate, but my colleagues tell me he said it. I will check Hansard as soon as we can get a copy. Irrespective of that, the comments have been made previously about a number of members on this side, me included, going along and supporting the opening of the BER facilities at a particular school.
The member for Johnston is actually the Minister for Education and Training. I just wonder if he actually realises who his target market is. His target market is actually kids - young people in the Territory who go to school to get an education. I attended the BER opening at Wulagi Primary School the member for Johnston mentioned previously. I was very proud to be there and I took a great deal of video footage of the kids on behalf of the school. I sent that to the school to distribute to the kids so they have a record of a particular performance they gave for that opening.
It is about young people. I hear the minister continually reminding us in this House of the government’s policy, Every Child, Every Day. That should give him some indication as to who he is actually supposedly representing. It is about those young people, and recognising the effort they put in.
At any of the debates, assemblies, or the classrooms I have visited at schools in my electorate and, in fact, at Wulagi - I do not think the BER has been a topic of discussion by the young people who gave the performance at the BER opening at Wulagi Primary School the member for Johnston was speaking about.
Those kids were told by teachers and, obviously, the senior people in the school there was an occasion, an opening. I do not know whether all those kids fully understood what it was about. I feel confident most of them do not understand the politics of what is going on between the Australian government and the Territory government. However, they did do as they were asked. They were asked to put on a performance that befitted the opening of a new section of their school, and that is exactly what they did. It was an excellent performance; something I enjoyed. Everyone was happy. I believe even the government people who were there enjoyed the performance as well. It was a performance by kids for a specific opening and an occasion. Those young people probably were not aware of the exact nature of that particular opening. It was a great thing.
I went along, not because I necessarily agreed with the BER, but to support the young people. They had put an enormous amount of work into the performances. There were a number of performances, a number of songs that were sung, and they worked very hard. For anyone who has a leadership role to snub those young people in that electorate because they do not agree with something most of those young people do not understand, I believe would be creating a bad impression for those young people to whom we are trying to set an example.
For the member for Johnston to call us hypocrites for supporting the very people he is supposed to be supporting and representing – it is appalling he would draw that conclusion. We can have the arguments about the BER in this House and in the newspapers, but when you are going along to support young people in schools and recognising the hard work and effort they put into their performance for an occasion, it is appalling the member for Johnston thinks we are all hypocrites. I suggest he needs to look at himself in the mirror.
While I am on the subject of the BER, I remind the minister of one occasion where they got it totally wrong. There are many, and I have spoken about this before, but it is appropriate for me to remind the minister.
Ngukurr has quite a number of basketball courts now. I do not know whether the minister has been there. If he has, he certainly did not pull the curtains open in the school, because behind the curtains you will find broken windows. If you go into other areas of the school you will find there are things that really need to be replaced so young people can have a reasonable facility. What did they get? They got another basketball court. They had basketball courts; now they have another one. I am led to believe this is the fourth basketball court built at Ngukurr. Did the minister or the federal people listen to parents, principals, teachers or staff? I do not know whether they did or not. The people and students there did not get some of the very basic infrastructure improved or built so they could enjoy the full amenities of their school.
Where did they build the basketball court? Smack bang in the quadrangle of the school is my information. I have not been to Ngukurr since that was built; I had been there once prior to that. I am reliably informed the basketball court is in the quadrangle. Sadly, teachers are saying they have kids in classrooms looking out the window all day watching other kids play basketball. These are just some of the issues.
The other thing the member for Johnston raised in his debate was the fact he attends school council meetings. I concur with him, he does. We have a shared electorate and every school council meeting I attend, he attends. We both go along; we have an interest. However, it is our responsibility to listen to the principals, teachers, staff, and parents to give them the amenities they believe are the most important for their young people.
Sadly, there were a number of occasions where the member for Johnston has not listened and people have received something they did not need, did not want, or did not suit the highest priority of the school council. They were told: ‘This is what you will be getting’, etcetera. I am assuming, although grateful for something, some people did not get what they believed was the highest priority infrastructure item the school and the school community needed.
It is about listening to people. I hope the member might think again about calling anyone who turns up to these functions hypocrites. It is about supporting young people, young Territorians, and giving them the confidence that leaders in the community believe what they are doing is important. We should stop doing the things we believe are important and show them we are here to support them. We want them to be recognised as young people who contribute to the Territory and, in the future, will contribute to the Territory lifestyle.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, while the member for Sanderson checks on his, ‘He said that she said that you said that I said’, I will respond to the BER debate.
However, the debate is around the Auditor-General’s report. I will start by acknowledging the Auditor-General, his office, and his staff for the incredible work they do providing that open and accountable system for government. I first met the Auditor-General when I arrived in this House in 2008 and was appointed to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. Needing to do my research thoroughly and to learn quickly on my feet, I went to people I could learn from. The Auditor-General was a great help - an extremely professional person – in training me on how to conduct myself in my position as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
It was after that I was honoured to be sworn into Cabinet. Unfortunately, I did not see so much of the Auditor-General other than now, at the other side of the business, where he and his team look at departments I work with, and provide a report to this House on the systems we operate, our accountability, our efficiencies, and provide great advice to me, as the minister, and the departments on how to do things better.
In the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, the report covers the Construction Division undertaking the project management of the government’s capital works and repairs and maintenance programs. The host agency is the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, and the audit for the year ended 30 June 2011 resulted in an unqualified, independent audit opinion which was issued on 17 October 2011. The audit did not identify any material weaknesses in controls.
The Construction Division surplus before income tax for 2010-11 was $1.424m, compared to a figure of $4.57m for the prior year. The decline was largely due to the reduced number of projects managed during the year. That takes me to the Building the Education Revolution projects, because the Department of Construction and Infrastructure was integral in developing what has been the best infrastructure investment in the Northern Territory in the past 30 years.
I can speak from experience. I am not going to go down the ‘he said that she said that you said that I said’ role. I am going to speak from experience. What the member for Johnston outlined to this House was the fundamental difference in political policy. I have been in this House since 2008 - a newcomer - but I have spent a great deal of time on my feet and in my seat representing the Barkly and learning the roles and responsibilities of this place.
I remember clearly the attacks from the other side, trotting out the liberalist theories coming straight out of Canberra. I remember clearly where the member for Braitling was even describing the construction of a McDonald store as a failed educational infrastructure project. The construction of a McDonald store - flippant, irresponsible, just purely focused on making mischief; complete media spin. The member for Sanderson comes in here and talks about ‘how dare we denigrate any student activity’. Well, if we want to talk about the word ‘hypocrite’, the member for Sanderson needs to talk to some of his colleagues and get a dictionary out and find out the meaning.
The Building the Education Revolution throughout the bush is just amazing when you see what targeted education infrastructure has done for improving educational outcomes. Let us talk about Ngukurr and the example from the member for Sanderson, where there is ‘a basketball court plonked in the middle of a quadrangle’. Let me deconstruct the actual infrastructure you are theorising about. My first question is: does it have a roof? Is it really a multipurpose facility? I go around now and see kids in the bush protected from the sun and using these facilities, not only for basketball, but for assemblies and organised activities. I was in Borroloola last week, and there were a number of teachers running structured, physical activities, and they were under cover. They were, as part of their planned program, delivering real educational outcomes. It is a far cry from my time in the Territory as a teacher, in silver bullet caravans - at one place next to the rubbish dump.
We do not like to talk about the CLP. We are criticised when we talk about the CLP and the history of the Territory. So, let us get positive about the CLP. They took over the Territory in 1978 with self-government, and they inherited considerable capital investment from the Commonwealth. They were building schools ...
Mr Styles: And debt!
Mr McCARTHY: From the Commonwealth? Listen, member for Sanderson ...
Mr Styles: Absolutely, go back and check your records.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: Listen, member for Sanderson, I am talking about self–government in 1978 ...
Mr Styles: That is right. Inherited the debt.
Mr McCARTHY: I am talking about what you do not understand. You were building schools in those days because I was in one of them. It was a Canberra-designed, Canberra-built school in Tennant Creek, and it was a great school. By the way, a member of your administration closed it. That was a bit unfortunate; it was a great school. Pity about the architecture too; it did not quite work out. If you want to talk about infrastructure that is not appropriate for the school needs - we will not go back and talk about Canberra schools implanted on the Territory under the Country Liberal Party administration. We will talk about they were good places because we made them good places – until, of course, Kargaru school was closed by the CLP government. I am not rewriting anything. You do not have to check the Parliamentary Record for this; I lived through it.
As a member of parliament, I go around the Northern Territory to see the best investment in educational infrastructure across the board, not only in our superb urban schools, but also our dynamic regional and remote schools across the Territory - building the regions. I see places such as Minyerri which has multipurpose facilities - basketball, performing arts, structured areas for health and physical education programs, assembly areas - places that are welcoming of parents and the school community.
Yes, I see a broken window from time to time. I have run schools for 30 years and windows do get broken. Do you know what, member for Sanderson? The government provides you with the repairs and maintenance budget to fix them. That is the way it works and it is not a problem. It is not a problem at all. Do you know what? It employs people and there are jobs out of it.
We will move on because you do not want to get dragged down into the negativities of members opposite who want to trot out that liberalist spin. I do say be careful of what you say. When you have members on that side who want to continually run down the BER program, compare construction of important educational infrastructure to McDonald stores, then it is about the pot calling the kettle black.
I will also talk about the Auditor-General’s report regarding the Darwin Bus Service. The audit findings and analysis of the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2011 have shown the Darwin Bus Service as a government business division which is audited, and has been audited, on an annual basis. The audit of the Darwin Bus Service for the year ended 30 June 2011 resulted in an unqualified independent audit opinion which was issued on the 10 October 2011. The audit did not identify any material weaknesses in controls. In the performance, the financial position of the Darwin Bus Service continues to be sound with nett assets increasing by $262 000 in the 2010-11 financial year.
I comment on that as well in relation to the Henderson government and its policy of free bus travel for students, seniors, and carers. Let us focus on students because the members for Sanderson and Port Darwin talked about the Building the Education Revolution. We will link that to the running of a public bus service in the Territory, where a government went out of its way to provide extra subsidies for parents and extra support for families, and encourages another important link in the chain for school attendance and engagement and participation; that is, free travel for students. We are very proud of that. The Treasurer has outlined in Budget 2012-13 existing subsidies and further subsidies which are being rolled out to support Territory families.
The member for Port Darwin was interesting - one of the bigger hitters on the other side. He is a person people listen to. I found his comment very interesting where he said possibly the fiscal stimulus package within the Commonwealth government’s plan was not needed, or it was not needed in its entirety, or maybe it was only needed a little. I found that amazing because the member for Port Darwin normally does not do things by halves - he says it or he does not say it. He looked a bit shaky on that ground.
I remind the member for Port Darwin that the Australian government, in its fiscal stimulus strategy - which was to protect jobs, build jobs, and deliver the legacy of a Labor government in targeted strategic public infrastructure - did not do things by halves with the BER. It went into the most remote parts of Australia, into the big end of town, and delivered infrastructure which was appropriate and negotiated with school communities. You will find people who will go on the media and make complaints, but that is the nature of a democracy and what we celebrate here: our freedom of speech. Of course, the media pick up on any opportunities they can. They have their job, they love to create conflict, they like to sell newspapers and attract listeners and a television audience. However, at the end of the day, we are talking about the Northern Territory and targeted educational infrastructure which was negotiated with school communities and has been rolled out across the length and breadth of the Northern Territory. I am glad to say a stimulus fiscal plan from the Australian government was not a little stimulus fiscal plan, it was a sensational plan when you see the results and the legacy of social and public infrastructure across our school communities.
It was a period of great joy for me to attend a few openings. I missed a few because I work on a patch that is one-and-a-half times the size of Victoria. It was always wonderful to go into schools after the completion of these construction projects and share with the school communities just what that infrastructure has added. It was good to sit down and talk about the memories, about the days under the Country Liberal Party where I operated schools in the bush in 40 ft caravans which were manufactured in Victoria. I debated and I lobbied against an administration which had a policy of no secondary education for remote communities. We can discuss history, and I love Territory history. I have only been a very short part of it, just over 30 years, more than half of my life. I enjoy talking about it in this House when anybody has the audacity to try to defend what has been now nearly four years of absolute diatribe from people on the other side who talk rot and want to walk away with no responsibility.
I understand the public record. I came into this job with a very serious attitude to representing the people of the Barkly and I maintain that. Unlike the CLP, I would not, for a minute, place a great deal of the tripe on the public record of this House. Unfortunately, it is coming back to haunt those on the other side. What you sow, you shall reap, so they say. I am not sure how an opposition does business, but I have learnt, in this term of parliament, the Eleventh Assembly, how not to do business as an opposition, that is for sure.
I encourage members opposite, in what is the last sittings for this term of parliament - other than the Estimates Committee, and we will come back for a last day to pass the Appropriation Bill - to reflect on those last four years and seriously think about what is on the public record. I will be encouraging Territorians for generations to come to read about the Eleventh Assembly, because I will be able to give them a running commentary, having done a live show - I was here, I witnessed it. I sit here regularly as a government member, and listen carefully and watch. Just as I learnt from the Auditor-General - and I thank him for his support and the lessons he provided where I needed it early in this job - those others would be very welcome to share in those lessons any time. A bit of self-reflection always goes a long way.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the Auditor-General’s report. I thank him for delivering the report which we accept with great importance. It advises us, it guides us, and it represents the open and accountable nature of our government.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
APPROPRIATION (2012-2013) BILL
(Serial 208)
(Serial 208)
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the Treasurer’s budget statement for 2012 delivered in the House yesterday. The Treasurer made no bones about the fact that this has been a tough budget to put together. However, we know this is a responsible budget which aims to help and support families, build on opportunities for businesses and, most importantly, keep people in jobs as we gear up for growth. We are now entering in this phase of unprecedented growth in major projects such as INPEX having been secured in January of this year.
Around the world, we see countries struggling to recover from the global financial crisis. Australia, as we know, has fared far better than most and, indeed, the Northern Territory has fared way better than other jurisdictions. This is because the Australian government’s response to the global financial crisis was a fiscal strategy designed to create jobs through the economic stimulus package, which meant capital spending on infrastructure.
We also know it is because of the good management of the Northern Territory government and the sensible policy around forming budgets and how we spend money which has supported growth and kept people in jobs. We will continue to see the benefit of that spend in Budget 2012-13, with $1.3bn for infrastructure which will support and build on the thousands - I believe the Treasurer said 13 000 jobs - which have been created in the Northern Territory since the global financial crisis hit.
Keeping people in jobs is absolutely critical. If we ask families if they want a budget surplus or a job, we can be fairly certain how they will respond. Of course people want a job. People I talk with tell me they are not interested in deficits or surpluses but, most importantly, they are interested in jobs. It is all about jobs and it is what goes to the heart of what the Labor Party, quite literally, stands for: Labor means jobs.
Despite that fact, this is a tough budget but we still see a record spend across the key areas of education, health and safety. The record spend in education of $950m will benefit students across the Territory. It is certainly a long way from the $350m, or thereabouts, which was the budget in 2001 which we inherited from the CLP.
We have heard the commitment from the Treasurer and the Education minister that the Budget 2012-13 investment includes just over $6m to support reengagement and positive behaviour initiatives and $9.86m for special education infrastructure as part of a $30m program over five years for our kids with special needs. There is also an ongoing commitment to support our hard-working teachers of $3.87m, with professional development with evidence-based literacy and numeracy methodology, and funding also to boost training and support for our ESL students.
Knowing early childhood years are absolutely critical in a child’s development, the funding of child and family centres to the tune of $16m in our remote communities at Yuendumu, Gunbalanya, Maningrida, and Ngukurr will help families achieve the best outcomes for their little ones by developing the skills parents need to ensure their kids can get to school every day. I also welcome the announcement of around $1m for an early learning centre for children on Elcho Island, including homelands kids.
This government is serious about best outcomes for young Territorians and takes very seriously its role to provide a pathway from early years through to school and a job, wherever they live in the Territory. This government, since 2001 - when we inherited the mess left by the CLP, particularly in the area of education, including the shameful legacy of not providing secondary education to Aboriginal students in our remote communities - has worked hard to deliver education infrastructure and to recruit and support additional quality teachers; in fact, an extra 465 teachers since 2001. Budget 2012-13 sees that investment, that commitment, continue because education is at the core of growing the Territory and securing a prosperous future for individuals, families, communities and, indeed, the Territory. As you know only too well, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is education which is the cornerstone of the Labor government’s Territory 2030 strategy.
The federal government investment in education, through the Building the Education Revolution, has continued to deliver improvements to school infrastructure. This includes, in my electorate, Nhulunbuy Primary School which has seen the very recent completion of a $2.5m upgrade to its school hall. The upgrade is very similar to that delivered at Millner Primary School and, with it, solar panels to enable the school to harness the sun’s energy and utilise that power and, in turn, reduce its own power bill.
I was absolutely delighted to see a local business from Nhulunbuy, B.I.G. Carpentry Pty Ltd, owned and operated by Brett Grieve and his wife, Donna-Marie, as the successful tenderer to construct this project. It delivers not only a facelift and a fantastic new hall for the school and its 500-plus students, but it has supported the local economy and jobs in my electorate and, with it, a local supply chain in the construction sector. If I were to ask Brett Grieve - better known as Grievesy - whether he preferred the construction project he tendered for or living in the Territory without that work, comforted in the knowledge the government have reduced a deficit budget – well, again, I can guess what his reply would be.
It is just amazing the members opposite could not bring themselves to support the BER scheme, but it has never stopped them from getting along to BER openings in their electorates and others. As a bush member representing a very diverse constituency with the mining town of Nhulunbuy at the centre, and the growth towns of Yirrkala and Galiwinku on Elcho Island …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
Mr Conlan: Oh no, it is so excruciating.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Under standing orders, once the bells have rung, no member is to leave the House when a quorum has been called.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is right.
Mr Conlan: They just never learn. Keep calling it and calling it and calling it until you have 10 people in here …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You have called your point of order, member for Greatorex. The bells are ringing and we will wait for a quorum.
A quorum is present.
Ms WALKER: As I was saying, as a bush member representing a very diverse constituency with the mining town of Nhulunbuy at the centre, the growth towns of Yirrkala and Galiwinku on Elcho Island, and most of the Laynhapuy and Marthakal Homelands in between, it is this government’s commitment to the bush of which I am particularly proud.
We have achieved incredible things. This has also been bolstered by the support of a federal Labor government since late 2007, which has partnered with our government to deliver what has previously been unseen commitment to funding and growth to improve the lives of people in these communities and, indeed, to develop our growth towns. I doubt very much we would ever have been able to achieve what we have in the bush without the strong partnership and commitment with our federal colleagues across health, education, housing, policing, and roads.
Under our A Working Future policy, Budget 2012-13 delivers $433m to continue to invest in providing improved services in the bush, and to improve the lives of Indigenous Territorians.
The week before last, I made a three-day visit to Elcho Island to the north of my electorate, and was invited to attend the housing reference group meeting which had convened to discuss, along with representatives from the Department of Housing and also Territory Alliance, the final stages of SIHIP. That community has been quite literally transformed thanks to the building of 19 new homes, 52 refurbishments, and a number of rebuilds. Alongside the airport is a beautiful new subdivision where families are now moving into fenced modern homes with gardens growing and real evidence of home and community pride.
There is no escaping the fact that the program - the single biggest housing program in the history of our nation - has had its challenges. However, as it nears completion, the good people of Galiwinku at Elcho Island recognise they are fortunate to receive new and refurbished housing, which goes a long way toward addressing overcrowding issues and providing healthier homes for families and children. Hopefully, it will play a big part in addressing the issue of non-attendance amongst our children in communities such as Galiwinku.
Quite apart from the investment in new and refurbished housing at Galiwinku, there has been significant spending on infrastructure to ensure essential services like power and water have been upgraded to enable the additional homes to function.
I have previously visited the upgraded powerhouse at Elcho Island where more than $3m was spent to ensure it had adequate capacity to generate and reticulate power to this growing community. Similarly, on my last visit, I was taken on a site visit and inspected a new water tank being installed to provide additional capacity, along with new trenches for water mains pipes which were being laid to carry water to the new subdivision. Quite literally, much work has happened beneath the surface to ensure these homes are ready for families and new tenants.
The story of housing at Galiwinku is one part of a much bigger story. The Territory and Commonwealth governments continue to deliver record investment in remote housing to support A Working Future through the National Partnership Agreement on Remote …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells. Stop the bells, we have a quorum.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, the story of housing at Galiwinku is just one part of a much bigger story. The Territory and Commonwealth governments continue to deliver record investment in remote housing to support A Working Future through the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing - NPARI, as the acronym is - with $1.7bn over 10 years.
To date, under NPARI, we have seen 603 new houses and 2108 rebuilds, and refurbishments have been completed as well. A further 71 new houses and 29 rebuilds and refurbishments are under way. My constituents at Yirrkala and Ski Beach look forward to seeing NPARI deliver new and refurbished houses by 2013, as do the builders and suppliers in Nhulunbuy.
Under NPARI, we see $162m to improve remote Indigenous housing and related infrastructure and $26m to provide land, servicing, and essential services infrastructure in Territory growth towns. $44.4m is also provided to build new, and upgrade existing, government employee housing in the remote parts of the Territory. The additional investment in government employee housing is welcomed because I know from living in a remote electorate one of the challenges of delivering important government services, especially in areas like health, education, and care and protection of children, is our capacity to house public servants in this area.
That said, I applaud the efforts of the dedicated public servants and representatives from NGOs who regularly visit remote communities and stay in visiting officers’ quarters. Sometimes, they even stay in swags with shared bathrooms and communal kitchens. I routinely see these people on my visits in my electorate to places like Galiwinku. I have shared the VOQs with the likes of nurse lecturers from Batchelor College, researchers from Menzies School of Health, and attendance and truancy officers from the Department of Education and Training.
I have been impressed with the attendance and truancy officers I have met on my travels who stay in these VOQs. They work hard with children, families, police, schools, and everybody who has a vested interest in seeing children get to school, about getting those kids back to school. What they are doing is hard work but they are, I believe, making a difference. That is why the minister for Education has announced there is an additional $790 000 in this particular budget which will go to employing an extra eight attendance truancy officers to be based in Arnhem, Barkly and also Katherine, taking the total number of attendance and truancy officers to 30.
Last week, on 24 April, I listened with great interest to an interview on ABC radio where the shadow Education minister for the opposition, the member for Brennan, was being interviewed about the Every Child, Every Day strategy and the effectiveness of attendance and truancy officers. He was disappointingly very negative - but, I should say, not surprisingly. Also, I guess not surprisingly, ill-informed. In fact, it was the interviewer who actually had to correct the member around comments he made about the act, and the effectiveness and powers of the attendance and truancy officers. He said:
- About truancy officers - and we are all for having truancy officers, but you have got to give those truancy officers the right toolbox to do the job. They talk about reasoning with these students to get them back to school because they actually have not got powers to make them get back to school.
I was flabbergasted when I heard this on the radio. Obviously, the journalist was far better informed than the shadow minister for Education, because she said ..
- Peter Chandler, I will just pull you up on that. Under the act, under the Truancy Act, the truancy officers do have the power to accompany the children back to school ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Honourable members! Member for Brennan! Member for Brennan!
Ms WALKER: Madam Speaker, the shadow minister backpedalled a bit and bluffed his way through the next minute or so of the interview. He said:
- I want to see evidence of where these truancy officers are actually taking these children back to school or taking them back to their parents ...
Members interjecting.
Ms WALKER: Madam Speaker, I have sought a briefing from the Education minister’s office ...
Mr Giles: Well, you are very fortunate.
Ms WALKER: ... given that I had actually - I will pick up on the interjection. As we know, any member can seek a briefing, and I encourage the member opposite ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members! Member for Brennan! Member for Arafura!
Ms WALKER: This was based upon the anecdotal evidence I had received, having shared VOQs on a night with two attendance and truancy officers. Over dinner, we had a conversation. They were well aware what my position was. These people shared with me – obviously, I cannot mention families and communities - some of the really good successes they are having out there about seeing children to school, and families respond. One mother in particular was in tears when she was given an infringement notice and was most apologetic to the truancy officers that she had failed to meet a conferencing meeting. Given that notice, she attended the next conferencing meeting.
I take my hat off to these attendance and truancy officers who are working their backsides off to do this job, to meet the obligations under the act, and to utilise the toolbox they have which is making a difference to getting children back to school. These two particular women were staying in VOQs for one week - that is one week away from their families - travelling with their own food and their own belongings, working with families, and working hard to get children back to school.
Since 1 June 2011, there have been 1483 meetings conducted with parents. There have been 303 compulsory conferences which have been conducted. There have been 344 attendance plans which have been developed and are being implemented. A total of 364 young people have been re-engaged with school since 1 June 2011. Going on from there, their attendance is being very closely monitored.
In 2011, the focus was on Darwin and Palmerston because that is where 52% of Northern Territory school enrolments are located. This year, 2012, the focus is on regions and our 20 growth towns. Infringement notices to date - 64 infringement notices have been issued since 1 June 2011 in relation to 72 children.
I could go on here, there are further statistics. However, I wanted to highlight the fact of the government’s policy, and the amendments to the Education Act around getting children back to school and re-engaging students is working. On that note, I applaud the additional funding put to employ attendance and truancy officers to ensure we are getting children to school. Let us not forget, we are dealing with quite a legacy out there in the bush, but we are definitely turning things around.
Galiwinku was also one of the first growth towns to benefit from an investment for community safety with a permanent police presence which delivered a brand new police station and four police houses in 2009. I am very pleased to see this commitment to deliver similar infrastructure for residents at Ramingining and Gapuwiyak for those constituents in my neighbouring electorate of Arnhem. In fact, I made an unscheduled visit to Gapuwiyak recently trying to dodge storms while flying between Gove and Elcho Island, and was pleased to see the site works for the new police station and police houses were well under way.
The record spend in safety for Police, Fire and Emergency Services - some $328m as outlined by the Treasurer in her speech - delivers for all Territorians right around the Territory. We are certainly in catch-up mode when it gets to delivering these services around safety out in the bush.
In the record spend in Health - $1.2bn - we see a new $6.4m health clinic for my constituents at Elcho Island - Ngalkanbuy Health Clinic operated by Miwatj. I take this opportunity to pass on my congratulations to Miwatj as they approach their 20th anniversary with celebrations planned for 28 May. I look forward to attending the event which will be held at Miwatj. Miwatj has a proven record in delivering a primary healthcare service to the Yolngu people of northeast Arnhem Land, a service which also integrates children and family, family health and wellbeing programs, as well as support for health and wellbeing programs which are engaged with sport and recreation and targeted programs in that area. The Ngalkanbuy clinic is servicing a population of more than 2000 at Elcho Island in a clinic which is definitely in need of replacement and a contemporary purpose-built facility to provide the very best primary healthcare service it can.
Further commitment to health funding in northeast Arnhem Land includes $28.34m for acute care services which include patient travel. When the federal government money comes through following an announcement last year, we look forward to seeing a major upgrade to the accident and emergency department at Gove District Hospital, as well as visitor accommodation for patients having to travel from outlying communities.
In the budget we see $22.25m for non-acute health and community services within the region. I am delighted to see $560 000 for an upgrade to the Nhulunbuy special care centre which will include delivery of a multipurpose shed and security cameras. This is a very important facility in Nhulunbuy. It is a rehabilitation facility as well as a sobering-up shelter. Given we have had, effectively, a Banned Drinker Register in Nhulunbuy since 2008, this particular centre has a particularly important role to play in providing rehabilitation services.
I will conclude for the time being ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nhulunbuy, you can continue your remarks at a later hour. Thank you very much.
Debate suspended.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Death of Mr Peter Murphy OAM
Death of Mr Peter Murphy OAM
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise of the death, on 14 January 2012, of Mr Peter Murphy OAM.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members I advise you of the presence in the gallery of family and close friends of the late Mr Peter Murphy OAM.
I acknowledge particularly the widow of Mr Murphy, Mrs Lani Murphy; his daughters, Ms Kelly Murphy, Ms Siobhain Murphy, Ms Donnagh Murphy and husband, Mr Ian Brewster; the Murphy grandchildren, Master Leo Murphy Loftus, Master Matthew Brewster and Miss Emily Brewster; and the sister of Mrs Murphy, Mrs Carmen Couche.
I have also received apologies from some members of the family: Mr Murphy’s son and daughter-in-law, Mr Sean Murphy and Mrs Helen Murphy who live in France and, I understand will be listening to the broadcast today; Mrs Eileen Kassulke and Mr Lyal Kassulke, the sister and brother-in-law of the late Mr Murphy; and also Mr Chris Loftus, the son-in-law of Mr Murphy.
I also draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of former Speakers, Hon Nick Dondas, and Hon Roger Steele, and Mrs Janette Steele. On behalf of all members, I send you a very warm welcome
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Hon Daryl Manzie and Mrs Maureen Manzie; Hon Grant Tambling and Mrs Sandy Tambling; and the member for Solomon, Mrs Natasha Griggs MP and Mr Paul Griggs. I also extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, there are also many other friends and extended relatives who are here today to listen to this condolence motion. I extend to you a warm welcome from the parliament. I advise at the end of the condolence motion there will be some refreshments in the main hall for which I hope you will join honourable members.
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Mr Peter Murphy OAM
Mr Peter Murphy OAM
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move –
That this Assembly -
(a) express its regret at the passing of Mr Peter Murphy OAM, a long-time Territorian and recognised and respected journalist and political advisor; and
Peter Joseph Murphy OAM was born in Cairns on 2 October 1945. After matriculating from St Teresa’s Agricultural College, Abergowrie, Queensland, Peter gravitated to journalism. It was a natural move; he had a love of language and of writing. He told ABC radio:
- I think I was in love with the written word – I’d always been a newspaper reader. I wanted to be there, I wanted to cover the stories, I wanted to write about them.
However, as is the case in any job, things did not always go well for the young reporter. He also told the ABC one of the worst jobs he had in his newspaper life was doorknocking the relatives of soldiers from Brisbane after the Battle of Long Tan. Three of the nine families he called on that day had not yet been told their son had been killed.
Peter began his 40-year career as a journalist in the most unlikely of places: TV Week in Brisbane. His career in newspapers saw him cover some of the biggest stories of the 1960s and 1970s, including the long and bitter miners’ strike at Mount Isa and the historic Wave Hill walk-off. His first taste of the Territory came during a stint at the NT News between 1966 and 1967. This was the NT News of the rather colourful editor, Jim Bowditch. Given the personalities involved in the paper at that time, it would be hard to imagine it not having an effect on the young Peter Murphy. Despite their politics, Peter always spoke highly of Jim and of the NT News of those days.
In 1967, Peter’s life took a change of direction. He was conscripted into the Australian Army, going on to serve in Malaysia where he was based at the Tenendak Garrison. Following his two-year stint as a National Serviceman in 1969, Peter was back in Darwin and the NT News.
By 1970, Peter was on the move again. This time it was to South Australia where he began a five-year stint with The News in Adelaide. It was during this period he became a police reporter. This proved to be a formative period. Friends say Peter revelled in the role of police roundsman because he had a natural affinity with police, and loved talking to people. Those close to him say this was undoubtedly one of the periods which shaped the Peter Murphy known to Territorians.
In 1976, it was back to Darwin. This time, though, it was in the role of newspaper editor. Peter found himself in charge of The Star newspaper operated by Kerry Burns who, nowadays, is a nursery owner and one of ABC radio’s talkback gardeners on Saturday mornings. Darwin of 1976 was still recovering from the devastation of Cyclone Tracy less than two years earlier.
In 1977, the Territory went to the polls to vote for its second fully-elected Legislative Assembly as the elected body of the day before self-government. The result was fascinating. Although the Country Liberal Party won, five of its seven executive members or ministers, lost their seats. One of the casualties was CLP leader, Dr Goff Letts. He was replaced by Paul Everingham, who became the Territory’s first Chief Minister at self-government in 1978.
According to those in the know, the new Chief Minister was not at all impressed with the editorial line of The Star newspaper, where Peter was writing politics and just about everything else, including the food column in which he assessed local eateries under the pseudonym, Gourmet George. Either because of, or despite, The Star’s editorial line, Chief Minister Everingham approached Peter to become his press secretary. An interview on ABC radio suggests Peter anguished over the decision. It was six weeks before he finally accepted the job. The relationship the pair forged was professionally formidable and close at a personal level. When Paul Everingham switched to federal politics, Peter went as well.
Peter went on to serve with a further four CLP Chief Ministers. This put him at the heart of the majority of the major political events in the Territory until 2001.
A close friend has observed that one of the more interesting and challenging periods of his career as a political advisor must have been during the debate on voluntary euthanasia being led by then Chief Minister, Marshall Perron. Peter was a committed Catholic and strongly opposed to the prospect of voluntary euthanasia.
After leaving politics after the 2001 election, Peter established Murphy Media, which enjoyed some significant commercial success.
In 2007, he was awarded the Order of Australia Medal for service to the community of the Northern Territory through journalism and as a political advisor.
There is no doubt Peter lived through, and played a part in, some of the most fascinating events in the Territory’s recent history. Not so long ago, a former colleague and Peter were discussing their time as political advisors. The friend told Peter he had not enjoyed the role at all and asked Peter whether, if he had the chance over, whether he would put himself through it again. Peter apparently did not hesitate with his response; he said he would do it again in a shot.
Madam Speaker, and family and friends, there are many people here who will speak much more personally about Peter Murphy than I am able to. However, there is no doubt he lived a very full life. He made a significant contribution to the Country Liberal Party. Once again, I offer my condolences to Peter’s family, Lani, Kelly, Sean, Donnagh, Siobhain, all of his other family who are here and his many friends.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the government for this condolence motion.
Welcome, Lani, Peter’s daughters, the many grandchildren, the family and friends who have gathered here, particularly those who have travelled to the Northern Territory to visit the place where the mark of Peter will remain for many years to come.
Special acknowledgements to former Speakers of this parliament, Nick and Roger - welcome. To former members and ministers, Daryl, Grant, and the member for Solomon, Natasha - welcome.
The parliamentary wing of the Country Liberal Party share our combined sadness at the passing of Peter. We thank you sincerely for taking the time to come here today, to allow us to pause.
I could probably predict Peter would not be particularly fussed one way or another. I recall the Mass in Victoria where he was quite particular about how long people should speak. He did not pass that onto me, and I will talk while that clock is giving me a bit of time.
We need to stop and remember his contribution to journalism, self-government of the Northern Territory, and the economic development of the Territory. He was many things to many people, a man of real character - character I admire and has given me something I carry into parliament with me. He was a man of substance, of good but gruff humour, and a sparkling intellect. He served the Northern Territory, its people, and the parliament with a mixture of dedication, deep enthusiasm, and rigour.
To me, he was a bloke with an eye for detail who provided me with plenty of sound and gruff advice in my early days as I started in this parliament. I was elected to the Northern Territory parliament in a by-election in July 1999, the same time as the member for Wanguri. At that time, the Country Liberals had enjoyed 21 years of unbroken administration in the years after self-government. I was new. It was about the time the Territory and the Commonwealth governments were finalising the Alice Springs to Darwin railway deal. We had managed to secure the Prime Minister, John Howard, to come to Darwin for a fundraiser.
At about that time, I had been involved in the creation of a song. I had written the music, someone else had written lyrics, and someone thought it would be a jolly good idea if that song was sung at the fundraiser. New to the job, keen to contribute, grateful that someone had asked, I accepted the offer. However, one very senior advisor I had known of by reputation had asked me to come and have a talk to him about ‘this damn song’. So, I confronted him. I had to stand in front of the desk and he said something to the effect: ‘It has a reference in the song to “little Johnny” and that is not particularly appropriate, because the Prime Minister knows he is a bit small and you do not have to go and belt him around the head with it. So, I think you can sing another song’. I said: ‘Well, it is actually okay, we can change the lyrics. I know the bloke who wrote the lyrics, we could change that’. He gave a gruff response and we proceeded with changed lyrics. The night passed, I am happy to report, without incident.
In the years before his death, he had developed a high media profile across the Northern Territory with a very well-read column in the Sunday Territorian and regular spots on the ABC radio discussing the issues of the day. However, it was an interview with Leon Compton on the ABC radio’s Guestroom program which really shone a light on the Peter Murphy many of us did not know. It was a terrific interview - the gruff veteran of backroom Territory conservative politics with Leon Compton, the affable ABC presenter with a green stripe. Compton had, obviously, struck a very special rapport with his subject, introducing Peter as someone who he spoke to all the time about the issues of the day, who was now in a position to find out what really made him tick. Anybody who spent that time to find out what made Peter tick was in for a treat, just as I am sure Leon Compton discovered - as have I and many others.
Peter took people back through his life, about his early years in Queensland, and how his father drove engines that ran power stations, sawmills and milk factories in places like Cape Rivers outside Charters Towers, Thursday Island, the Daintree, and finally settling in Cairns. He told how his mum looked after the kids, did charity work. He grew up in a bookish house with lots of newspapers and lively conversations.
His first job after school, ‘to stop him bludging on his parents’, in his words, was to pick tobacco, which paid 2 during the week and 5 on Saturday. He told of being offered an engineering internship by the Queensland Irrigation Commission and was attending university at night, but he spent lunchtimes knocking on the doors of various newspaper offices around Queensland trying to find a cadetship.
I pause to digress. Attending the funeral in Maldon in Victoria, there was something that struck me with the three men who, when I entered into a conversation with them, were childhood friends of Peter. They went to school together and their bond was very strong. I went away with the knowledge that the quality of a man is measured by the quality of his friends. The strength of that friendship and bond was something that was deeply impressive.
His attraction was his love for the written word, a love for the world around him, and a desire to be there covering the issues as they broke and writing about them. He said his mother had other ideas; however, believing journalists drank too much, mixed with the wrong type of women; preferring her son to become a bank clerk or a schoolteacher.
Eventually, he landed a job with TV Week in Brisbane in the early days of television whilst still aspiring to get into serious journalism. Peter learnt how to conduct an interview and the principles of accuracy and checking. He recounted with pride meeting the three English migrants with buck teeth who approached him asking if he would write a story about them. In an early example of cash for comments, he wrote a feature in exchange for beers. The Bee Gees later became one of Australia’s largest ever musical exports.
Peter explained most newspaper editors of the day were very sceptical about university trained reporters; it was a hard-drinking, hard-working, hard-smoking trade that was not suitable for toffs.
His shift to the Territory, therefore, was part of a highly-planned exercise in career enhancement. He was called up for National Service during the Vietnam era, and was concerned he would be 21 when he returned to Australia, which was too old to be working at a teeny bopper title like TV Week. To avoid that fate, Peter secured a transfer to the Mt Isa Mail but the paper closed, and he had to set his sights on a job going at the Northern Territory News under legendary editor, Jim Bowditch. As a youngster, Peter had been attracted to Darwin by stories recounted in the Ion Idriess book Forty Fathoms Deep which told the story of northern Australia’s pearling industry.
One of his earliest stories at the NT News was the one that continues to have a significant impact on the Northern Territory to this very day. As a 19-year-old newbie to the Territory, Peter was sent to cover the Wave Hill walk-off. The good folk at the Parliamentary Library were able to dig up a sample of some of Peter’s copy from the Northern Territory News not by-lined as was the fashion of the day, but written with the air of someone who has much more experience. The copy was detailed, dense and, above all, interesting, telling readers in the third paragraph:
- The strikers have little food and what they have will soon be exhausted. Yesterday it consisted of a kangaroo or two, which were scarce in the area, wild figs, berries and a few small fish.
He quoted the walk-off spokesman, Vincent Lingiari saying to Vestey’s management the protestors wanted 25 a week paid every fortnight. Peter had the capacity to see both sides of the story. Wave Hill manager, Tom Fisher, was mostly portrayed by the southern media as the villain of the piece. Peter reported Tom provided strikers and their families with beef which he attributed to the old country loyalties.
I seek leave, Madam Speaker, to table a copy of that article.
Leave granted.
Mr MILLS: Thank you. In 1967, Peter was conscripted into the Australian Army. After an initial six-months training at Puckapunyal in Victoria, Peter found himself in Holsworthy Barracks along with 400 others waiting to be posted to a battalion. He sought a deferment which, ultimately, prevented him from being posted with 6 Battalion to Vietnam, thereby missing the deadly battle of Long Tan which saw at least 18 Australians lose their lives.
Back in Brisbane, he worked as a roundsman with the now defunct Sunday Mail.
One of the worst jobs, as the Chief Minister mentioned, was his requirement to provide what was the so-called death knock: banging on the doors of family members of the deceased seeking a few quotes for the paper and a photo. This task fell to Peter in the wake of Long Tan. As the Chief Minister referred to, this had him knocking on the doors and being the first to advise the families the news of the deceased. However, with typical good sense he pointed out he, too, could have been in Vietnam, and helped the families through the ordeal by persuading them to provide tributes of their lost sons to the rest of the world; he had that connection. As he explained, it was a terrible part of the job but it had to be done.
He was not sent to Vietnam; one of a number who went to Malaysia instead. By his own account, a sergeant walked into the barracks one day and asked for five volunteers for service in Malaysia. Four hundred of the 400 hands went up. Peter said no one wanted to be posted to Vietnam.
To the day he died, he supported the social and physical benefits derived from National Service and its positive impact on character development and fitness. When he was discharged from the Army in 1969, he went to Adelaide to recommence his journalistic career. He made it back to Darwin after Cyclone Tracy and, in 1977, he was approached to become a press secretary by the Territory’s first Chief Minister, Paul Everingham. When Peter asked why Paul would want someone on his staff who did not, necessarily, agree with his political point of view, Everingham explained he did not want a CLP cheerleader; he wanted a man who could walk both sides of the street.
The first street he had to walk both sides of was on the one he lived. Peter reckoned it took him about six weeks to convince Lani he should put politics ahead of principles and accept the job as media manager with the Country Liberals’ government. Peter Murphy was the NT government’s go-to man during the Lindy Chamberlain trials, and served five of the first six Country Liberals’ Chief Ministers - Ian Tuxworth the one missing out on his wisdom and wit.
It was in the area of Asian Relations and Trade that Peter left his biggest mark. As a part of a process of forging links with our near neighbour, Peter led an advance party from the Territory to present a stud Brahman bull to the Indonesian President Suharto. It was this type of grassroots politics that forged the strong relationship that has always existed between Indonesia and the Territory. Coincidentally, I heard the news of Peter’s passing whilst in Jakarta, and had to cut my time short. I came directly from Jakarta to Melbourne. I thought that was a nice touch, with acknowledgement of his special love for Indonesia.
In the years immediately after self-government, the Territory was on the Asian stage with links into Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia and China, and we were very much more visible than we are now. If the Country Liberals win government, as well as sorting through the domestic issues we have, I will be working hard to continue that fine legacy started by the likes of Paul Everingham, with the assistance of Peter, to develop and strengthen ties with our near neighbours in Asia. His memory will live on.
It was great that Peter’s achievement in public life saw him awarded an Order of Australia in 2007; that in retirement, Peter and Lani sought a bush retreat in central Victoria where they could enjoy the climate, books, and each other’s company.
Peter was a real friend of the Country Liberals, and he was also a very good friend of the Northern Territory. His advice was always welcome, and I sought counsel from him on a number of occasions after my first meeting with him in 1999, regarding that song.
The response to Peter’s death in January said a great deal about the cache of respect which had built up for him over the years. It was quite extraordinary to see that deep respect which flowed through public comment in the media. His former employer, the NT News, ran a number of pieces, and ABC broadcaster, Julia Christensen, spoke highly of Peter, describing him as ‘a fascinating, humble, and charming man’. The obituary penned by Leon Compton after Peter’s death began by saying:
- Much-loved and respected Territory personality, Peter Murphy died over the weekend after a long battle with cancer.
Madam Speaker, it takes a pretty good spin doctor to earn that level of respect - and he did. Peter was very much loved, and I believe he died very much in the knowledge that his place in the Territory’s history was secure. I also understand he was secure in his faith at the time of his passing.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I also contribute to the condolence motion before this House at the moment. As with the Leader of the Opposition, I met Peter Murphy almost the day after my political career started. However, I start with the reason it is worthwhile remembering Peter Murphy in this House.
Peter Murphy’s DNA is inexplicably linked with the success of the Northern Territory as a jurisdiction. You will not see the plaques with his name emblazoned upon them - that was for the Chief Ministers he served. You will not see large attributions to him for the successes of the governments between 1978 and 2001. The reason you will not see that is because it is not the way an advisor of that nature seeks to express himself - nor was it in the nature of Peter Murphy to seek to express himself in that fashion.
By way of example, a good parallel would be the current Chief of Staff to the Chief Minister; a fellow by the name of Dennis Bree - well-regarded, highly-respected throughout the community – whose DNA finds its way into some of the good decisions governments make.
That was the case with Peter Murphy, but it went on for decades. We will not see plaques with his name emblazoned upon them, or tributes to Peter Murphy, but his mark is indelibly left on the decisions taken by the governments of those days. His presence was enormous, yet, utterly understated. Beyond being an advisor, he was a confidante and the source upon which many ideas were road tested before they went anywhere beyond the Chief Minister’s Office. That is an enormous influence to have. It is not something that will be immediately remembered but, as a consequence of that, this House should take the time out to remember the enormous contribution he made by being the source of wisdom so many Chief Ministers would turn to - to have ideas knocked out or advanced - in the pursuit of the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
For that reason, members of this House rightly take time out of a busy working day to cast their minds to Peter Murphy’s contribution and this House should stop to ponder and reflect on the contribution he made. However, Madam Speaker, I am going to be selfish because I will also briefly talk about the effect Peter Murphy had on me.
Without referring to it in too great a detail, one of the first things which happened to me in politics - literally, the very first phone call I received - when I took over Neil Bell’s office in Alice Springs when I became the new member for Macdonnell, was a phone call from the police. It was a phone call that set in train a series of events which left me feeling very isolated and deeply exposed. I rang the then Chief Minister and said: ‘Shane Stone, you need to know this is happening’. Shane said: ‘Get yourself on a plane, get yourself to Darwin’. The first person I sat down in front of was a bloke by the name of Peter Murphy who made no judgments, no comments, no slights, and said nothing about that particular matter other than: ‘How can we help you?’ The greatest frustration I have is today, while I was sitting here thinking about this condolence motion, I realised I never actually stopped to thank him for his dignity and for what he extended to me to enable me to get through that process and continue on to be what, I hope, is an effective contributor to the people of the Northern Territory. I am irritated at myself for not actually having taken the time out to thank him for it. Nevertheless, he was there, he was not judgmental, and he was, in many respects for that following few months, my protector.
Shane certainly made sure Peter was doing everything Peter had to do, but that was all being done by Peter anyhow. By the time I got off the plane in Darwin and reported to the Chief Minister’s Office upstairs, everything had been set up, all the protections were in place, all the plans on how to deal with this particular issue if it was going to erupt into a story were dealt with. I owe him an enormous debt of gratitude which I never thanked him for.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to Peter’s Catholicism. After the loss of government in 2001, I stayed in contact with Peter Murphy repeatedly and regularly over the years, particularly when he was running his media business out of his Briggs Street office. During that period, I sought his advice on any number of issues. He became my sounding board, and his advice was always forthright, honest, and often compelling. The thing that struck me in the last days of speaking to him was that he was reconciled with what was happening. He knew that he was going to die. I wished I could offer him some sort of comfort but, in truth, there was no comfort to offer him because he knew what was occurring.
His Catholic faith resonated with me. I am a Catholic, occasionally practising. When he needed his faith it was there. When I attended his funeral Mass in Maldon, there was a reading. It is a reading about those who are faithful in the Catholic faith, and it bears reading into the Parliamentary Record. It is from the Book of Wisdom, Chapter 3, Verses 1 to 9:
- A reading from the Book of Wisdom
He accepted them as a holocaust.
The souls of the virtuous are in the hands of God, no torment shall ever touch them. In the eyes of the unwise, they did appear to die, their going looked like a disaster, their leaving us, like annihilation; but they are in peace. If they experienced punishment as men see it, their hope was rich with immortality; slight was their affliction, great will their blessings be. God has put them to the test and proved them worthy to be with Him; He has tested them like gold in a furnace, and accepted them as a holocaust.
When the time comes for His visitation they will shine out; as sparks run through the stubble, so will they. They shall judge nations, rule over peoples, and the Lord will be their king forever.
They who trust in Him will understand the truth, those who are faithful will live with Him in love; for grace and mercy await those he has chosen.
Ralph Waldo Emerson once made the observation that the ornament of a house is the friends who visit it. I look around this House, which for this hour or so is Peter Murphy’s, and I see the friends who visit it and realise this House is well ornamented.
Madam Speaker, my strong feelings go out to the Murphy clan, particularly you, Lani. I place on the record my personal debt to him as well as the debt of the Northern Territory’s population. I wish to place on the record my admiration for his faith in his Catholicism. As I said, my only regret is I never properly thanked him for standing by me through a particularly difficult period. However, I know you are listening Peter, and thank you for standing by during a particularly difficult period.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I offer my heartfelt thanks to the Chief Minister for bringing on this motion. I understand, at times, the way political parties work. Thank you so much, Chief Minister, for this motion. It means so much to me, and I am sure it means so much to everyone here. I thank you.
Murph was a good friend of mine too. I had a lot to do with Murph at the start of my political career. As the member for Port Darwin just said, when I first got into politics, Peter Murphy was one of the first people I met, which was the point John made, and also the Leader of Opposition. It seemed that anyone who was elected or preselected prior to 2001, was shipped in there and sat down with Murph, who would give you some tips and tell you how the world worked, what sort of party you had joined, who was who in the zoo, and who to take advice from and who to be a bit wary of.
He was a true Territorian. He was a dead-set Territorian; there were no airs and graces about Murph, he was an easy going fellow. He was gruff, there was no doubt about that, but he had a good sense of humour and a good nature. Nick Dondas told me they used to refer to him as ‘the enforcer’. I was not fortunate enough to be around in those wonderful early years and never saw Murph as an enforcer. However, I imagine he would be a fairly daunting fellow to get into an argument with or to try to defy.
Murph was one of that rare breed of Territorian - I am almost loathe to say – where the era has passed with Murph’s passing. When I was elected to the federal seat of Solomon I was as green and new to the job as anyone. One of the first things I did when elected was start looking around for people who had a clue because, at that time, I did not. I had a few things I wanted to do and achieve, but how you actually did that was beyond me. The first person I grabbed at the time is here today - Roger Steele, who I have enormous respect for as a bloke who knows the Territory and Territory people. The second fellow I employed was Paul Cowdy.
Paul Cowdy, Peter Murphy and Jim O’Brien worked together for pretty well three solid decades and were pretty well the heart, soul, and backbone of the Country Liberal Party for so long. I have not met people of such intellect who had such touch with Territorians, such a feeling for the Territory as did Paul Cowdy, Peter Murphy and Jim O’Brien.
I also see sitting in the gallery Senator Nigel Scullion’s Chief of Staff, Ron Kelly. Ron, of course, was employed as well as Jim O’Brien in the early days when Nigel Scullion was first elected. Having Jim O’Brien and Paul Cowdy around, it was very difficult not to also share a close relationship with Peter Murphy. Those guys, to me, were amazing characters. They embodied everything it meant to be a Territorian, and embodied everything I thought the Country Liberal Party stood for - getting out there, having a go, believing in the Territory, believing we could create a better place. That is what really drove them.
The Chief Minister made reference to some of the articles Murph wrote at the Darwin Star. I have heard it said before Murph got involved with the Country Liberal Party he was a Labor man. Many people would not identify Murph as a Labor man. Talking to Roger Steele, he said when the Country Liberals were formed they probably had 40% Liberals, 40% Country Party, and the other 20% came from Labor. He said they did not really have a political ideology; they all just believed in the Territory. The Territory is what drove the man.
I was sitting down last night talking to my good friend, Ron Kelly, saying: ‘I am going to talk tomorrow about Murph; what should I say? Do you remember anything in particular about him?’ Ronnie said to me: ‘The thing that grabbed Murph was he was so proud to be involved in forming Australia’s newest democracy, the Northern Territory’. When these guys turned up in 1978, I remember talking to Paul Cowdy and he said: ‘At the time, I was in PNG; I had been working with Michael Somare delivering self-government there. Then the call came through the Northern Territory had self-government’. He thought: ‘Blow it all. I am going back home and I am going to help usher in this new democracy in North Australia’.
That is really what sets guys like Peter Murphy, Paul Cowdy and Jim O’Brien apart; they were all so dead-set keen to get involved and create this new democracy. What a wonderful motivation it must have been at the time; to start with a clean slate. I am sure the Chief Minister would love to start with a clean slate. All Chief Ministers would love to start with a clean slate. However, in this particular case, they started with a clean slate and they did a damn good job.
As the member for Port Darwin said, Murph’s passion was not about money or notoriety. His passion was clear: it was to make life better for Territorians - a fairly simple passion. That was his overriding, driving goal: to make life better for people in the Northern Territory. Think about what life was like in the 1960s and the 1970s. We really were an outpost, a frontier, so to speak. They had dreams of this wonderful cosmopolitan society we live in today. We owe so much of our current lifestyle to Murph because he really did get in there. Anyone involved in the political struggle - and I am sure on that side as well as on this side - we all realise we are only as good as the people who are behind us.
I tell you, I am no rocket scientist and my only chance in life is to ensure I have many smart people around me. I have been very fortunate to have some of the best in the business around me, and I count Murph right at the top of that list. He was a fellow who had insights into the way the Territory worked, like no one else. Working with Murph, Cowdy, Jim O’Brien, really opened my eyes, not just to the realities of the Territory now, but also how the Territory was created. They had an unbelievable understanding of Territory history and why we are at the place we are.
I remember sitting down with Murph and Cowdy in the early days talking about land rights. I had absolutely no idea about land rights. They told me the story and put things into context. You can only understand things if you put the things in context of its time and the place where it happened. Some of the things we battle with these days, we shake our heads and wonder how the hell these things came about. It is only if you look at history and you understand the history of the times and what people were doing at the time that you actually understand. Murph had an incredible grip on all that.
Murph will be hugely missed by the cattle industry in the Northern Territory. The most recent crisis in the live export industry had Murph well and truly fired up, I can tell you. He had a really deep connection with the Northern Territory cattle industry. Seeing things fall to bits with our relationship with Indonesia, exports stop, and the struggles people on the land were going through at the time had a real impact on Murph, and it really set him alight and got him fired up.
One thing I can tell people here today - and I understand I am somewhat unique, although we have Nick Dondas here who spent a period in the federal parliament, and other people here have contacts with people in the federal parliament - Murph was highly respected nationally as well. He was not just an icon in the Northern Territory, but a bloke who did so much nationally. He came to the attention of the federal Liberal and National Parties. He went to Canberra with Paul Everingham and Paul Cowdy and they worked together for the term Mr Everingham was in Canberra. They both developed an understanding of the way the federal parliament works, how it all comes together. They did not just develop an understanding, they developed some connection. Murph was a bloke who had an enormous amount of connection federally.
He was often called in to run local campaigns in various parts of the country. My good friend Alby Schultz in New South Wales often tells me of the magnificent job Murph did - I think it must have been the 1998 federal election – in assisting him to be re-elected. Murph was not just doing local campaigns, he became a regular at campaign headquarters for the Liberal Party in federal elections. He was highly respected, highly regarded, not just for his writing ability but for his political nous. Right to the end, Murph’s heart was in the political struggle. He was working for Senator Bridget McKenzie, the Victorian Senator in Bendigo. Bridget McKenzie is a new Senator, completing her first term at the moment. I do not think a new member of parliament could get a better bloke to sit beside them than a fellow like Murph who had such a lifetime of experience.
It is amazing to look around politics - and I do not think it matters which side of politics - you often have the young guys who are jumping out of their skins to get involved, but it is rare to see an older person stick in the political game. Generally, you do your time in politics and move off with some large organisation or get involved somewhere else. Blokes who hang around, develop and grow in that job are few and far between, and that type of experience is a rarity, indeed. I know Murph is most missed by Paul Everingham, Porky. When you catch up with him from time to time, there is always a story about Murph and the times they shared in there somewhere. I used to sit on flights coming back from Canberra with Paul Cowdy, and there would often be stories about the good old days with Paul Everingham, Nick Dondas, Roger Steele and Murph. No one ever left Murph out of any context when they were talking about the good old days.
Recently - when I say recently, probably 15 years ago now - Murph worked with Shane Stone. They developed a strong bond, and Shane was one of Murph’s greatest allies and supporters. They worked together in Shane’s office in Darwin. Shane assisted Murph with Murphy Media and a range of other things. Shane Stone is very cut up about the loss of Murph. We have come to an end of an era in the making of the Northern Territory with the passing of Murph. He was a tower of strength for all those on this side of the political divide. I do not think he was driven by party politics; he was driven by the simple thing I said before: making life better for Territorians and for people everywhere he worked.
Madam Speaker, Lani and the rest of his family will miss Murph greatly. I am heartened to see so many of his close friends here today. I would love to have the time to put all your names on the Parliamentary Record. I do not think that would be fair, but I am glad to see so many people have turned up to this parliament to recognise Murph. Again, thank you very much, Chief Minister, this motion is much appreciated.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I contribute to this condolence motion for Peter Murphy OAM. I am carrying a number of messages, and I am going to speak on behalf of not only me but other people. I was overseas when I learnt of Peter’s death, and I was very saddened. It caused my partner, Linda Fazldeen, and I to sit down over dinner and discuss the contribution he made to both our lives.
I met Peter Murphy over 30 years ago, of all places, as a young policeman in the Police Club, also known as the Temple of Truth. The old Police Club in Cavenagh Street was an interesting place in those days. Friday nights was always a good night to get many of the senior police officers and the junior police officers together to talk about the issues and the concerns in the community. There was one person who always used to turn up, and that was Peter Murphy. As a brand new police officer, I asked the question: ‘Who is that bloke over there?’ A few people would nudge and say: ‘Oh, that is Peter Murphy. If he says anything to you, you should listen to him’.
There would be Peter; with his earpiece in his ear, listening to the radio reports and listening to you - probably doing about three or four different things at any one time. The one thing I noted about Peter Murphy in those days was he always listened to you, and he always took notice of what you said. The good part about young police officers then was, when you came across problems and issues, and you had the opportunity to talk to Peter on a regular basis on a Friday night, you more often than not, in a very short period of time, saw something was done about it. Not only did he listen, but he actually worked. He worked for the people of the Northern Territory, because not only did we raise problems which were concerning us, but also people in the community. It was one way to get that information straight back to government.
The earpiece was always good. Quite often, when he was talking, if the news came on, he would just say, ‘Just push the pause button’, and he would come back to you in a few moments. That was the nature of the guy; he was always on to everything. As a result of whatever you spoke about, and if you wanted advice on issues, you always knew it was full and frank advice. That advice came, often freely, right through to almost recent years when I used to see him to get advice when I became a member of the Legislative Assembly.
My partner, Linda Fazldeen, worked with Peter Murphy through the 1980s and 1990s when Linda was a ministerial officer and worked with four previous ministers. She also discussed over dinner the full and frank advice you got from Peter Murphy. He did not pull any punches; he never pulled the wool over your eyes. He was always one of those open and honest people who would tell you what he thought, what he believed other people were thinking. He would give advice to you whenever you needed it and, sometimes, when you did not need it, he would still give it to you.
The other person I want to speak on behalf of is the former Senator, Grant Tambling. When I arrived back from overseas, I ran into Grant and spoke to him about Peter’s passing. We talked about things. Grant is one of those people who has served, not only in the Legislative Assembly and the House of Representatives, but also in the Senate, so he has been right across those three parliaments. Grant had a long political and personal association with Peter, both in the Territory and in Canberra. He reminded me that Peter Murphy played a very significant role in not only the federal parliament debates on NT constitutional affairs and statehood, but also in relation to native title, Mabo issues, the north/south railway, and especially the controversy over the rights of the terminally ill which dealt with euthanasia.
Grant Tambling said:
- Peter’s advice was always relevant, noted and heeded, and his criticisms were never ignored.
It goes back to discussions I had where you always received full and frank advice from Peter Murphy. That is where most people I know, even if they were adversaries, held him in such high regard because he was very straight and you received free advice.
In 2007, he was awarded an OAM for journalism as a political advisor. I thought that was very well deserved for someone who made such a huge contribution to the Territory, and can proudly say he was a very committed Territorian.
I recall in 1997 when I was preselected - like my colleague the member for Port Darwin - I spoke to Shane Stone just after preselection and he said: ‘There is someone you need to talk to’. This was Peter Murphy who had much free, good advice which is still holding me in good stead and is something I will treasure from one of the few people who gave me open and honest advice.
It is sad he has passed. I believe quite often people, especially family, are interested to know what people think. ‘How do they see our father, brother, husband?’ How do we see those people? What do people think after he goes? The measure, quite often, is what people say at your funeral or after. Many things have been said today; however, the message I send to Lani and the family is everyone I know, and everyone who knew Peter, would say he was a really good bloke. All the things people have said, and will say today, revolve around the fact that your father, husband, uncle, friend - whatever relationship you had with him - Peter Murphy will be remembered by most people in Australia, particularly in the Northern Territory, as a man who was a good bloke.
Madam Speaker, I send condolences from my partner, Linda, and me to Lani and the family, and from the good Senator, Grant Tambling.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will say a few words and, as the member for Brennan said, that is how Peter would have like it. Before I start, I advise there will be a memorial Mass of Thanksgiving for Peter Murphy at the St Mary’s Cathedral tomorrow at 12.10 pm.
Peter Murphy probably knew me better than I knew him. Why? Because he wrote about me more than I wrote about him. I knew Peter not so much from politics, but from other things such as his involvement in drumMUSTER and his writings in the North Queensland Register, where he covered Northern Territory rural matters. For those who do not know what drumMUSTER is, it is a method of trying to return used herbicide and chemical containers from farms back to the manufacturers so they are not dumped into our landfill.
I always found him willing to discuss matters, sometimes willing to debate matters, and sometimes just tell you what he thought, no matter what. I was mentioned at times by Peter in his regular NT News columns, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. It was his job to write an opinion; it was my job to cop it - although I did not always take it lying down, but that is politics. Of course, Peter was involved in politics long before I came on the scene, and his contributions to the Territory will be remembered by those who worked with him, as has been said today.
He was, obviously, not always loved by everyone, especially as he was the press secretary for the CLP, and he would be the author of things not exactly supportive to those on the other side. However, if we dwell on that we miss the bigger picture. He was a man making a lasting contribution to the Northern Territory through his job. He had a vision some may not have agreed with, or the way in which he promoted it, but he left us with a view of the future of the Northern Territory so others could be stimulated to think about and debate where the Territory should be heading.
Peter Joseph Murphy - and with a name like that he had to have a touch of Catholicism in him - was a man with a strong Catholic faith who I saw, along with Lani, many times at Sunday Mass at Palmerston. It was this faith that helped him the most when he was diagnosed with cancer and, in the end, knew he was going to meet his maker.
As I said before, I did not know Peter really well, but well enough to know he was a decent and passionate man who left his mark on, and loved, the Territory.
Peter, I never had a chance to say when you were with us, so this will be my last chance now. You said in your regular NT News column the agreement I had with the Chief Minister would not last more than one mango season. That was the country in him. However, it has lasted three mango seasons, so I had at least one win on you. Peter, I enjoyed your writings, whether agreeing with them or not. I enjoyed our conversations, especially about matters pertaining to things rural. I enjoyed your company. I thank you for the contribution to the welfare of the Northern Territory.
To Lani and all the family, my deepest sympathy, and may Peter rest in peace.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also extend my condolences to the family and friends of Mr Murphy. I knew Peter not terribly well but, probably for most of the 27 years I have lived in the Territory, through a mutual friend who is here today, Jan Stafford. I knew him in a social context. I remember when I was preselected, he was incredibly shocked because he thought I was a member of the CLP. He got over it, though. Like the member for Nelson, I certainly I copped it a few times from Peter as well. May he rest in peace.
His biggest achievement is something which has not been mentioned here today; the fact that he was married for 46 years - that is a huge achievement for anyone. As someone who deals with cancer, when people are looking back on their death bed, I do not think they are thinking about the comments you made to people in the political context. They are thinking about your wife, your family and friends. He did very well. May he rest in peace.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to.
Members stood in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, honourable members. I thank all members for their contribution to the motion today, and I invite all family and friends to join us in the main hall for light refreshments.
The Assembly suspended.
MOTION
Development of One Mile Dam, Knuckey Lagoon and 15 Mile Communities
Development of One Mile Dam, Knuckey Lagoon and 15 Mile Communities
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move –
That, the government review the future development of the One Mile Dam, Knuckey Lagoon and 15 Mile Communities, and
That the review include –
(a) future expansion plans;
(b) existing and future land leasing arrangements;
(c) home ownership; and
(d) local government.
The review should include views of residents, Aboriginal Development Foundation, relevant housing bodies and all other relevant government agencies and non-government organisations.
Bernie tells me the Aboriginal Development Foundation is an association made up of Aboriginal people from three town camps and Adelaide River, and they have representatives on the board. He said they meet regularly and focus on one community each meeting. He said in the 1960s these places were set up for itinerants and a place for drinkers to be safe. They had tarps and pit toilets, so they were very basic. One Mile Dam is only about three minutes away from here near the Duck Pond. The main person in the community is David Timber, who comes from a group of people from the Cox Peninsula area. Unfortunately, I do not know the group he belongs to.
Knuckey Lagoon has traditionally been Daly River, Adelaide River, Port Keats/Wadeye people. It is sometimes called the Palmerston Indigenous Village but, generally, is called the 15 Mile. It has an Aboriginal name, which is probably more appropriate, Gurdoorka. It is a bit mixed up; it has people from Maningrida, occasionally Tiwis, and some people from Murrenunggu. There was also another site, originally, at Lee Point, which was set up for people from the leprosarium but does not exist today.
The Aboriginal Development Foundation does not receive any funding, but owns the lease over the land. It also owns the Aboriginal Development Foundation headquarters on Foundation Road, Holtze, as freehold. I believe that parcel of land once belonged to Jackaroo Homestead, a tourist resort.
ATSIC took over responsibility for housing some years ago. When ATSIC folded, Yilli Rreung took over responsibility for the houses, which is what occurs today. However, ADF still owns them. ADF has a service level agreement with Yilli Rreung. Bernie Valadian says if Yilli Rreung took over the land it would have to deal with the social problems. I asked him: what if Yilli Rreung had ownership over the land? I am not saying he agreed with that, but he was highlighting the fact that if you are going to own the land, you are also going to cop the responsibility of dealing with the many issues that occur in these communities.
I will give a rundown of what exists on these communities. The 15 Mile community, or Gurdoorka, has 19 houses, 12 of which are new. The other seven houses are sometimes called legacy houses and are quite reasonably well-constructed. They would never blow away in a cyclone, but tend to have ARC mesh walls and are fairly basic. There is no reason why they could not be upgraded. The original 15 Mile was on the other side of the existing Stuart Highway. The camp was near where the old Stuart Highway turned off towards Palmerston.
Knuckey Lagoon community has 16 houses, five of which are old. They have two harmony houses owned by the Larrakia Nation - I will speak on that a little later. One Mile Dam has, I believe, one new house and the rest is a bit of a mixed bag. They have some shelters and some old legacy-style houses, but that is about it. Not all these older houses are lived in. Originally, those older houses were built without showers and toilets, because in the centre there were communal showers and toilets. Those showers and toilets still exist, although I do not know whether they are used much today.
One of the things you will see when you go into these communities is, generally, the roads are a mixture of good and bad. One Mile Dam has a bitumen road which goes in and out. It is only a short road, because it is only a very small community. Knuckey Lagoon has some bitumen, some of which is quite broken up; there have been no repairs to it. There are roads to some of the other houses you would not call a road, they are simply tracks. They fill up with water in the Wet Season and are certainly a very poor standard.
The 15 Mile, or Gurdoorka, has no legal access to any road. Recently, an ambulance could not get down to the 15 Mile because an easement collapsed after much rain and had to be repaired. I thank the Department of Local Government for getting in there quickly to repair that ‘road’. The 15 Mile is a Power and Water easement, part of which is in Litchfield Shire and part in the Palmerston City Council area. However, it is not a road, and it is not really the responsibility of either of those councils to maintain it. Traditionally, Litchfield has graded its portion but the road has deteriorated and there needs to be some resolution of the problem.
As an aside, because there has been an announcement that the government is going to duplicate the road between the Stuart Highway and Whitewood Road, that is, it is going to duplicate Howard Springs Road where you turn off to the 15 Mile, there is an opportunity for a formal access road to be built to this community.
In relation to One Mile Dam, as Bernie said, there has been opposition and I was part of that opposition some years ago when the former member for Katherine originally announced he was going to shift the people out of that area. The government had grand plans to develop that whole area where the fuel tanks were. My concern at that time was not so much about moving people, but there needed to be a negotiated movement. That is, they needed to be offered something reasonable to replace what was a refuge close to Darwin city. It appeared to me at the time it was more a case of needing to move these people out of the way because they would not fit in with our new beaut suburbs we were building in that area. That was an inappropriate reason for shifting people. If those people were to be shifted and given decent housing in a different place - I am listening to what Bernie Valadian is saying here - there could be room for negotiation about going to a different place. That is a summary of what Bernie told me when I met with him.
I also met with Mr Colin Tidswell from Yilli Rreung. He had strong, forthright views about how Yilli Rreung could look after these places. Yilli Rreung looks after an existing affordable housing community at Berrimah, once called the Summer Institute of Linguistics property, which was sold to Mr John Anictomatis and perhaps other people - I am not sure. They lease it to Yilli Rreung, and there is some quite reasonable housing in that area. Some of it is old, it is basic, but it is quite acceptable and Aboriginal people can rent houses in that area at a reasonable price. As Colin said, it is unfortunate many people will not rent to Aboriginal people - it is a fact of life - because they think half the countryside is going to come with them, they are scared of them, or simply do not like black people. It is sometimes very difficult for an Aboriginal family to rent a house on the private market. Colin sees that community at Berrimah as a good way for people to be able to rent housing in the private market.
Although Yilli Rreung has money from the government, is not a government organisation. Colin believes, if government considered it, if they controlled housing at these communities they could set up tenancy arrangements so people who were not looking after these houses properly could be removed. At the moment, you have this funny situation. Yilli Rreung does the maintenance, but the Aboriginal Development Foundation owns the house and land. The Aboriginal Development Foundation, technically, is the only one that can kick people out of the houses. You have one owner and one company maintaining the houses. That is a major problem for going forward in these communities. Yilli Rreung is saying if it had the opportunity to run these communities similar to the way they run the community at Berrimah there would be better outcomes, which is part of the discussion that has to be had.
It should be noted that all these communities come under the Commonwealth intervention. In theory, there should be no liquor or pornographic material in those communities. If you go to those communities it is obvious those signs are a waste of time because there is a great number of beer cans lying around the communities.
You also have to go back to the history of these communities. They were, basically, communities where people found shelter. If they had been on a drinking binge somewhere, they knew they could go back to this community and sleep it off.
There is history that these communities were associated with alcohol. We have now built new houses in those communities and are attempting to turn them into normal communities. It is not quite as simple as that. In some places there is supposed to be CDEP. If you go there and see the amount of rubbish lying around and the long grass, you would wonder what people do for their CDEP payments. It is very hard to justify something is happening. Yilli Rreung slashes the grass once in a while, but the communities are not tidy in between the times Yilli Rreung turns up. There is certainly much rubbish around.
Even though there are good people in these communities, there does not seem to be a real sense of direction. I will give you an example. We have the so-called harmony houses at Knuckey Lagoon built with a grant - I do not know whether it was from the NT or Commonwealth government - to the Larrakia Nation. It was part of the idea of helping homeless people. It, basically, has not worked. These houses were connected to another house. No one paid the electricity bills. They fell into disrepair because they were not being looked after by Yilli Rreung; they did not belong to them. Larrakia Nation seemed to not want to take great responsibility. I started receiving phone calls about the power being off. As the minister and his advisor would know, he received some late night phone calls, usually on a Friday night when everyone was hoping nothing would go wrong, saying the power was off. The reason the power was off was because no one had paid the bills. The reason no one had paid the bills was because there were no meters on the individual houses. People were living there, and whoever had the meter at the far end would have to pay the bill. There were some problems which have, at least, been sorted out.
I am unsure where ownership of those houses is at. Technically, I cannot say ownership because I do not know how this works. If the Aboriginal Development Foundation owns the lease, technically, anything on that lease, under law, would belong to the Aboriginal Development Foundation, unless there is a sublease. I do not know of any subleases on those communities. Technically, as Bernie said, the Aboriginal Development Foundation owns all the houses there now. I presume they will own the harmony houses. Again, we have the issue of control over people on the land, control over people in the houses, and control over the maintenance of the houses.
I emphasise there are good people in these communities, but they are overwhelmed by the problems there. They are not the majority. The majority, unfortunately, have problems with alcohol and other substances. These communities have people drive in, make themselves at home, probably bring grog, or go to the pub and come back and problems occur. There is much gambling. There does not seem to be a direction from within, or from the government, as to where we should go with these communities.
People have been working with these communities and I will give you an example. Last year, 17 students from the University of Melbourne came to Gurdoorka, 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon and built media centres. When I say media, they were like community centres as well. At the university, they designed two recycled containers. They built a structure over the top of them. If you see them today, they have some fancy welding and design on the front. They set them up so people could use computers and have a media learning community area. Where it is at now, I could not tell you. Good playgrounds were put in, but I do not see kids play there very often. The shade cloth has come down in one place and I am unsure if it has been replaced. A nursery was built at Gurdoorka - 15 Mile. They built it, took photographs of it – a great start, then everything died, the weeds grew and that was it. Somebody cleaned it up again, but it is a higgledy-piggledy approach.
There are some great houses in those communities - top class houses – and there are some second rate houses. Unless there is some direction and control those houses will deteriorate, as happened with the harmony houses. The cost of repairing the harmony houses was around $150 000. That is a large amount of money to repair a relatively new house.
Why do we need a review? Things are clearly not right and we need to ask what purpose these communities serve today? Not so much what was in the past, but what purpose they serve today? What purpose should they serve? What is the reason for the communities being there? Should they be part of an open community where rates are paid and roads and any open space are maintained by local government? That is what is happening in Alice Springs. That is the theory. Should more houses be built and who is responsible for them - Yilli Rreung, NT Housing, the Aboriginal Foundation or should there be private ownership? Where will the money come from?
Yilli, presently, does not have enough funds. My sisters live in a house with solar power and batteries at Bulgul. As far as I know, they have power during parts of the day and the rest of the time it does not work. They have told me Yilli does not have enough money to maintain the houses. If we are going to hand these houses over to someone else, will they have enough money to maintain them? Where will that money come from? Should the land remain with the Aboriginal Development Foundation or should it be owned by the government through NT Housing or Yilli Rreung?
If the government decided the Aboriginal Development Foundation should withdraw from these communities, what is the cost? Technically, they have either a perpetual lease or a 99-year lease, and all the infrastructure on those communities belongs to them. What would that mean? Would the government have to pay the Aboriginal Development Foundation for the lease, or would it have to pay the lease plus the houses? I do not have an answer to that. These issues would need to be discussed by people with a good knowledge of leasing and the responsibilities that go with leasing.
It is clear a change in strategy is needed, perhaps a change of management overall, with clear goals such as affordable housing, tenancy agreements and an understanding by residents of their responsibility.
I have not said too much, but there may be an opportunity for people who can look after their houses to gain ownership of them. The 15 Mile - Gurdoorka - is going to be built about 100 m to 200 m away from the suburb of Johnston where it meets the Stuart Highway. It will be a peculiar situation because it will look like First World, and 200 m across the road, Third World.
When I travel around the country I notice some of these communities look no different to the community in my back yard. Sometimes, we focus on the remote but forget in our back yard there are similar issues which need to be fixed. At the moment the good people suffer. The children do not have a chance to move out of this continuous cycle of disadvantage, and if nothing is done we will be debating this issue for a long time to come. If for no other reason, we need this review for the children.
My wife would go on the bus to Knuckey Lagoon community to pick up kids when she was working at Sacred Heart, Palmerston. I would love to know where those kids are today. Have they achieved anything? When I was there the other night, kids were still in their school uniform. A group of people were playing cards. Have they the opportunity to advance? They live near Berrimah Farm, Allora Garden Nursery and the airport, and up the road is Harvey Norman. We have this little community, and you would hope these people have opportunities to get a job, to advance from ‘poverty’. Poverty is interesting. Are they really poor, or are they simply not able to take advantage of the opportunities to improve their lives?
There are plenty of people who help these communities from time to time. Ronnie Agnew, who I have always had time for, has many problems with his family and the community. He is the unofficial leader of Knuckey Lagoon. I was there when he had an open day, and he brought all the people with some involvement in this community together. You would be amazed how many agencies are involved in these communities. There is Amity, and groups to help Aboriginal people learn about banking. A great range of people are paid to help Aboriginal people in our community. You have to ask: if there are so many people out there doing all these things, why do we still have major problems? Nothing seems to have changed. We have this agency, this agency, this agency - health agencies, social security agencies, and financial agencies. Many of them are focused on Aboriginal people - that is what they are there for. Yet, we have a place that really is depressing.
It is time we sat down with the genuine people in the communities, the good leaders. We do not pick anyone; we need to ensure we select the genuine person who wants to do something. We get Yilli Rreung, the Aboriginal Development Foundation, the government departments - but not too many. Perhaps we have a representative from government departments so we are not drowned with bureaucrats - 20 bureaucrats and five people from the community. It should be thought through so we can work on these issues.
Colin Tidswell was saying if Yilli Rreung had ownership of the houses and set up tenancy agreements, we could go somewhere. He might be right. However, we need to think a little before that, to ask what is the future of these communities? One sits under the flight path, has no sewerage; only has septic tanks. If the 15 Mile became full is that it? It is a relatively small piece of land. What is it? Is it just an enclave, a ghetto, a place for Aboriginal people to stay. What is this community going to be? The One Mile Dam will eventually be dwarfed. The landowner next door is Frank Morandini, the developer - right next door. Obviously, he will not be sitting around scratching his head wondering what to do; he will have something in mind. That area is going to be developed.
I do not have all the answers; I would not have raised this motion if I did. There needs to be a positive, practical, and real approach to the future of these communities. It does not need to drag on forever. We do not need to have a meeting and, in six months, have another meeting. We need to set an agenda which says at the end of 12 months, or at the end of six months, we will have a plan and the government will stick to it. This year’s budget is very tight, it might require a fair bit of financial assistance, and it might mean you have to wait for next year’s budget. At least have a plan of action.
When you see the road you wonder who is going to maintain it. In theory, Yilli Rreung is going to maintain the road but it will cost $10 000, $20 000, or $30 000 to repair and they do not have that money. All these issues need to be put in the boiling pot and people need to come without pre-determined ideas and see what comes out.
I am putting ideas forward today, but there might be other people out there who have some really good ideas as well. Colin Tidswell is one. The Aboriginal Development Foundation might have a role to play. Phillip Goodman from 15 Mile, Ronnie Agnew and David Timber from the One Mile might be able to give us an idea of which way we should go.
The motion is to encourage discussion and debate tonight, and to put to the government that we cannot sit around hoping things will happen. Things will not happen unless there is a positive approach, a goal to turn the visionless society in these communities into something we can be proud of and people, especially children, can be happy to live in.
Ms McCARTHY (Indigenous Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for raising this very important issue. I welcome it. Part of my brief over the last three years has been to travel across the Northern Territory with two of the largest reforms of our government, that is, local government reform and A Working Future policy.
I said to my staff towards the last quarter of last year that now we have progressed across the Northern Territory trying to grow the regions I wanted to focus specifically on the town camps, not only in the Darwin region, but also Katherine, Tennant Creek and Borroloola.
Your concern about the future of town camps in the Darwin region is genuine. You have brought this motion in the context of your electorate, as Knuckey Lagoon and 15 Mile are both within your constituency. You also have an eye on the Aboriginal Development Foundation property of One Mile, or Railway Dam, in the city centre.
Our government supports this motion. It is timely given we are currently reviewing our joint government arrangements with the Commonwealth in the context of the end of the Northern Territory Emergency Response intervention and negotiation of a new 10-year funding agreement to address Indigenous disadvantage in the Northern Territory.
I would, however, like to move an amendment. I move – Omit all words after ‘That’ and insert in their stead:
- the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments work together to review the future development of the Aboriginal town camps in the Darwin region;
That the review include:
(a) future expansion plans;
- The review should include the views and clarify roles and responsibilities of residents, landholders, relevant housing bodies and all other relevant government agencies and non-government organisations with a role in providing services to these communities.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, is there a signed copy of that motion circulated to members?
Ms McCARTHY: It is coming now.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is coming around now.
Ms McCARTHY: The important point to note is I am calling for the Commonwealth to be very much a part of this review, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The member for Nelson has reminded us of the unique history of these communities and, importantly, understands the history and the need for joint and cooperative work to create the kind of bright future and prosperous connection to the broader Darwin community we all want for the residents of these communities. That is, a clearer and optimistic future with more choice and opportunity for residents and future residents, as well as clear acceptance of roles and responsibilities by everyone with an interest and a responsibility in these areas.
This issue is fundamentally about families; recognition of families, connection to place, quality of life, access to services, participation in all Darwin has to offer, and optimism about the future. In the context of the future of town camps in the Darwin region, we are also talking about land tenure and property rights, history, and for many long-term residents, a strong sense of belonging to the place they call home, population growth, infrastructure, pathways to home ownership, youth and family services, and fuller employment for residents of these places.
This work cuts right across government and involves many areas of government. Future work will not be about what I, as Minister for Indigenous Development, do after today. It will hinge on how the three levels of government work together and with other key partners to develop, coordinate and progress the necessary plans and investments. Cooperation, coordination and sequencing of investment, as well as commitment to shared objectives, are really the ways to move forward.
In recent times, the key focus of our Indigenous development work has been on A Working Future and our Territory growth towns, on building strong local government, land tenure reform and local economic development, and an unprecedented investment in improving Indigenous housing and addressing Indigenous disadvantage in the bush. There has also been tremendous work done under the umbrella of the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, including real progress with improvements to Alice Springs town camps. We are also coming to a threshold in housing with SIHIP and with the Stronger Futures new funding.
We have to move onto the next phase of our work and further work with housing associations, service providers and residents regarding the ongoing development of urban Indigenous living areas. We should also acknowledge there has been much work happening in relation to town camps across the Territory, work that can inform our next steps here.
In Alice Springs, housing works are nearly complete, with a total of 86 new houses built, 103 homes rebuilt, and 32 homes refurbished across the town camps. We are exploring options for new forms of land tenure and subleasing enabling family home ownership. In Tennant Creek, a total of 78 houses have been rebuilt, along with two new houses.
Tenancy sustainability programs have been provided to families in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek community living areas to assist in maintaining tenancies and safe and healthy family homes. Borroloola is earmarked for new and refurbished housing as part of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, and consultation is well under way with the key groups and stakeholders in this area. Land leasing needs to be secured for new public housing and, when leasing is finalised, the housing work in Borroloola will commence.
As noted in a debate earlier this year, the Northern Territory has already made available $4m to upgrade services and infrastructure at the Bagot Community in Darwin. This has been a great investment, leading to important improvement in areas such as street lighting, fencing, water metering and improvements to sporting and community facilities. There is much more to do. In discussions with Lyle and Helen out there, we were able to look at the plans Yilli Rreung has for those areas. In fact, I am looking forward to having more of that discussion with Yilli Rreung in the coming weeks. Yilli Rreung Housing Association has its own initiative of working with the Bagot Community to develop a draft town plan outlining future development options. We heard the member for Nelson talk about those plans he has obviously been briefed on. I look forward to meeting up with Colin Tidswell and doing the same.
Also in the Darwin region, Yilli Rreung has been working hard on improving housing maintenance and municipal and essential services at all Darwin region town camps, and the development of options for affordable housing for their clients. It is time to expand and build on that work.
Improving town camps and a stronger connection of our town camp communities to our broader communities is critically important work. That is why I thank the member for Nelson for keeping this issue before us. The health, safety and wellbeing of Territorians who live in town camps are crucial to closing the gap of Indigenous disadvantage in the Northern Territory. It is core business for our government - continual improvement in infrastructure, services and opportunities for all Territorians no matter where they choose to live. The difference is our government takes a collaborative approach to planning which is supported and developed by local people. You have to walk and work with the people on the ground, as we have been doing across the Northern Territory trying to grow the regions.
We can learn from the recent history of the Alice Springs town camps. An Alice Springs task force was led by the now NT Coordinator-General, Olga Havnen. The task force had a plan for the future which changed with the intervention because the Alice Springs housing associations, and similar landholders in Darwin, have legal rights, property rights, that Australians expect will always be taken seriously by governments, rights that are protected as a core element of our Australian Constitution. In late 2007, we had a change of government in Canberra and this resulted in a hard but fair negotiation process that ultimately led to the Alice Springs Transformation Plan.
In looking at options for the future we must include the aspirations of the local people. We should encourage pride in place and home ownership as an achievable goal, and we should reach agreement on community development, but we should also do this with the people who are the community. Our approach has been, and will continue to be, to work with people on what they want to see in their place, to have local people contribute to planning and shared ownership of the goals we are working towards. We have certainly done this in developing the local implementation plans for our growth towns, and we have been working with local people about their priorities. This is what we have also done in the Alice Springs town camps. It is about coordination and sequencing to properly ensure the roles of non-government organisations, the private sector, and the three tiers of government are focused and move forward together.
Alice Springs town camps are now on the path towards improved amenity, a brighter future, and better connection to town services and development opportunities. We have to look at what has happened in Alice Springs town camps. We know the investment that has gone into Alice Springs and the improvement we have seen. The way it has happened in partnership with those people and organisations involved is something we can learn from in the work we want to do in the town camps around Darwin. We do not want the town camps and resident families to feel they are being left behind. Comment has been made in regard to the incredible investment that takes place in the regions, even in Alice Springs. When you visit some of the town camps here and talk to local Indigenous families, they are always asking when that massive injection of investment will happen.
In considering this brighter future of town camps for the Darwin area, issues like leasing and land tenure are crucial. As I have said before, we must respect the property and legal rights of landowners in working through these issues. As my colleague, the Minister for Public and Affordable Housing has noted before in this House, land tenure reform is a sensitive and complex issue which needs to be worked through. People are naturally worried about what new leasing or land tenure arrangements might mean for them and their families, and the organisations holding title to this land have property rights, rights protected by our constitution and the laws of the land.
The member for Fong Lim has previously asked about Bagot in this House: ‘How hard can it be? Bagot is on a special purpose lease and does not belong to them’. In the context of town camps, we are not only talking about special purpose leases. Land tenure also includes the Crown land lease in perpetuity, so some of the holders of that land have a form of title which implies they have that land in perpetuity. Sometimes, that is the complexity in trying to deal with negotiations that have to take place with some of the different organisations. That, added to the fact you have different groups in those town camp areas.
If we are to progress, which is what we want and why I welcome the motion put forward by the member for Nelson, we have to take all that into consideration and the complexities of keeping people at the table to talk through these issues so we can improve the town camps around Darwin. We will work through those challenges building on our recent experiences in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, and Bagot. We do not shy away from what can be new and difficult conversations about change and the best way forward. We have shown that in the work we have been doing across the Northern Territory in regard to the growth towns.
Regarding home ownership, different approaches can be used to facilitate access to home ownership. For example, the Tangentyere Council has put forward a community housing association model which could manage housing on town camps. This example was put forward in Tangentyere’s submission to the Stronger Futures inquiry. I am very pleased to see local people putting forward ideas and solutions which can work. Whether this model is suited to the Territory more broadly also needs to be discussed. However, the fact these things have occurred in Alice Springs gives us models to see if we can replicate in other parts of the Northern Territory. These are the discussions we need to have in moving forward with Darwin town camps.
I also note recent comments by Ron Morony in The Australian newspaper on home ownership. Ron Morony is the Chair of my Indigenous Economic Development Taskforce. His comments were on the difficulties associated with promoting Indigenous home ownership. In the context of the Australian government Home Ownership on Indigenous Land (or HOIL) program. Mr Morony commented:
- Obstacles or difficulties are not reasons to give up on the whole idea of Indigenous home ownership. I certainly welcome this public debate on home ownership and affordable housing models to open up the possibility of new approaches and models.
I believe every member in this House knows there are many complex issues that need to be worked through. We are keen to ensure we have those conversations, put these things on the table and have action as a result of those discussions.
The vision for our growth towns in the bush is they have the same services and facilities as any other similar-sized town across Australia. The vision is also that they are connected - smaller communities with the local growth town, the growth town with the larger regional centre, with our outstations and homelands and so on, so people have pathways to opportunities. The same applies to town camps. It is important that town camps are better connected to the broader community through schools, jobs, transport and local government services. In planning the future of town camps we will work with local people and residents, service providers, government agencies and non-government organisations. We have this as a key priority to build on the work to date on town camps and to improve the lives and opportunities of Territory families, wherever they may be living.
It is our intention this work progresses as a key joint government priority. It will be a key focus for us very early in the next term of the Henderson Labor government. We will also work to progress improvements in other regional sites such as Elliott, Pine Creek, and Katherine through the 10 years of the new partnership agreement with the Commonwealth, as well as ongoing work on developing public and affordable housing in these centres.
In closing, I am very pleased the member for Nelson has brought this motion before the House. I will be instructing the department to begin work on what that review may look like and the discussions that need to take place with all the stakeholders - not only the families themselves, but the organisations involved with each of these town camp areas around Darwin.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind you, member for Fong Lim, given there has been amendment moved by the minister, you may wish to qualify if you are speaking to the original motion and/or the amended motion.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am speaking to both the member for Nelson’s motion and the amendment put forward by the minister.
First, thank you very much to the member for Nelson. I am very pleased the member for Nelson has put this motion to the parliament. It is a motion worthy of discussion. I wish more people in this parliament took a greater interest in the town camps across the Northern Territory. At times, people say: ‘Out of sight, out of mind’. It is obviously a Labor government ploy that the out of sight, out of mind attitude continues. The only significant thing the government has done for the Bagot Community in the 10 years it has been elected is to stick a fence along the front of Bagot Road to ensure people in Darwin cannot see in. They cannot see the filth and squalor behind the fence, and the dreadful conditions people are forced to live in at the Bagot Community. Some people think it is a wonderful thing to whack up a fence to hide the filth and squalor. I believe more would be done for people’s living conditions if we were to drive past and see the mess behind the fence.
The minister talked about street lighting, the wonderful fences and all the great improvements. I do not know the last time the minister went to Bagot to look around, but it is not much different now than 10 years ago. Things have become much worse in the period of the Labor government. Apart from building a fence at Bagot, it has done practically nothing, and life has continued to deteriorate for people living at that location.
I say time and time again, the biggest cause of concern for people in my electorate is the noise, antisocial behaviour, fighting, drunkenness and the filth that emanates from the Bagot Community to all the residents around it. I receive at least one phone call a week from someone with a complaint. It is not unusual to get four, five, or six telephone calls from various constituents who live in houses that adjoin the Bagot Community in a single night - a single night!
Residents next door to Bagot have phoned me at 3 am out of their minds. They cannot sleep; the screaming, the noise, the fighting from that community keeps them awake all hours of the night. I do not know how many times a fellow has to come into this House, complain about it, ring people and ring the police. Nothing seems to happen; nothing changes. The minister says: ‘We are doing things in Bagot’. If you are, you have not even scratched the surface because life is dreadful for the people who live inside that community.
At lunchtime today, I drove to One Mile Dam camp. I am unsure how many people in this House would know where it is. It is likely 95% of Territorians would not have noticed One Mile Dam. It is another one of those out of sight, out of mind places. If you talk about One Mile Dam to your friends, to your colleagues, quite often people look at you with curiosity wondering where the hell this place is - One Mile Dam. It is not a front-of-mind issue for most people. I drove there at lunchtime and have to say the changes to One Mile Dam - I have been going there for 10 years or so now, on and off. It has degenerated incredibly. Unfortunately, I have misplaced my phone because I took photos as I was horrified by some of the things I saw. The place is a public health risk. I cannot imagine how government can allow anyone to step foot on that land. It is an outright public health risk.
There are abodes you could call a house - all the walls have been ripped out - a roof with a couple of tarps for walls and some mattresses. I would not go anywhere near one of those mattresses, but people sleep on them. It is absolutely disgusting. The filth in that place - you have to see it to believe it. There are two waterways under the road. If a child fell in, they would have to be admitted to hospital immediately. The disease, the filth, shopping trolleys, beer bottles and beer cans, goodness me! I dread to imagine what is at the bottom of One Mile Dam. It seems to be the local rubbish dump. It is a disgusting place.
In response to this very good motion by the member for Nelson suggesting a review into these places, that we actually look at them, the minister says: ‘Oh no, no, no. I want to amend that motion to include the Commonwealth government’. I scratch my head thinking: ‘What has the Commonwealth government got to do with this?’ Why would you want to amend the motion to include the Commonwealth government? This has nothing to do with the Commonwealth government. If you are talking about fixing houses on Aboriginal land rights land, the Territory government has very little say in Aboriginal land rights land. We need permits to enter. It is very hard to deliver services. If you are looking for excuses for not doing things on Aboriginal land, there are plenty out there.
You can have an enormous number of excuses for not doing things on Aboriginal land because it is so hard to get anything happening, particularly when you need permits to go everywhere or sit down and negotiate everything. You cannot compulsorily acquire land for public purposes and the public cannot drive into these places. I understand there are many excuses the government has for not doing anything on Aboriginal land, but to say in relation to town camps in Darwin: ‘Oh, we need the Commonwealth to do something about town camps in Darwin’, goodness me, what a cop-out!
Dr Burns: What about Mal Brough? You appeared in the photo with him.
Mr TOLLNER: I am glad the Leader of Government Business has dropped in to interject. He says: ‘What about Mal Brough and the intervention?’
Dr Burns: Yes, he was there with you in the photo.
Mr TOLLNER: He was there. I am so glad the minister interjected. He has pulled out a bunch of papers now. He is going to show us Mal Brough, with his intervention, legislated for the ability to act on town camps. Why would Mal Brough do that? Why would Mal Brough say: ‘The Commonwealth wants the ability to do things in town camps?’ I can tell you why, you old Leader of Government Business, because your government was doing nothing; you were ignoring the problem. A minister from Canberra takes a couple of trips to the Territory, looks around and sees the dysfunction, the filth, the squalor, the dreadful living conditions and, in horror, says: ‘Oh my God, we have to do something. I cannot turn my back on this place. I will legislate to have responsibility to fix some of these problems’. He would not have done that if the Northern Territory government had been doing its job. Thank you, Leader of Government Business, you understand the issues better than most people here. You must be ashamed to be a member of a government that allows people to live in filth, degradation and squalor under your watch. It must be highly embarrassing to be a minister in a government which allows that to occur.
The One Mile Dam area is a beautiful piece of Darwin land. There is beautiful rainforest and a beautiful dam. It presents huge opportunities for a growing vibrant city - you could put a beautiful park there with swings. There is a huge subdivision next door at Frances Park. We are going to need parkland. This place should be cleaned up.
I am led to understand the one true resident and his family who live there would be quite prepared to move from One Mile Dam if suitable accommodation facilities were found somewhere else. However, One Mile Dam is not the home to just one Indigenous family; it is home to a range of other long-grassers, very few of whom are Indigenous. This is the home base of the Darwin Longgrass Association. Every feral across Darwin bases themselves out of One Mile Dam and how we can turn a blind eye to what seems to be occurring in that community I cannot follow. Bagot community is the same.
Finally, we had the admission today from the Chief Minister that the government has broken an election promise about the police post at Bagot. It was a rather extraordinary Question Time because at the same time we had the admission the government broke its election commitment on that, we also had an admission that it had broken its election commitment on the Katherine Boot Camp and broken its commitment on the Myilly Point development. What a horror day! There is nothing in the budget, minister. You could not say where it was in the budget ...
Mr McCarthy: No broken promise.
Mr TOLLNER: Hang on; you were going to build a police post at the Bagot community in 2009-10. Where is it? Is it there? No, it is not. What does that mean, minister? That means it is not there. That means you have broken an election commitment from 2008. What about the redevelopment of Myilly Point? Has it happened? No, it has not. Is it in the budget to happen? No, it is not. What does that mean? That means you broke an election commitment. I do not know how much clearer you can be about it. To say: ‘Oh, no, we have not done it. We said we would do it, but we have not broken any commitment’. Goodness me, it is hard to understand. The reality is, people out there know when you say you are going to do something there is very little chance of it happening. They know it is all bluff and bluster. It is being said to quell the masses. If you stand still long enough, hopefully they will forget. That is the way you guys operate.
Most of these town camps are a direct responsibility of the Northern Territory government, which turns its back on them. Look at Kulaluk - Minmarama. It would be good to know how much funding the Northern Territory government provides to fix the houses, ensure the sewerage and water are connected, and a whole range of things. No, they get very little there. Look at the Bagot Community: we ploughed $4.5m in there for street lights and fences. You would not know where it went.
Look at One Mile Dam. There is not a community more degraded, a greater health hazard. This is a public health hazard - I cannot say this strongly enough. This place is a public health hazard, should be shut down, cordoned off and a bunch of health inspectors need to get in there. A bunch of other people rugged up in overalls and masks need to get in there and clean the dump out. It is full of filth, disease and degradation and it is on your watch. It is land you are responsible for and people you are responsible for.
It is disgusting to see people are allowed to live in conditions like that on something directly controlled directly by the Northern Territory. They are special purpose leases. You can move in tomorrow and move them out. You can find that one Indigenous family a decent house; put them somewhere, and get the place cleaned out. No, we have a minister saying: ‘Oh, no, no, no. We cannot do it. It has to be the Commonwealth’. She has the audacity to complain about Mal Brough and his intervention. What a joke you are: ‘Mal Brough was a cruel bully because he came in here and did things we should have been doing ourselves’. Goodness me! You people are a cruel joke on Territorians - an absolute cruel joke.
I would love to get a group of Territorians, march them down to One Mile Dam and show them the way some of their fellow Territorians live, and the filth, degradation and disgusting conditions they are supposed to put up with.
I have had a chat with the member for Nelson. In my view, the 15 Mile camp and Knuckey Lagoon are reasonably well-kept communities but, obviously, an enormous amount of work needs to be done in those places. The member for Nelson mentioned sewerage and all the other things - water connections and electricity. They are not happening on those communities.
I imagine One Mile Dam and Bagot are out of sight, out of mind. About 20 000 Territorians drive past Bagot every morning and see nothing because there is a big fence in front and all that filth and squalor is hidden from their view. The fact is, 99% of Territorians would not have a clue where One Mile Dam is. You are quite happy to live with that out of sight, out of mind. However, in place like Knuckey Lagoon or the 15 Mile camp, there are no big fences and people can see in so they are probably reasonably well-kept. The member for Nelson assures me a heap of work needs to be done on those places as well.
Rather than the Territory government buckling under and saying: ‘Okay, things are tight at the moment. We have sold the farm; we will be insolvent in two year’s time. We cannot do anything’, no, the government says: ‘No. We have to rope in the Commonwealth to do the review’. What happens when the Commonwealth says: ‘You are hopeless. Forget your plans for statehood. Forget your plans for self-government. Things would be far better if we just stepped in and ran the place ourselves. You are bankrupt, the cost of housing is through the roof, crime is everywhere, and public drunkenness is everywhere. You people are hopeless’. I can imagine the Commonwealth saying something like that. You would have to say it would be near right.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for introducing this motion. I am honoured to talk about what is happening out there because, clearly, there are people in this House who are not remotely interested in what is happening in some of the town camps, or the conditions people are forced to live in. It is about time these issues were discussed. If the member for Nelson wants to bring similar motions, I will be glad to talk on them as well.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, my offering to this debate will be very short. ‘Epiphany’ is a wonderful word. An epiphany is a sudden realisation of a profound truth that has been around for a long time. The member for Fong Lim, formerly the member for Solomon, never raised these issues, with the exception of Bagot, when he was member for Solomon and has suddenly had a great realisation. The problems at One Mile Dam, Knuckey Lagoon and beyond …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The minister is misleading the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not given you the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not given you the call, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister is clearly misleading the House. He only has to check on the federal Hansard and the Territory Hansard. Check out any of the media. See what I have said about One Mile Dam in the past. See what I have said about 15 Mile, Knuckey Lagoon, the camps in Alice Springs, and anywhere else across the Territory. If you stand here and shoot your mouth off saying I have had an epiphany, you are sadly mistaken.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat please It is not a point of order, but should you wish to make a personal explanation, you can approach the Speaker at a later time.
Dr BURNS: The member for Fong Lim, during the 2007 election campaign, appeared at Bagot with the then minister Mal Brough, with an apparition of the good Lord behind him - a couple of saviours had come in. What I saw there was, essentially, a land grab for Bagot – a naked land grab. It was a way of working through an issue that was too hard for them to work through for a long, long time. The problems at Knuckey Lagoon, Bagot and One Mile Dam have been around for a long time. They are, to some degree, very complex issues regarding the land tenure. The member for Nelson recognised that, and here we have a way through, a proposal, an amendment to the motion of the member for Nelson. Of course, it needs the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has the resources. We are talking about large amounts of money.
I have been to Bagot, I have been to Knuckey Lagoon, and I have certainly been to One Mile Dam. The amount of infrastructure works required there, a whole range of things - the land tenure issue - some of those rest with the Commonwealth, and there is strong Commonwealth interest regarding the funding that flows through some of the organisations. The Commonwealth has to be involved and it is ludicrous for the member for Fong Lim to suggest otherwise.
I support this motion and the amendments put forward. We are getting close to an election, and we can see the member for Fong Lim trying to shore up his vote in a couple of places. However, he will be found wanting because the whisper is people are very sceptical about the plans the member for Fong Lim has for Bagot. They are formulating their plans for development their way forward, and they are very good plans which deserve support.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I said I would be brief. I support this motion, and certainly support the amendment to the motion.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion on, which I will be supporting. It is a very good idea you have brought forward. It is a constructive approach to advancement without having a deconstructive attitude to dealing with issues of land tenure and home ownership. You have raised important issues. I have always been a supporter of home ownership, having worked in public, private, and Indigenous housing for several years.
These things do not move quickly and I would like to see progression in many other areas of the Northern Territory. How that prevails in the time frames and what that looks like will be different in all locations but, in some ways, there always has to be a light on the hill, or a pilot, or someone to set an example of how to make that happen and these approaches are positive. What is required in many areas where advancement is required, whether it is Aboriginal affairs or elsewhere, is competition and competitive models. They are a positive way forward, and if something can work in this area, other people learn from that and may want to take on those measures as well.
That is why I support the approach of regional councils and regional development. If we can get regions up and working we present a competitive model where other regions and people within want to take on that one-upmanship - that willingness to achieve more for their people and region, which is another model. That is one of the reasons we support a regional council approach rather than the super shires. I am not saying all shires do the wrong thing; many shires are not supported by the people on the ground, and many of the shires are not supporting their communities as much as they should be.
So much more could have been included in this debate tonight. Areas such as CDEP could have been well-considered in the motion. The mix up of all the things Labor is doing federally in the first and second intervention is causing great harm across the Northern Territory. CDEP is one of those areas.
I have always supported full employment away from Newstart. Everyone knows my mantra about no more sit down money, people not sitting on the dole for the rest of their life with remote area exemptions and trying to drive people into employment. In 2007, that was one of the things Mal Brough, who has been spoken about in this House several times tonight, was driving. He wanted to see people transition from CDEP and into full employment, but that has not occurred. The employment was never generated and those job opportunities have never been created.
It is very hard to find job opportunities anywhere in the Northern Territory outside the urban centres and, where you do, you still have this prism of welfare where government is reluctant to apply mutual obligation requirements on people and get them out to work. The government is talking about new employment services model in the bush, and rationalising from four, or three or two, or whatever service providers down to one. That model will be a good thing. If the federal government properly funds service providers to have an office in specific locations, it will be a good thing.
I know from my experience, both working for a provider and previously in government, the biggest problem on both sides of the fence was no providers ever had the money or resources to set up an office and deliver those services - they were always fly-in fly-out.
The payment structure model I was critical of when I was in government, and have been critical of since being an employer and out of that role, is the model where people are paid based on signing someone up to the books, or getting a payment outcome at three months or six months. That is a negative approach, particularly when there is a lack of private sector employment.
On the CDEP side of things, the structure at the moment is CDEP employees - the ones not grandfathered on wages - the ones in more recent times and any new person who comes on is put on Newstart and has their income facilitated through Centrelink and then income-quarantined. This is completely negative and provides a disincentive to people to participate in CDEP. CDEP is a transitionary model; it always has been. It has not always worked as effectively as it could in some locations in the Northern Territory, but in a number of locations it has worked outstandingly. The changes to it are having a detrimental effect on people’s welfare and livelihoods, and also the development of their communities.
The member for Arafura is a big supporter of BAC, Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation. They have a very vibrant community and CDEP, in part, has been a backbone to driving development in that community. It is a positive model we should support. Now, if someone signs up for CDEP and misses a day, they have their pay docked and their income quarantined. It is proving to be a real disincentive for people to want to be on CDEP. It is much easier to stay on welfare – on Newstart. Yes, you are quarantined, but you do not have to go to work, and if you miss a day - not that we want people to miss a day - you do not have your payment docked. You receive the welfare and this cycle of poverty and misery continues. Employment service providers are trying to do the right thing and get people into work. They sign someone up, go home because they have done their job, but they cannot manipulate the system to get people into work, they cannot motivate people, they cannot get Canberra - through Centrelink, where decisions are made about participation reporting and the mutual obligation concept - they cannot make decisions for that person to have their welfare stopped.
It is like the SEAM trial - welfare and quarantining for kids who do not go to school. I might be corrected on the number, but I believe around 13 parents in the Northern Territory have had their payments challenged because their kids have not attended school. This has been going since 2007, and in five years you would think there would be more than 13, especially when you see the attendance numbers of Indigenous kids in the Northern Territory at 22% for middle years - the member for Brennan might correct me on that. I believe it is 22% school attendance for Nguiu Indigenous students, which includes the town kids in Darwin, Alice Springs Katherine and Tennant, but when you go out bush it is much worse. I will touch on those issues during the estimates process.
I call on the federal government to remove welfare quarantining from CDEP participants, remove people from Newstart, get people back on wages, make CDEP a transitionary program where it is an incentive to work, and stop people sitting down on Newstart and having their welfare quarantined. This is, fundamentally, stopping people participating in their community, participating in work, participating in development, and is driving people to be on welfare for life.
We are seeing people moving out of their communities, away from their outstations, out of their towns into the big urban centres. People are being dislocated and CDEP is part of that. CDEP disincentives - Newstart and quarantining – are encouraging the move to urbanisation where people are free to come and go as they please. I do not have a problem with that; however, we have mass populations supported by the shire model and the dislocation the shires create by moving people into town. We are seeing people on the fringes, living rough, participating in the cycle of welfare, poverty and misery, alcohol consumption and engagement with the justice system. The crime on our streets is largely because of Labor’s failure to develop in the bush and support people in the bush. That is why I have been working very hard with Terry Mills, Leader of the Opposition, and the Country Liberal Party, to drive forward an assistance package for homelands.
The government turned its back on homelands. It stopped supporting homelands, removed its policy on homelands and stopped funding homelands. Where the Territory government has said it would put $10m in over 10 years - $1m a year - the Country Liberals will put in $12.5m every year over the first term of our government to provide assistance to people who want to live on homelands. We will put money into repairs, maintenance and upgrade of houses. Organisations that manage and facilitate the administration of those funds will be required to do a number of things, including develop an asset management plan, and are free to set aside any funds out of that for upgrade, redevelopment or renewal of housing stock or replacement of stock.
That will be their choice, but we are committing $5200 for every homeland house with the criteria of the asset management plan - kids have to go to school, and we want people participating in their economy through CDEP, employment, or training. That is our commitment to assist people who want to live on their country. We recognise, myself particularly, that strong cultural connection to land, language, law and culture is important. It is important we acknowledge and facilitate that.
This comes up in this debate because town camps in Darwin, like town camps right across the Territory, are feeling the pressure of urban drift; urbanisation of people who have been forgotten or overlooked in the bush. Many people say: ‘We give people money all the time’. We have to develop, and we have to put in the fundamentals to get development happening. However, by removing the earth from underneath people’s feet, you are forcing them into town through will or otherwise.
If the shires were working I would not be condoning them. I am reflecting the views of the people on the ground. People hate the shires. I do not want to put a knife in the shires, but I want to reflect the views of constituents who say they have taken away people’s voices, taken away their assets, taken away their buses, their tractors to work on the roads, and they have taken away their jobs.
People are unhappy about these things. If the shires cannot facilitate educating people about a new way of doing business through local government and shire reform, or if they cannot facilitate improving the service delivery – this is why we say things may have to change. We have not said every shire will go. We will offer regional councils where an interest is expressed. We will not be going back to the old model; we will be looking towards a new model of regional governance. We are not going to be specific. We are not going to say: ‘This is it, my way or the highway’. This will not be happening. We will be working with people.
When you talk about housing, it is very hard not to talk about SIHIP. I was interested in many of the comments raised by the member for Nelson in his tabling of the CTC final report yesterday. One of the things he spoke about was the Indigenous employment level. I am paraphrasing, member for Nelson, as I do not have the Hansard, and correct me if I am wrong, but the member for Nelson said the government is claiming employment targets, but, in fact, it is right down the bottom. It is not what the government is saying. We have known that for a long time.
Talk to Tangentyere, which looks after the town camps in Alice Springs, and they will tell you 49 trainees started and four or five finished, but they still claim to have a 30% employment target outcome. That is not the case at all. We know that, but we have saturated the media with SIHIP and its maladministration and non-performance. People know it is a dead program. They know the pink batts program was a dead program. It has not delivered on its outcome. Tragically, under the pink batt program, people lost their lives. Fortunately, that has not happened under SIHIP. However, in an administrative sense, the program should have been delivered much better than it was.
We talk about the urban drift model, the impact of shire reforms, the impact of not having a homelands policy and not supporting homelands, the lack of economic development, the quarantining role, and the stores. All these things have occurred. People would be interested to know there has not been a new house built in the Barkly electorate for 11 years - not one. The population has increased, but not one house has been built. SIHIP spent $36.5m in Tennant Creek and there is not one extra house in the Barkly region.
Look at the housing outcomes in Budget Paper No 3. The minister for Housing likes to suggest the CLP did this with housing, the CLP did that. I have looked through public housing dwellings on page 117 of Budget Paper No 3. Public housing dwellings have gone from 5161 to 5080. They seem to have lost 81 houses over the last 12 months. Managed accommodation beds provided has gone from 728 to 674. New households assisted in urban public housing have gone from 586 to 485. You start to wonder where all the houses have gone. If you go to page 118, Remote Public Housing, Key Deliverables, remote public housing dwellings have gone from 6924 to 4906. We seem to have lost 2018 houses. Footnote 1 says: ‘Amended measure. Estimates have been revised ...’. You have lost 2018 houses in the bush. How do you revise 2018 houses? Were you lying in the last budget? I am not sure. That will be a very interesting question at estimates time.
SIHIP has built 750 houses. We have just lost 2018 in that one line, and we know there have been a number of new houses built, particularly in Alice Springs town camps. They did not build any in Tennant or any other town camps. In Alice they built 85. They are all being repaired at the moment because they did not build them properly. The town camp community living area housing dwelling numbers have gone from 621 down to 447. We seem to have lost 180 houses. How do we lose 180 houses on town camps? I do not understand how that can happen.
The planning exercise the member for Nelson has put forward is really important so we can start to work out these issues. We can start working out future expansion plans if people keep moving into town because there will be increased pressure. These will be: the future land tenure structure in leasing arrangements; private ownership; communal ownership and how that works; how you get banks involved if it is a leasing arrangement or fixed land tenure; IBA involvement; what the local governance structures of those organisations will be; does the same model continue? The member for Nelson might have a different idea on how that may work into the future.
I is not just restricted to Darwin. This issue is across the Northern Territory. You only have to look at the electorate of Nhulunbuy and the town area of Yirrkala. Yirrkala was completely excluded from SIHIP. The biggest issue for people at Yirrkala is they were not included in SIHIP; they do not have a new housing development. The government is reluctant to change land tenure structure to bring in place private sector funding to build houses. It wants to keep it on the welfare base model. That is its choice, but it has to assist through SIHIP.
This was an emergency in 2007. Mal Brough started it as an emergency, and put billions of dollars into housing as part of the intervention to try to accommodate children. There are so many places in the Northern Territory which have not been supported.
Under SIHIP, housing work at Yuendumu and Hermannsburg has not even commenced. Yirrkala was not in the mix, and Yirrkala is an important part of the landscape of the Northern Territory. Many areas of the Northern Territory have not been touched and children are at risk. The member for Araluen, the shadow minister for Children and Families, is very concerned about this. This was an emergency and we had to provide extra bedrooms so kids could get a good night sleep to go to school. This has not happened under this government’s watch. I am not going to go into the ins and outs of SIHIP, but I reiterate the Country Liberals are committed to acknowledging the cultural connection to land.
We will be supporting homelands. We have provided that commitment. Labor is committing $1m per year. It is not a money competition, but the Country Liberals are committing $12.5m per year to support people to live on their land and their country. It is important - we will do that. That is our commitment every year in our term of government. We will be supporting people to stay there.
We are calling on the federal government to change the rules around CDEP - to remove Newstart from CDEP income and remove quarantining from CDEP. We want people to have an incentive-based program to get off welfare, enter a transition program with CDEP, and get into work. That follows a similar model of advocacy the combined Aboriginal organisations are promoting with the land councils - AMSANT and NAAJA. These are positive steps to get people working and out of the poverty and misery cycle. These elements need to be included in this motion.
Thank you very much, member for Nelson. I am not going to talk specifically about the Darwin town camps, but it is an important area to discuss. A cohesive approach with the organisations rather than an attack-based approach to try to change things is the way forward in these areas because we have to work together.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all speakers for contributing to the debate. For clarification - and I am probably talking from a CTC point of view - the reason only two houses were built in Tennant Creek was a decision of Julalikari Council. The CTC queried that, but it was their decision and the reason why there are only two new houses.
The member for Braitling spoke about CDEP. I raised that in my debate as well. He might be interested to know I have always been opposed to welfare. However, while you have councils and resource centres, they should be the centres of employment. They already exist, they are local, they know the people and, to be honest, I am sick and tired of the Commonwealth government bringing people from outside to create jobs that, in many cases, do not exist. If you attach that to the responsibilities of a shire, or a resource centre, at least people will get work when they turn up for it. There are plenty of opportunities for work in these communities, especially council work, and those types of things. I thank you for your contribution on that area, which is worthy of debate at another time.
The minister has changed the original motion. I do not have a problem with that because the amendment included Bagot and other communities I did not. I am happy for that to be part of this. I will ask about the Commonwealth role when it comes to town camps because I did not include it in my initial motion. It would be good to know the role, besides sticking a sign up saying ‘no grog, no pornography’. The land belongs to the Aboriginal Development Foundation so why was the Commonwealth allowed to intervene. It was not Aboriginal land. It never has been Aboriginal land, except before white people arrived. It is leasehold, so how did the intervention occur on those parcels of land?
I was at One Mile Dam today. There is a great big sign there. There are two big signs at Knuckey, and there are two signs at 15 Mile. It came to my notice when the member for Fong Lim was talking – why does the Commonwealth have the right to put signs on those blocks of land? Maybe someone in the government could answer that for me at another time. I would be interested to know the reason.
This whole debate is coming down to deciding the future of these places. What are they for? We need to decide whether we continue with them, we expand them, or pull them down and forget about them altogether? Once we have decided what they are there for, we then move in a positive direction to make them operate as a community where people, and families, can grow in a safe way. At present, these communities do not fit that description.
First, someone has to take a leadership role. The Territory government, not the Commonwealth, should be doing that. It should be working out the future of these communities. When that has been decided, plan which will to make it happen. If that means private ownership of the land, so be it. If that means an affordable housing complex, so be it. If that means acquiring the land from the people who own it now, so be it. We have to go A, B, C, D, and not waffle too much. There needs to be some certainty in these communities.
The member for Braitling raised urban drift. That is what these communities have always been about. Many times, it was not so much about employment; it was about being able to get grog. That is why people came. They got grog at Casey’s store. If they were at the 15 Mile they went to the Howard Springs Tavern, or they could go to One Mile Camp.
Their main reason for existence was so people - they had a place to sleep, they were safe - had access to alcohol. Some of the boys I had in the dormitory many years ago used to stay at Knuckey Lagoon. I remember one good fellow was killed - hit by a car trying to cross the road. Look at the number of people who were killed at 15 Mile community. The government spent a fortune putting all those lights along the highway. Why? I am unsure how many people were killed or injured, but there were quite a few. Why did they site the community on that side of the highway? They put it …
Mr Elferink: When are these people going to be responsible?
Mr WOOD: I know that, but they were not responsible for the siting of the land, and the highway was shifted.
Mr Elferink: Yes, but the government put land on the other side of the highway.
Mr WOOD: Whist I accept responsibility should be taken, who is responsible? These communities do not have any leadership. People drift in and drift out. People come in for a bludge and then move out. People come in and cause fights and move out. At 15 Mile community, you have periods where a group of young people come in, park themselves on someone’s front veranda, cause trouble and leave. These communities have a core group of people who are permanent, but they also have people drifting in and out.
The member for Braitling is partly right in that one of the problems we have is a welfare society which is not encouraging people to take up work. That is the area we really have to work on. There is employment, especially through shires. Shires in Queensland used to be where people would go to get a job on the roads, to get a job somewhere. That is one of the roles shires should have because they are local. They are not that local, to be honest with you. They are big. When they were smaller they were more local. That is a role they should have.
Coming back to the issue we are debating today, if people went into these communities they would be scared. I go into those communities. Sometimes the dogs worry me, and I have learnt how to handle dogs. Usually the people say to me: ‘Don’t go near that house No 3, there’s a cheeky dog’. Sometimes it is the drunks. Most times I am quite happy to go into the communities.
Although we have been talking about the future of these places, I do not want it said there are not good people there. There are some good people, such as the ladies I met the other day at Knuckey Lagoon when I was delivering the newsletter. They are fine people who would like their community to be safe but do not have control over that community. There are people drifting into the community who are causing problems and no one is controlling that. What kind of community is this? It is very difficult for those people to have peaceful lives and raise their children.
The next motion will be about child welfare. That is part of the reason I say something has to change because those kids have very little chance of succeeding in life unless things turn around in these communities.
I say to the government, it is not just about the adults; it is about the families and the children. That is why we have to make these places much better than they are. If it means we have affordable housing projects like Yilli Rreung, where tenancy agreements can be put in place and people who are a nuisance or are destroying houses can be removed, so be it. At the moment, there is very little control over those communities and I worry about the future of the young children in them. Some of the adults do not set a good example for them.
I am pleased the minister has agreed to the review. I will have to wait until after the election before I find out if there is a review. At the earliest opportunity, I will be asking whichever government is in power to start this review quickly and make decisions as soon as possible. I do not want it to go on forever. The time for change is now.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Appointment of Children’s Commissioner to Monitor Implementation of
Semi-Urgent Recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report
Appointment of Children’s Commissioner to Monitor Implementation of
Semi-Urgent Recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move – That the Minister for Child Protection be called upon to appoint the Children’s Commissioner to monitor the implementation of the semi-urgent and important, but not urgent recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report.
This motion has reached to the top of the pile on the GBD agenda in a very timely fashion. It has only been in the last 24 hours that I have managed to extract a copy of the latest Child Protection Reform Progress Report Volume 2 released by the Northern Territory government.
For some background to what has been happening in child protection, in October 2010 the Growing them strong, together report, the board of inquiry report into child protection, was released, which included 147 recommendations. These recommendations were broken up into three categories. Thirty four of the urgent recommendations were to commence implementation by 18 April 2011. The semi-urgent recommendations were to commence implementation by 18 April 2012. The not-urgent recommendations of the report are to commence two to three years after the report is released, which is October 2012 to 2013. Here we have the latest report from the government, the latest report card on how it is travelling in the implementation of the 108 semi-urgent recommendations of the Board of Inquiry Report into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory.
It is very interesting to read through this document - it is 39 pages. Volume 1 was 41 pages; they are quite substantial documents. For the most part, the government has successfully dotted every ‘i’ and crossed every ‘t’. It has covered off on every aspect of the 108 semi-urgent recommendations it needed to report on. Some questions need to be raised, and I am sure I will do that in length at some other opportunity.
However, the issue is not about how the government is travelling in each and every one of these recommendations; it is about the principle of accountability, and of having an external and independent mechanism in place to truly monitor and assess how this government is going. How do we know these facts and figures within this report are true? How do we know it is an accurate reflection of how the government is travelling? The answer is we do not.
The government has set up a system whereby it expects us to take its word on how it thinks it is progressing in reform. Given the track record of this government over the last 10 years, we cannot trust it to do this. It is unreasonable to expect the people of the Northern Territory to expect this government to portray itself in a fashion which truly reflects its performance. The reason is there has been report upon report, independent inquiry after independent inquiry outlining the dismal track record of this government in child protection for over a decade. For over 10 years, we have documented proof of how this government has failed in its business of carrying out child protection in the Northern Territory.
Therefore, when we look at this report, we cannot fully accept what it contains, because it really is the government’s appraisal of itself, which will always be positive. That will always be a gold-star performance because that is what the government needs to tell people. It needs to tell people how well it is going, how successfully it is reforming the child protection system. It needs to give its members a pat on the back and convince the people of the Territory it has suddenly been able to miraculously reform the system it mismanaged for so many years. If it does not, it is in serious trouble at the next election. We all know that. It is in serious trouble, anyway, after the last 48 hours in this parliament, where it presented the most appalling budget of all times - the black hole of Delia Lawrie. I do not want to digress; I will present what I have to say in a fairly succinct fashion.
The government has been very cunning when it comes to child protection. In October 2010, the Chief Minister, red faced and blustering as usual, said: ‘We accept all of the 147 recommendations of this report without reservation. We will implement each and every one of those recommendations’. Why? He was ashamed and embarrassed by the latest report outlining this government’s failure in child protection, so he undertook to implement each and every one of those 147 recommendations without dispute, without any debate over how relevant or irrelevant, or how practical or impractical, each and every one might be.
Very quickly, we saw a major backflip. We remember that because it came so quickly after the Chief Minister basically lied, or misled parliament. The recommendation that was …
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Mrs LAMBLEY: I withdraw. I withdraw.
Mr Knight: What do you withdraw?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Implying the Chief Minister lied.
Mr Knight: You did not tell the truth.
Mrs LAMBLEY: He did not carry out the undertaking he gave the people of the Northern Territory. He did not necessarily lie, but he changed his mind.
Very quickly, we heard recommendation 136 was not going to be implemented; that the aspect of that which pertained to the Children’s Commissioner was going to be ignored. They were not going to place the Children’s Commissioner in the role of monitoring the implementation of Northern Territory government decisions arising from any inquiry in relation to the child protection system or the wellbeing of children under the Inquiries Act. The government decided not to give the external monitoring role to the Children’s Commissioner, contrary to its undertaking to employ or implement each and every one of those recommendations. There was a major backflip, and we have spoken about that many, many times in parliament.
In its place, the government decided, in its wisdom as a failure in child protection, to set up the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. This committee is made up of very distinguished people who have given a significant part of their life to the child protection industry. There are some people on the committee I have the utmost respect for. This committee took a long time to come together, well into 12 months after the release of the report. The government struggled, stalled, and finally put together the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. I have argued many times in parliament that this committee is far from independent. It has no function at all, at present, as an independent monitor of how the government is performing. The government told this committee some time ago that in order to do its job it needed a framework to assess the government. It was decided the government would put together the framework by which the committee would assess government, which would take at least 12 months. Strangely enough, the completion date for this assessment framework is after the election.
You have a committee that is not assessing, or monitoring, the performance of the government because it does not have an assessment tool. That tool will not be available until after the election in August this year. The government has set up a system where no one is monitoring its performance. There is no independent or external monitoring system in place. No one is assigned to sincerely and genuinely oversee this process because the government has set it up so no one can do it.
The government needs to be exposed. People of the Northern Territory need to fully understand this government has escaped scrutiny for some time - impartial, independent scrutiny since the release of the Growing them strong, together report just over 18 months ago.
No one has been assigned to truly take on this responsibility. The Children’s Commissioner was thrust aside. The government did not want him to do it because, at the time, it said there was some type of conflict; that he was too close to the game because he was Chair of the board of inquiry. The government felt he was, perhaps, too knowledgeable about how inadequate and how inept the government was in child protection and the provision of child protection services. The government blatantly removed him from the whole equation of being an independent monitor. It then set up the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, an absolute toothless tiger, with no mechanism in place until after the election to scrutinise and monitor what the government is up to.
The Ombudsman, the thorn in the side of the government when it comes to child protection, was thrust aside also. She was brilliant in her summation. She was very scientific in her approach. She systematically went through cases, pulled them apart, and examined exactly what the child protection services were doing in cases around Central Intake, case management plans and time frames. She did a wonderful job in her last report into child protection, A Lifelong Shadow. This was the report of a partial investigation of the child protection authority of the Northern Territory. What did the government do? It did not accept most of her recommendations. It accepted 40% of the Ombudsman’s recommendations because she was too good, was she not? She was too good at pulling the eyes, ears and teeth out of the problems in the system. This government cannot handle any more criticism when it comes to child protection because it is extremely embarrassing. It is extremely humiliating to be put through yet another rigorous report, a rigorous assessment into how it is travelling with the child protection service.
What do we have left? Who is putting the spotlight on child protection services? Who is truly watching and assessing what is going on? I am doing my best, but I only have what the public has. I only have what can be found or extracted from the government when it comes to self-reporting. I only have Volume 1 and Volume 2 of the Child Protection Reform Progress Reports. I only have the monthly progress reports the minister sends out. I only have the government’s word on how it is progressing.
This is not a democratic and fair process. It is not transparent. It is not good governance when you remove every mechanism open to scrutinise, fairly and independently, child protection in the Northern Territory. This is not fair. It is not fair for the children and the families of the Northern Territory, and this government should be deeply ashamed of the fact it has deliberately set this system up. The government has deliberately removed any hope of fair scrutiny of how it is travelling.
When I look at these reports, when I read through every word - which I have attempted to do today - when I look at how the government describes its interventions, its intention to review, to reform, to monitor, to implement - all the words are there. I have read ‘review’ in this report perhaps 20 times and I wonder: ‘Haven’t there been enough reviews? Should it not be about improving things and getting things right rather than continuing this process of review?’
I look at it and wonder what the truth is? What is the truth behind what we read? What is the truth behind what is happening within the child protection system in the Northern Territory? The only truthful information coming to me as shadow minister for Child Protection in the Northern Territory comes from people who have the courage and conviction to ring me, to talk to me, to tell their story about what is really happening behind the scenes. I receive calls from people you would not believe. That is nothing, necessarily, to be proud of. I do not say this as a good thing; it is a necessary thing. These people need an outlet and need to be heard. These people need to tell their stories of what is going on behind the scenes. They know what we are reading and hearing from the government is not impartial, it is not independent, and is not necessarily the truth.
It is with great passion and conviction I put to this parliament the Minister for Child Protection be called to appoint the Children’s Commissioner, one of the true captains of this industry in the Northern Territory, to monitor what is going on. I say that because the Children’s Commissioner put out a splendid report in 2010-11. It is probably one of the best reports I have read since becoming a member of parliament 18 months ago. The office of Children’s Commissioner was set up in 2008 and, since then, the Children’s Commissioner has been monitoring the recommendations of the Little Children are Sacred report, and does it brilliantly. How the Office of the Children’s Commissioner undertake this very important social duty of monitoring the implementation of this report is to be highly commended. They preface their role as monitors of this report by saying:
- ... it is important to be clear that the Commissioner does not have a mandate to monitor progress towards LCSR recommendations. Instead, the Commissioner monitors the government’s progress towards the commitments it made as a result of LCSR ...
They are very clear on their parameters. They do this in a very fair and systematic way. They go through each recommendation they are reviewing. Each year they have staggered the way they undertake the review. They have increased the number of recommendations reviewed over each successive year. There are 97 recommendations in the Little Children are Sacred report, and this coming year will be the last year they review and monitor how those recommendations are implemented. They have done it in a very practical, clear and concise way. If you take the time to read this report - and I call upon all members of the House to look at how well the Children’s Commissioner does this - you can see they outline the recommendation. They then outline the Northern Territory government response to that recommendation, and give a succinct summary of how they see the Northern Territory government is progressing with the implementation of the recommendation.
Finally, they give an outcome. That might be substantially achieved, partially achieved, or fully achieved. Once again, they give an explanation. It is very well written. This group of people headed up by the Children’s Commissioner know their business. They know how to go about the business of fairly scrutinising these things.
The Children’s Commissioner is more than equipped to take on the role of monitoring how this government is implementing the semi-urgent recommendations, the urgent, and the important-but-not-urgent recommendations of the board of inquiry report. His office is equipped, experienced, and can do it. I am showing you this book which contains absolute proof they can do it. There is no doubt in my mind the Children’s Commissioner should have this role.
The only reason this government could debate against my motion is fear of being exposed ...
A member: The culture of cover-up.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The culture of cover-up is rife. The only thing the Minister for Child Protection will show by the government not supporting this motion is fear he will be exposed, once again, and that there will be more scrutiny. There will be more trouble coming his way because what is contained in this report may not be as accurately presented as it should be.
The Country Liberals undertake to put in a far more transparent system when it comes to child protection, for several reasons. The main one is we do not have anything to hide when it comes to child protection. This government has been at the helm for 11 years now, and has made a complete and utter mess - regardless of what the minister will tell you in a few minutes about what happened in 2000, 1995, 1987 or 20 years ago, because that is all he has to hang on.
The truth is, we do not have anything to hide. If we gain government in August, we will come with a clean slate. We will expose the truth of what is going on, because we have to assess the mess, the damage, that is really there - not what the government tells us is there, not what the spin doctors and the people on the 5th floor want us to believe. We will have to see what the damage is and assess it. We will not be employing a culture of cover-up. That is not only damaging to the people within the bureaucracy, the child protection industry, and the Department of Children and Families, it is, first and foremost, damaging the lives of children and families we are here to serve and protect as they are notified to this department.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with the utmost conviction that I put this motion to parliament tonight for debate. It is a matter of urgency that the Children’s Commissioner be brought back into the realm. I challenge the Minister for Child Protection to be courageous, honest, and up-front, and demonstrate his true commitment to child protection in the Northern Territory. Bring the Children’s Commissioner back into the fold. Let him honestly scrutinise these words in these reports. Let him honestly tell the people of the Northern Territory what is going on, so we all know what we are working with and we can all restore some hope and confidence to the child protection system.
Mr VATSKALIS (Children and Families): Madam Deputy Speaker, no, the member is wrong. I am not going to go back to 1987, 1995, or even 2001. On many occasions I have mentioned what happened in 2001, and I am not the only one to say it. In front of me I have a report by the agency titled State of Denial: The Neglect and Abuse of Indigenous Children in the Northern Territory. I will table the report. If you want to find out what happened then you can. I am going back to more recent times, less than a year ago, when members opposite rubbished the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee, alleging the government ‘wined and dined them’, and that is why it gave a glowing report to the government.
The member for Araluen repeats the same thing, not in the same words, but that somehow the committee is a toothless tiger, the committee is not assessing anything, the committee is a cover-up for the government. This is an affront to Dr Vimpani; an affront to Frank Hytten, CEO of the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care; to Terry Murphy, Director General of the Department for Child Protection, Western Australia; to Teresa Neihus, President, Foster Care NT; to Jacqui Reed, Chief Executive Officer of CREATE Foundation; to Dr Sven Silburn, Director, Centre for Child Development and Education, Menzies School of Health; Danny Munkara and Joyce Taylor.
To accuse these people, who are not paid - they form the committee and have done so much work – that this committee is not allowed, or does not examine what government is doing and gave a fake report, is embarrassing. It is embarrassing for the member. She has no conviction and all she does is chase headlines. She has been caught out before with allegations in this parliament about child prostitution in Alice Springs. When challenged to provide evidence, she was nowhere to be found. On 1 May, the member opposite issued a media release calling on the minister to produce Volume 2 of the Child Protection Reform Progress Report because the government had not produced it.
Unbeknown to her, because she did not do her job properly, that report was on the department’s website on 19 April. It was produced, and was placed on the website immediately. Volume 2 is here, member for Araluen. If you had done your job properly, you would have been able to see it, read it, copy it and have it with you. I do not believe you have the conviction. As a matter of fact, I do not believe you really care about child protection. If you really care about child protection, you and your party would not issue a three-page policy on child protection. The only thing you talk about is an extra $9m, nothing much. It is waffle with nothing much about children.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government set up the board of inquiry and committed to implementing all the recommendations of the board of inquiry. No, we have not gone back on any of those recommendations. We will not go back because we are serious about child protection in the Territory. We have put in the effort, and we will put money where our mouth is.
There is a $177m investment in child protection in the Northern Territory. What does your party have to show for it? Nothing! There was $7m in 2001, and that was about it! There were fewer than a 100 people in child protection; we have nearly 500 people in child protection. We are prepared to strengthen the child protection system in the Northern Territory even further, not only by employing people from Australia and overseas if necessary, but training our own people to work in child protection - Indigenous people. We have various positions in child protection where Indigenous people are actively encouraged to study to become child protection workers. We are going to provide child protection in the communities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there were 147 recommendations divided into urgent - to be commenced immediately to less than six months - 34; 108 recommendations were semi-urgent and to be commence within 18 months; and five were important, but not urgent, and had to be commenced within two to three years.
On 14 April 2011, I released the government’s first report on the progress of implementing the urgent recommendations of the Board of Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory. There were 34 recommendations the board of inquiry considered should commence within six months, and we commenced on all urgent recommendations within this time frame. The second progress report on all 147 recommendations has now been released. It was on the web on 19 April and, yesterday, 1 May, you issued a media release saying: ‘Where is it?’ Here is your media release; it has your name on it. I quote from your media release:
- Shadow Minister for Child Protection, Robyn Lambley, has called on the Henderson Labor government to release the latest progress report into child protection.
The report was released on 19 April and, if you had taken the time and effort to read the web page, you would have found it. You have no commitment to child protection. You neither took the time nor made the effort to find out what was happening in the child protection area. That much commitment from the member opposite - she loves the headlines, she does not like the truth.
I have received a further report on the progress of the board of inquiry implementation from the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. The report commends the extensive effort of the Northern Territory government to progress the reforms, and acknowledges the hard work of the Department of Children and Families. The Assembly is well aware the committee comprises prominent and highly-regarded experts in the field of child safety, wellbeing and protection and mentions their names. They are not paid. They make the effort because they believe in child protection. I do not believe any member of the committee would give the government a good report card if it did not do the work as promised and required to protect children in the Northern Territory.
The committee met four times in 2011, and has already met this year in Tennant Creek, with some members meeting with departmental staff, and residents and stakeholders in Kalkarindji and Ti Tree. It has heard extensively from government and non-government stakeholders, service providers, peak bodies and, importantly, departmental staff, on how the reform process is progressing. This includes what is working, what is not working, where additional focus and resources are required, and so on.
I am advised the member for Araluen finally took the time to meet with the committee in December 2011. Well done, I am glad you did. I know you are busy, but I am glad you met with the committee. I hope the committee spoke to you and you understand the committee is independent of government. It has nothing to do with me; I do not direct it and will not direct it. If I ever tried to direct it, I doubt the members would take it kindly. This committee does not belong to the government. It is not a government subcommittee, it is an independent committee - a truly independent committee.
I do not think Terry Murphy, Director General of the Department for Child Protection in Western Australia, would take it kindly if a minister of the Territory government told him how to write a report. He would be rather upset, and most likely would walk. The fact we have someone who works for the Liberal government in Western Australia to be part of an external committee of the Territory shows how independent the committee is. It also shows how this government is determined to make inroads into child protection, appointing people like him from a Liberal government. It shows this government truly believes in child protection and is prepared to take tough action if necessary.
Recently, a woman was charged with neglect of a child. I made it clear to my department I would not tolerate any other incident like that and wanted the book thrown at her. The police investigated and took it to task.
I reject any suggestion from the member opposite the committee is not independent. It is independent. It has the power to investigate if the government is doing the right thing or not. The fact it has twice said the department is doing the right thing is a tick for the department. We are on the right track.
In late 2011, an invitation was extended to the Children’s Commissioner, allowing him to attend meetings with the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee as an observer when items are of interest or relevance to his position. The commissioner accepted this invitation and attended the first day of the committee’s recent Tennant Creek meeting. This involvement will not only assist the commissioner in fulfilling his statutory obligation, but further enhance the transparency and accountability of this reform agenda. The commissioner took part in a meeting of the independent committee in Tennant Creek. By asserting the committee, somehow, is not independent and did not do its job properly means the commissioner was part of this conspiracy and has not done his job properly. That is a very interesting idea, member opposite.
The government has rejected past suggestions from the opposition that the Children’s Commissioner should have, as a formal and additional function, monitoring responsibility in relation to implementation of the board of inquiry recommendations. I have said previously, there is a clear potential for conflict of interest to arise with a statutory officer like the commissioner being appointed to the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. I am certain I said the same when you were calling for the Ombudsman to be appointed to a similar position. It is not appropriate for the commissioner’s statutory function and independence to be impeded or compromised through such an appointment.
Further, legislative amendment came into effect on 1 July 2011 corresponding to board of inquiry recommendation 136, incorporating a new function for the commissioner to deal with issues relating to government implementation of the board’s recommendation insofar as the submission relates to the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable children. So, no backtracking on that recommendation, member for Araluen.
It is consistent with the objects of the Care and Protection of Children Act that the Children’s Commission is established to ensure the wellbeing of vulnerable children. The commissioner has broad powers to assess, analyse, and provide advice and recommendations to me on matters related to government implementation of the board of inquiry recommendations. This broad power is only to be exercised insofar as it relates to the wellbeing of vulnerable children. This not only maintains the jurisdiction and responsibilities of existing statutory office holders and authorities in relation to the board of inquiry recommendations, it also ensures the Children’s Commissioner can focus on his or her most critical role of ensuring the wellbeing of vulnerable children. The act is clear that any submissions received by the commissioner which relate to implementation of the board of inquiry recommendations are to be referred to the minister. The minister then provides them to the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee so all members are kept informed of issues or concerns being raised by the commissioner and can deal with these issues as part of their monitoring functions.
The government is absolutely committed to assuring internal and external accountability and transparency of this reform process. Detailed progress reports are provided quarterly by the Department of Children and Families to the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee. The Council of Territory Cooperation has called for reports and briefings on aspects of the implementation of the board of inquiry recommendations.
In addition to this high level reporting, the Department of Children and Families’ electronic newsletter, DCF Connect, is distributed every four weeks to key child protection system stakeholders. Monthly reports of marked progress against board of inquiry reforms are made available on the department’s website each month.
The inaugural Department of Children and Families Annual Report 2010-2011 incorporated progress and performance information as required by the relevant board of inquiry recommendation, as will future reports.
Further, the government’s response to the board of inquiry report, Safe Children, Bright Futures Strategic Framework 2011 to 2015 outlined the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee would work with the department in 2011 to develop a performance measurement and evaluation framework to measure the success of reforms to the child protection and child and family support systems. Not the recommendation, but to measure the success of the reforms to the child protection and child and family support systems. Your allegation that the committee does not have a performance measurement evaluation framework is absolute rubbish with a capital ‘R’.
The framework will address board of inquiry recommendation 145, which is that a framework involving performance measures in the domains of input, process, outcome and impact is adopted and appropriately resourced. The board recommended the framework be developed to assess the success of the reforms and the family support systems.
We expect this framework to be in place in early 2013. There can be no doubt the government is committed to an open and transparent process which assures the highest degree of accountability and scrutiny of this important reform agenda.
The member opposite has been caught out again. She has been caught out many times. She loves the headlines. She does not like it when she is questioned about the headlines, about her statements. She supported the Ombudsman against the Children’s Commissioner, and has now changed her tune and supports the Children’s Commissioner being a part of this committee. This is the same committee she says is not independent because it was wined and dined by the government. She said that last year; it is in the Hansard. I am happy to read it line by line - she would not like that. Now, she says there is no monitoring tool for the committee to work with. She probably did not understand the framework is not in relation to the board of inquiry recommendations, but about systems we have put in place as a result of these recommendations. She has been caught out again.
Yesterday, she put out a hilarious media release. I thought it was not 1 May, but 1 April - April Fools’ Day. Who in their right mind would issue a media release asking for the government to release something which had been released 20 days earlier? The media found out about it and had a field day.
No, we are not going to support this motion. This motion is full of rubbish with a capital ‘R’.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the situation is even worse than I thought. What the minister described is far worse than I imagined. You are right; I thought the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee was waiting on the performance management and evaluation framework as a tool with which it could evaluate the government’s implementation of the recommendations of the board of inquiry report. It is not going to use it for that. Gee whiz, it is worse than I thought. The minister has just described to the people of the Northern Territory a situation where the Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee will never be monitoring how the government is implementing the 147 recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report.
I am even more appalled than I was 15 minutes ago. There is no mechanism in place for anyone to properly assess how this government is travelling. Thanks to the minister, it is now utterly clear.
The minister questioned my credibility ...
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I put on the record that I came to the Northern Territory almost 20 years ago to be the senior social worker at the Alice Springs Hospital. A large part of that role was managing the social work services of the paediatric ward. I worked with Aboriginal women and children in that hospital for years. I supervised the practice of many social workers and many Aboriginal liaison officers, including the two children of the member for Macdonnell. Two of her children were my staff, and I supervised how they worked with people throughout the hospital. As I said, a large proportion was working with women and children - children who were suffering from failure to thrive, children who were neglected, abused and requiring the care and protection of the government.
When the Minister for Child Protection questions my credibility in this parliament, might I suggest my credentials, my experience, my understanding, is far greater than most people’s in this room when it comes to child protection and the function of Children and Families in the Northern Territory.
I suggest the minister has no credentials whatsoever in this area. He does not come from a health or welfare background. His direct work experience, clinical experience in this area, is next to nothing! When I hear members from across the other side of the Chamber yell abuse and ridicule me - with my very strong record in the area - it confirms this government is an absolute and utter joke! You contradicted yourself. You have made yourself look even worse than before I started this debate.
Regarding being caught out with the media release I issued last night, it was absolutely amazing. The information I received is this report, the Child Protection Reform Progress Report Volume 2, was placed on the Intranet to all staff last week. Correct? Correct! All staff within the Department of Children and Families had access to this report last week. I did a ring around …
Mr Vatskalis interjecting.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I am objecting to the interjections here, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, because it is a simple way of trying to deflect from the government’s inadequacies when it comes to child protection.
I did a quick ring around of key stakeholders in child protection before I issued that media release. No one had seen it, no one knew anything about it, and no one had read it - including me. I am the shadow minister for Child Protection. That report was due on 18 April 2012, almost two weeks ago. I had not seen it. I had not heard of it. It was very difficult to find. I dispute the fact it was on the website last night until the media release was issued. I am almost certain tonight, and say publicly and truthfully, it was not there until I issued the media release; however, 1% of me is unsure, so I will not stand my ground too strongly on that. This document profiling the performance of this government, its assessment of its performance, was not publicly and freely available until I issued my media release. So, you were caught out, not me. You were flimsy and negligent in your duty to publicly account for your continuing failure when it comes to child protection.
Strangely enough, when asked for an interview by an ABC journalist, the first thing he said to me was: ‘Robyn, I can’t find it either’. We stood at the computer and he asked me where to look. I told him to look in various places. He said: ‘According to the minister’s media officer, it is definitely on the Internet’ and I said: ‘Well, I maintain it is not because I spent half the day on this’. Lo and behold, miraculously it appeared. It was incredible. We could not believe it. The ABC journalist and I found the document and, lo and behold, we looked at each other as if to say: ‘Well, isn’t that curious?’ It was just a little suspicious that two intelligent people who have a great interest in child protection, both fairly computer savvy, could not find it until 9 pm last night when, I suggest, the Minister for Child Protection put it on the Internet, but I am willing to let that go. He was caught out, not me.
The dirt is dripping off your hands, not mine. When it comes to child protection, this is further evidence you cannot trust what you read or hear. It is likely to be a load of fabricated nonsense when it comes to child protection in the Northern Territory.
The Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee is a highly-esteemed, highly-professional, experienced group of individuals, but when it comes to the Children’s Commissioner, you say he has a conflict. He is too close to child protection in the Northern Territory. In that case, why do you have any people from the Northern Territory child protection industry on your external monitoring and reporting committee? You are totally contradicting yourself. You are leaving yourself open. What you are saying is nonsense. It does not follow any rational argument to say Howard Bath has a conflict of interest but Charlie King, Donna Ah Chee and various other people from the Northern Territory do not when they have given their life, soul, and a great proportion of their career to child protection.
What is good for the goose is not good for the gander. You are contradicting yourself. It is blatant. It is plain to see, and you are embarrassing yourself even more than you have in the past. It is truly shameful.
When it comes to this government, you cannot trust what you read, you cannot trust what you hear, and we need someone like the Children’s Commissioner to be on the side of the people of the Northern Territory. He has a history of reporting accurately, fairly, and scientifically on the implementation of the recommendations of the Little Children are Sacred report. Why can he not do it for the Growing them strong, together report?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Minister for Child Protection be called upon to appoint the Children’s Commissioner to monitor the implementation of the semi-urgent and important, but not urgent, recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 11 Noes 12
Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
POWERS OF ATTORNEY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 206)
(Serial 206)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Tonight I will fulfil a promise I made. I had this bill ready in February, but in an effort to be complete and thorough, I ran it past interested parties, which is why I had to wait until today to bring it before the House.
I thank those people who looked at the bill and gave advice in relation to it. As it turns out, it was a worthwhile exercise. I also note at the outset the government today introduced a bill titled the Adult Decision Making Bill 2012 (Serial 210). I have a sneaking suspicion this is going to touch on precisely the same issues as the bill I am introducing today.
Before I go into the details of the bill, I want to make some general observations. As a matter of public importance, late last year I raised in this House the issue of medical and enduring powers of attorney. These are, essentially, the living will concepts which exist in all other jurisdictions. Since that time, I have had representations from various people, but would like to specifically mention a lady by the name of Susannah, a registered nurse. She had a very unfortunate incident whereby, had this legislation been in place and her husband taken advantage of it some years ago, it would have been possible for her to avoid a very nasty time in a coronial court being accused of conduct she simply did not deserve by a reckless and thoughtless lawyer.
I take my hat off to the Coroner, Mr Greg Cavanagh, who was very clear to point out to Susannah that her conduct was not consistent with the allegations put to her by that reckless and thoughtless lawyer. Sometimes, I wish lawyers would be more considerate of the effect their line of questioning has on people who give evidence before any number of courts, particularly coronial inquiries, because they are not inquiries of a criminal nature.
The bill before the House introduces the concept of AHDs. The reason we have called it an AHD rather than a medical enduring power of attorney is so there is a clear understanding this is different to a power of attorney. This is what we would call an Advanced Health Directive.
The intent of this bill is to build on the common law principle that every person of sound mind has the right to determine what should be done with their body by allowing that person to give directions for a future where they may not be legally capable. The bill allows a person to achieve this in a number of ways:
1. by giving a specific direction on their future healthcare in an Advanced Health Directive;
2. by appointing a health guardian to make healthcare decisions on their behalf; and
Every adult is considered to have the capacity for decisions relating to their healthcare unless otherwise demonstrated. The powers conferred by this bill will only apply when the donor is not legally capable of making those decisions, as stated by Justice McDougall of the New South Wales Supreme Court:
- ... there is not sharp dichotomy between capacity on the one hand and want of capacity on the other.
...
In considering the question of capacity, it is necessary to take into account both the importance of the decision and the ability of the individual to receive, retain and process information given to him or her that bears on the decision.
There will be circumstances where it may not be possible for a care provider to discover whether a patient has a valid AHD, or whether an AHD contains the directions for a given situation. This could include a paramedic at the scene of an accident, or a person whose identity may not be known presenting for care at a hospital or a remote health clinic. In such cases, the presumption will be to provide the best practice and care, and the provider will be protected from any liability for breaching an instruction in the AHD.
The provisions of this bill do not affect the operation of the common law directions about healthcare in a form other than provided in this bill. Instructions in an AHD can only enable the dying process to take a natural course and cannot be used to facilitate voluntary euthanasia - and I stress that. This is not about voluntary euthanasia. It is not designed to be about voluntary euthanasia; it is about a person’s death taking a natural course.
Without going through the specific clauses at length, I will touch on the functional clauses of the bill. New section 21B defines the term ‘life-sustaining measures’ used within the part. To avoid doubt, this section lists cardiopulmonary resuscitation, assisted ventilation, assisted hydration and nutrition as life-sustaining measures. A blood transfusion is not categorised as a life-sustaining measure. This is to provide flexibility to accommodate religious convictions which prohibit the acceptance of blood and blood products.
New section 21C allows a person of sound mind to make pre-emptive decisions about their future healthcare. An Advanced Health Directive will operate at any time the person has lost legal capacity to make decisions relating to their healthcare. The document may also nominate a person, or a health guardian, to act as a decision-maker on their behalf. If a health guardian is nominated, a person must indicate acceptance of their responsibilities by signing the acceptance form set out in Schedule 1A of the act - I refer members to clause 6.
New section 21D allows a person to give pre-emptive directions and instructions about their future healthcare. This includes directions relating to life-sustaining measures and special health measures. Special health measures cover the following areas of healthcare:
(1) removal of tissue from the person while alive for donation to someone else;
In new section 21E, in addition to, or in lieu of providing detailed specific instructions regarding their future healthcare, a person may appoint a person to be their health guardian. This person is the donee of an enduring power of attorney for health matters. The healthcare guardian may make decisions on behalf of the donor within limitations of the terms of their appointment. Decisions relating to special health matters cannot be made by a health guardian, but the health guardian may be authorised to give directions regarding their healthcare, despite the donor’s objection to the care during the period of incapacity.
An alternate health guardian may be nominated in an AHD if the appointed health guardian is unable to fulfil that role due to death, incapacity, or such circumstances, or if the Supreme Court is required to make an alternative appointment under section 21K. The donor may also request specific persons be excluded from being appointed as a health guardian. The donor needs to be confident the court will be able to appoint a person most capable of understanding and carrying out their wishes.
New section 21F allows that during periods of incapacity, the AHD provide authority over the provision of healthcare equivalent to that enjoyed by the donor were they legally capable. The health guardian, within terms of their appointment, has the power to do anything the donor would be able to do for themselves, such as providing consent to treatment.
Before a direction to withhold life-sustaining measures can be implemented, there must be an agreement between the donor’s treating doctor and one other doctor that the donor has no reasonable ability to regain legal capacity. Starting or continuing life-sustaining measures would be inconsistent with good medical practical practice and that the donor is:
1. suffering from an irreversible or incurable terminal illness or conditions that death is expected within 12 months, even with life-sustaining measures;
2. in a persistent vegetative state, due to severe and irreversible brain damage despite other bodily functions sustaining life; and
3. in a coma due to brain damage with no reasonable prospect of regaining consciousness; and
New section 21G defines if a health guardian is unavailable to make decisions in any period during a donor’s incapacity, the public guardian appointed under the Adult Guardianship Act may act as the person’s health guardian unless specified by the AHD.
New section 21H allows that existing provisions within the act specified by the section relating to the creation, revocation, execution, and registration of enduring powers of attorney may also apply to an AHD created in this part.
New section 21K gives the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to vary or revoke terms of an AHD if the donor is incapacitated. The court may choose to vary or revoke the terms it sees fit on application of the public guardian or other person with a close connection to the donor. This includes the power to appoint an alternative health guardian. A health guardian must apply to the Supreme Court if they wish to retire from the role.
New section 21J enables instruments making advanced health directives or appointing a health guardian which has been executed under the legislation of another Australian jurisdiction to be recognised in the Northern Territory.
Section 21L allows that an AHD may be revoked on the death of the donor or an order is made by the Supreme Court to revoke the order.
Section 21M ensures the protection of a person who is ignorant of a person’s AHD and the healthcare provided in contravention of the AHD in certain circumstances. This section will apply to a person providing emergency care such as a paramedic, first aider, or when there is no reasonable way they could be notified of the existence or the contents of an AHD. The protection will also extend to health professionals if they are operating outside a system that can provide information about the patient’s AHD in a timely manner.
New section 21N protects a person providing healthcare from liability if they act in good faith upon the information contained in the AHD that has been varied or revoked. This protection only applies to circumstances where the healthcare provider or health guardian has not received notice of the change or revocation, and is operating outside the system which could inform them of the changes in a timely manner.
New section 21P ensures the act does not affect the right of a person of sound mind to accept or refuse medical surgical treatment. Nor does it change the legal consequences of taking or withholding therapeutic measure for a person with a terminal illness, or taking life-saving measures if the person has not made an AHD which directs to the contrary. Despite the provisions of this act, instructions about healthcare which are valid under common law may still be recognised.
New section 21Q ensures that a person acting in good faith under the direction of an AHD and this act to withhold life-sustaining measures is not liable to criminal offences. This would ensure the direction to withhold artificial ventilation or not commence artificial nutritional hydrations provided under the AHD would not be considered the cause of a person’s death.
Without going into section 21R, which relates to savings and other provisions, the thrust of this legislation is very straightforward. It is about the capacity of a person to say what happens to them, should the capacity to make decisions for their own wellbeing and ongoing medical care be taken away by illness, injury, or accident.
This should not be a controversial piece of legislation. I note the Attorney-General had laid on the table a fairly lengthy bill today relating to adult decision-making.
I presume the government’s bill is also in response to increasing pressure it will have received from quarters affected by this. I say to people with an interest in this, it is unlikely either of these bills will be passed into law prior to the next Northern Territory election. Should the Country Liberal Party be given power by the people of the Northern Territory, we will examine both these bills, go back to the interested parties and talk to them about the bills, and let them determine which is better for their cause.
The government and the opposition are not too far apart on this issue. I acknowledge that, but this is an important matter and I would be comforted if, in the real world, by Christmas this year no matter who should be in government this legislation, in whatever form, becomes a law of the Northern Territory. As a jurisdiction, we have been slow to capture this idea. It is well within the ideological construct of a Liberal Party to enable people to make determinations for their own wellbeing, even beyond the realms of their capacity, and we have no ideological problem with people making these decisions.
Before anyone becomes hysterical about this exercise, I do not believe the government’s bill is in any way a frolic into the area of voluntary euthanasia. That is not what the issue is about. It is about people being able to determine the quality and type of healthcare they receive into the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Greater Darwin Rural Area – Upgrade of Roads
Greater Darwin Rural Area – Upgrade of Roads
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move –
- That the Northern Territory government detail what their plans are and the costings for the upgrade of roads in the greater Darwin rural area to address the following developments:
growth in educational facilities;
growth at Coolalinga Centre, Girraween subdivision and potential subdivision at Howard Springs pine forest;
AAco abattoirs; and
increase in US troops at Robertson Barracks.
I realise this is probably the last motion of a General Business Day of the sittings of this Assembly, so I will be as quick as I can. The minister will have an answer.
One of the unfortunate things with this is ministers have a prepared answer. There may be some questions the minister can answer off the written response, because since this motion was first put there have been some changes. The member for Goyder wanted to have a few words as well.
Minister, I am very pleased that money has been set aside for the duplication of Howard Springs Road between the Stuart Highway and Whitewood Road. You have been out there with me and the amount of traffic is considerable and only getting worse. I appreciate there is a considerable amount of money in the budget for an upgrade. The problem is not just Howard Springs Road; it is the flow of traffic on the Stuart Highway which, at times, has built up as far back as Virginia Road, partly because of the inability to get traffic out of Howard Springs Road quickly.
I put it to one of your advisors, and he showed me some rough plans for, possibly, four lanes out of Howard Springs. The development of the Good Shepherd Lutheran College means there is quite a considerable amount of traffic going back to Palmerston after dropping children off at the college. They are blocked from going there by trucks turning right and, because they are in that lane, are also blocking vehicles that would like to turn into the Stuart Highway towards Darwin.
On top of that is the new Mary MacKillop Catholic College just down the road in Lambrick Avenue. There will, no doubt, be quite a number of people from the rural area sending their children to that new school. Again, that will increase the amount of traffic. I have put it to the department, through your advisor, minister, that the government should look at the possibility of four lanes - two lanes to the right, one lane dedicated to Palmerston, and the other lane going to the left towards Coolalinga.
An area I want to discuss with the government is the possible extension of Temple Terrace from Palmerston through to the base of the new prison site. That road has been on the plans for a long time, but it would alleviate some of the traffic coming from both the prison and Howard River Park.
Ms Purick: It would upset my neighbours, though.
Mr WOOD: Yes, your mother. The reality is, that road was moved south to cater for what most of the residents agreed to. There is a possibility that land could be sold to help pay for the cost of developing the road. The road will have to go through some time; there is no way Howard Springs Road can be the main road to Gunn Point. The original plan for the extension of Temple Terrace was for it to be the main route through to Glyde Point and Gunn Point - either residential development or industrial development. When the government is looking at a whole-of-traffic approach, it needs to look at the possible extension of Temple Terrace.
I am interested to know whether INPEX, in relation to Thorngate and Tulagi - I gather an agreement has been reached, although, unfortunately, I was not invited to the meeting. I do not think anyone from Wallaby Holtze Road was invited, but I gather there has been a traffic management plan agreed to, to bring material from near Robertson Barracks down Thorngate Road, across Tulagi Road and onto the Stuart Highway.
Was there any contribution from INPEX in relation to repair work of that road because it is a fairly heavily-trafficked road? It shows some wear and tear, especially at the southern part of Thorngate Road at the present time.
Another area left off the agenda for some time is the service roads at Coolalinga. Coolalinga is developing extremely fast. You have a new residential development on the northern side and, possibly, a new shopping centre on the northern side. However, there is an old service road that may have been sufficient in days gone by to serve the stock foods and a few shops at Stavri’s, but now it is going to take an increasing amount of traffic. It is within the Stuart Highway reserve.
There also needs to be, on the southern side of Coolalinga, some rationalisation of the service road because it is inside the car park then it is outside the car park. That area needs some assistance from the government. Part of that service road is in the Stuart Highway reserve, and part of it zips back into the car park near Woolworths. Those areas need some attention.
I would also like to know if there is going to be a new crossing between the service roads at Coolalinga. My understanding is when there was to be a new shopping centre and residential land at Coolalinga North, the existing crossing to United service station was to be moved further towards Darwin by about 50 m and would have traffic lights. Is that still on the plans?
In relation to the abattoirs, I read in the paper today the government is not going to contribute towards the cost of infrastructure for the abattoirs. I do not have a problem with that; abattoirs are businesses and have to stand on their own feet. That is not to say the government cannot give assistance; however, you have to be very careful once you give money to one business, another business will ask for exactly the same thing. Was any assistance given to improve the entrance off the Stuart Highway? Was that part of any arrangement with the abattoir? Will the abattoir have to do that as part of its development application?
There, possibly, are other roads; however, time is not with us. I will leave those matters with you, minister. If you have answers in relation to some of those matters they would be appreciated.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, in the interests of time, I will be quick. I want to talk on many issues in regard to the rural area - road infrastructure and the services, but I will highlight two areas.
Could the minister comment on what I call the feeder roads into the Stuart Highway and the Arnhem Highway, being Virginia Road and, more importantly, Bees Creek Road? It is a busy intersection. I have said previously how there needs to be slip lanes or better access onto the highway, particularly from Bees Creek Road, which has two schools and a childcare centre. There is a primary school on Freds Pass Road, and off Freds Pass Road are two churches and a high school. With the increased traffic on the Stuart Highway, there will have to be safer access to the highway. Virginia Road is not quite so busy, but still is a very busy road.
The other area I wanted to talk briefly about - I will write to you, minister, or talk to your office - is the business on the corner of the Arnhem Highway and Stuart Highway, the Didgeridoo Hut, which has had communication with the department. We are trying to get signs on the road saying ‘Keep Clear’. It has taken nearly three months of dialogue with the department to get a sign on the road. I ask if this could be looked at. Also, I will be writing to you because this business is close to the intersection. It would like to have the public bus stop inside its premises. There is plenty of space. Public buses already go into Crocodylus Park to drop off and collect people. The precedent has been set in regard to public transport.
All the issues could be worked out within government, whether it be liability - will the buses crash into a public residence or something like that. I ask you to look into it. Dialogue with this business started on 22 March. The last correspondence was on 2 May. The department is citing liability issues and access: ‘We are a bit worried the buses might wreck your road’. I do not see how a bus can wreck a road. The tourist season is coming. It is an Aboriginal-owned enterprise. I ask, minister, if your office and the department could look at it and expeditiously sort it out. They want a sign on the road to say ‘Keep Clear’. With the increased road train traffic on the Arnhem Highway, it will be blocked from the lights for probably 1 km.
This issue is indicative of the growing pressures on the rural area and our roads infrastructure. There is more traffic because of industrial developments, whether it is road-train, residential, or any other kind of traffic. Could you investigate what is happening there? I am happy to talk to your office regarding this.
In regard to the main feeder roads onto the Arnhem Highway - Freds Pass Road, Virginia Road and Bees Creek Road – can you look at how they can be improved to accommodate growth in the rural area and the traffic we know is coming - heavy industrial traffic meaning road-trains, more light industrial and more vehicles.
I would like to have spoken more, Madam Deputy Speaker, but in the interests of time I will leave it at that. I ask the minister to consider those few issues.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I remind you we are due to wind up at 9 pm.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): I have 10 minutes, I believe, if I want to complete my remarks. I will …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is the last General Business Day, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: I understand that, and, if 9 pm comes and I still have something to say, I can quit and wait for the next General Business Day, or be given 10 minutes to complete my comments.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You may be given 10 minutes.
Mr TOLLNER: That would be lovely, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker ...
Mr Wood: They might wipe the agenda.
Mr TOLLNER: You might not like that, member for Nelson.
What a curious motion this is, put forward by the member for Nelson. The members for Goyder and Nelson, I am sad to say, are barking up the wrong tree if they think the Minister for Transport is going to deliver anything. You are sadly deluded, because the minister is the whipping boy for the Labor Party. He is the one who takes all the hits. The prison camp in Katherine is not in the budget, nor is Myilly Point. He proclaimed he would have things done or fixed, but alas nothing happens.
My advice to the members for Goyder and Nelson is do not hold your breath expecting this government to do anything. It is a curious motion from the member for Nelson because he considers himself the king maker. He has kept this shoddy, dodgy, moribund, unworkable government in office. He has lent his support to this dreadful government we have and is keeping them in office as we speak.
The member for Nelson has known for 18 months or so he could easily bring this government to an end and see things done in the rural area. No, he wanted to dance with the devil, and is now reaping the rewards. The member for Nelson has been a complete failure as a member of his local area. He started the term saying: ‘no, we do not need a new prison’. Halfway through, he backflipped and found a prison going in his back yard along with an increased amount of traffic. He did not want a workers camp for INPEX built in his electorate, but now we find there is a workers camp being built in his electorate ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 67, Digression from subject.
Mr Tollner: This is about traffic, and he was talking about prisons and INPEX.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am listening to the point of order, thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Dr BURNS: The motion relates to plans for upgrade of roads in the greater Darwin rural area. There is a fair bit of latitude, but I ask you to keep an eye on the member for Fong Lim. I have the feeling in the time remaining he is going to continue to digress. I will be watching very carefully, but it appears he is beginning to digress in a major way.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to bring your comments back to the subject at hand.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. My comments were in relation to this motion, suggesting what a curious motion it is. The person who had the ability to get something done brings motions to the Chamber about upgrading roads now all the things he was completely opposed to - which he is now supportive of - are occurring in his electorate.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Relevance. If you read the motion, it is about costings of roads.
Mr TOLLNER: It has a big preamble, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, if you could come back to the subject at hand. You are straying off the track.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am talking about the prison. I am talking about the INPEX workers camp. I am about to talk about INPEX and where it is getting rock. I understood it would come from Mount Bundy. No, they are dragging it from Yarrawonga, and I wonder where the trucks are going to go for that. They will go straight through the middle of the member for Nelson’s electorate. Is it any wonder he is bleating about the roads not being fixed. The roads are not adequate. I know a few people in the rural area; I lived there for some time myself. I stood as an Independent candidate for that electorate. I maintain contact with people out that way who constantly tell me the elected member is a complete failure ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Matters relating to me bear no relation to the motion before us. My point of order is on relevance.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Fong Lim, given it is 9 pm, pursuant to standing orders ...
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like a further 10 minutes to complete my remarks if that is possible.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I discussed the finishing time with your Whip earlier and agreed 9 pm would be a suitable finishing time.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is convention that normally we are allowed 10 minutes to complete our remarks.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is at the discretion of the Speaker. I will allow you five minutes, no longer.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will have to be quick.
The member for Nelson hates to hear this, but people in his electorate are saying he has failed them. They are saying that because they are concerned about having to travel down roads on their way to work in Darwin, being stopped by buses from the workers camp, paddy wagons from the prison, and cars from both the workers camp and the prison. We now know there are trucks dragging rock out of Yarrawonga quarries.
The member for Nelson has been good enough to put a few other congestion items on that list as well, such as growth of educational facilities, growth of the Coolalinga Centre, Girraween subdivision, potential subdivision of Howard Springs pine forest, the AAco abattoirs and the increased US troops at Robertson Barracks. He has covered it all, and now has the audacity to put this curious motion asking the government to detail its plans and costings for upgrading the roads. If he was a decent electorate member, he would be fighting against all the things he said he would at the start of the term. What a failure the guy is ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Are we to infer from what the member said that he opposes the INPEX development?
Mr Tollner: Is that a point of order?
Dr BURNS: I will interject. Are you opposed to the INPEX development?
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, normally these frivolous points of order are booted ...
A member: That is right; a frivolous point of order.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I will call the judgments as I see fit, member for Fong Lim. You have three minutes remaining.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is really galling the Leader of Government Business, and what would be even more galling to the Leader of Government Business is if I started talking about the lack of capacity to pay for these so-called road upgrades. As we know, this government has no capacity to pay for any upgrades on any of the roads referred to in this motion.
It is absolutely appalling. We know, by the Treasurer’s own figures, that in two years time this government will be insolvent if it is allowed to keep going down this track. We will have debt repayments higher than our own source revenue. To me, that is another word for insolvency ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The motion is about the costing of roads in the rural area. My point of order is on relevance.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, if I could respond to that point of order, please. You have been called on relevance on at least three occasions. I ask you to please bring your comments back to the motion.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, the motion says ‘detail what their plans are and the costings for the upgrade of roads in the greater Darwin rural area’. Asking how much it is costing and who is going to pay is pretty relevant to this motion. Goodness me! You can interject and say I am not being relevant, but we know you have no capacity to upgrade any roads in the member for Nelson’s electorate. Why? Because you have already sold the farm. What is worse about this whole debacle is we have always had this freewheeling, free spending Labor government but we no longer have a back stop.
You can always look at the Howard government to step in with money, but we know the federal government is broke as well. What are the chances of these upgrades occurring? Zero - absolutely zero. The poor people in the rural area will have to endure congestion for at least another five years because this government has failed to plan, failed to upgrade, and failed to have a jot of concern for the member for Nelson.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat, thank you.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with Standing Order 41A, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, the federal minister for local government, Hon Simon Crean MP, recently announced the category winners of the National Awards for Local Government. The 27 category winners were judged by independent judging panels and include 11 winning councils with fewer than 15 000 rateable properties. In the category of Improving Services to Remote Communities, I am pleased to congratulate, by way of placing on the public record, a small council winner, the Barkly Shire Council, for its Animal Health Program. The Barkly Shire is one of the largest local government areas in the world and, at 323 514 km2, the shire area is 42% larger than Victoria, yet has a population of 8137. The shire stretches from the Queensland border over 620 km to the west of the Stuart Highway, and from north of Elliott 570 km southwards on each side of the Stuart Highway to Barrow Creek. The largest town in the shire is Tennant Creek, located on the Stuart Highway.
The Barkly Shire Animal Health Program evolved to tackle various dog problems in larger urban areas throughout the shire, and the increasingly poor level of animal health in many dogs on Indigenous communities within the shire. The background to the development of the program related to:
health agencies becoming increasingly alarmed at the growing incidence of animal-related injuries presenting at Tennant Creek Hospital and community health centres;
The Barkly Shire Animal Health Program took a broad consultative process from early 2009 in which extensive participatory approaches were used to ensure Indigenous people had control over the program and its direction. Council sought assistance from appropriate partner agencies such as Animal Management in Rural and Remote Indigenous Communities (AMRRIC) and Anyinginyi Health Aboriginal Corporation, who were involved in health promotion in the region, the environmental health section of the NT Department of Health, and Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education.
To partially fund the program, including support for the establishment of a local veterinary practice and veterinary services throughout the region, a shire-wide rate levy was introduced and the cost of dog registration was heavily reduced to encourage widespread registration. An additional animal ranger was recruited for Tennant Creek, and an animal control branch established to serve remote communities.
In areas like Utopia, a cluster of small outstations spread over an area of 400 km2, the Barkly Shire worked with local health services in conjunction with AMRRIC and visiting veterinarians from interstate to carry out intensive canine desexing procedures and animal health clinics to which the shire contributed its own veterinary services, equipment and staff. After two visits, almost 300 dogs were desexed throughout the area and many more treated for zoonotic parasites making a significant impact on local ongoing animal management.
Currently, the program routinely visits a separate community every fortnight. The team includes one or more veterinarians - shire and AMRRIC - council rangers, Indigenous animal management workers and Indigenous environmental health workers. The program includes immediate animal treatment, surgical desexing and health promotion activities. The Barkly Shire Council deserves credit for attracting a veterinary practice to commence at Tennant Creek. This has provided a much-needed local service. AMRRIC has contracted with the Barkly Shire to financially support the program over the next three years and provide mentoring and support for Indigenous animal management workers, who will play an increasingly important role in the program.
In early anecdotal evidence, 12 months into the operation in the urban area of Tennant Creek the number of monthly presentations at the local hospital with dog-related injuries reduced from 22 to seven. While this is a large improvement, the program continues to strive for further improved results.
In relation to an early assessment of a remote community program initiative relating to the first community visit to Ampilatwatja, the team desexed over 37 dogs, 21 of which were female. To quote Dr John Skuja from AMRRIC in 2011:
... at an average of five puppies per litter and two heats per year, could have otherwise produced up to 200 puppies in the next 12 months. On return visits to communities, the change is beginning to be noticeable with much fewer unwanted pups and an improvement in the overall condition of most dogs.
The Barkly Shire Council has been recognised at a national level for its facilitation of a participatory development model in animal health which is culturally centric and encompasses sustainable, adaptable mechanisms, and acknowledges the diversity of each of its participating communities.
It is also important to note, in national awards for local government, four NT shire councils received awards. Commended was the Roper Gulf Shire youth services, and the Victoria Daly Shire for its project RIBS and Recreation Combine. Winning the small council section was the Barkly Shire for its animal health program. Another winner in the small council section was the East Arnhem Shire for their Many Voices One Journey project. Commended in another section was the Tiwi Islands Shire Council for its Tiwi Local Government Women as Leaders, another commendable project I am proud to put on the public record.
I received this information from Mr David Shoobridge, CEO of the Barkly Shire Council, who was very proud to explain not only the program, but also the award received. He made mention of the website, which I researched. I found those other great commendations and wins by our shires across the Northern Territory. It is great to see just one example of our shire system and shire managers working with constituents to develop programs and services within their own capabilities and budgets to make a real difference. It is a pleasure to be able to put that on the public record in commendation of the great, innovative work the shires are doing across the Northern Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to more successes as the shire model - very much a pioneering model - develops further.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge a number of people from the Darwin North RSL Club. I was invited to give an address there at the Anzac Day Dawn Service. It was a very great privilege to talk to people about some of my experiences at dawn services, both as a child with my father, and also as an adult going to many dawn services in Darwin and, in fact, two dawn services at Gallipoli in my lifetime. I consider myself very lucky to have been able to get to Gallipoli and experience some of the things our Diggers experienced when they landed at 4.28 am on 25 April.
I acknowledge several people who put a great deal of work into Anzac Day, and have done for some years - Kirsty McGregor-Dey, manager at Darwin North RSL Club, and the many staff who do not get paid on Anzac Day, but make the day what it is.
It is a little different to the Darwin city RSL, which has a large grassed area around the main building where kids are encouraged to come along and play, enjoy the day, and get used to the significance of the occasion. Also, the magical two-up is played there every Anzac Day. The staff - most are not paid - work extremely hard to provide a service for the huge crowd that gathers every Anzac Day. I commend the Darwin City Brass Band, and Ron Roberts and his team of dedicated people who play all afternoon for the enjoyment of ex-Diggers, service people, Legacy people, and the public who hear about what is going on and want to share in a very special day on the Australian calendar.
The highlight of the day was the Dawn Service, but once the march was over and people returned to the Darwin North RSL, a number of speeches were made. I was very touched by the address given by the oldest Digger, Mr John Moyle who, at 93, is still sharp as a tack and very sprightly. I want to be like John Moyle when I am 93 - if I am still here. I would like to be doing the type of things he does. He spoke about the history of the Dawn Service. I did not realise John knew one of the people the Dawn Service is accredited to. I went to the www.anzacday.org site and printed off information about the Dawn Service because I could not remember everything he said. I will put this on the record as something given out there and something we in this House probably should be aware of, and I am grateful to him for raising this.
I will quote from the information from the website:
- The ANZAC Day Dawn Service has become an integral part of commemorations on 25 April. However, credit for its origin is divided between the Reverend Arthur Ernest White of Albany, WA
and Captain George Harrington of Toowoomba, Queensland.
I will read the article about Reverend White from the website. This is pertinent because he is the gentleman John Moyle knew and grew up with in Albany. He went to many a Dawn Service in Albany when the Reverend White was around:
- Reverend White was a padre of the earliest ANZACs to leave Australia with the First AIF in November 1914. The convoy assembled at Albany’s King George Sound in WA and at 4 am on the
morning of their departure, he conducted a service for all men. After the war, White gathered some 20 men at dawn on the 25 April 1923 on Mt Clarence overlooking King George Sound and
silently watched a wreath float out to sea. He then quietly recited the words ‘as the sun rises and goeth down we will remember them’. All were deeply moved and the news of the ceremony
soon spread. White is quoted as saying that ‘Albany was the last sight of land these ANZAC troops saw after leaving Australian shores and some of them never returned. We should hold a
service (here) at the first light of dawn each ANZAC Day to commemorate them’.
In November 2014, a group of ships will gather in Albany harbour and will set course exactly as the ships that took troops to the Middle East and on to Gallipoli did. It will be a sight to behold. That was the last sight of Australian soil for some of the soldiers. When you visit Gallipoli and walk up the hills, you do so during the day on man-made tracks, a far cry from what it must have been like when those soldiers were there.
Going to the Dawn Service on Anzac Day is something I do every year. When I first arrived in the Northern Territory in the early 1980s, one of the first things I attended was the Dawn Service, and I have been ever since except for three or four occasions. Once it was cancelled because of a cyclone. On another occasion, I had the flu and could not get out of bed. On the other two occasions I was at Gallipoli.
When I started attending the Dawn Service in Darwin there were 400 or 500 people present. I now see thousands of people. I am encouraged by seeing many young people. You see parents with young children, as my father took me when I was just short of three years of age. We are encouraging our young people to understand the sacrifices people make so we can enjoy the freedom of democracy, which gives me the ability to speak on behalf of my constituents in this House. That is one of the great things about the country we live in. I always remember the sacrifices people have made, are making, and will in the future make to keep us safe.
Talking about the Dawn Service at Gallipoli, the youth of this country is now going to Gallipoli in ever increasing numbers. You see thousands of young people - backpackers and young tourists - going on their first or perhaps second trip around the globe, and they are fortunate to do so. Gallipoli is not on the way to somewhere else. You have to make the effort to go there; get on the bus, drive into the national park, attend the Dawn Service and then go back to Istanbul. I commend those young people who make the trip. Well done to the Darwin North RSL.
I will now speak about graffiti. I am seeing more graffiti in my electorate and the northern suburbs. Recently, I spent time trying to have graffiti removed. I had trouble with some shop owners, and people short of money; however, I would like to commend Bobby and Karen Hayes from Total Painting Solutions who recently gave up their Saturday morning. They brought their airless spray guns and equipment along, provided the paint, and painted the Wagaman shops. We now have people in the Wagaman shops with huge tins of left over paint, and they will be cleaning up graffiti first thing every morning to discourage people. So far we have been very lucky and not had too much graffiti. It has been covered up and the shops look fabulous. Again, thanks to Bobby and Karen Hayes from Total Painting Solutions.
Madam Deputy Speaker, time prevents me from raising a number of other issues.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the Henderson government has stepped in to save the Barunga Sports and Culture Festival this year. As the local member, I was not going to let the Territory’s longest-running Indigenous sport and cultural event sink without a trace. I am proud to inform everyone that the Barunga festival will run from 8 to 10 June in Jawoyn country.
This iconic festival has become a Territory institution and ensures Barunga, and the region, has a vehicle to showcase its art, culture and sporting achievements. The festival brings Indigenous and non-Indigenous people together over a weekend defined by harmony, sportsmanship and, importantly, the presentation of culture up close. Try spear throwing, didgeridoo making in a beautiful setting at the lily ponds where Queenie and Margaret tell the stories that transport you to another time, or try some bush turkey and fresh barra at the bush tucker tent, or some weaving.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as you would know, festivals are an important part of life in Indigenous communities. They contribute to wellbeing, resilience and capacity, while promoting a healthy lifestyle. With all this in mind, and the understanding that the people on the ground at Barunga wanted the festival to go ahead, the Northern Territory government brokered an outcome that will see support from a range of organisations, including Katherine Regional Arts Inc, Skinnyfish Music, Arts NT, the Jawoyn people and many more to ensure the 2012 festival can be realised with the support and direction of the Barunga Festival Steering Committee.
I thank and congratulate the Barunga Festival Steering Committee made up of many Jawoyn people across Jawoyn communities. I also thank members of those communities, particularly the elders from the Barunga region who, in initial discussions, were enthusiastic for the 2012 Barunga festival to go ahead. My colleague, the Minister for Arts and Museums, has been enormously supportive, as have colleagues on this side of the House, to ensure the Barunga festival goes ahead. I also like to acknowledge the efforts of Alan James and Jo Nicol in working with stakeholders behind the scenes to make this event happen.
Since its inception in 1985, the Barunga festival has become one of the most significant celebrations of Aboriginal culture, art, music and sport in the Top End. It connects Aboriginal communities from across the Northern Territory including the Katherine region, east Arnhem Land and the Tiwi Islands in the north, Central Australia in the south, and the Kimberleys in the west. While government is not in the business of running festivals, it has a duty to facilitate and ensure this historic landmark continues to be celebrated and communities have every opportunity to proudly showcase their dynamic, creative environments.
As the local member for Stuart and the Barunga area, I am pleased we have been able to work with the people of Barunga and Katherine to ensure this iconic festival goes ahead. Now in its 26th year, this festival has all the ingredients to be the best yet.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to thank the Alice Springs community for such a wonderful and warm turnout to the Anzac Day service and the activities run around Anzac Day. RSL president, Peter Goodwin, did a fantastic job. We had a very good service on Anzac Hill on the eve of Anzac Day for Kapyong. We had a great turnout for the Anzac eve dinner. It used to be called the Kapyong dinner, now it is called the Anzac eve dinner. That was another good event facilitated by the RSL and Peter Goodwin. It was great to see Mayor Damien Ryan there, and my colleague, Matt Conlan was MC. Mike Bartholomew came from Pine Gap, and Colonel Parker flew in especially from Florida for the Anzac Day festivities. DET 421 was there, also 1RSU.
It was really good to see the people participate once again. At the Dawn Service there were about 2500 people on Anzac Hill - once again, a crowded house. Not everyone could get to the top of the hill; there were many people down the stairs and the ramps. For the morning service it is estimated there were 2200 - RSL number counts - and that was after the march. Anzac Day is a very sombre occasion, and it is great to see so many people from Alice Springs participate. I have been a big supporter of Anzac services and, for the last few years, have sponsored schools in my electorate with wreaths and invited the school captains to come along, which they do.
This year we had Larapinta Primary School, Braitling Primary School, Living Waters Lutheran College and OLSH from my electorate. It was fantastic to see. Other schools participated as well. This year, Braitling school did not just send the school captains, it also brought the SRC. I encourage as many schoolchildren as possible because it is really important kids understand Anzac Day and be involved in the services and some of the festivities.
I also congratulate the RSL for putting on a good do after the morning service, and also NORFORCE, who put on a good service. NORFORCE is a very ‘under the radar’ operation in Alice Springs. It does a great job and facilitates much great work in other areas of the Territory, particularly Borroloola, where it has a high level of representation. I understand the people at Borroloola who participate in NORFORCE do a great job too.
I was sickened today to hear about the alleged attack on two ladies in Alice Springs overnight. Two tourists were camping and were attacked by three people and sexually assaulted. There is also an allegation of a rifle, a gun, or some sort of weapon. That is a significant concern for Alice Springs. We have been crying out for a long time for resolution of our law and order issues. I have said publicly there are three key decision-makers in our town: the Minister for Central Australia, the member for Lingiari and the Alice Springs Town Council. Recently, I called for greater decisions to be made to try to respond to the law and order crisis in our town.
The council has been doing more since that conversation. I have spoken at length with Mayor Damien Ryan and many other people on the council about the concerns I have. This is not a deliberate attack on any one of those decision-makers or bodies; it is about saying the community has had enough and wants something done. I, as a representative of one of the electorates in Alice Springs, can lobby, talk up, scream out, and advocate as much as I like, but we need people to take action. There is a responsibility across the board from those three key decision-makers.
Similarly, as with the conversation I had with town council representatives, I would like to see greater action taken by the federal government and its representative, the member for Lingiari, particularly around the areas of Centrelink income management and the way Centrelink funds are distributed.
I had a very good meeting with Andy Hood of the Central Australian Football League last week. I spoke to him about the Lightning Carnival in particular, but also football and how we manage population movements for participants and spectators - how we get people in and out. I will not go through the details of that conversation, but I was concerned to learn the Chief Minister’s Office in Alice Springs, and the minister for Sport, do not play a role in the logistical management of those sporting events. There needs to be greater effort in the future.
I propose calling a meeting between me, the Minister for Central Australia, the Mayor, the Commander of Police southern region, and the Central Australian Football League to work out how we can better facilitate sporting events into the future. It is not my role, but the town is saying: ‘What is going on with all these sporting carnivals? They are bringing trouble to town?’ We need to be smarter in the way government does business, so I am will try to call that meeting for next week, get the stakeholders around the table and work out how we can facilitate this better into the future.
Every time these events are on people are left stranded in town, cannot afford to go home, and the law and order issues and antisocial behaviour for many of those stranded escalates and causes problems for everyone - not just the residents of town, but also the people who are stranded. They do not want to be involved in this trouble either. Many people want to go back out bush, so we have to work out smarter ways to do business. That is one way we can do that into the future, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be leaving tomorrow afternoon for a ministerial council, so this is my opportunity to pay tribute to three amazing colleagues on our team. When I reflect on the three to four years of this term of government, it has been an incredible journey. I want to pay tribute to our three colleagues who will not be standing at the 25 August election.
First, the member for Nightcliff, Madam Speaker. She truly has made this the people’s house, and has done so throughout her term as Speaker. The House is here for all people of the Northern Territory to visit, but her active role in encouraging people to attend the various functions is her attempt to always open this House at the beginning of each year with much celebration, especially this year when we saw the many different cultural groups welcome members of this House.
Our Madam Speaker has been a strong example of great dignity in this House and always encouraged each and every member, regardless of the many fierce debates and undignified acts which take place in this House. She has carried out her duty with great dignity and, given her own personal challenges - her health and family challenges - she is an amazing woman. She will stay in my mind as a woman who has carried out the responsibilities in her role as Speaker of the House in the Northern Territory Assembly very well. I wish her well in the coming months and years ahead.
I recollect some of the exciting events, like turning parliament pink. She has been behind many charity causes, and has encouraged every member of this House to wear a white ribbon on White Ribbon Day or the red nose fundraising. Madam Speaker has always encouraged each and every member of this House to remember the people. I thank you, Jane, for the work you have done for the people of the Northern Territory.
To our Leader of Government Business, Chris Burns, you are the rock that keeps our team strong on the parliamentary floor. You have proved that with the incredible challenges our team has had to face in the last three years in particular, but especially in 2008. You are always ready to correct the record from uninformed criticism opposite, and you have exemplified in your role as a minister in Health previously, where I witnessed you carry the load in many of those crises that had to be dealt with, and also with housing and SIHIP across the Northern Territory.
On behalf of the people of the Northern Territory I say thank you, Chris, for the work you have done to improve the disadvantage of Indigenous people across the Northern Territory, and your commitment and dedication to wanting to improve the disadvantage of all people across the Northern Territory. Also, for your firm belief and commitment to the Labor Party and in this team to always stand strong. I thank you for being the example you have been as a senior minister in the Henderson Labor government.
Our third colleague is the member for Arafura. She is also stepping down before the 25 August election. She is our first Indigenous Deputy Chief Minister, our first Indigenous Leader in an acting Chief Minister capacity, and the first Indigenous woman to be a minister in any government in this country. What an extraordinary achievement, and what an honour to work beside this pretty amazing lady, Marion Scrymgour, and observe her struggles throughout her 10 or 11 years as the member for Arafura in this House.
It is important to note the member for Arafura, in particular, represents not only the struggle women in leadership and women in politics go through, but also Indigenous women aspiring to rise above the poverty and disadvantage which keeps Indigenous people down.
I say thank you to the member for Arafura for believing in the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory and for striving to want to see good done no matter the decisions made. Her persistence in continuing and finding a way forward has always been a remarkable example to so many people. In fact, it was probably one of the reasons I came into government in 2005. As one of our first Indigenous women in the parliament, she was certainly an inspiration for me to put my hand up for the seat of Arnhem.
I place on the Parliamentary Record, on behalf of not only the people of Arnhem but the people of the Northern Territory, my thanks to Marion Scrymgour, Chris Burns and Jane Aagaard. I wish each and every one of you, with your families, well in the future. Your legacy will live on, not only with our team, but all those who will come behind us. Thank you.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016