2008-11-26
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs for today which is for the period from 11 pm Wednesday, 26 November and covering all of Thursday, 27 November for the member for Karama who will be covered by the member for Port Darwin. I table the document.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I report on the successful launch of Baz Luhrmann’s epic film Australia. On Tuesday, 18 November, Territorians were given the opportunity to join in the celebrations to launch Baz Luhrmann’s latest masterpiece.
Darwin’s celebrations included a pre-screening function at one of Darwin’s newest tourist attractions, Crocosaurus Cove, followed by the screening of the film at Birch Carroll and Coyle Darwin Cinema. The timing of this event occurred simultaneously with Sydney’s gala event and began ahead of Bowen’s celebrations. The red carpet activities at each event were captured live by A Current Affair broadcasting from Darwin. Three hundred and forty-eight invited guests, including one bloke in a suit and thongs, and a display by Mick’s Whips, provided the perfect backdrop for the red carpet at the front of Darwin Cinema; a uniquely Territorian scene broadcast around Australia.
Darwin’s premiere event celebrated who we are and where we live. Nearly 130 civilians and evacuees from the bombing of Darwin, and also from Katherine and Pine Creek during World War II, attended this event and were accompanied by members of their family. These VIP guests are representatives of the true stars of the movie.
We also had one of the film stars attend, young Territorian, Angus Pilakui, who plays the character of Goolaj in the film. He travelled especially to Darwin to watch the end result of this production. Goolaj is one of the two sidekicks who are with Hugh Jackman’s character throughout much of the film. As well as Angus, we had some of Darwin’s extras attend the screening. It was also great to see many of the local volunteers who helped during the production of the film at this event proudly wearing their ‘Australia’ uniforms. Invited guests also included the wharf traders and harbour cruise operators who demonstrated a lot of patience before and during the filming in Darwin last year. As highlighted in the local media, we also had a special guest at our event – Baz Luhrmann personally addressed the audience before screening the film via a pre-recorded message.
Having now seen the film, I can truly say the Northern Territory’s history, landscape, culture and natural beauty play a significant role in providing the backdrop for the film and the substance in its story. Most importantly, this film brings to the forefront awareness of the catastrophe which occurred in 1942 when Japanese air forces bombed Darwin, Pine Creek and Katherine. For many people across Australia, and the world, this is an untold story.
Regardless of where the filming took place, Darwin and the Northern Territory are the true stars in this film. We will be making the most of the attention surrounding the movie to position the Top End, in particular, inviting people to enjoy our tropical summers. Tourism NT plans to link the positives of the film with the NT through our existing marketing programs and campaign schedules. The campaign will include: cinema advertising on 1200 screens across Australia for the first five weeks release of the film; a special cinema campaign in conjunction with Jetstar and Territory Discoveries with Palace Cinemas; a 12-page liftout in the Australian Financial Review released on 29 November promoting deals and packages for the Territory; cooperative products and price advertising featured in Qweekend, The Australian magazine, and Sunday Life; Territory Discoveries Postcards featuring 10 outback travel deals aligned with the themes of the movie and integrated online; and travel trade education programs with Flight Centre, Harvey World Cinemas and Travel Scene.
I acknowledge the people who brought together this fantastic event. Thanks to Fox Studios Australia and Bazmark Productions for agreeing to have this special screening in Darwin; thanks to the local and national media who continue to promote the significance of Darwin in this great film; thanks to the team at Birch Carroll and Coyle Darwin Cinema and Crocosaurus Cove for their support of the event; and thanks to the joint government team from my department and Tourism NT which coordinated the delivery of this special screening.
I encourage all Australians and Territorians, and everyone in this House to see this film, if only to get a strong appreciation not only of the historic role and sacrifice that Darwin and its people played in World War II, but the story is also about our pastoral industry. It is also, very significantly, about our Stolen Generations, and the tragedies and triumphs of that generation during this period. It truly is a fantastic film. It puts the Territory and Darwin on cinema screens to millions of people around the world. I urge everyone to see it. I thank everyone who contributed to making this event such a great success.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, as yet, I have not seen the movie. I will be attending one of the premieres. There seem to be premieres all over the place. Red Cross is running one and I am happy to support them.
This demonstrates, clearly, the power of cinema. Cinema takes images and disburses them all around the world; we recognise that. I recognise that the Chief Minister has taken advantage of the opportunity that has been presented through this film. Crocodile Dundee provided another opportunity where the image of the Territory was sent abroad. To take the opportunity now to drive further the message of the place we live and our story is important.
However, there is the opportunity to create our own opportunity. Recognising the power of cinema, and that an event has occurred which the Chief Minister has played some part in riding off and then driving messages further - that is good and that is taking advantage of the opportunity that does exist. But, right here in the Territory is our own film and television industry. Underneath this is the recognition of the power of cinema. What about investing more deeply and in a more visionary way in the way that our own industry operates? I know that the industry has lobbied for one way long and hard; to not be regarded as an industry that is in the arts, but as an industry in business, and regarded as a business.
Clearly, the movie Australia shows the positive effect that can occur in promoting the Northern Territory. How much more, then, could we invest in our own film and television industry to drive that message much further, right here at home? Here is an opportunity to take it even further …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments. I can advise that it was this government which established the Northern Territory Film Office and supports the local industry with a grants program. Like all industries and every grants program of government - whether it be community groups, multicultural groups, sporting groups – it is always over-subscribed; there could always be more money put to these programs.
There is a review being conducted at the NT Film Office at the moment, and the issue that the Opposition Leader talked about is one of the terms of reference in that review. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments and support of our film industry. Again, I urge everyone to see this great film over the Christmas holidays.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, today I inform the House that I have declared gamba grass as a weed under the Weeds Management Act. This decision supports the key recommendation from the Environment and Sustainable Development Sessional Committee document Report of Invasive Species and Management Programs in the Northern Territory released in May this year.
My declaration implements a zoned approach which allows the majority of non-pastoral uses of gamba grass to continue to do so while preventing further spread of gamba grass into currently clean areas. As a result of this zoned approach, those properties in what we call the BC Zone will be required to actively control and manage the grass, while properties in the AC Zone will be required to eradicate any infestations of grass. Madam Speaker, I table a map setting out the location of the two zones.
I wish to make it absolutely clear this declaration is about working with property owners in a cooperative manner and not taking a heavy-handed compliance approach. Over the next six months, a gamba grass weeds management plan will be developed in consultation with the general public, and it will provide guidance to landowners on the best approaches to managing gamba on their property.
Gamba grass and the debate on whether to declare or not has been a concern and a very topical issue for some time. It is a highly invasive species, which out-competes our native vegetation. Gamba grass tolerates a wide range of soil types and is capable of sustaining drought and fire, making it well suited to conditions in northern Australian savannahs. Gamba grass has a seed viability of three years, and can grow up to 4 m high and nearly 1 m in diameter. I am sure you would all have seen it as you drive along the Stuart Highway standing tall and green long after the native spear grass is brown and has been flattened or burnt off. Given its density and height, gamba grass can also fuel highly destructive late Dry Season fires, which have three to eight times the intensity of native grass fires. These potentially dangerous fires alter the ecosystem and, in some instances, result in a gamba grass monoculture. The rapid establishment of unmanaged gamba grass populations in the Top End has resulted in significant economic, ecological and cultural impacts. It is a significant risk to property and public safety.
I am well aware that gamba grass is considered an important improved pasture species for cattle production and is still used by some property owners. It has been a focus of this government to ensure that we develop an appropriate response to gamba grass, one which considers not only the environmental risks of the species, but recognises and supports those landowners who use it as cattle fodder. The government has considered its competing interests carefully before making a decision on gamba grass. This has taken some time, but I would prefer to take the time to develop and implement an informed decision rather than feel pressured to make a rush decision on such a significant matter.
The government must be proactive in the development of managed plans for government-owned areas, just as other landowners are obliged to do. I am pleased to announce that my department and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure are currently working closely together to map and control weeds on Crown land, and prevent Crown land from being a point source for invasive species. This is a significant decision and one that provides a good outcome for the environment and for landholders actively using gamba grass for cattle production in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, by joining with Western Australia and Queensland, which have also declared gamba grass as a weed, we now have the opportunity to coordinate action across northern Australia. This is a decision that I firmly believe is in the long-term future interests of the Territory.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report about gamba grass. It is an important issue, but there needs to be a balance. The cattle industry, in particular, needs to be protected because we know gamba grass is such a good fodder for growing cattle. I look forward to seeing the plan you are working on at the moment. On the other side of the coin, this is going to be very difficult for government to manage on Crown land. It will be good to see the plan to manage gamba grass on Crown land.
We all know that gamba grass creates very hot and intensive fires that can be very destructive. It is a fact of life that we have gamba grass in the Northern Territory now, but there needs to be, as I said, that balance. The cattle industry is a big industry in the Northern Territory, and it needs to be protected. One of the hardest things I can see is that government has now declared it a weed. What worries me, when something is declared a weed, is whether there be changes in the future on how you may, perhaps, make people who use gamba grass in the cattle industry get rid of that grass on their lands. They need to be protected with any plan that is put forward. One of the biggest challenges is managing gamba grass on Crown land.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, at last some decision has been made and I do not believe that the government has rushed it. The gamba issue has been around for - I do not know how many years - probably ever since it was introduced. Having been on Litchfield council for some time, and knowing the cost to that council to control that invasive species in its drains and roadsides, I am pleased to see that the government has come to some decision about the control of that particular weed. It is a fine balancing act. There is no doubt that gamba plays an important part, especially in the live cattle industry.
I visited Jindare Station two years ago, and spoke to the manager of that station. He was very much in support of the use of gamba grass as part of his animal husbandry program. However, he did admit that the station next door had gamba grass and it was not controlled or grazed and, therefore, it created some problems.
Even though the government has some ideas about now controlling it - or more or less put a boundary around how far gamba grass can spread outside the Territory - to put these plans into action and to control gamba grass is going to be the real challenge. This challenge is not only for its own government land – there are vast expanses of government land in this area - but also for the councils’ land. The council for Batchelor, the Coomalie council, has major problems with gamba grass, as well as individual landowners. The government may look at playing a role in helping landowners by expanding the role of Landcare groups or by giving subsidies for the use of glyphosate, which would be needed.
I believe there is also room for the government to look at doing some hybridising work with gamba grass. If a gamba grass variety could be grown that produces non-fertile seed it would mean it would not spread by seed being distributed in the wind, in fires or by birds, but could be grown and be useful ...
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: As long as we have Berrimah Research Station there to do that kind of work ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition and the member for Nelson for their positive input. I take this opportunity to say to my shadow that it was stressed in the report that there is a six-month weeds management plan that will be put together in consultation with the pastoral industry. We know that this is a tough decision, but a decision that is based on preserving the environment for the future generations of Territorians. We are working with the pastoral industry. I thank Luke Bowen and other members of the pastoral industry for having input in working with government and taking a positive outlook on the environment.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, the Building Northern Territory Industry Participation policy was launched in May 2003 in conjunction with broader Northern Territory government procurement reforms. This policy is aimed to increase business and industry participation in projects by providing competitive Territory businesses with more opportunities to compete for business generated by major projects.
It is targeted to maximise business and industry benefits arising from Territory economic growth, including the development of industry capabilities, skills and experience. Under the policy, industry participation plans are intended to assist project proponents and developers to: maximise opportunities; utilise local suppliers, services and labour; improve the capacity of businesses to compete globally; and assist in decision-making in relation to government purchasing and investment, where value will be the primary consideration.
Industry participation plans are required for all Northern Territory government tender projects which have an expected value in excess of $5m, and for Territory public/private partnerships. The requirement is for project proponents and developers to provide a statement of their commitment to local participation through an industry participation plan. Proponents of private sector projects are also actively encouraged to prepare an industry participation plan. Industry participation plans have been integrated into relevant Northern Territory government procurement processes, and enable project proponents to show how they will encourage local industry participation and development.
Industry participations plans are assessed and run by my Department of Business and Employment against a satisfactory explanation of: how services, supplies and labour would be sourced and utilised; proposed enhancements to business and industry capability; regional economic benefits; proposal for Indigenous participation; communication strategy; and reporting methodology.
My department has assisted several companies to prepare suitable plans to address all the criteria. This initiative, together with the government’s procurement policies and its partnership with the Northern Territory industry capability network, are the cornerstones of the government’s approach to local industry engagement for capital works.
My department is currently monitoring 24 industry participation plans, totalling in excess of $1bn of development in the Northern Territory. Examples of projects which have industry participation plans include: ENI Blacktip, APT Bonaparte gas pipeline, Marrara Netball Centre, Berrimah Road duplication, Fort Hill Wharf demolition, Weddell power plant, and the Victoria Highway upgrade.
My department has recently had discussions with a proponent of major projects, including INPEX and Jetstar Airlines, with regard to development of industry participation plans for their projects. Jetstar Airlines industry participation plan was recently approved, and INPEX is working towards lodging an industry participation plan within six months.
I am pleased to advise that my department is working through its Procurement Services Branch to integrate the Building Northern Territory’s Industry Participation policy with tender documentation. Implementation of operational arrangements is being revised in consultation with key stakeholders and will be progressively introduced. The revised policy will be launched on completion of this process.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table a list outlining the projects that are currently covered by industry participation plans.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement. I have some concerns that it is just another example of rhetoric and will, in fact, deliver nothing. Industry participation plans make good business sense for most businesses. It is far better for most businesses, for commercial reasons, to employ people locally rather than having to drag companies up from interstate.
Having said that, this government is the biggest failure in regard to following its own principle. In fact, it has an appalling track record. It is a well-known fact that this government is famous for employing interstate consultants to work on the fifth floor to run its spin when there are plenty of local businesses which could do the job adequately. I encourage the government not just to speak of these things, but to act in the same manner.
One only has to look around the Territory business community to see businesses that operate well and do a great job and, yet, this government constantly recruits services from interstate. I find that an appalling situation and something that should …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his contribution. The reality is that the member sometimes makes statements and, then, he has to take the foot out of his mouth because he leaves himself quite open. As for the rhetoric, I just tabled a document that shows industry participation plans for projects worth $1bn. I invite him to have a look at them and see that we put our money where our mouth is.
I am absolutely thrilled to hear the member for Nelson supporting a GM-modified product, even if it is a grass.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
As previously announced by the government, the proposed legislation provides for four-year fixed-term elections in the Northern Territory, and makes a number of consequential amendments to accommodate this. Currently, South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and the ACT all have fixed-term elections. There was a bill before the previous parliament in Western Australia that would have provided for fixed terms in that state as well. Whilst that bill was discontinued with the proroguing of the Western Australian parliament, I am advised that the incoming government indicated during the election campaign that it supported fixed-term elections.
The population of the current jurisdictions with fixed-term elections represents approximately 70% of Australian electors. Should Western Australia move to a fixed term, this figure would rise to 80%. Fixed terms will reduce public uncertainty, allow participants to pre-plan, and assist in the efficient delivery of voting services. These measures should optimise voter participation in elections, and that can only strengthen our system of parliamentary democracy.
Following the last election, a number of voters expressed concern that the parliament had not run its full term. The government has considered those comments, and has responded. This is a government that listens to the public, and acts appropriately.
The Electoral Act currently provides that a general election must not be held within three years of the first sittings of a new parliament unless extraordinary circumstances occur. The Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act provides that the period from the first sitting of the new parliament to the date of the next general election shall not be more than four years.
Working within the limitations set by the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, the proposed scheme provides that future elections in the Northern Territory will occur on the fourth Saturday of August in the fourth year after the year of the previous general election. Under this formula, the scheduled date for the next Territory general election is Saturday, 25 August 2012. Successive elections will be held in August 2016, 2020, 2024 and so on.
Honourable members will appreciate that there will always be difficulties choosing a date in advance. No matter what the date, it is bound to clash with something or be inconvient for someone. The scheduled date is the best available, having regard to possible weather restrictions, school holidays, major events and financial reporting obligations. Circumstances may rise at some time in the future where it is neither desirable nor feasible for the Legislative Assembly to continue sitting until the next scheduled election date. To deal with such situations, the provisions of the existing act which enabled the Administrator to issue a writ for a general election in extraordinary circumstances will continue. These arise where the parliament has passed a resolution of no confidence in the government of the day, or where the parliament fails to pass an Appropriation Bill for the ordinary annual services of government.
In the 30 years of self-government in the Territory, there has never been a general election under such circumstances but, nevertheless, it is necessary to deal with the issue and to deal with how the date for the election following an extraordinary general election is to be determined. If, at some stage in the future, it was necessary to hold an extraordinary general election in the month of May, and that year was the scheduled year for a general election, then the inflexible system could conceivably require the Northern Territory to hold two general elections within a very short period of time. This is clearly undesirable. It would be costly, create uncertainty and erode stability. To use the date of the extraordinary election as the new date for calculating future elections would be similarly undesirable. The date of the extraordinary election may occur in the middle of the Wet Season or on the AFL Grand Final weekend, and all future elections would be held on the anniversary of this inconvient date.
To avoid the need to hold two general elections within a short period of time, and to avoid having to hold future elections at an unsuitable time of the year, the bill provides a new mechanism for determining the date of the general election following an extraordinary one. It provides that the term of the Legislative Assembly immediately following an extraordinary general election will be for the remainder of the year of that election, and the next election will be held on the scheduled date; that is, the fourth Saturday in August in the third year following. For example, if there was an extraordinary general election held in December 2014, the election following that would not be held on the fourth Saturday in August in 2016, the schedule date that would have been used if there had been no extraordinary event but, rather, on the fourth Saturday in August 2017 and, then, at regular four-yearly intervals after that.
The current Commonwealth Electoral Act prevents states and territories from holding an election on the polling date for a general federal election. The Commonwealth does not have fixed terms, so it is necessary to provide some mechanism to move the Territory scheduled election date if this clashes with a future federal election. A provision in the bill allows the Administrator to set another date for the Territory general election within two months of the scheduled date that had to be abandoned, because of the federal election. The alternative date has to be a Saturday.
Even when the date for the Territory general election is known in advance, the length of the statutory election period - that is, the number of days between the issue of the writ and the polling day - is still an important issue. In this period, nominations need to be lodged, rolls closed and postal and pre-poll voting organised.
Clearly, knowing the date in advance is going to help considerably. Things like mobile polling, staffing and printing can be planned in advanced, and this should make the process more efficient. Where there has been cause for a longer election period in the Territory, there are factors that weigh against too long a period. These include the more time the Territory is in caretaker mode, the longer the period the parliament is not functioning and the greater the likelihood that unforeseen events may arise. The calls for a longer period are based on the view that extra time would assist in the delivery of voter services and, in particular, assist in regard to postal and pre-poll voting.
The government acknowledges the concerns that have been raised and, to address them, the bill contains three specific measures to facilitate an ordinary election. These measures should assist in maximising the opportunity to vote. They are:
an amendment to ensure that postal votes can be despatched as soon as practical after the close of nominations and the draw for positions on the ballot papers
has taken place. This is a significant improvement to the current requirements that postal votes cannot be sent out by the Electoral Commissioner until nine days
after the writ or the election has been issued;
and before polling day. This replaces the provision which prevented the commission from commencing pre-polling until 13 days after the issue of the writ; and, finally,
an amendment to add an extra day to the electoral period. Given that the bill now provides that scheduled elections will be held on Saturdays, this provision will mean
that the writs for the election will be issued on Mondays, rather than on Tuesdays as traditionally occurred in the past.
The government is confident that these measures will provide a strong, robust electoral system that will maximise a number of people being in a position to cast a vote within a reasonable time frame. In regard to the length of the election period, it is noted that the past two elections have been successfully carried out under the current 19-day schedule, and knowing the election date in advance is going to assist preparation and planning in future years.
Fixed-term elections will mark another milestone in the development of the Northern Territory. As we move towards greater certainty in regard to population growth and industrial development, it is time to update the electoral process. The proposed measures will promote certainty and stability, and should assist both the public and industry plan for the future.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The primary purpose of the Ombudsman Bill is to establish a transparent, modern, best practice, and comprehensive scheme for the ongoing operation of the Ombudsman in the Northern Territory. The government commissioned a review of the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act as part of our commitment to strengthening the role of the Ombudsman. The review examined all aspects of the existing framework to ensure that Territorians have in place an accessible and comprehensive scheme for resolving complaints about administrative actions taken by public authorities and the conduct of police officers.
The review considered the Ombudsman’s powers; existing practices and procedures; use of conciliation and mediation as an alternate dispute resolution mechanism; and involvement with the police complaints process with particular regard to best practice in the delivery of a more open and transparent complaints handling process.
The public discussion paper prepared for the review received over 30 submissions in addition to various verbal submissions, and a draft bill was released to targeted stakeholders in September 2004. The comments received through the consultation process, together with input from the new Ombudsman who commenced in August 2006, have all been taken into account in presenting honourable members with the Ombudsman Bill 2008.
As honourable members would be aware, the primary role of the Ombudsman is to investigate and deal with complaints. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction extends to administrative actions of public authorities and the conduct of police officers whilst on duty. As Chief Minister and Minister for Police, I wholly support these additional safeguards to the integrity of our police force. My government has complete confidence in our police force and the conduct of its officers. However, in the unlikely event that corruption was ever suspected or detected, my government and the wider community must be confident that there is legislation in place that provides the Ombudsman with sufficient powers to conduct the necessary investigation.
In carrying out this role, the Ombudsman will proactively improve the quality of public administration through the development of complaints procedures and a resolution of disputes. I am confident that this new legislation will contribute significantly to the Ombudsman fulfilling that role.
Key inclusions of the bill that support the discharge of the Ombudsman’s functions include:
the creation of detailed legislation providing for a clearer and more transparent delivery of a complaints process;
The purpose of this is to allow police officers access to the Ombudsman without comprising the Commissioner of Police’s
management responsibilities; and
In addition, I draw honourable members’ attention to one of the consequential amendments being made to the Police Administration Act. The Ethical and Professional Standards Command is, for the first time, established in legislation. This command conducts the preliminary inquiries and investigations into complaints regarding police conduct. As the command’s name suggests, its role is to ensure the highest ethical and professional standards within our police force.
I now turn to specific elements of the bill.
Part 1 of the bill deals with preliminary matters, including objects upon which the bill is drafted. These objects are to give people a timely, effective, independent, impartial and fair way of investigating and dealing with complaints about administrative action of public authorities and conduct of police officers, and to improve the quality of decision-making and administer the practice by public authorities.
Part 2 contains essential interpretation clauses of the bill, commencing with a detailed definitions clause. Ombudsman legislation is consulted by many people, few of whom have an understanding of legislation, and a comprehensive definition section will aid in understanding the act. Part 2 also defines the basic concepts of public authorities and administrative action, and defines what constitutes police conduct for the purpose of the Ombudsman’s powers. Specifically, the kinds of complaints which can be dealt with by the Ombudsman include: administrative actions such as a decision, an act, or a failure to make a decision or to act; and the conduct of a police officer when the officer is on duty or purporting to be on duty. It should be noted that the conduct of an off-duty police officer is not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
Part 2 also sets out the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman which includes: all government agencies; the police force; Power and Water Corporation; local government councils; any other entities which have been created under the law of the Territory for a public purpose; and any entity in another act or prescribed by regulation as subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
Part 3 of the bill establishes the functions and powers of the Ombudsman. A function of the Ombudsman is to deal with complaints about the administrative actions of public authorities. In doing so, the Ombudsman may make recommendations for the improvement of the practices and procedures of the authority. The role of the Ombudsman includes making recommendations about how administrative practices and procedures can be improved.
Similarly, the Ombudsman can investigate complaints about the conduct of police officers. The Ombudsman may then make recommendations with regard to addressing the complaint. Although the Ombudsman has no power to direct, the Ombudsman position has the power under Part 9 of the bill to make reports on any aspect of an investigation which must be tabled in this Assembly.
Part 3 also includes a strong statement as to the independence of the Ombudsman. It stipulates that the position is not subject to direction from any person with regard to the performance of functions. The Ombudsman is, therefore, free to act independently, impartially, and in the public interest. In cementing the independence of the position even further, my government has decided to change the tenure of the Ombudsman to a one-off appointment of seven years. This is consistent with the Northern Territory’s other significant government officer of accountability, the Auditor-General.
Part 4 of the Ombudsman Bill is critical to understanding the scope of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and sets out clearly what is not within the jurisdiction. Examples of actions and entities outside jurisdiction include:
the deliberations of Executive Council and Cabinet;
This is because there is a less compelling need for access by the Ombudsman to the deliberative processes of bodies that have procedures and processes
that provide substantial and transparent protections of citizens’ rights, and that must operate in accordance with the principles of natural justice and procedural
fairness. However, this provision does not prevent the Ombudsman investigating if there has been an unreasonable delay in relation to action;
Further, the Ombudsman cannot investigate a matter where the complainant has an alternate avenue for resolution, such as an appeal, review or court action, except when it would be unreasonable to expect a person to resort to that alternative avenue. Since the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act first commenced in 1978, a number of bodies have been established to deal with complaints by Territorians. Some complainants choose to exercise all their options and may make the same complaint to a number of complaints entities, for example, the Information Commissioner, the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner and the Ombudsman. In order to avoid inappropriate duplication of investigative activity, provision has been made for complaints entities to refer complaints to each other.
Part 5 of the bill provides for an expansion of who is expressly allowed to make a police complaint to the Ombudsman. In relation to police complaints currently, only the person directly aggrieved by the conduct of an officer can make a complaint. Under the new provisions, a third party who has a substantive issue to raise, or has firsthand evidence about a matter, may complain to the Ombudsman.
Also, for the first time, police officers are able to make a complaint to the Ombudsman about the serious misconduct of another police officer. Should a police officer feel, for whatever reason, that he or she is unable to report the serious misconduct of another officer to a senior officer within the police force, the complaint can be made to the Ombudsman who may then independently investigate the complaint. This represents yet another extremely important safeguard in ensuring that our police force continues to remain free of corruption.
Part 6 is substantial and contains provisions specific to complaints and investigations about the administrative actions of public authorities. First and foremost, this part deals with the process of preliminary inquiries. Preliminary inquiries are an initial request for information made by the Ombudsman about a matter to determine whether it falls within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and, if it does, whether the matter should be investigated.
The vast majority of complaints are resolved at the preliminary inquiry stage. Supporting the utilisation of less resource-intensive preliminary investigations, the Ombudsman has been given additional authority to protect information obtained in such an inquiry from being released. Currently, only information provided during a formal investigation is covered by the existing act’s secrecy provisions. This has led to a number of instances where an investigation has had to be commenced in order to gain access to information which is subject to legislative provisions to maintain its secrecy.
One of the most innovative changes in this bill is the inclusion of conciliation and mediation as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. The Ombudsman may, at any time, offer a complainant the opportunity to resolve a matter through voluntary conciliation or mediation. Through this process parties have the option of attempting to reach an agreement in a confidential environment without fear that disclosed information may be used in the course of a later investigation. Alternate dispute resolution processes present an excellent avenue for resolving complaints in a cost-effective and timely manner.
Part 6 of the bill also contains the Ombudsman’s powers to conduct an investigation, and includes the new power for the Ombudsman to direct a public authority to stop performing an administrative action for a period of up to 45 days. It is expected that this power would be used in a very limited number of instances. The Ombudsman can only make such a direction where the public authority’s action is likely to prejudice the investigation or affect the implementation of a potential Ombudsman’s recommendation. Further, the Ombudsman must be satisfied that compliance with the notice will not breach a contract or other legal obligation.
The Ombudsman’s reporting requirements following an investigation are also set out in this part of the act. The provisions reflect the concept of natural justice; therefore, should the Ombudsman wish to make any adverse comments concerning a person or authority in relation to the investigation, that person or authority must be given an opportunity to make a submission in response to the criticism. This submission must then be taken into account fairly when drafting the final report.
Part 7 of the bill deals exclusively with complaints about police conduct. The current Ombudsman legislation does not deal clearly with complaints about police conduct and has been the subject of judicial interpretation. In response to this, changes have been made to provide a transparent, flexible and responsive scheme for dealing with complaints about on-duty police conduct.
Complaints about police conduct range from alleged poor customer service through to serious misuse of power. To address the range of situations where a complaint may arise, the Ombudsman has been empowered with a variety of options for dealing with a complaint against police conduct. These include conciliation, the police complaints resolution process, investigations by police, investigations by police but with the Ombudsman making the final report, and investigations and report by the Ombudsman. In all instances, the Ombudsman has oversight and audit role as to how each complaint is dealt with. This role should not be underestimated.
Some commentators are of the view that police investigating police will never give a fair outcome. In the scheme established by this bill, at any time and at the Ombudsman’s own volition, the Ombudsman can audit an Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act investigation being undertaken by police. The Ombudsman may then choose to withdraw the handling of complaint from police and undertake the investigation and reporting through the Office of the Ombudsman. Importantly, the Ombudsman is the final arbiter and has the ultimate decision-making power on what recommendations and information should be included in the final report of an investigation.
Part 7 is, by necessity, quite extensive, and for good reason. Territorians need to be able to see in the act how their complaints will be handled, by whom, and the reports the complainants can expect to receive.
Part 8 establishes the confidentiality provisions and also creates offence provisions. Aside from the few exceptions relating to ministerial and Executive Council communications, information which would otherwise be confidential must be disclosed if the Ombudsman requests it for the purposes of a preliminary inquiry or an investigation.
The provisions detailing the offences under the act have been significantly updated to more accurately reflect the appropriate penalties which should be attached to the prescribed offences. I make no apologies for the fact that a number of the penalties are higher than comparable ones in other jurisdictions. It is extremely important that employees of public authorities, police officers, and Territorians generally cooperate with the Ombudsman. The offences include: disclosure of confidential information whilst a complaint is being dealt with; preventing or obstructing a person from making a complaint; making a false complaint; taking reprisal against a person as a result of a complaint having been made; failing to provide a document when requested by the Ombudsman; and providing false or misleading statements.
Turning to Part 9, a significant provision is the change in the Ombudsman’s tenure. Currently, the Ombudsman is appointed by the Administrator on the recommendation of this Assembly for up to five years. There is no limitation to the number of occasions on which the Ombudsman can seek further appointments. Members are already aware that my government indicated its intention in 2006 to change the tenure of the Ombudsman. This bill provides that the Ombudsman will, in future, be appointed for a one-off term of seven years. This will strengthen the independence and impartiality of the Ombudsman and remove any suggestion that the Ombudsman may be politically influenced on matters in pursuit of securing another term of appointment.
Part 9 also provides for the Ombudsman and Commissioner of Police to make an agreement for dealing with police complaints. In keeping with the bill’s other transparent provisions, any agreement must be tabled in this Assembly, published in the Police Gazette, included in the Ombudsman’s Annual Report, and made available for inspection on request.
Part 10 of the bill provides protection from liability to specific classes of people. As an example, protection from civil liability is provided for complainants and informants unless their involvement was in bad faith. Similarly, protection from civil and criminal liability is provided to persons dealing with a complaint.
Part 11 deals with a number of miscellaneous matters including the repeal of all prior Ombudsman legislation and transitional provisions. In particular, the incumbent Ombudsman continues in office with her total tenure being seven years from commencement in 2006.
Part 12 deals with a series of consequential amendments to other legislation. I have already mentioned the establishment of the Ethical and Professional Standards Command in the Police Administration Act. Currently, the Information Act exempts information obtained by the Ombudsman during the investigation and resolution of complaints against police in those rare situations where the Ombudsman conducts the investigation. However, this exemption does not apply when police conduct an investigation. It is important that the full and frank cooperation of individuals is encouraged in investigations about police conduct, regardless of whether the Ombudsman or police undertake the investigation. Consequently, an amendment has been made to the Information Act to protect the confidentiality of information obtained or created during the course of investigations conducted by police under the Ombudsman legislation.
Whilst some may perceive the amendment to the Information Act as acting to reduce transparency, my government believes that the amendment is justified, as it achieves a careful balance between allowing investigations to be open, and protecting the integrity of the investigation. This gives the investigation the greatest opportunity to get to the heart of the matter. In addition, safeguards remain in place which allow the Ombudsman, as the final decision-maker, to retain the right to publish whatever information deemed appropriate from the investigation process.
In conclusion, this bill delivers a major reform package which implements government’s commitment to good government. This Ombudsman Bill not only brings the Territory into line with other Australian jurisdictions but, in many ways, it sets the benchmark for best practice government administration. It provides the public with a transparent, accessible and flexible vehicle for resolving complaints concerned with public administration and police conduct.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill before the House reflects this government’s strong commitment to tackling domestic violence in our community. It enables a community response to a community problem. This bill amends the Domestic and Family Violence Act by creating a mandatory reporting law for abuse that occurs within a domestic relationship and causes serious physical harm.
The bill was tabled during the September sittings as an exposure draft to allow public discussion of the proposed amendments before it was formally introduced. The bill generated some public comment and submissions, all of which have been thoroughly considered. This government believes it is the responsibility of every member of our community to help break the cycle of domestic and family violence, and protect women and children from violence. The mandatory reporting law reflects this important responsibility.
The Domestic and Family Violence Act was developed with its primary objective being to better protect women and children. When the act was introduced, the previous Attorney-General spoke of the unacceptable tragedy of the lost and ruined lives in the Northern Territory that result from domestic and family violence.
One of the key aspects of the Domestic and Family Violence Act is that domestic violence is defined by common domestic violence behaviours such as assault, threats and damage to property, as well as reference to a set of behaviours such as economic abuse, sexual assault, stalking, intimidation, coercion, damage to animals, and acts which, if repeated, indicate a continuing pattern of abuse. The inclusion of economic abuse and intimidation in the definition of domestic violence recognised that socially isolating the victim from their normal channels of support, and economically depriving them is abusive behaviour by shaming and undermining the victim’s capacity to take independent action.
This government is sending a message to the people of the Northern Territory that any such abuse, perpetrated against women and children within a domestic relationship, is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. This message was made clear in the introduction of the Domestic and Family Violence Act, and now through the introduction of mandatory reporting.
The introduction of mandatory reporting is the next step in moving towards a genuine change in the community attitude and behaviour towards domestic and family violence. The amendment will provide further protection to those people who experience abuse and violence within their relationships and families. Mandatory reporting is not about peering over your neighbour’s fence or dobbing people in to the police. It is about no longer ignoring violence and abuse. Mandatory reporting is sending a message to the community, to our friends and neighbours, that abuse will no longer be ignored; that we, the community, will no longer remain silent.
I will now outline the major features of the bill.
The bill amends the Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 to insert a new section 124A requiring all adults in the Northern Territory to make either a verbal or written report to a police officer if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that either:
a person has caused, or is likely to cause, serious physical harm to another person within a domestic relationship; or
another person’s life or safety is under serious or imminent threat because of domestic violence.
The bill creates an offence for failing to make a report, with the defence that the person has a reasonable excuse for not doing so. Such an excuse includes, but is not limited to, reasonably believing one or more of the following:
that another person had also formed the same belief and already made a report to a police officer under section 124A(1);
The maximum penalty for the offence is 200 penalty units, currently a $22 000 fine.
The requirement to report applies to domestic violence that inflicts serious physical harm upon a person, which is physical harm, including the cumulative effect of more than one harm that endangers, or is likely to endanger, a person’s life, or that is, or is likely to be, significant and long-standing.
These reporting requirements acknowledge that domestic and family violence is often a hidden crime and that it is not feasible to extend mandatory reporting to abuse that is not clear and visible. These amendments, however, reflect the government’s commitment to ending community acceptance and end the silence that shrouds domestic and family violence.
When police receive a report, the police officer must ensure that reasonable steps are taken to investigate the report. In order to alleviate any fears that the person may have about making a report to the police, the bill provides protection by ensuring that any person, who in good faith makes a report to a police officer, cannot be held criminally or civilly liable or in breach of any professional code of conduct.
Furthermore, the report, or evidence of its content, is not admissible in proceedings before a court, and a person cannot be compelled to give evidence, or to produce a record about the report or the identity of the person who made the report, except by leave of the court. Such leave may only be granted in limited circumstances, being: where the report, evidence or record is of critical importance to the proceedings; and where failure to grant the leave would prejudice the proper administration of justice.
The bill also rectifies an inconsistency and drafting oversight in the Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007. Currently, if a police officer makes a domestic violence order against a defendant, they may give a copy of the order to the defendant personally. When they do so, the police officer is then required to explain to the defendant the effect and consequences of breach of the order, as well as their right to apply for a review. Currently, the act requires the police officer, as far as it is reasonably practical to do so, to provide this explanation both in a language and in terms that are likely to be readily understood by the defendant. This requirement conflicts with the general requirement in the act that any body or person who is issuing an order - for example, a police officer or a magistrate - must make the same explanation to persons such as a defendant or protected person present before them. However, in that case, the explanation need only be given either in a language or in terms that are likely to be readily understood by the person. Therefore, the act is amended to provide consistency, whereby the police officer’s explanation to the defendant can either be given in a language or in terms that are likely to be readily understood by the defendant.
Additionally, under the Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 past breaches, being a breach of a restraining order which occurred under the repealed Domestic Violence Act, or a breach of a similar order made under a corresponding law in another state, territory or in New Zealand, cannot be taken into account when determining the penalty for contraventions of domestic violence orders under the act. The bill corrects this technical difficulty and ensures that past breaches of restraining orders under the repealed Domestic Violence Act, as well as past breaches of intestate and New Zealand orders, are taken into account when penalties for breaches of domestic violence orders are determined.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 23 October 2008.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I once again congratulate the Chief Minister and the Northern Territory government for bringing to the Northern Territory a necessary advance in the Territory.
This industry did not simply spring up overnight. Whilst I do nothing to diminish the Northern Territory government’s and the Chief Minister’s work to convince INPEX to come to the Northern Territory, at the outset I point out that the arrangements which enabled the Chief Minister to become aware of bringing INPEX to the Northern Territory started many years ago under a former administration, which also had the foresight to see the importance of gas and the gas industry in the future. Doubly so, because since we last debated this particular issue in the House, the world has changed.
It seems like only a few months ago that we had the last debate on this particular issue. There is a good reason at the moment to be nervous if you live in any other part of the world - less so in Australia if you believe Access Economics and the OECD reports and, even less so if you believe the federal Treasury. Nevertheless, growth projections, both nationally and internationally, have been downgraded as they have been locally.
However, because INPEX is, I understand, contractually bound to its customer down the track, and its customer is essentially energy generation in Japan, it is unlikely that those contracts will dry up or change. Without knowing the details of the contracts, we can take some comfort that INPEX has a signed-up customer ready to go, and that is one of the urgency drivers that is pushing them along so that they can deliver in a timely fashion to the downstream customer.
I presume that in a contractual arrangement of that nature not only is INPEX bound to deliver on a certain time but I presume that the customer is bound to purchase at a certain time as well. Without knowing the ins and outs, I imagine there would be some set price or range of prices which the customer has to pay. Clearly, INPEX is throwing a lot of money at constructing this whole arrangement. I am grateful to Alan Carpenter, the former Premier of Western Australia, for leading Western Australia into an environment where there is essentially - and I will not say a hung parliament - a minority government under their current arrangements in Western Australia. As a consequence of that, the Northern Territory is in a position to provide certainty, where the Western Australian government is less likely to be in that position. As I have said before in this House, the Northern Territory government can reliably go to INPEX as a company and say that we can guarantee 24, if not 25, votes inside this House to support the arrival of INPEX in Darwin.
Having made those observations it is worth noting that there is still the issue of Glyde Point. Blaydin Point has become academic and will definitely be rendered academic by this bill. I still have my reservations about using the harbour as a location for INPEX. Having said that, it is clear that, for the purpose of driving this forward, those reservations will now have to be set aside because INPEX has been offered a location and this legislative instrument will help make the contract for the use of Blaydin Point much more certain. If it is a case - and I have said this before and will restate it here - of INPEX in the harbour or no INPEX at all, then it is INPEX in the harbour. Especially in the current economic times, we simply cannot afford to turn our backs on a company which is going to spend – well, $12bn is the figure I keep hearing bandied around. However, as I understand it, exchange rates may have changed that. At $64, I think is probably around the $A20bn mark at the moment for the value of this project - not to be sneezed at in the least.
I have read the bill. However, I do not have it in front of me. I am aware that one of the elements in the bill is that it seeks to engender the equitable doctrine of specific performance. Specific performance is not unusual, particularly in contracts of land. The doctrine of specific performance in contract law is covered in Chapter 39 of - it used to be Harland and Carter; it is now Carter Peden Tolhurst - Contract Law in Australia …
Ms Carney: Oh, they have changed. Well, there you go.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I think Mr Harland died. However, in any instance, the issue of specific performance is dealt with. It is worth pausing on this particular issue because I want to put on the record my personal understanding of what specific performance means to a future government of the Northern Territory, and to cement in my understanding as to what is being offered to INPEX, and to give my support to this legislative instrument containing that equitable doctrine.
At the outset, I will refer to the text to which I refer to as Carter on Contract, quotes JC Williamson Ltd v Lukey 1931 45 CLR 282 at 297 in which the observation is made, and I quote:
To give some colour or meaning to honourable members, what it basically means is that, in the original form of contract law with the absence of equity operating in contract law, then a breach of contract can be settled in the form of damages. What that means is if I, for argument’s sake, walk into a car yard - let us say there is a new car I want to buy and there is a car parked over in the corner, and I say to the guy who sells the cars: ‘That is the car I want’. He says: ‘Absolutely, sign the contract’, so we are both committed to the contract. I come in two days later to pick the car up and he says: ‘Look, that car I sold you, I cannot sell you, but that car over there, which is exactly the same make, model, colour - everything else about it, except the serial number is slightly different. You will have to take that one’.
There are two options available if the matter was to go to court in those instances: (1) I could simply say: ‘Yes, that other one will do. That is fine’; or I can seek damages for my losses in relation to the contract. If I can establish damages beyond just simply the loss of the car - I may have had to have a hire car or a few other things as a result of this process - I might even be able to get some extra damages for it. However, in that instance, I could not demand that I get that specific car or that specific serial number because there is a certain commonness about the product which I am purchasing.
If, however, I choose to buy another vehicle or purchase something which, by its very nature is unique - for argument’s sake, Claude Monet’s Waterlilies was available on the open marketplace and I went to this vendor of that particular painting and said: ‘That is the one I want’. He charges me $35, or whatever these things are worth, for that particular painting and we sign the contract or we have a verbal contract. I then come back the next day and he says: ‘Well, I cannot give you Claude Monet’s Waterlilies, you will have to have Claude Monet’s rubbish bin out the back of the house, because that is all I can offer you’. In that instance, what I am purchasing is actually quite unique. It is something quite different to what I intended to purchase, and there is no other Claude Monet’s Waterlilies, as I understand it …
A member: I have one.
Mr ELFERINK: Not an original, at least. Consequently, I could then turn to the courts of equity or the equitable principles which are observed by courts in the modern era, and I could say that I would want that contract fulfilled. It is not just a case of me wanting my money back; I want the specific contract which has been offered to me fulfilled.
In the context of land, specific performance defines its reality. I point out on page 939 of Carter on Contract in relation to ‘Specific contracts, sales of land’:
This is an illustration of what the Privy Council described in Palmer v Carey 1926 37 CLR 545 at 548 as:
What the legislation does by encapsulating the equitable principles of specific performance in the legislative instrument is that it says the effect of it will be that any future government will remain contractually bound within the terms that the current government binds us to this contractual arrangement. As a consequence, it will not be available for the Northern Territory government, should it be a Country Liberals government in the future, to simply say: ‘Blaydin Point is off the radar. You are going to Glyde Point’. We would not do it on a moral level; we would consider ourselves bound by the contractual arrangements of the current government.
Having said that, I understand what is implied in the legislation and what will flow from the legislation. I accept that, and give a cast iron commitment or acknowledgement, if you like, that we understand on this side of the House that Blaydin Point will be the location. We have explained our reservations in relation to those issues in the past. However, we will accept the contractual obligations that flow from the contract that is written, and we will accept the bind that will be thrust upon our shoulders as a result of this legislative instrument being passed.
As I said at the outset, it is important that we clear the obstacles out of INPEX’s way. This is a particularly important issue in the current economic environment. There will be budgetary impacts to government which will be very challenging to government as a result of INPEX coming to Darwin. There are also budgetary impacts for the company. In making its announcement that Darwin is the preferred site, they have not said absolutely, of course, they are coming to Darwin. They have to spend some – what? $250m. Someone help me. About $250m, making sure there are no deal breakers between now and when INPEX comes to town - whatever the figure is. However, that is not chump change by any measure or yardstick, even for a company the size of INPEX.
Clearly, they are committed to Darwin, and it will only be reasonable and rational that we acknowledge their commitment in the expenditure they are making right now to form up Darwin as their preferred location by mirroring that, in this place, by saying to them: ‘Yes, we appreciate and understand the value of the commitment you are making and, as a consequence, we will also make a commitment’. This legislative instrument captures that commitment, I hope.
Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned, I would like to see INPEX come to Darwin. I hope there are no deal breakers between now and the time that the structure is built because, clearly, the future of Darwin is at stake. If this comes, and if Greater Sunrise come, the Darwin I grew up in, or have lived in, on and off for the last 40 years, will be unrecognisable in 40 years time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, as this legislation before the House shows today, the Henderson government is committed to the delivery of the INPEX gas processing facility to be built by INPEX and Total in Darwin.
The project involves three main elements: the development of the Ichthys gas field, 850 km south-west of Darwin; piping the gas onshore via a subsea pipeline; and processing gas and storing the LNG onshore for export. This will be the largest single private sector investment ever made in the Northern Territory and the project will be a major foundation for growth in the Darwin region.
The joint venture, INPEX and Total, has signed a project development agreement with the Northern Territory government which will enable it to proceed to front-end engineering design and, ultimately, to final investment decision. Negotiations between the Northern Territory government and the joint venture partners for the Ichthys LNG project have highlighted a number of areas within the Northern Territory regulatory framework which may increase risk for the project.
As the Chief Minister mentioned, the purpose of this bill is to provide certainty for the Ichthys LNG project, in part in relation to the acquisition and development of land. As Treasurer and Lands minister, I support the range of provisions in this bill because they provide a certainty to the joint venture partners so that the government may adhere to its commitments in relation to land.
Specifically clause 5(2) defines the provisions that (a) requires the grant of agreed tenure over Crown land. Tenure includes an estate in fee simple, lease, licence or other tenure; (b) confers an option for the provision of an estate in fee simple or a lease of Crown land; (c) fixing of a purchase price in accordance with either the agreed fixed price or the agreed procedure for fixing the purchase price; (d) requires the renewal or extension of the term of the lease; (e) requires or authorises consent for the assignment, mortgage, charge or encumbrance of the lease; (f) requires the grant of an easement; (g) requires the Territory to enter into a covenant that runs with the land; and (h) restrains the Territory from dealing with the land.
In effect, this act takes precedence over other acts such as the Crown Lands Act and allows the Territory to give effect to the Ichthys LNG project development agreement. The bill gives the certainty that the INPEX/Total joint venture require to proceed – a certainty, I am sure that the members opposite, as supporters of this project that they now seem to be, will be eager to throw their support behind. INPEX and this project is good for the Territory. Our economy is already strong. We have the lowest unemployment on record at 2.6%, the highest population growth in years running at around 2.4%, very strong retail growth, and consumer and business confidence is strong.
However, INPEX is about a long-term sustainable economy. In the midst of a global financial crisis, it will help to underpin our economy – it is a big insurance policy. INPEX will be spending more than $20bn during construction, with approximately 2000 new jobs. ACIL Tasman undertook a report into the economic benefits and it predicts an injection of approximately $50m into the Territory economy over the next few decades. The business community in Darwin has been strongly supportive of the INPEX gas processing facility.
The Northern Territory government is working with INPEX and the local Northern Territory Industry Capability Network to ensure that jobs and business opportunities stay local. As with many other projects, the government has asked INPEX to develop a local industry participation plan which will commit the company to source goods and services from local businesses where possible. The flow-on benefits for the community through the preconstruction, construction, and operational phases of the project, will see increased economic activity and opportunities for local businesses to grow.
A project of this size is not without its challenges, and the government recognises that the significant investment by INPEX will take place during a period of economic buoyancy in the Territory, and while the Darwin rental market is already tight. To ease the pressure on the rental market, the Henderson government has introduced the Buildstart scheme, and is also accelerating the release of more than 3700 residential lots in Palmerston and the northern suburbs, including approximately 3000 lots in Johnston, Zuccoli and Mitchell at Palmerston East.
Through the Power and Water Corporation, the government is also investing almost $190m in expanding the capacity of power, water and sewerage services for the Darwin region. To ensure that the Territory is job ready for INPEX, the government is well on its way to meeting its target of training 10 000 new apprentices across the Territory between the years of 2006 and 2010.
Madam Speaker, this bill provides certainty for the Ichthys LNG project to land in Darwin and, thus, certainty the economic future of the Territory. I wholeheartedly support this bill.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support the bill. The INPEX gas plant will be a large infrastructure project for the Northern Territory and Australia, involving a construction workforce of some 2000 permanent employees, an operating workforce, when the project is complete, of approximately 300 people. The cost is around about $20bn but, as was said, this could vary depending on exchange rates and capital expenditure, which is for the onshore and offshore components. We know it is going to contribute substantially to the economic wellbeing of the Northern Territory and Australia.
The project has a planned long life of about 40 years, which is a major world-class project, and will be fed from a gas field of about 12.8 trillion cubic feet. To put it into perspective, the Sunrise gas field is around 7.5 trillion cubic feet, the Bayu-Undan gas field that feeds the LNG plant is around 4.5 trillion cubic feet, and Blacktip is around 1 trillion cubic feet in gas. You can see that 12.8 trillion cubic feet is a lot of product and, given the size of the project, it is logical and proper that certainty be given to the proponent.
When operating, the plant will produce around 8 million tons of LNG and 1.6 million tons of LPG per annum, and 100 000 barrels of condensate per day. These production levels will contribute substantially to both the Northern Territory and the Australian economies, not only in regard to taxes and royalties but, also, in cumulative goods and services, salary and wages. Interestingly, I encourage and hope that the government and Chief Minister is talking with his federal counterparts in regard to the condensate tax that the Rudd government is proposing, such that this is not brought in and that it will not detrimentally impact on this project.
This project will have challenges, no doubt, none more so than the sheer scale of the construction; securing the workforce, particularly in the specialist areas of welding and the like; accommodating the construction workforce, given our current real estate and housing limitations; and meeting and working with the community and their expectations. There will be infrastructure issues associated with power, sewerage, roads and transport generally. However, I am sure with careful planning and meaningful consultation, satisfactory outcomes can be achieved.
The company has already had extensive discussions with government and has been meeting with the Litchfield Shire Council. Also, the company is currently running a series of fora in Darwin, and attendance will be high as many businesses and non-government organisations are keen to learn what the project is all about and where the opportunities for partnerships and contracts will be. This program of community consultation demonstrates that the company wants to be accessible to the community and to work with the community such that all parties receive benefits from the project and understand the project and what it is all about.
Soon, the company is looking to open an office in Darwin and they will be putting permanent staff here within a couple of months, I am advised. This legislation is a good sign that the project is moving ahead and gives certainty to the proponents such that their billion dollar investment will be secure. Australia has a reputation for a low level of sovereign risk, which counterbalances a range of other technical and geological challenges which can disadvantage us relative to our competitors.
The Country Liberals support the project and will continue to work with the company while in opposition - and when in government in three years time. The company takes a long view of the project and its commitment to the Territory and to Australia is encouraging. I congratulate the company and look forward to working with them over the next five years in the construction phase and, then, into the operation phase.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I preface my comments to the Chief Minister to say that just because I agree with this bill and support the fact that we are getting gas onshore does not mean I support the particular placement of the facility in Darwin Harbour. Be that as it may, Chief Minister, I thank the government for the very good briefing I had.
I have some concerns about whether this bill would override some of the environmental issues that the company would have to negotiate in siting the facility in the middle of the harbour, especially issues such as the disposal of waste materials or any matters related to clearing of land, etcetera. It was certainly confirmed that none of those matters would be overridden by this particular act, which is to deal, really, with the tenure of the land.
It is obvious that a project of this magnitude requires some certainty, because there are many people involved in the financial side of the operation and they want to ensure their money is pretty secure when they put their money towards making this project a reality. It is a good bill and I certainly will support it.
The whole issue of LNG needs to be continually raised in this parliament. There are issues recently raised by the member for Katherine, which I had noted myself, whether there is a move to have a floating LNG plant, and whether this is a threat to this particular project. It appears the reasoning behind the possibility of a floating LNG plant is something to do with the changes in taxation revolving around carbon credits for these types of industries. I am interested to know whether the minister has had any discussions with the federal government regarding if these new taxation policies have the potential to drive this particular facility offshore - or facilities like it; regardless of whether we are just talking about this particular facility. I am interested in the Chief Minister reporting on that.
In relation to future sites, if we get more gas I still think we should not write off Glyde Point. After spending my $90.90, I eventually got the Executive Summary of the environmental impact statement for Glyde Point. It is amazing how time-consuming and difficult it is to get a piece of paper which is not top secret. It is a document that should be freely available to anyone who wanted it. I have done some initial reading of that environmental impact statement regarding Glyde Point, and my reaction would be that I have some concerns about some of the development. That does not mean that it wipes out the whole of Glyde Point as not being suitable for future industrial development. After all, we are talking about a draft environmental impact statement, which means we are able to comment on and change it if necessary.
What the government seems to have done is said: ‘Here is a draft environmental impact statement, but it does not look any good; a couple of people said it is not a good idea’, and it has gone out the door. We did not go through that process where we should have had more public consultation and more input into alternative options for that site. I believe there was an option to build a world-class industrial development that, on one hand, allowed the development to occur and, on the other hand, allowed the environment to be protected. We went one way and we were not willing to go part of the other way. I feel that the government has not quite wiped out the notion of using Glyde Point as future industrial area, simply because they did not zone that land Conservation. If they really believe that land should be locked up forever and a day, it would have been a different zone.
We need to not close that off all together because, eventually, the harbour is going to run out of space anyway. There is not a lot of room in the middle of the harbour to develop heavy industry. When you look at the possible sites that will be required for this Ichthys LNG project, it not only covers Blaydin Point, it will cover a substantial amount of land in the middle of Middle Arm Peninsula. It will take up quite a bit of space. As I said, there is not a large amount of land there for any more future projects. It can take more, but it is limited.
I support the bill as I understand the importance of having it. I understand it because I was given a good briefing; otherwise just reading it as a legal document did not mean much to me. We should encourage this project which will be a good project for the Territory. It has some big issues that we have to deal with, especially the social issues. I thank INPEX for also giving me a briefing yesterday about possible sites for a workers’ village or workers’ camp or whatever you like to call it. It is important that they are out there talking to people. They spoke to Litchfield Shire Council. They need to be up-front with their future plans so the public will know ahead what their plans are so, if there are any possible issues which could disrupt their plans, or those plans may need to be adjusted, then the community has had a chance to have a say and feel comfortable with what they have in mind.
I do not think it is any secret to say three of the sites are in my electorate. There are some pluses and minuses for that. I believe, with some good negotiation and discussions which includes both the council and the community, there will be a good resolution of those particular issues. Time will tell.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing forward this bill, and I will support it.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I also support this bill and congratulate the government on putting it forward. I congratulate the Chief Minister for his fantastic efforts in attracting this project to the Northern Territory. It is welcomed by the community, the opposition and, it seems, by everyone in this Chamber. Hopefully, it is greeted with as much welcome by the community at large.
I encourage the government to work very closely with INPEX on a whole range of areas. There are a range of challenges facing INPEX at the moment which, I believe, largely are out of government’s hands in the Northern Territory. Most particularly, I speak about the instability of the global economy and the recession in Japan. We have seen a reduced value of INPEX stemming from that which, naturally, will create pressures for INPEX. As much support from this government as possible, I believe, will alleviate some of those concerns. Of course, the reduced value of INPEX shares is reflective of Japanese stocks across the board. It is probably fair to say it is reflective of international stocks across the board. Companies across the world are coming to grips with having to deal with the instability of the global economy and, in that regard, INPEX is no different.
However, there are areas where the Territory government can seek to apply its influence - as the member for Goyder mentioned in her address to this Chamber - in the area of the petroleum resource rent tax. I believe it is incumbent on the Chief Minister and the government to prevail with the federal government to make conditions in relation to that tax as conducive as possible to see the further development of INPEX.
The other area which is very important to this government, particularly in the Northern Territory, is the area of the federal government’s proposed emissions trading scheme. Of course, it has been signalled that gas producers will be unfairly penalised by the introduction of the proposed emissions trading scheme. At this stage it is only a proposal and, given the Northern Territory’s reliance on natural gas, I believe the Northern Territory government really has a role to play in championing the interests of natural gas producers in relation to how the emissions trading scheme is implemented. In this regard, I believe the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, in particular, definitely should have quite a large say in relation to federal government policy on something that is quite new, not only for Australia, but for the world; the way Mr Rudd is planning to implement his emissions trading scheme.
We have heard cries across the country from different interest groups, industries and the like. There will be winners and losers in relation to any proposed emissions trading scheme. Gas-dependent industries, gas producers, are some of the loudest voices that we hear with their concerns in relation to the proposed emissions trading scheme. Chief Minister, I call on you to use your influence in Canberra. Raise those matters with the Prime Minister, the minister for Industry and Resources, and the minister for the Environment, and try to convince them that we need to have particular measures put in place that will see further development of our gas industry, not only in the Northern Territory but in northern Western Australia, and across our great continent.
The other challenge for this government is to see that industry in the Territory benefits and that Territorians reap the benefits of this fantastic development in the Northern Territory. I was quite happy this morning when the minister for Business spoke about the industry participation plan. It is something that should be encouraged, particularly in relation to this development. For most businesses it makes good commercial sense that you use local industry, wherever possible. It means you do not have to bring in business from other parts of the country; therefore, you reduce costs. Providing local industry has the capability required to do the work on these projects, local business should benefit from it. With government working with INPEX and Total, there should be a greater emphasis on local industry participation.
Madam Speaker, I did not want to get caught up too much in the detail of the proposal. I congratulate the Chief Minister for bringing this bill forward. It is good news for the Territory. It should, all things working out well, provide huge benefit to the Territory and for Territorians. It should add to our wonderful lifestyle that we enjoy. I do not think it requires my urging, but I urge that all members of this House get behind this bill and support it.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition, in line with all comments, supports this important bill. A range of comments have focused on different aspects of this important matter for the Northern Territory.
At the heart of this bill is the provision, as far as possible, of certainty to reduce regulatory and sovereign risks to the investors. For anyone making an investment, we are aware of the need to reduce risk. It is difficult, as the Chief Minister and others who have been involved in this have said, to grasp the magnitude of this investment; therefore, the magnitude of the risk and the requirement to reduce that risk. It has been most encouraging to have had meetings with INPEX and Total to get a better understanding of the complex nature of this matter - the seriousness and earnestness of getting it right, and the desire to ensure that there are good relationships established.
I can assure both government and those who are involved in this project that there is that commitment from the opposition. That is why this bill is important. It is important for it to gain the support of the opposition because it has long-term effect. In meeting with INPEX I recognised, too, something that was quite sobering in considering that the approach to this massive project is one that has a long-term view: all the planning processes at every level are considered in a 40-year frame. Of course, in that frame you need to commence with as great a degree of certainty as possible. Appreciating the level of thought, consideration and planning that has been undertaken, it is most important to reduce the risk as far as possible. That is why we support this bill.
The notion of certainty, as far as possible, is required to be established; I understand that. When we look at the scope and nature of the investment, and the foundation that is to be laid with this project, it must commence with a high degree of certainty. That word ‘certainty’ has been used a lot related to this project. In specific reference to this bill, without reserve, we provide our support so that we can establish, as far as possible, that degree of certainty that assists the progress of the project.
I cannot ignore the use of that word ‘certainty’ in the lead-up to a very early election and the implication of that slogan. That approach in that campaign was that there would, therefore, be uncertainty and this project would not proceed if there was a change of government. That was exploited for political purposes. I am heartened that our community are not taken for fools, and that judgment has been passed and they saw through that spurious assertion as the grounds for a very early election.
That needs to be put aside and recognise that we are talking about a very different kind of certainty here - real certainty as far as we can possibly establish it in this parliament. The certainty that we can focus on in a realistic way in and through this parliament is the certainty that was described by Margaret Clinch at a public meeting. That was going into an election which, we were spuriously told, was all about certainty for INPEX, when those who were elected to lead were required to address the issue of certainty for the people. She asked: ‘What about certainty for the people of the Northern Territory?’ That is the business that we need to be attending to: certainty on matters such as the economic impacts. I am not implying that there is uncertainty, but we have to reduce the risks as far as possible in recognising that there will be an impact on the labour force. I am pleased to see that there are moves afoot recognising that impact and that there will be processes put in place to reduce what potential risks there may be if we are not adequately prepared.
Consider the railway. The power of that project allowed some tremendous opportunities to be taken to advance training. There is nothing more potent when we are considering welfare than the provision of a real job with real work and real training opportunities. These types of projects provide that. That requires a real commitment.
Another economic issue that requires the attention, leadership, imagination and courage of government is when it comes to land prices. There is uncertainty with the performance of this government to date. It was not that long ago, when it came to the issue of land prices, when there was a call from the community, expressed through the opposition, that the Planning minister was opposing any call for land release on the grounds that it would distort the market significantly …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, do you mind if I acknowledge these young people?
Mr MILLS: Certainly, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 9 students from Kormilda College accompanied by Ms Jasmina Bojovic and Ms Pilar Jadue. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, when it comes to the matter of certainty, it makes one very uncertain when you have one strong position espoused by government, and a dramatic shift in a short period of time. When there is, say, a vessel, a ship, that moves direction quickly, you wonder whether it has much of a keel. You get uncertainty when you find a dramatic shift in ideological position - fiercely opposing one view and, then, vigorously adopting it in a matter of one focus group to the next. You get some advice from the community and say: ‘Well, let us shift our position’. It makes one uncertain. That uncertainty then moves into the community, and they wonder about the capacity of government to make the hard decisions and stick to a line. That certainty needs to be addressed, and that is business of government and governing because governing in the Territory and the states is about the provision of services.
This bill will create important certainty for an economic impact into the Territory which has enormous possibility - tremendous possibilities. However, the work of government is to dig deep and to provide that certainty for the people in the business that we and government are involved in, just as those I met with at INPEX are digging very deep to do the best that they can. That is their business and they are paid well to do it. We are also paid well to attend to other business that is our responsibility; that is, to ensure that we maximise the opportunities and reduce the risks as far as possible. Those are the economic risks which will be reduced with courageous, innovative planning. Where is the future for what may occur as the next stage after this, bearing in mind that those who approached this project very sincerely are looking at a complete 40-year plan? It is beyond the life cycle of those who are sitting at that table but are completely immersed in the idea that it is 40 years we are talking about. Everything must have a 40-year context.
That is very different from those who are in politics who can very easily be corralled into thinking that it is around a four-year fixed parliamentary term. That distorts your thinking and judgment and causes severe dramatic shift in positions which are governed by a focus group or some polling research or, principally, by the need to hold onto power. That brings into question certainty when it comes to the real issues being addressed by a government. They are the matters that sit alongside this bill. Of course, notwithstanding those matters, there is then the whole range of social issues which are the primary and core business of a Territory government; that is, the provision of services.
The opposition provides a certainty for this project without reserve, and give their support to this project. We welcome it. We welcome the engagement that we have had from INPEX and the open door. We welcome the involvement of INPEX in public consultation. They are genuine in their desire to engage the community, and I welcome that, as it is a very good step.
I was particularly heartened by the meeting I referred to which Margaret Clinch was at, which was held at the port. That was a very well-attended meeting. I note that members of government were not in attendance. There was a range of views in that room, principally from those who want to protect and have concern for the environment. Also in attendance at that meeting were those who would be seen by the majority of that room as the enemy - those who were going to develop, perhaps bring mining or development of industry in the harbour and so on.
I am very encouraged by the Northern Territory community because, in that room, even though there was a dominant view, there was space created and respect given to those who had a distinctly contrary view. I believe the step that I understand INPEX is to take with community consultation is the right thing to do and the Territory is the right place for that kind of engagement. We have a community that can work through difficult matters, provided there is certain, steady and genuine leadership. That core business of governance and the role of government in this is critical.
This certainty can be established in this bill with regard to land. This certainty is provided with a large draw on trust, which is a trust you must have in government, because there are aspects to the contract that only government knows. People will ask all manner of questions about the contract which, by its nature and the detailed discussions and decisions arrived at between INPEX, Total and the Territory government, we would not be privy to. We recognise the need for commercial-in-confidence. Whatever may or may not come out of what is contracted on behalf of Territorians, it is recognised that there is a large degree of trust involved in this. Normally, if we were going through such a mechanism surrounding a contract, those parties involved in this contract would know a bit more about the details of the contract. Obviously, it is not possible for us to know. So, it is important to recognise the trust element in this, and that trust is provided.
Madam Speaker, in order to establish the certainty, to provide the economic boost to the Territory, to give us the opportunities that will flow from that, provided we can match those opportunities with the resolve to maximise the benefit and reduce the risk as far as possible, the opposition gives its full support to the bill.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I support the bill and commend the Chief Minister, as have other members in the House, in helping to bring INPEX to the Northern Territory. What fascinating times will occur in the next few years!
The only sad thing was to see that INPEX was used as it was through the election period. The truth is that it really does not matter what government of the day is managing the Northern Territory affairs, in the next 50 to 100 years, gas and other energy sources will be required by a world that is ever-growing and in need of energy. I suppose we live in times where, on one side of the coin, we can be very excited. What a wonderful opportunity to have a large company, as the Chief Minister has rightly pointed out, bringing the largest private investment into any state or territory in this country. What a marvellous opportunity to take.
At the same time, we seem to have these polarising issues. On one hand, we have absolute excitement with the potential of a business like this and what it can do for the Northern Territory. I recall stories where people could not get a motor rewound in the Northern Territory prior to ConocoPhillips coming to Darwin. Today, those spin-off industries are there for people who have businesses that need motors. That is a clear indication of how big business can have an effect on other local businesses.
We have discussed many of the social issues occurring today. That is where, I believe, the government is going to have a challenging time ahead in meeting some of the issues we are facing today; knowing that we are going to go through a very large growth spurt. That includes the Rosebery hub schools and making sure that services are going to be there. The bottom line is that I commend the Chief Minister; this is a wonderful opportunity for the Northern Territory. INPEX is a large company.
During the doorknocking campaign, some of the issues that were raised were environmental issues and being the shadow minister for the Environment those issues will now come to the fore. It has been interesting dealing with some of the companies I have spoken to regarding other possible growth in the Northern Territory with mining and so forth. The interesting thing I found is that companies today are, perhaps, different to what they where many years ago. There is a real commitment that the environment is important to them. They have governments, environmentalists, and the media to deal with; they cannot afford to get it wrong today. It is nice to know that they are the kind of comments that are coming out of these businesses. I believe that when we are dealing with the environment, yes, we have some real challenges to ensure that companies like this do get it right, and that other companies that may be using dangerous chemicals have safeguards in place. When you hear firsthand from these companies that they cannot afford to get it wrong, that is the right attitude.
I am mindful of the challenges that we have but feel comforted that these businesses are starting in that frame of mind. It is not all about making money. They are open to new ideas, new suggestions and making sure that our environment is protected. Whenever we bring a new business like the INPEX plant there will almost certainly be some kind of impact on our environment.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Chief Minister and I welcome the bill.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I will be brief given that all members of the House support this legislation. I am proud to see this legislation has bipartisan support from the House. I will quickly deal with some of the issues raised, in particular by the member for Nelson. I thank him for the journey that he has been on to be able to support this project. I congratulate him on the briefing that he sought. I confirm that this legislation we are enacting in no way excludes INPEX and Total, the joint venture, from complying with Territory and Commonwealth environmental legislation. This is all about certainty regarding land tenure and the grant of land when conditions are met by the schedule in the project development agreement that I will shortly be tabling.
A number of members spoke about the challenges facing INPEX given the global economy, the recession in Japan, and what is happening on share markets around the world. I have spoken with the company, and what is happening with global share markets and the Japanese economy is not going to impact on this decision. We are going to wait until the third quarter of next year for a final investment decision by the joint venture.
The reality is that so much of this project as well as being a commercial venture for INPEX is also about security of energy supply for the Japanese economy, and the requirement for Japanese electricity producers to have access to supplies of LNG post-2014. As much as this is a commerce opportunity and investment by INPEX and Total, it is also about security of energy for the Japanese economy.
I can advise the House - I think I have been on the public record at the Australian Pipeline Industry Association (APIA) Conference which was held in Darwin this year - that the Northern Territory government has responded to the Commonwealth government’s Green Paper on the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We have said in our response that we do not believe the CPRS should, in any way, impact on investments in the developing of LNG projects in Australia. We are supporting the APIA position - and APIA is the peak organisation for the petroleum and gas industry. This is a Green Paper; it will move to a White Paper and there will be further iterations and developments. My position, as the Chief Minister, is that LNG is going to be an important part in the slowing of global warming around the world. We can play a significant part in slowing global warming by developing our LNG industry here in Australia. To defer or delay investment in that industry, or see other fields developed around the world, is not in the interests of our economy. I am confident we will have a commonsense solution to that particular issue.
I am also pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has been on his own journey in supporting this bill this afternoon. I was not going to get too political, but the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Brennan spoke about the context of the election. I do not have the letter in front of me today with the public comments made by the Leader of the Opposition. There was a time not too far short of when I called the election that he said he was going to campaign against this project. He wrote to every citizen in the northern suburbs of Darwin and Palmerston saying he opposed this project at Blaydin Point. In fact, he called it a 19th century idea which did not belong in the 21st century. He is now here today supporting this project at Blaydin Point. I commend him for that. He has been on his own journey in this regard and I am glad that he has now seen sense to support the project at Blaydin Point – which has been the Territory government’s position all along.
I thank all members in this House for their support of this legislation; it is defining. We have had the students here from Kormilda College today. This is as much about them as it is about the Territory today. It is about providing opportunities for Territorians into the future. This project will invest tens of millions of dollars, billions of dollars, into our economy over the next 40 to 50 years. It will create opportunities for those kids.
In the light of providing complete openness and transparency with regard to this legislation, this legislation gives legal effect to this project development agreement which my colleague, the Lands minister, signed on behalf of the Northern Territory with the INPEX/Browse joint venture with Total.
Madam Speaker, I table the project development agreement to demonstrate to all Territorians that we are open, transparent and accountable in regard to this issue. The legislation we are supporting today gives legal effect to this agreement. I table the agreement on behalf of government for all Territorians. I thank all honourable members for their support of this bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the former member for Nhulunbuy and minister of this Legislative Assembly, Hon Syd Stirling, and his partner, Ms Jenny Djerrkura. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the first report of Standing Orders Committee for the Eleventh Assembly which includes recommendations on: sitting and adjournments of the Assembly; speech time limits; sound and vision system; consideration of general business and the conduct of Question Time.
MOTION
Adopt Report - Standing Orders Committee – Report into Procedures of the Assembly
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly adopt the recommendations of the report. It is a very nicely bound report; the Assembly staff have worked hard.
These reforms will make our parliament more contemporary, more functional, and an improved workplace for everyone involved - not just the members of the Legislative Assembly, but everyone who works in Parliament House, and for many people working throughout our public service. Nothing we are doing is radical. Indeed, all these reforms exist in other parliaments. The government has already announced we will have three extra sitting days a year. This does not require an amendment to standing orders.
The first aspect of these reforms is amendments to the sitting hours of parliament. Originally, we proposed starting earlier at 9 am rather than 10 am. Having consulted, including the Independent member, the member for Nelson, we have decided to leave it at 10 am and remove the dinner break instead.
Parliament will finish at a sensible time. Parliament will adjourn right after 9 pm on all other days, other than Wednesday. Adjournments will last a maximum of one hour and the House will rise not after 10 pm. On Wednesdays, the House will adjourn at 9 pm. All 25 members may adjourn if they wish. Provisions are in place that do not prevent the House sitting beyond these times should it be urgently required.
Individual adjournment times will be limited to five minutes. While this is a reduction on the current limit of 15 minutes, it remains at the higher end of adjournment time limits across the country. In a two-week sittings period, members will get to give four or five adjournments should they wish. This is by far the highest in the country.
In addition, members will now be able to have adjournment statements incorporated into Hansard. For this, they will need the approval of the Speaker and the statement for incorporation will need to be provided to the Speaker in advance. The Speaker will provide members with guidelines on this before it comes into effect next calendar year. These guidelines will include maximum length and content guidelines.
Parliament finishing at 10 pm brings us into line with arrangements in most other states. Having undefined finishing times for parliament is outdated. It affects many more people than the 25 members of this Chamber. Everyone in this Parliament House is affected, as are many more people in our public service agencies. Having finishing times will help make a career in parliament a far more attractive option.
These reforms, together with other reforms, will make the parliament more productive, accessible to the public, improve the quality of debate – we can but hope – and, hopefully, encourage more people to enter politics.
The CLP members of the Standing Orders Committee have provided a dissenting report, and I am sure that they will be speaking to that. However, I want to pick up on a few things contained in that. The members of the CLP are calling for an extra week, rather than the three Mondays as scheduled in the 2009 sittings calendar. As you would be aware as Speaker, it is not precluded from calendar year to calendar year as to how those three days are established. Each year, the sitting days are determined with a whole range of factors taken into account. From next year, we have included the three days within the sittings periods already announced, but the allocations of the sittings period and the sittings days are done each year, as you would be well aware.
The government believes that 10 pm is an appropriate time for parliament to finish, and we think that adjourning at 10 pm would mean finishing parliament, obviously, at 11 pm and, potentially later, on Wednesdays. We feel that 10 pm is appropriate. It is amongst the later finishing times in the country. We have removed the dinner break, as I said, and the length of our sittings days will remain amongst the highest in the country.
I know that the members of the CLP remain resolutely opposed to the five minutes proposed for adjournment debate, and would prefer 10-minute adjournments. It was explained clearly during discussions between the parties, and I made the explanation to the Independent member, that by allowing for statements to be incorporated, it will assist the actual cumulative length of time. Members, if they can speak for five minutes and incorporate a contribution of up to five minutes - that is actually 10 minutes. They misconstrued what is able to be incorporated at the moment. Their dissenting report is somewhat misleading, and I will wait to hear their debate on that before I go further. As we pointed out, in a two-week sittings, members will get around four or five adjournments should they wish. This is by far the highest in the country.
The government rejected the proposal that ministers should not receive the same rights as other MLAs in adjournment debate. We note that they did not seek to extend that proposal to shadow ministers.
The government took on board the alternate views on General Business Days. There are a variety of arrangements across the country in General Business Days. The government, as you can see from the Standing Orders Committee report, is proposing that there be a further reference to the Standing Orders Committee to genuinely have a look at how General Business Days are run in parliaments across the nation, to see what would be a workable system for General Business Days. We are not saying we do not believe the system we currently have is not workable. They get one out of every 12 sitting days for opposition business. If the opposition has put on the table views about how they felt, it could be dealt with alternatively.
We are genuinely going to have a look at the Australian parliaments, as a Standing Orders Committee, and make a further report to parliament in April next year. It is not going to be a long-winded, drawn-out research project; it will be done extensively over the sittings period break between the calendar years. There is ability amongst the Assembly staff to provide that research and consideration in February with, hopefully, a resolution in April.
The opposition’s changes to Question Time were a fairly curious proposal. They seem to model their changes on the Senate. I pointed out that we are a very different House of parliament to the Senate. The Senate, as we know, is a House of review. We are a unicameral parliament; very different in nature in what we do and how we proceed. In the proposals the opposition put forward, they conveniently overlooked part of what occurs in Question Time in the Senate. Whilst they picked up on the time limits and the way supplementaries are dealt with in the Senate, they certainly did not pick up on the fact that questions are actually written; the questions are provided by 11 am. It was a bit of a cherry picking exercise: ‘We like that bit, but we do not like that bit, so let us go with the bit we like’. When you are in government, you realise that cherry picking exercises are flawed by their nature.
We are happy, as members of government, to genuinely have a look at how this new Senate trial runs across a 12-month period. Fortuitously, I was in my car and heard a debate on PM, the ABC program, about the issue of the new Question Time for the Senate. I have to say that it struck me as a debacle. The media commentary on the Senate Question Time was very disparaging, and anyone listening to that PM program would have picked up on that. Any of us would be able to get that transcript and read it, if people have not had the opportunity to hear it.
In 12 months time when we have seen that trial run through, we are not going to be focused just on the Senate, we will look at Question Times around the nation in other parliaments. It is a salutary experience to have a look at what occurs elsewhere. As much as members opposite do not like to hear the government’s answers - and members of the public may well be interested in hearing what the government has to say on the questions asked of them, as you would expect - and like to curtail our opportunity to provide answers in their approach to their Question Time reforms, I believe we stack up robustly against other Australian parliaments.
If you have a look at how many questions are asked of ministers in other Australian parliaments, we are up there ahead of the pack in the opportunity for democracy to occur in Question Time - ministers can be robustly questioned by members opposite; there is no curtailment on the numbers of questions directed to ministers; and no questions on notice which have to be provided by a certain time. We have an hour. If you look at those other jurisdictions, many of them are sitting for half-an-hour or 45 minutes.
It is a curious bit of research that I have done on this as Leader of Government Business, and I look forward to further research in the intervening 12-month period where we see that Senate trial undertaken. I hope it improves. It certainly has got off to a bit of a bad start in the way Question Time is handled, if you listen to the media commentary. In the excerpts - and I accept they were excerpts that I heard on PM, edited by the ABC, PM journalists and their editors - I heard more of the President of the Senate than I heard of members opposite asking questions and ministers responding.
Woe betide our parliament ever descending into a farce where it is not genuinely the exchange of information on the public record that we would expect a Question Time in a unicameral system of parliament to be. Woe betide we ever get to that point where we are really playing a theatre of interjections, and a theatre against the clock to try to curtail the debate that I believe the public in the Territory has come to know from our Question Time.
This government is embracing reforms, as we have done and are doing, as is contained in the report of the Standing Orders Committee, albeit with a dissenting report from members of the CLP – no big surprise there. I read through their dissenting report during the lunch recess and it was typical of the whingeing, whining and sooking that comes from the opposition. They are finding it difficult to come to grips with the fact that they are not the government; they are the opposition. I believe it is a very sad, at times, misleading representation.
The government is pleased that we are entering a contemporary era of parliament in the Territory. These reforms are fairly overdue. As an elected member since 2001, I have had a parliamentary reform agenda in my sights for a long time. I recognised that this institution is one that has been reformed in other jurisdictions. Parliaments have changed from the way they were run years ago to a contemporary practice, an effective, efficient, and productive practice. It means discipline by members of the Assembly in how they handle their debates and how they structure their business. It will require a great deal of discipline from the government just as it will require discipline from members opposite.
Whilst we expect workplaces across our great Territory to be productive and expect efficiency across our workplaces, whether they are public or private sector, surely, we should also expect that of ourselves? We are no longer going to be in a cloak of ‘anything goes’ because we have this exalted position to send, I am sure, the Hansard staff into tedium and drudgery that debates at 3 am in this Chamber sometimes get into with the repetitive nature of those debates. l welcome the discipline, because it is discipline that is applied in every workplace across our great Territory. Whether it is a public or a private sector workplace, to survive effectively and efficiently these days, you need to be productive and efficient in the way you operate ...
Ms Carney: You are a hypocrite.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Araluen who likes to be hysterical in her interjections …
Ms Carney: You are just a hypocrite.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: She is rewriting the definition of shrill.
We will have a debate in this Chamber on these parliamentary reforms but, fundamentally, I believe they are reforms that will be widely welcomed by people who are affected by the oft times out-of-control egos of parliamentarians in this Chamber. These are reforms that will require discipline from each one of us, to ensure an effective parliament and effective debate.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the reforms and I thank my government colleagues for the full support they have provided to the Chief Minister in his parliamentary reform agenda, to me, and the members for Nightcliff and Fannie Bay for pursuing these reforms on their behalf.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, how things change from the committee room to the Chamber. There was a chance, I thought, that perhaps this could be done in a nice, pleasant way, but the castigating and nasty words coming out of the member for Karama’s mouth never cease to amaze me. We do not have to agree on everything, but you do not have to be rude and stupid about it - and that is exactly what you are doing. Because you do not agree with what we put forward does not mean that you have to be pathetic, stupid, mean, and nasty, just like you have displayed in this House; considering the complete change in your behaviour from the last couple of days in the committee room. It is a disgrace, member for Karama, and you should be ashamed of yourself, but I know you will not because you have no shame.
We did file a dissenting report and I believe it was quite an appropriate dissenting report, as far as they go. It was all above board. I believe we spelt out our case quite appropriately. I will read from some of that. Essentially, the crux of this is that it is a complete missed opportunity to reform parliament. This is not reform. For crying out loud, this is about you wanting to go home earlier. We have the capacity to keep you up past 9 pm, 10 pm. That is all it is.
It is interesting how it all of a sudden came about because we had a couple of nights past 11 pm and midnight, and a couple of nights to 1 am or 2 am. That is all it is about. Why are we changing it anyway? Why are we reforming the parliamentary hours that we sit now? That is a very good question - a question that the member for Karama could not answer in the committee room yesterday. She simply said: ‘The Chief Minister has said he wants to reform it so, so that is that’ …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex is verballing me. I point out the privilege of the committees is that we generally sit in there and …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is not a point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you wish, you can make comments in your closing remarks or you can approach me to make a personal explanation. Member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN: The Speaker knows there is no point of order because she was there.
We go back to the media release issued by the Chief Minister on the 28 October. A couple of incidents of this have taken place. The first one is Tuesday, 28 October:
Again yesterday morning we had the example where the parliamentary sitting dates were announced before they had even been ratified in this parliament. Those extra three days were supposedly part of this reform that was to be before the committee as announced in the Chief Minister’s press release on 28 October.
The situation is that, if we really wanted some serious reform, we could have serious reform. This is not serious reform. The three extra sitting days on the Monday between the two sittings is to avoid the extra possible scrutiny by the media, the opposition and the Territory public. The extra sitting days are buried amongst the sitting days rather than having an extra full sitting week. Why not have an extra full sitting week? What is the problem with that? We used to have an extra sitting week for two weeks at the end of the year. But, oh no, it has to be buried into the fortnightly sittings for some reason. It was – what - to save a couple of bob?
I can tell you I will be going home anyway in between sittings. It is not going to necessarily save any money on my part. I will be getting straight back to Alice Springs on that Friday morning to be with my family and my electorate. I am sure most other members will be doing the same thing. That is the only excuse: that it is going to save a bit of money or whatever. What it is really about is trying to avoid the extra scrutiny that would come with having a full extra parliamentary week at the end of the year. That is what Territorians expect; that is what they are not getting.
The adjournments - how outrageous and disgraceful is it? I wonder whether the impact has fully sunk in with members opposite. It has been rammed through a small group of, no doubt, Cabinet ministers, who have said this is what we want to do. Again an attempt to get home early; this is what this is all about - not being held here working.
It is only 36 days a year. We sit the least out of very parliament in Australia, perhaps with the exception of the ACT - I am not sure but I am pretty certain they sit more than us. The federal parliament sits 70-odd days a year, so do most state parliaments. It is two weeks on, two weeks off just about. Here we have up to six weeks or so between sittings. Why not be here in the Chamber until the debates are finished? We are adjourning everything, adjourning legislation, adjourning important statements like the state of Territory police. We do not even know if that is coming back on. The other statement about the third Henderson government has also been adjourned. Why not stay here and debate those?
What is wrong with staying up a little late and doing a bit of work? You guys are afraid of work. It is clear and simple - you do not want to sit here and work through the night. If you were prepared to do that, I am sure it would not happen - we would not be here until 1 am or 2 am every single morning.
It is, clearly, an attempt at that. I do not know what has motivated it apart from to introduce this so-called reform. It is not reform. What we have proposed is at least real reform. Not everyone may agree with these reforms, but this is a genuine attempt to reform the parliamentary sitting structure. I will read through some of that. Some of the members have only just received their Standing Orders Committee document so they may not have had a chance to read it. I will read directly from that.
The opening of parliament – I notice that the government backflipped on their 9 am start. They realised that 10 am is a much more appropriate time to start parliament. The sitting day numbers, as we have said, should be extended to 36 actual sitting days, plus the estimates process. If this proves to be insufficient, then this should be reviewed within 12 months to make necessary increases.
The Country Liberals also believe that these days should be incorporated in an extra sitting parliamentary week, not just buried for the sake of tokenism so that you can say: ‘We are actually sitting an extra three days a week’ when, indeed, with the 10 pm shut down, we are not sitting an extra three days a week. Despite the suspension of the dinner break - there was never a dinner break anyway. We have only had the dinner break in the last couple of sittings since the Eleventh Assembly. That is an absolute furphy to suggest that we take away the dinner break, therefore, we are making up the extra hour which we would normally lose when we finish at 10 pm.
You put it quite appropriately, member for Port Darwin; that the Chief Minister giveth and the Chief Minister taketh away or, in this case, the Standing Orders Committee giveth and the Standing Orders Committee taketh away. Territorians will not be fooled by that. Sometimes, it can be a bit hard to articulate this in the mainstream media to those people out there. All they want to see is us working hard. I am sure with a whole stack of government spin – because the government are terrific at doing this, they cut straight through - the 36 sitting days will be seen by the Territory as an extra three days. However, we know better, they know better.
Finishing times – why are we finishing at 10 pm? Why? Or 9 pm as it is and, then, everything shuts down at 10 pm. Why? Is it because people do not want to be up late? Is it because people do not want to be sitting to the early hours of the morning, or at least until 10.30 pm, 11 pm or 12 o’clock every night? Why not have government business finish at 9 pm, as is the go now, and just let parliament continue until everyone has made their adjournment speeches - continue with the 15 minutes, or at least 10 minutes?
Madam Speaker, the Country Liberals have recommended the adjournment debate begins no later than 11 pm on the Tuesday, no later than 10 pm on the Wednesday, and no later than 9 pm on the Thursday. We say politicians are fresher and the capacity to work through the legislative agenda is greater than sessional orders and should reflect the capacity for later sittings. I do not think that is unreasonable but, nevertheless, it should be debated. No one has had a chance - no one, apart from the Standing Orders Committee or the member for Nelson who made a submission. Apart from that, I wonder how the rest of the parliament feels. No doubt, as we speak right now, they are taking the party line. However, no one has had a chance to debate this, and have a real, meaningful and thoughtful, practical way of reforming parliament. That is reform - the finishing times. That is real reform. Not everyone has to agree with it but, perhaps that can be out there, and we can debate that in a thoughtful and meaningful way to practically get the best out of this parliament. The dinner suspension, well, that is already gone.
General and private members business - I believe this is where maybe some of this is coming from as well. Perhaps it originated from that. We have a GBD every 12 sitting days; sometimes, if you are lucky, twice a year but, normally, once a year. It is not appropriate; practical or fair. It is not fair, not only on the parliamentarians and those people wanting to introduce these bills, but also the people they are representing; that is, the Territory public.
We have proposed some real reform for General Business Day. As I have said, the current arrangement is every 12 days. The Country Liberals recommended an alternative of this approach. We recommend the removal of the GBD itself. We have removed that and replaced it with a General Business Day from 4 pm to 8 pm on Thursdays of each sitting week, or the Monday between 2 pm and 6 pm each sitting week. We were told in no uncertain terms in the committee that that would not be approved, so we did suggest that perhaps two hours of sitting. That has been referred - I think we are going to look at that in the February committee meeting, to perhaps be assessed, and maybe something will happen in April.
It is interesting how we can have some parts of this implemented now. It is so important that it has to be implemented right now, so the Treasurer can go away tomorrow. It also looks like there is something happening to start the year off in 2009. What is good for the goose, is not good for the gander - we can have this, we can have that. It is a bit all over the place and it shows the hidden agenda that is behind this so-called reform. It is not reform; it is a hidden agenda to suit those who do not like staying up late.
We talked about non-controversial bills. There is often legislation which is agreed to by all in the Chamber - non-controversial legislation. They are free of amendments and limited, if any, to committee stage debate. We suggested that this go through in the lunchtime. However, the government has said no as there are committee meetings held at lunchtime and this will be inappropriate. We do not see that that is necessarily a great hurdle. If there was something by way of substantive motion …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: As you said. It was the only example that you could come up with: if it was a substantive motion, then we would deal with that. Then you would just deal with that as it would happen. There would be an understanding that that would not happen, and we would deal with a smooth transition of non-controversial legislation throughout the lunchbreak. That is working hard. People see that. We knock off for two hours for lunch at the moment. People say: ‘What do you do for lunch up there?’ ‘Oh, we knock off at 12 noon, and we come back at 2 pm’. They say: ‘Gee, that is all right, isn’t it?’ People want to see us working. That would be a clear demonstration and indication that we will continue to work. Anyway, that was knocked off.
We did recommend that MPI debate be moved forward to follow Question Time, and the MPI would be capped at one hour. Our proposal was that Question Time return to 10 am. Ministerial reports are gone, because that is, essentially Question Time in reverse. If it was that important, why does the government not give us some heads-up on what they are talking about, if it is about the benefit of the Territory, the portfolio, and of course, then flows on to the electorate? Why are we deprived of knowing what it is, and who is going to talk about what? Surely, we are able to contribute to that ministerial report, as we are expected to do. As it stands, we are expected to do it blindly. We should be able to do it. If it is that important, then why are we kept in the dark? We think the ministerial report is a complete waste of time. When you have a ceremony going on in here, which we see quite often, sometimes we go two hours – it is lunchtime before we have even debated any legislation.
Let us bring back Question Time to a 10 am start, followed by an MPI. Essentially, we would be reaching the lunch break at 12 noon or 12.30 pm, which would free us up from 2 pm until the 9 pm cut-off that the government wants, to deal with government business and legislation - uninterrupted all afternoon. It is practical, simple, and straightforward. It was knocked back in a rude and abrasive way …
Ms Carney: Patronising.
Mr CONLAN: Patronising, exactly. It is amazing how things change from a little intimate room to when you come in here.
I am dumbfounded and quite staggered at the change in attitude by the Treasurer yesterday. I thought we were trying to reach some sort of compromise and that you respected our views and proposals. You jotted them down, we joked, we laughed, we shared a meal and, then, you come in here and it is patronising. I am dumbfounded …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: That is all right - have a laugh, it is okay. I have learnt now; I have learned my lesson …
Ms Carney: Never trust them
Mr CONLAN: Yes, that is right. I gave her a bit of room, but anyway.
We have dealt with ministerial reports; we believe they should be removed. At the very least, let us know what is in those reports so we can prepare and put a little more thought into our response. Our team does a great job in responding to those ministerial reports, considering we do not know what is in them.
This is not reform. This is just tokenistic stuff to avoid scrutiny from the media, the opposition, and the broader Territory public. If the government was committed to real parliamentary reform for the sake of actually improving the business of parliament, then we would have an open, thoughtful, and meaningful discussion - not something that is rammed through because the Treasurer has to leave tomorrow and they want to be seen doing something for the start of the 2009 parliamentary calendar.
I want to draw your attention to Question Time. The Treasurer mentioned Question Time and something about the Senate. The Senate Question Time already has the supplementary question. The changes that you are talking about are the second supplementary question. Why not just run it on that? She is saying that you cannot do it. The Treasurer is saying that she is a bit sceptical or suspicious about it because she heard something on the radio. It said that it was a gambit - or whatever the phrasing said – and they did not quite agree with it. The commentary was not favourable, therefore, it was not something that you would jump into. Why not? Our proposal had no mention of a second supplementary question. Our proposal was the way that the standard Senate Question Time is operating now. If this new one, with the second supplementary question, proves to be good or bad then we can look at that in the 12 months. There is no reason why we cannot adjust Question Time. Our proposal was that we get nine each, at least. The Treasurer said in the committee that we get 20 all the time - she keeps tabs. Since 12 February, the start of the 2008 parliamentary calendar, there have been 26 Question Times and only eight of those have been over 20. The numbers are 15, 14, 13, 17, 15, 16, 17, 15, 18; there is 20, 22, 20, but there are only eight of those over 20.
Our way is certainly maximising Question Time. We believe it is a lot more productive Question Time for the opposition, the media and the broader Northern Territory public. The Treasurer could have easily just said: ‘No, we do not like that idea’. But no, she had to embellish it with a whole stack of insults - as she has extraordinarily done. I cannot believe the change in the attitude.
We welcome the video streaming and the new television set-up that is happening next year, of course. That is great; open and accountable for the Territory. As I said in the first part of this …
Mr Tollner: Will we have access to it?
Mr CONLAN: Access to?
Mr Tollner: The video footage.
Mr CONLAN: I believe we will. Yes, when it comes in we will have access to the video footage.
Mr Tollner: We do not now?
Mr CONLAN: No, we do not have access to this video footage but, yes, with the new system - about $500 000 worth.
As I say, the opposition accepts the intent of these reforms is to provide a more efficient sitting schedule. The parliamentary reform proposed, we believe, is a completely missed opportunity by the Northern Territory government to maximise the business of parliament. It does appear to be that there are hidden agendas; it is not a reform. It is about making sure you get home in time, for some reason.
We oppose, particularly, the adjournments. I wonder what the implications of this are going to be. Are members, particularly newer members of the House who owe so much to their constituency, going to be able to say enough in five minutes, particularly about extremely important events? There are so many important issues that go on in our electorates. Are members of parliament going to be able to express that in the five minutes given?
And the trade-off? We are told the trade-off is that you can submit the remainder of your speech into the Parliamentary Record. Well, that capacity exists now. You can seek leave to incorporate into the Parliamentary Record already; it exists now. If I wanted to seek leave to incorporate this into the Parliamentary Record I could do that. I could show you, you can read it, approve it, and it could go into the Parliamentary Record. That already exists in this parliament. It is not something extra that we are being given. However, we are told that the trade-off is that you really get two bites of the cherry. You get five minutes to talk about your electorate stuff or whatever it is you want, and five minutes to talk about something else and that can be put into the Parliamentary Record. Essentially, it is 10 minutes you are getting.
Well, it is not. It is only five minutes, because that capacity already exists in this parliament. I have concerns about how we are going to articulate and express our feelings on major issues within five minutes. Plenty of people get up here every single night during these sittings and they talk for at least 15 minutes. In fact, many members want to talk for a lot longer than 15 minutes, but their time is limited. To bring that down to five is a disgrace. To limit those times to talk about people - and a lot of those people who have put us in this place and the great achievements they make in their lives - is shameful.
We oppose that and I can only say watch this space when it comes to how other members might feel about that. I wonder how much input members did have when it came to the five-minute adjournment speeches. As I say, why can we not just finish off general business at 9 pm anyway and, then, continue on with adjournments well into the night? Even if it was two hours worth. What is 11 pm? Is that really that late? Is that too late to be working when we …
Ms Carney: For 36 days a year.
Mr CONLAN: For 36 days a year. People expect us to be doing it. We will only sit for 36 days a year. At the moment it is 33. I do not think that is a good enough reason to limit people’s capacity to talk about things that mean a lot to them and people in their electorates to five minutes. They say: ‘Well, you have an extra five minutes and you can incorporate this into the Parliamentary Record with the Speaker’s approval’ when that capacity actually already exists.
We can only hope that the issue with Question Time will be reviewed, and we will be able to maximise the number of questions on both sides of the House with the time limits. For members who have not seen the document, I can tell you it is in here. You can see what we have proposed. It puts a limit on the amount of time to ask a question and the amount of time to answer a question. We feel that will maximise that, to the betterment of both sides of parliament for members and, of course, to the people of the Northern Territory who want these questions asked and answered.
Regarding the situation with General Business Day, the opposition and the Independent often have bills and issues that they want raised in parliament, or they want government to deal with. Hence, if they draft a bill, they want it introduced, looked at, and debated. At this stage, that capacity is extremely limited. I think we had 15 items on the Notice Paper last GBD - it was close to 15 maybe 16 - and we got to six or seven. Obviously, we need to do some time management as well when it comes to how many people are debating those bills.
Nevertheless, if there was a regular capacity for us to be able to introduce these bills during a GBD, then you would find there would not be such a backlog. It would not be such a long time between these bills being debated and, therefore, a lot fairer for all, and to the betterment of the people of the Northern Territory who want to see all members of parliament able to introduce an opposition bill or a private member’s bill. We hope that the government looks at that.
We have been told straight up that four hours a week has been knocked on the head. Perhaps we can come to some sort of compromise. We have proposed two hours a sitting, which is still not a lot, but at least it might clear some of that backlog of some of these bills. At the moment, it is extraordinary how many bills are sitting on the Notice Paper for the next GBD. You wonder when we will get to those. The Aboriginal land amendment by the member for Katherine might not be until this time next year - perhaps even 2010 at that rate ...
Ms Carney: That is what they want, Matt.
Mr CONLAN: Clearly. The agenda is not about reform because, if it was, we would seriously, thoughtfully and meaningfully look at the issues and would canvass, as a parliament, every single member, not only the opposition, to get their thoughts on this. I know the member for Nelson has made his submission.
I am just about out of time, Madam Speaker. We welcome some of those changes but, essentially, we feel that this is a missed opportunity …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, your time has expired.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, thank you for your efforts on the Standing Orders Committee. I know that the opposition tabled a dissenting report. I also thank the members for Greatorex and Sanderson for their work on the committee. I also thank the Leader of Government Business for her leadership role as Chair on the committee. I thank the Clerk and his team for their work.
I want to pick up on one point of what the member for Greatorex was saying. There was plenty in there, but one that struck home with me immediately - because I experienced it this lunchtime – was that he said between 12 noon and 2 pm we have a break and we do not do too much. Well, from 12 noon, I was with the Subordinate Legislation and Publications Committee with the members for Nhulunbuy, Barkly, Drysdale and Braitling. After that, we went to the Public Accounts Committee meeting with the members for Fong Lim and Port Darwin - the same government members, as well the member for Nelson. We were quite busy during that period and we did a bit of work. The committee system is very important to this House and the processes of this House, and that is where we were between 12 pm and 2 pm; picking up on that one point to start with.
I believe these are good and sensible reforms. They make this a more contemporary parliament. Stepping through them, the first is that we are going to have three extra sitting days. The number of sitting days in a year does need to be balanced against the recognition of being in parliament. It is only one part of our job as members of this Legislative Assembly. I believe there is more to what we do than just purely what we do in this Chamber. I never doubt that what we do in this Chamber is very important, but I believe there is more to the work of a member than what we do in here.
Many members in this House have massive electorates, and it takes time for them to get around those electorates. I have three suburbs in my electorate – Parap, Fannie Bay and Stuart Park. I enjoy the challenge of meeting my constituents. I wonder sometimes how the members for Arnhem and Barkly get around their electorates; that is, obviously, a big challenge. While the time we spend here is important, the time we spend in our electorates is also important. That is something we need to bear in mind when we determine the number of days that we sit.
I believe it is perfectly sensible that some certainty be provided around sitting times. One of my concerns is about whether it is appropriate to be debating laws of the land after midnight. I believe that is something the Chief Minister has mentioned in the past, and is something we need to consider when looking at sitting times.
We also need to consider that the sitting times affect more than just the 25 members in this Chamber; it affects the public servants who may come in to brief ministers during the committee stage debates of legislation. Public servants are very professional, they are always willing to work hard and work late, but there is a certainty issue. They come in at, possibly 10.30 am, for some bills and they are not sure how long they will be here and when they are going to get home. I believe what we have done regarding sitting times provides certainty and that is quite important in this House - out of respect for their families and for the families of members in this Chamber.
I believe more friendly sitting hours will help make a career in politics more desirable. Politics, in general, will be better served to make a career in politics a desirable option for as many people as possible. You would expect the CLP to be supportive of this, as it was only at the last election that they were unable to attract a full team of candidates. Maybe if we make being a member of parliament more attractive, they will be able to put a full team in the paddock next time round.
I also believe the changes to adjournments are reasonable; the five-minute limits are amongst the highest in the country. Under the changes, maybe we will get an opportunity four or five times during a sittings fortnight to adjourn. That, I repeat, is by far the highest in the country. The capacity to incorporate adjournments into the Parliamentary Record is also sensible, and provides members with additional opportunity to place things like the achievements of members of the community on to the Parliamentary Record.
As the Leader of Government Business said, these reforms, with other reforms, will make the parliament more productive, accessible to the public, improve the quality of debate and, hopefully, encourage more people to enter politics. The member for Greatorex mentioned that, by having the extra sitting days on a Monday, we could somehow avoid scrutiny. If that means, on those Mondays in the extra Question Times, the CLP will be asking easier questions than normal, I am sure the ministers in this Chamber will appreciate that. I am just a backbencher, you do not ask me questions, but I believe a Question Time on a Monday is going to be just as difficult as a Question Time on a Tuesday, Wednesday or a Thursday. I have a lot of respect for the opposition. I believe they will ask the same quality of questions on a Monday as they do on a Tuesday. As far as whether the media still works on a Monday, they still turn up, so I do not understand where the member for Greatorex is coming from on that point. I believe the scrutiny on a Monday will be exactly the same as that of a Tuesday …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GUNNER: I do. Unless the CLP are not going to go easy on a Monday; they need a whole extra day to prepare their questions – which I do not think they do - the scrutiny on a Monday is the same as the scrutiny on a Tuesday.
Madam Speaker, I support the Standing Orders Committee report and I commend it to the House.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I will talk about this report from the Standing Orders Committee that I was a part. The member for Karama mentioned that there was a dissenting report, and she expressed her disappointment at the fact. She also made comments regarding ‘dissenting report’, and then immediately followed with the words ‘whining and carping’. It appears that if you have a difference of opinion, you are labelled whining and carping. I hardly think that having a different view on the amount of work we would like to do in this House is whining and carping. On the committee, we asked for an extra week to be here to get some work done. We also spoke about a number of other things in relation to debates.
I refer to the media release issued on 28 October by the Chief Minister, which is incorporated in this Standing Orders Committee report:
On the first point, one fresh idea that we will incorporate, as the member for Greatorex said, actually already exists. That is not a fresh idea - it already exists. Here is a good one:
You just have to do some quick mathematics to work out that, if you stop the parliament sitting at 10 pm - for instance, not going through to midnight on 33 days a year; not the 36 that is proposed but the 33 - that equates to 66 hours. If you divide that by the same number of days, a 14-hour day, you are taking away 4.71 days. As the member for Port Darwin said, the Chief Minister giveth and the Chief Minister takes away. I will lend you a calculator if anyone on the other side needs it - it is a simple calculation. We get three days, but we lose 4.71. In actual fact, there is a nett loss of 1.71 days if you shut down early. If you stay later that just extrapolates it out to greater numbers. Those are just some basic figures that we can have a look at.
The member went on to say that it will provide the opposition with more opportunity to scrutinise the work the government is doing. One of things you cannot do, when you have 1.71 days fewer than you had before, is to have more scrutiny. I do not know where they are going to pull the time from. The other thing the report says, and we agreed to this, is that the day will start earlier, at 9 am and finish no later than 10 pm. Our side disagreed with the actual finishing time, but we did agree to start at 10 am, given that there are many people affected.
The member for Karama also said that the time for adjournments are the highest in the country and probably the most. I point out that when you compare us with the rest of Australia, we are different in the Northern Territory - we are a small electorate, we have far smaller electorates which are very personal in nature. There are people out there who would like to hear what is going on in the local school, because most people in the community probably know some of those sporting stars and those successful people in our communities. Yes, you do need time to talk about those things.
I must say that, as a new member of this House, I thought it was a great idea that we had 15 minutes in which to do these adjournment debates. When it came my turn to do them, because I do know - and I am sure that members on both sides agree - not everyone did them each night. However, if you spoke on your side, you would actually get an opportunity to get 15 minutes to praise people in your electorate, or raise issues and concerns for members of your electorate.
The member for Karama said that we are in a contemporary era in Territory parliament. It is interesting that as a new member of this House, we see that we are now shutting down the ability for the opposition to have time to speak about matters that affect their electorate. I do not know whether we are moving into some positive area, or an area where we are trying to shut down debate and the ability for opposition members to speak in relation to those things.
Efficiency in the public service is another matter raised by member for Karama. When we talk about efficiency in this House, I would have thought that, rather than sitting for an extra three days and having the cost of doing that, you would just tack on an extra couple of hours to the sitting days we have. That would give you far more effective and efficient management of time, resources and staff. In relation to efficiency, you are going backwards by limiting the time we can spend in here each day.
I will now comment on a few issues raised by the member for Fannie Bay. First of all, in relation to the meetings of the Standing Orders Committee, I must say there was, what appeared to me, to be a rush to hold these meetings before today so that these things could be rushed through these sittings so that they can be implemented by 2009. I note in the Chief Minister’s media release of 28 October, he said he wants to implement these in the 2009 parliamentary year. However, given that we had the first meeting in relation to this last Monday, which was 24 November, two days ago, and the second meeting was – behold - yesterday, Tuesday, 25 November, we have all the reports printed, done and, apart from a couple of things that have been referred to the committee, we are now before this House having a debate.
I do not know that is a lot of time. I am new here, but I will watch with interest over my time in this session to see whether that is what one would call a fair amount of time to debate issues ...
Mr Wood: No, definitely not.
Mr STYLES: Well, there you go, there are more experienced members around me who have just given me good advice saying it is hardly good enough and hardly enough time.
I listened with great interest when the member for Fannie Bay said we do more than just sit in this parliament. That is very true, we do. He said we need time to get around our electorates. He also said ‘and we need to get about our electorates’. I can do a letterbox drop in about four or five hours if I walk fast around my electorate. I accept there are members in this House who have enormous electorates. However, I do not know whether Fannie Bay would be called one of those enormous electorates. I suggest that the member for Fannie Bay saying he needs more time to get around his electorate, when we only actually sit currently this year for 33 years and propose 36 for next year ...
Mr Vatskalis: 33 years? Let us get real now.
Mr STYLES: Did I say 33 years? We could sit here for 33 years. With some of stuff that is still on the Notice Paper, maybe we might be here until 2030 or 30 years debating it. I note with interest, for instance, there are still two things on the Orders of the Day that have not been finished and we are going to start cutting off times; that is, the economic direction of the third Labor government and the increase in police presence. That is a good one we should debate given what is happening on our streets at the present time.
The member for Fannie Bay said: ‘We need some certainty around sitting times’. I thought that that was a very interesting point. He then went on to say that ‘others, advisors and other people who it affects, they are not sure what time they are going to get home’. I can say that every day that I went to work as a police officer, I had no idea what time I was going to get home. There are many jobs out there like that, and I am sure that it is not just in here or in the police force. There were times when I went to work and I did not get home for a week. You just did not get home because, suddenly, you were shipped out of town to somewhere, and you just did not even have time to say to your family: ‘See you in a week’.
There were times when I worked in town and I did not get home for three days. You actually slept on the floor at work. If someone does not like that sort of stuff well, I suggest you get another job, because it is only 33 days. We are talking about trying to be efficient, as the member for Karama said; to try to get as much done as we can whilst we sit in this House.
The other matter I raise is the incorporation into Hansard. When I come into this House, I would like to be able to speak about things in my electorate, and people in my electorate. Currently, I can do that. However, what is going to happen is that I will not be able to have time in five minutes, in a small electorate that I have in Sanderson - roughly 5000 people, and that is for all of us - to be able to express all those things. Five minutes does not give you a lot of time. In fact, I look at the clock now and I have been on my feet for 20 minutes, and it just seems like a fraction of time ...
Mr Knight: You have not said anything.
Mr STYLES: That is good. I am glad that the member sees some humour in that. It is good to be able to make a laugh.
I would really like government to consider that they, too, might want a little more time to be able to express some of their feelings …
Mr Conlan: It will come back and bite them.
Mr STYLES: Well, it probably will at some stage in the future.
These are some of the issues that I would really like to see covered. I believe that my colleague on this committee, the member for Greatorex, has covered many of the issues contained in the report so I do not intend to go over that report and repeat what he said. However, I do think that the government should take notice of some of the recommendations that we have made. The other members on the committee are probably under pressure from the Chief Minister to actually fulfil the obligation that he made in this media release. There are a number of them that he cannot because it seems, now, to be slightly misleading in relation to more time. Obviously, someone did not get the calculator out and do some of those sums.
Madam Speaker, I commend the report from the opposition members to the committee. I ask the government and the committee to consider those things in that report in future deliberations.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, to say that I am disappointed with this coming to parliament today is an understatement. The Chief Minister said on Tuesday, 28 October:
He also said:
If this is about major reform then, surely, we should give this debate far more time to enable all members of parliament to have time to have input into what reforms they would like to see in parliament. Also, open it up for staff of the Legislative Assembly and for the community if they wish to also be included in what they believe should be major reforms for our parliament. After all, this is a parliament for the people. It seems that we, basically, have a fait accompli. I had a meeting with the Leader of Government Business, which was a general discussion about some issues. However, there was nothing given to me that was necessarily in concrete. I gave some ideas to the member for Sanderson, which I thought might go to the Standing Orders Committee. That was my input into that.
What should have happened, I believe, is a discussion paper covering all matters about reform should have been put forward to all members of parliament, at least. It is difficult to say that the changes that the Labor government is putting forward today are nothing more than window dressing, in some cases, because I always felt that the hours are quite sufficient. Sometimes, we can go late at night, but that is not very often. I have sat in parliament and heard speeches made that were not made, necessarily, for the benefit of the debate; they were done for the benefit of filling in time.
Whilst people might say everyone has the right to speak in parliament - and I do not say that that is not the case - having been in parliament for a reasonable length of time, I know there are times when speeches are sometimes made as fillers. That is usually in the case of when statements are being put forward and there is not much else on the Notice Paper to do for the rest of today. I do think that what should have been looked at is the efficient use of the time we have.
A number of issues have been recommended and I presume, because the government has the numbers, these will go through. the Chief Minister mentioned a number of these in his press release which are included in the recommendations, but there are other things which the Chief Minister did not speak about.
First of all, the sitting day shall start at 10 am and finish at 10 pm. When we start and finish has been adjusted, and was one thing the Chief Minister asked for. There will be video and audio streaming of parliamentary proceedings. That is fine, I agree with that.
However, there were a few other things that the Chief Minister did not include in his media release that have now become part of the proceedings. One is, on the Wednesday night, for instance, there are changes I did not know about which relate to a different manner in which the adjournment debates will be carried out. Second, except for what I knew from the briefing with the Leader of Government Business, is that we will now only have five minutes per member for the adjournment debate. None of that was spoken about by the Chief Minister in his media release, or when the Leader of Government Business introduced a reference to the Standing Orders Committee on 30 October this year.
If the government then had the ability to go outside the three areas that it had told the community it was going to look at - that is, the days we are sitting, the length of time we are sitting, and the business of the radio and television broadcasting - why did it not look at a range of other issues? The opposition has said that it raised some of those issues in the committee stage, for instance, Question Time. I do not necessarily agree with the opposition’s view of 10 questions for the opposition, and 10 for the government. I am not in the opposition, so that gives me nil. I would rather see it weighted - something more like one for the government and three for this side of parliament, simply because we all know that the government does not question itself. The government merely asks itself for a report on some of the things it does. Question Time should be about questioning the government. That is what people want to hear. I would prefer it if the ratio of questions to the government from the opposition or the crossbenches be changed so that we have the ability to question the government as the people of the Northern Territory expect.
The issue of reports - how many times have I heard people complain about reports? The government has five minutes, the opposition has two minutes, and the crossbenches or Independent has two minutes as well - and we have no idea what is coming. It is like some kind of television show: guess what the report will be, and now you will have to respond. It reminds me of going to some public speaking meetings where you had to do impromptu speeches, because that is what it is. The government gives you the subject and, in five minutes, you have to respond to it. You wonder whether, for the sake of better parliamentary debate, government would give, on a regular basis, an inkling of what the report was about.
The reason they do not do that is because they would not want the opposition or the Independent to do a little research before that particular matter comes up - which would improve the quality of the debate. Surely, if we believe in good parliamentary debate, we would do everything to ensure that happened. We might be parliament but, as the previous member for Nhulunbuy said, this place is also about politics. That is why the reports are not necessarily highlighted to members on this side. There is an area I believe we should have put forward for discussion.
The opposition raised some other issues. It did not quite agree with the number of sitting days. One of the areas I have not seen discussed is that I believe we can fit all our work into these existing days. I do not know how many thousands of dollars it costs to operate the building when we are here. If we intended to go for another three days, then we have to prove that we really need those extra three days. People have to come back in for those days. I presume there is more airconditioning going. I know that there are figures that show how much this building costs to run. If we are using it for a purpose that is legitimate, I do not have a problem. However, if we can do all the work that is required of us each year within the existing hours – and I take the point from the members for Sanderson and Greatorex - I do not have a problem working until 11 pm. If it is an extra hour added on to each night which, basically, covers the extra three days, I would rather do that. A little common sense could have come into that. It means the building is not operating on full airconditioning for an extra three days. I know this is a very energy conscience, environmentally-friendly government and they should have taken that into consideration - it is a costly building to run.
The dinner suspension does not particularly worry me; people will find the time to come and go. I understand where the opposition is coming from with the MPIs.
General Business Days are an area in which I am not going to say one way or the other what kind of changes should happen. It is an area we could have discussed. Obviously the government, because this is the political side of the debate, does not want too many GBDs, as the opposition gets a lot of publicity because it is putting forward its bills and motions. It is a day that the government has to work in reverse, where it has to act, to some extent, nearly as the opposition because it has to respond and it does not have the final say in a debate, and they do respond. To some extent, from a government’s point of view, they do not want too many GBDs because they control parliament in the system we have. We could look at the introduction of bills by the opposition or the Independent, to see whether we could speed that up because, from this side of parliament, it is a very slow process to introduce legislation into this House.
I have mentioned ministerial reports. I believe we have missed an opportunity. I find it difficult to be told that this is going to get dropped off this afternoon and debated. I am trying to think, even with the environment reports, whether it was the case that it was adjourned so people could have a chance to debate it. If this is the process, that is a great argument for reform. If one is to put changes that affect all of us, surely, if the Chief Minister believes in an open and transparent government and in major reforms, then one major reform would be not to debate something so important in two or three hours and pass it. That is directly opposite to the philosophy which he is telling us he is trying to change.
I can accept some of these changes. It was probably good that we went back to 10 am; it gives people time to prepare before parliament. The government is concerned that it is being seen that parliamentarians do not do any work, therefore, we will shift the hours from 9 am to 10 am for an extra three hours. It appears that this is being run because of a perception that the public do not believe we do work because we are not in here all the time. If that is the reason, then the government ought to go out and better explain what parliament does. The media portrays the idea quite a lot that the only time we work is when we are in this parliament. It is one of those great furphies that the media likes to put forward. If the government is listening to those sorts of ideas pushed in the media, then it needs to put the facts out to the public regarding what this parliament is about and what the other roles of MLAs are; that is, to work within their electorates. I do not think that anyone here could say they do not do a heck of a lot of work in their own electorates.
Fannie Bay, admittedly, you could do on a bicycle, but the member for Barkly’s electorate is nearly as big as Victoria. The member for Stuart’s is bigger than Victoria! The member for Daly’s is half as big as Tasmania. They are big electorates that require a fair bit of work by the members. That is part of the role of the MLA; he or she should be out in that electorate. That is also part of the work an MLA does. If the government is saying that people out there believe we are only working here 33 days a year and we should bump it up to 36 to make it look better, then it is not selling the real story about what members of parliament have to do.
Instead of window dressing, which it is, make our time in here more efficient and go a bit longer at night. It does not worry me; I do not believe 11 pm is late. I am not disagreeing that 1 am or 2 am might be late but if you go to the movies in town the movie will not be finished until 11.30 pm if it is a long movie. No one worries about that. We are only in here for the 33 days. Those 33 days until 11 pm are not a real problem. As the member for Sanderson said, when you do the extra hours, you actually make the three days, anyway.
I hope to see us discussing some of the bills. In reality, say, tomorrow night when we are working the new hours, we get to the Plant Bill - a very important bill. The next sittings are not until February next year, and people want to discuss it. It is a pretty important bill; it is a whole new bill covering plant movements and all those sorts of things in the Northern Territory. When we get to 8.55 pm and there is to be another three speakers, does that mean the bill will move to the next sittings? Unless it is on Wednesday ...
A member: Or, does it get rammed through undebated?
Mr WOOD: I am not sure. I thank you, Madam Speaker, for saying that is not true. However, what you might highlight is the fact that I have just received this document and you are insinuating that I have it wrong. I am happy to be told I am wrong on that matter, but I have not had the time to look at this properly, to talk about it with other people and, then, come back to parliament and give a more prepared response. It only highlights to me more the fact that this should have been put on the table. We all should have had a say, even if the Standing Orders Committee invited all members of the parliament to go to a public hearing of the Standing Orders Committee, and give their particular version of what they think should happen.
I might be wrong but I believe what is being put in here as recommendations has gone to Cabinet, and Cabinet has agreed to this. Then, the members of the Standing Orders Committee belonging to the government have brought back Cabinet’s viewpoint. So, there is no way there can be change. What should have happened is it should not have gone to Cabinet. The government should have said: ‘We are looking at reforming. Here are the general concepts we are looking at. Standing Orders Committee, you go and talk and give all the parliamentarians in this House an opportunity to comment on it. Have some public meetings that allow MLAs to put forward their points of view. When you finish with that, come back with a recommendation’. You might have a couple of versions. If it needs Cabinet to then approve it, at least Cabinet has been given a whole range of options by all members of this House.
No one should have been bound by any party discipline at the discussion at the Standing Orders Committee. They should have been able to give their own free opinion, not a conscience vote, as the reform of parliament is such a mild-mannered issue. It would have been good to hear how individual members of parliament thought the parliament should be reformed. We have new people and, sometimes, the new people are the best people. They see things that those people who have been in parliament for a long time have become so used to it, they do not see how stupid it all is, in some …
A member: Forty-nine hours ago we started this - 49 hours.
Mr WOOD: Right, okay. It would have been nice to hear the member for Barkly’s first impressions of how this parliament is running.
Madam Speaker, I believe we have missed an opportunity to look at reform in a serious manner. We have rushed it through too quickly and, in the end, we have rubber stamped a Cabinet decision through a committee that all of us have really not had a genuine say in. As it is, as much as I support reform, and as much as I support some of what is in here, I will not support this particular document.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Greatorex, Sanderson and Nelson for their contribution. They were, on any objective analysis, considerably better than those from the other side.
I am genuinely concerned about not only the manner in which the government has brought about these changes, but the substance of them. In particular, and in no particular order: adjournments. That is outrageous. It is offensive that you would cut adjournments to five minutes. Some members opposite will say: ‘It happens in interstate parliaments’. Well, we are different. The Northern Territory is meant to be different; that is what makes us unique. How many times have we heard people on both sides of the Chamber say, in and outside: ‘the unique Territory lifestyle’? We should look at what happens around us, obviously. However, who wants to be the same as everywhere else? It is not why most of us who have come from other places came here to live, frankly.
In the Northern Territory, as parliamentarians we have the privilege of talking about, more often than not, our electorate. The member for Greatorex put it very well. In essence, we owe them a lot. It is an honour to serve. That is why we are here. That is what we do. Despite all the huffing and puffing and yelling, we are actually representing our electorates.
The best way, arguably the only way - save and except for a question in Question Time whenever it is possible – we can effectively talk about the people in our electorate whom we represent is in adjournments. We are now in the invidious position of having to apparently look them in the eye and say: ‘I talked about you in parliament’, but without disclosing, ‘I talked about you for five minutes but, then, I needed to slip a copy of my speech to someone to get it approved and have it incorporated in the Parliamentary Record’. That is outrageous; it borders on undemocratic. It is undemocratic to deprive a parliamentarian the right to speak. This is a parliament and it is what we do.
I also make the observation that many of us, particularly those who have been here a bit longer than some others, actually do adjournment debates off the top of our heads without a written speech. What am I to do if I have a very important event in my electorate, a fantastic constituent, or many of them whom I wish to talk about on a particular day because something has come to me or I did not feel it was necessary for me to write a speech? I get to the five minute mark - but how on earth am I to explain that to a constituent? ‘Look, I gave you five minutes, and I was cut off mid-sentence’. That is the worst thing you have done, frankly, since the election and, certainly, for a very long time.
I am also concerned about the fixed times for everything else. Parliament should be reasonably flexible. Again, because of our unique position, we are a wonderful parliament in the sense that we are a small jurisdiction. We should be able to carve out a niche for ourselves and, as a group of human beings, be pretty flexible, given that almost without exception, most of us take our jobs very seriously. We should be able to not be wedded to time lines set in stone when it comes to having debates in this place.
For instance, even in this term, we have had a condolence motion recently. There were a number of speakers. I cannot remember exactly how long it went on for, but, from memory, it was close to a couple of hours, maybe an hour-and-a-half. Is it the case that condolence motions are to be shortened so that we can all rush to the finish line at 9 pm? That is not okay. That is, similarly, outrageous.
It is also unacceptable for us, as a parliament, to be debating matters which are urgent, of serious public importance - perhaps an issue, perhaps legislation – and, yet, we have to finish by a certain time. That is unacceptable, and that really makes a mockery of the parliament. Of course we have seen that a lot in recent times.
Talking about adjournments, I am noting something in the report. I note the member for Nelson’s comments, and others. This was rushed through. You people are just not fair dinkum about doing your job properly. No wonder the word ‘mediocrity’ has been used a lot in the last 24 hours. You really seem to thrive on mediocrity. This was rushed through. You have not encouraged a proper debate but it is very obvious you do not want to debate much.
Anyway, I understand from reading this that, on the Wednesday adjournment, we have all these time restrictions left, right and centre, but a minister may extend a debate - this is on a Wednesday adjournment under paragraph A:
Right, so, a garden variety member of parliament who comes in and wants to talk about their electorate only gets five minutes but, if someone wants to raise some matters, electorate-based or otherwise, that the government and the Speaker deem appropriate, then the minister not only gets 10 minutes, not only can extend the time, but could arguably have two bites at the cherry because that minister may have been speaking earlier in the five-minute adjournment debate while on his or her feet.
I spoke to the member for Nelson about this particular part of the report. He said, if I understood him correctly, that this was not discussed in the committee. This shows why it is unwise to rush. We have seen the government rush over the years, and it does not make a good policy. You have yourselves in a position where you are obsessed with time frames, and you are not at all concerned, apparently, with the good operation of the parliament. Shame on you. Shame on you all – all of you – Labor members of parliament, either ministers or backbenchers.
Mr Conlan: No one else has spoken in support of it, do you notice?
Ms CARNEY: Well, that is right. They just do not want to speak; they want to get home.
I am pleased I raised the matters I have. I raised them very genuinely, not just as a member of the opposition, but as a member who has been in this place for seven years. Parliament, in my experience of parliament, is far from perfect, but it runs okay. What the Labor government is doing now is trying to close down debate. Of course, we have seen form on this since the election. The oft interjection made by the member for Fong Lim to the Leader of Government Business is ‘gag girl’. Well, if the glove fits, certainly wear it. We have seen the government gag this opposition more than they did the last. This takes me neatly to the final part of my contribution.
These changes have nothing to do with reform, and you should be very honest about that. It has more to do with a headline than reforming parliament. To my knowledge, no mention was made during the election campaign about reforming parliament. I do not remember seeing the media release or policy, and there was no discussion about reforming parliament. So, let us track it back as best we can. Why not go for a little walk down memory lane to when Labor took office in 2001?
Labor was at its best in 2001 - by far your best term of government. You had enthusiastic new members, you had a good Chief Minister, you had waited an awfully long time to come into government, and you hit the ground running. The Country Liberal Party, on the other hand, had some members who had previously been government ministers who could not get used to the fact that the CLP had lost government. They were angry, resentful and, frankly, not very good at being in opposition. It took pretty much the whole term for most of those people to work that out. Even a casual observer would say that that is a fairly good summing up of the first term of Labor’s government and the CLP’s opposition.
So, Labor had it all its own way, due to what I regard as a pretty disastrous …
Ms Lawrie: Considers herself a political commentator. What incredible arrogance.
Ms CARNEY: Hang on. You have had your go. If you want more time, you should have asked for more time. You are just rude and offensive, so you just sit there and be quiet ...
Ms Lawrie: Incredible arrogance to consider yourself a political commentator.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I ask for your protection against this maggot on the other side, who is just revolting …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw that comment, thank you.
Ms CARNEY: I will withdraw ‘maggot’ and replace it with ‘grub’.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, withdraw ‘grub’ as well.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw ‘grub’. I ask, Madam Speaker, as you know as well as I do how very offensive she is, that you protect me as a member in this House, and that you …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, just pause. Members, I remind you of Standing Order 51. Leader of Government Business, I ask that you try to keep the interjections to a lower level. Thank you.
Ms CARNEY: So, in Labor’s first term, they had it pretty much all their own way. The CLP …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I question the relevance of where the member for Araluen is going in her pretence that she is some kind of independent political commentator when she clearly has a little axe to grind. She was dumped as Leader of the Opposition, she is absolutely offensive …
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order. The member for Karama was asserting, I gather, that I maintained I was an independent commentator. I referred in my discussions - and it will show up in Hansard - to ‘even the most casual observer’.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen …
Ms CARNEY: There is no point of order and I ask you to rule …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen …
Ms CARNEY: … accordingly and shut her up, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, that was extremely rude. I was actually speaking then.
Ms CARNEY: My apologies, Madam Speaker.
Mr Conlan: Oh, so it is okay for her to be rude.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you are on a warning. I believe the Leader of Government Business is referring to Standing Order 67, which is no digression from the subject. Member for Araluen, there is a fair bit of latitude in this sort of thing, but if you could keep as close as possible to the debate at hand.
Ms CARNEY: The relevance is this, Madam Speaker, and member for Karama: you hypocrites say and have pitched the changes to the parliamentary sittings under the banner of reform. I am saying, and the opposition is saying, that there is a reason why you have changed this in seven years of government. You had it all your own way, pretty much, between 2001 and 2005. You were a pretty good government then – but, by god, you have gone downhill - and we were not a good opposition, and casual observers would agree with me.
In the second term of government, Labor was in a great position because it had 19 members and we had four. No changes for that term because they had their own way. However, it was a terrible term, in a sense, for Labor because of all the infighting and the knifing of the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister. You have had two terms where you are strutting your stuff and you are feeling pretty cool and groovy.
The third term comes along and, because of the appalling judgment of the current Chief Minister - who will not be there for long - the person who is sitting in the seat now, by going to the election when he did, my, the numbers have changed. They are very much closer and, in our second parliamentary sittings in October, government members felt the heat. You had not seen the force of opposition by reason of us only having four numbers in the preceding term. Now, you have seen the force of members on our side and the vigour with which they seek to bring you to account …
Ms Lawrie: You flatter yourselves.
Ms CARNEY: You can mutter all you like, and I would like to think that you will be picked up by Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, are you reflecting on the Speaker.
Ms CARNEY: No, Madam Speaker, I was just hoping that you would, obviously, protect me in the way that all of us would like.
Madam SPEAKER: There have been interjections on both sides. As you are aware, I do not pull up everyone for every interjection.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I am deeply offended by that comment.
A member interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
Ms CARNEY: I did not say anything, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Just be careful, member for Araluen, in this reflecting on the Speaker.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, Madam Speaker, what exactly are you …
Madam SPEAKER: I would like you to stick to the topic and get on with it, thank you.
Ms CARNEY: Had it not been, for the ongoing interjections of the member for Karama, I would have been done and dusted by now.
In any event, what happened in the October sittings? You were held to account. And what else happened? You stayed up late. For the first time in a number of years, you had to do a bit of work. You and all your little factotums up the back all had to stay out late. It nearly killed you. We could see it. You just did not want to work.
Then, all of a sudden, we are going to reform parliament, they say. Nothing mentioned during the election campaign. No mention of anything, to my recollection, over the preceding seven years. All of a sudden, you want to reform, because you cannot have it all your own way any more and you do not like it.
As a result of the Chief Minister now, finally, embracing our policy of fixed parliamentary terms as a result of the legislation introduced today, you also know it is going to be a long, hard four years for you. You also know that we have spring in our step and we are going to go as hard as we can against the Labor government of the Northern Territory on behalf of the people we have the privilege of representing. That is why it was necessary, member for Karama, to look at what you have done in the context of the last seven-and-a-bit years.
We have your number. We all know very few people are listening to this parliamentary debate. In a sense that is not surprising. However, in so many ways it does not matter, because we are debating what they already know; that is, arrogance, stupidity, obsession with staying in power, those sorts of things …
Mr Conlan: Tokenism.
Ms CARNEY: Tokenism and just lunging from crisis to crisis. We saw it in the second half of the last term and, in three-and-a-half months since the election, that is pretty much what is happening.
We have your number, and we want you to know we know why you are doing this. You can call it whatever you like. You call it a reform. We say it is a spiteful, vindictive, mean attempt to ensure that members of the opposition have less time to speak on their feet - that is, adjournment debates – and less time to talk about the people in their electorates. This is a spiteful, mean-spirited series of changes veiled under the banner of reform so you get your couple of inches space in the Northern Territory News. Well, bully for you! I am glad I have risen. I did not intend to speak in this debate, but it is important. Based on the discussions I had with my colleagues earlier, we wanted you to know that we know why you have done it. So, wrap it up however you like. You are just unbelievable.
I do not know what is worse. I do not know whether we try to put up with the Chief Minister the way he is, or whether we egg on the member for Karama. I am not sure who will be better. I wait to see the outcome, but I can honestly say that if it is the member for Karama then the opposition is probably going to be deprived of significantly more time because she cannot stand it when people disagree with her. She cannot stand hearing any alternative view because she is top of the pack, as opposed to middle of the pack, when it comes to arrogance. The way she has conducted herself, based on conversations I have had with the member for Greatorex, and from what my colleagues, the members for Sanderson and Greatorex have said to me privately and during this debate, is just astounding.
I thought the member for Greatorex was very sincere when he talked about it earlier. He was genuinely let down. He was genuinely surprised, poor thing. He can still be surprised by the member for Karama. I cannot be but, no doubt, member for Greatorex, you will get the hang of that as the years roll on.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, the poor work ethic of the government is appalling, because that is what this report is about. It is about their reluctance to commit to the job. We currently sit for a mere 33 days a year. We are about to sit for a mere 36 days under this new regime and, yet, parliament must now end at 10 pm.
As the member for Greatorex said, the fact that when you are sitting there talking to people and they ask what hours you work when you are in parliament, and you say: ‘We start at 10 am; we work until 12 noon; we have a two-hour lunch break; then we go through to a dinner break from 6 pm to 7.30 pm; and then we come back in and are all gone by 9:30 pm, 10 pm’, it is hardly what most people out there in the real world think is a big day. The fact that this only occurs 33 days of the year is a total farce.
As a person who has spent a bit of time in parliaments around the rest of the country, dealing with parliamentarians around the rest of the country, I have to tell you that we are seen as the laughing stock of the nation because of the hours this parliament works. The fact that there is so much left undebated on the Notice Paper and that members are constantly shut down is a very poor look in relation to this particular parliament. It is not just embarrassing for me, but it should be embarrassing for every single one of us in this place. The fact that the government gets tired and cannot work past 10 pm at night for 36 days a year - only 36 days a year - is appalling. If that is the case; if you cannot work past 10 pm, let us double the sitting days. It would not be a big deal to double the sitting days. We could turn up for 70 days a year.
The federal parliament sits for somewhere between 100 and 120 days a year. When you work it out, they are in Canberra for almost six months of the year as a federal parliamentarian. I look at a Labor colleague of the members on the other side, the member for Lingiari - not a person who I agree with politically on many things at all. In actual fact, we disagree on a hell of a lot things and we have had some pretty terrible fights over the years. However, one thing I will say about the member for Lingiari is that he is an extraordinarily hard worker. I have said that for many years. Not only does the member for Lingiari sit in federal parliament for almost six months of the year but, when he comes back to his electorate, he virtually flies around the whole of the Northern Territory in light aeroplanes and rarely complains about it - rarely complains about it. I could not even count on one hand the people who would do the travel and commit to the time the member for Lingiari does to represent the people in his electorate. I do not think he does a great job representing them, I do not think he expresses their views particularly well. The fact is he does get around and works extraordinarily hard.
To listen to the member for Fannie Bay complain that he could not work an extra three days a year because that would take time away from him being in his electorate …
Mr Conlan: His three suburbs.
Mr TOLLNER: He said three suburbs. Is it three suburbs? Probably not even three suburbs - Fannie Bay and Stuart Park, isn’t? What else is there?
Mr Gunner: Parap.
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, Parap, of course - three suburbs.
A member: Ludmilla.
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, and Ludmilla. He is a good constituent of mine, I have to say. However, I digress, Madam Speaker.
To listen to the member for Fannie Bay complaining about the extraordinary workload he has trying to cover his electorate flies in the face of reason. It is absolutely appalling - the poor little blighters in the Labor Party do not get their sleep, therefore, huge numbers of issues which are of concern to people across the Territory do not get debated.
The Opposition Whip made the point about the member for Karama; how people have called her ‘the gag girl’. I suppose it is meant to be a bit of a slap to the member for Karama but every time things do not go the government’s way, the member for Karama jumps up and gags the parliament - shuts it down. It is a terrible thing, and it happens time and time again. We do not get 10 questions each side in Question Time; we simply get an hour. The member for Karama could not give a toss whether we only get two questions in Question Time because it is going to be shut down. I cannot understand, for the life of me, in a parliament of this size, why we could not even just exhaust questions - just let it run? There is no reason at all, in a parliament the size of this, with 365 days a year to work with, that people cannot ask as many questions as they like. To be shut down constantly, over 33 days a year, is just appalling.
Talking about questions, I am stunned that in a place like this that you cannot ask the Speaker a question without asking leave of the parliament. To me, that is just so ridiculous. Members will recall I made an attempt to ask the Speaker a question. I was informed that I needed to seek leave of the parliament. Oddly enough, ‘gag girl’ jumped up and said: ‘No, no, no, we are not going to let this happen’; voted on government lines and would not allow me to ask an innocent question of the Speaker.
In federal parliament – a place where I spent a considerable amount of time; six years - after every Question Time, members of both sides get up and pose questions to the Speaker. The Speaker would answer them as best they could. In some cases, the Speaker would say: ‘I will have to get further information’, come back and report to the Chamber. That would occur, but there was no requirement to seek leave of the Chamber to ask the Speaker a question - that is just ridiculous.
It is a similar thing with personal explanations. I hear this: ‘You can approach me at some stage and request to make a personal explanation’. I wonder why you have to approach the Speaker to make a personal explanation. Why can we not stand up after Question Time and say, ‘Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation’? Why can somebody not just stand up and say: ‘Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation’? Does the Speaker vet personal explanations; determine what is a suitable personal explanation and what is not? The Speaker has the ability to pull someone up whilst they are making a personal explanation, as we are not allowed to bait or that sort of stuff, but why should somebody have to seek the Speaker out in the morning in order to make a personal explanation that day? To me, that is another abrogation of democracy in the parliament.
Regarding access to video and audio clips, we know the cameras here are not of the best quality. The video footage is not of the best quality. I cannot understand why a member of this Chamber cannot access that footage. It is just ridiculous. I wrote to the Speaker asking for access to some of the footage and was flatly declined. I could not access footage. There was no explanation why that was the case ...
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wonder whether the member is reflecting on the Chair. He is making some fairly crude insinuations about the rulings of the Speaker. I believe it is bordering on reflecting on the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think it is. However, I remind you, member for Fong Lim, that I did write to you and give you the explanation in the letter as to why I had refused you having that. You can continue, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I will check that record again.
Madam SPEAKER: It did explain exactly why.
Mr TOLLNER: I do recall it was a very short letter. You may well be right, and I apologise if I have offended you in some way. I did not mean to reflect on the Chair at all; I was more reflecting on the processes of this parliament. I apologise if I have offended you in any way.
I know the member for Daly is quite keen to make his little mark on this place. He is a well known as ‘silent knight’. Somebody asked me the other day: ‘What is the difference between the member for Daly and a shed?’ I said: ‘I do not know’. He said: ‘If it moves it is a shed’. We know on this side that the Chief Minister is under threat. He is not only under threat from the Treasurer, but the dark horse in the whole thing, the member for Daly, who is gearing up, working the numbers, working the backbench. He was in your ear, member for Fannie Bay. He will be in your ear, minister, yours too, and the member for Nhulunbuy …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 49. The member for Fong Lim, the former member for Solomon, knows that he should be addressing his comments through the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct. Thank you. Order!
Mr TOLLNER: He makes a relevant point, Madam Speaker, but I will address my colleagues adequately.
We know what is going on in the back rooms of the Labor Party ...
Dr Burns: That is because you walked through our lobby for a bet, you goose. Is that not right?
Mr TOLLNER: The minister has just pulled me up for not addressing my comments through the Chair, and here he is yelling across the Chamber.
Dr Burns: I am interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is an interesting debate. Standing Order 51:
Honourable members …
Mr TOLLNER: We know that the Chief Minister …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I am still speaking, if you would resume your seat. Member for Fong Lim, you may now speak. You are aware that the standing orders are that if the Speaker is speaking you resume your seat? Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: My apologies, Madam Speaker.
I digress. This debate is not about who is about to stick the knife into the Chief Minister. It is about the accountability of this parliament and the lacklustre performance of the government in their desire to get home to bed nice and early. That is the fundamental point.
In relation to accountability, I was taken aback by the fact that video and audio footage is not accessible in the same manner that it is in other parliaments around this country to members of those particular parliaments. I was also quite taken aback today when I overheard a comment. I do not know the truth of this, but I do know that the cameras that come into this place during Question Time can only get footage during Question Time. Well, something that I found out today from somebody – it may have been a discussion we were having about this particular legislation - is that those cameras are not allowed to pan. They cannot pan the Chamber. I found that rather extraordinary. I thought, goodness me, what do these people have to hide when the media is told that they are not allowed to pan the Chamber in order to - I do not know, the media may want to get a bit of footage of reaction on members’ faces and the like. I do not know, but they are told straight out that they are not allowed to pan the Chamber. I find that abhorrent, as well.
In relation to this report, there is a whole range of things which are totally abhorrent to the citizens of the Northern Territory - or should be, were they properly informed about what was happening. As I said yesterday, this government is not interested in results. It is not interested in getting things done. What it is interested in is the message - getting the message out there.
We know this is all about a headline. We know the media releases have been issued. I see one in this little booklet from the Chief Minister - somewhere in here - talking about reforms to the parliament, making the parliament more open and accountable. He put that in a media release. It has been clearly shown here today that it is nothing to do with onus or accountability. These reforms being put in place are everything to do with everything but openness and accountability.
What they are about are media releases, putting a shine on an appalling government, a lacklustre government. It is a government that is not interested in doing the hard yards for Territorians; that wants to get home to bed early, and refuses to extend the sitting times of the parliament. I find it quite amazing.
These lunch breaks, for instance. Why do we have lunch breaks? If people want to keep a lunch break, surely, we could add a few extra days to the sitting period? Why can we not have an extra 20 or 30 days a year to get through some of the debates that we have in this place? All of these things are supposedly so important – we have the economic direction of the Third Reich, we have the police legislation …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim has been pulled up in the past for being offensive in referring to this government as the Third Reich. I have pulled him up in this Chamber before about how offensive that is to Jewish people …
Mr Conlan: Reich is just German for rule. That is all it is.
Ms LAWRIE: Picking up on the member for Greatorex, who wants to defend the indefensible …
Mr Conlan: It is just German for rule. It is just a word.
Ms LAWRIE: We know he is referring to the Hitler era. He has form on this and you know it. It is offensive.
Mr Conlan: Oh, you are so offended by that. It is pathetic.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw those comments, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw.
Mr Conlan: Boo hoo. He is not talking about that and you know it.
Mr TOLLNER: The Leader of Government Business …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I took the member for Greatorex gesticulating across the Chamber as an act of saying how sorry he was about the Third Reich destroying millions of Jews in the war - which I find offensive also. He should withdraw that gesticulation he made across the Chamber, sarcastically saying how sorry he was about what happened with the Third Reich during the World War II. That is offensive and he needs to withdraw it.
Mr Conlan: No, I do not.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I ask you to withdraw the comments.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, can I just say that …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you are actually on a warning.
Mr CONLAN: Okay, so where are we?
Madam SPEAKER: Are you going to withdraw the comments?
Mr CONLAN: Can I speak to the point of order?
Madam SPEAKER: Are you going to withdraw the comments? Simply withdraw the comments.
Mr CONLAN: What comments? There was no comment.
Dr Burns: It was a gesticulation, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr CONLAN: Okay. I withdraw it, whatever.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Again, a second instance of a total disregard of standing orders by the Leader of Government Business - now, the minister for Justice, Minister for Health.
There is nowhere in standing orders that says you cannot refer to the government in a particular way. You cannot refer to individuals. I withdrew that comment the first time around, because of a comment I made in relation to the Chief Minister, comparing him with another leader in another place of a particularly bad government. To refer to the government in a particular manner is not a breach of standing orders. It is a complete disregard and a lack of understanding, and getting on your high horse about nothing.
What I was saying was there is a whole range of items sitting on the Notice Paper waiting to be debated, but it rarely gets debated. Why? Because this government does not want to debate it. We will go into it again: The Economic Direction off the Third Labor Government; Increasing Police Presence, Making Communities Safer. Goodness me, we went to an election on law and order; both sides campaigned heavily on it. We have not discussed it. We have not discussed the Chief Minister’s statement.
Madam Speaker, this report is hypocrisy at its highest. There is nothing open and accountable about this parliament ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, your time is expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on a few points that have been raised in this debate. Some were relevant to the debate, some certainly were not relevant.
What I want to point out in the dissenting report is a comment on page 17 by the CLP which refers to the notifications for MPIs. It says that it is required at 8 am. They think it is difficult to accept that there will be staff in the office or, for that matter the Speaker, at 7 am. They are saying there is no doubt that requiring a 7 am drop-off and notification of an MPI will necessitate staff members being in the building outside normal working hours; that this has implications on the budget.
They are saying - and I am just looking for the exact words here, Madam Speaker. They are saying, essentially, that it has been their experience that there have not been staff available in your office to register their MPIs prior to 8 am. This certainly flies in the face of what actually has occurred in the Speaker’s Office in the receipt of matters of public importance. For the purposes of setting this record straight and making sure that we have some accuracy in this debate, I will table a few examples of the MPIs I have obtained that clearly identify the time at which they were received in the Speaker’s Office.
For example, the MPI we will be debating later this evening was received at 7.56 am in your office. Very clearly, your staff is available to receive this, despite the statement in the dissenting report by the CLP that says:
But here we have 7.56 am for the MPI this morning. The MPI on 10 September was received at 7.43 am. The MPI on 16 September was received at 7.45 am. There was one MPI on 17 September received at 7.45 am. The MPI on 23 October was received at 7.50 am. So, saying that, on almost all occasions this year, Madam Speaker or her staff have been available – clearly, that is patently wrong, as is evidenced by the MPIs with the time of receipt marked on them that I have tabled.
It is one thing for members opposite to come in here and have a go - as we know, it is starting to be their form to have a go at the Speaker, a form that does them no great service and, indeed, shows the depths to which this opposition is prepared to sink. Also, through a dissention report, they attacked your staff, Madam Speaker. Again, it is part of their form - they like to attack public servants. Now, they are extending their attacks to the staff of members …
Mr Tollner: You are offensive.
Ms LAWRIE: Well actually, it is offensive in here - and I point out the dissenting report and read it again: … no Speaker’s staff or the Speaker have been available …’ etcetera. To have a go at the staff is offensive and, clearly, the evidence shows that you are wrong - you are completely wrong. So, do not have a go at the staff when, in fact, you are wrong. Madam Speaker, I felt it was important in this debate, because there have been many things said that have no substance to them, but we are getting used to that coming from the CLP.
Page 18 of the dissenting report refers to the issue of incorporating material. It is part of their argument that there is no change in incorporating material. They are saying you can incorporate now, and what the government is proposing to do in incorporating speeches in adjournment is no change. Well, that is wrong because, currently, a member can be given leave from the Speaker to have lists of names such as school students or awardees, incorporated into the Parliamentary Record, but only after the member has indicated what that item is. This is not a speech incorporated into the Parliamentary Record, it is a list of names – not a speech, so there is a change.
Member for Sanderson, you might not get what the practice has been, but you could have sought some independent advice from the Clerk. Very clearly, this is a change. It was stated at the Standing Orders Committee meeting that this is a change. You could have sought extra independent advice before you shot from the hip and said there was no change.
Members opposite would have us walk into this fantasy that they are creating that no work occurs in parliament other than between the hours of 10 am and 12 pm, and then between the hours of 2 pm until we rise; that there is no work, that politicians are not working. I congratulate the member for Nelson for pointing out just how foolish and ridiculous this is in a debate, to lead this notion that there is no work that politicians do outside of the hours when we are in this Chamber. It is an absolute nonsense.
It will vary from member to member, depending on what their role is, whether they have a role in government, a role in opposition, an Independent member, a minister, a shadow minister, a Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Minister, etcetera. It will vary, but each member, I am assured, is working, certainly by, at the very latest - you would be hard pushed not to be - 9 am prior to a 10 am start. I then hazard to guess that each member would really be working by 8.30 am for a 10 am start, and there would be many who are starting far earlier than 8.30 am to get their work done. As I said, it will vary depending on the roles and responsibilities of the members of this Assembly.
Equally, they would have us believe that we have two hours off for lunch. Well, my goodness - unbelievable. I have been a backbencher in government …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can the Leader of Government Business clarify for us whether it was your office or the Clerk’s office that received those particular MPIs?
Ms LAWRIE: There is no point of order. There is no clarification. I was actually talking about …
Mr ELFERINK: Well, no. A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of Government Business has come into this place and accused us of making allegations against members of your staff. I am now asking whether it was your office or the Clerk’s office which received these MPIs. If it was the Clerk’s office, she is borderline misleading this House ...
Ms Lawrie: Oh, not at all. She would know ...
Mr ELFERINK: Was it the Clerk’s office or was it the Speaker’s office?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The documents will indicate on them who received them.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, it is your signature on them, Madam Speaker, so it is from your office ...
Mr Elferink: Oh, was it? Really? We will check that, because the advice I have received is quite different.
Ms LAWRIE: Misleading again. Oh, really? So argumentative. What about the fact that he steps in here and leads with his chin?
I was on the subject of the lunch break. The member for Greatorex started this theme of why can we not work through the lunch break? It might be news to him but many people do work through the lunch break. The backbenchers of the government work through all their lunch breaks. It is nonsense to call it a break – we are only broken from the Chamber, because they are all on committees, and those committees meet every lunch period of a sittings day.
I have been in that role and I know what it is like. You literally go from committee meeting to committee meeting. It is a big workload in those parliamentary committees. It is important work and I sincerely thank the backbenchers for the heavy workload they carry through those parliamentary lunch breaks, as they are called.
Also, as we all know, there is media that is occurring for members of parliament during the lunch break, and meetings with stakeholders. I saw members opposite today meeting with stakeholders, just as government members meet with stakeholders. It is not a downtime. We are not sitting down, having a cup of coffee, with our feet up on the table and having a bit of a relax. It is work!
I do not know anyone who can afford to be a member of parliament and functioning well, if they are not working through that two-hour period, then the bells start ringing to get us back in here. It is nonsense that is being put by the opposition that these two hours are actually a break. It is continued work, albeit not in the Chamber. It is work, and it is work that supports, particularly in the area of parliamentary committees, the work of the parliament and the work done in this Chamber.
The member for Sanderson led this bizarre line that we need an extra week to get some extra work done. Three days is three days. No matter how you cut it, three days is extra time to get extra work done.
It is strange that there would not be extra scrutiny. The member for Fannie Bay picked up on that, he pointed out that if the three extra days happen to fall on a Monday, which in the 2009 calendar they are going to, well, the media is working on Monday so they are scrutinising. There will be three Question Times on those Mondays - so, hello, that is scrutiny. Any way you cut it, whether it is three days of a week, or three days spread across weeks, it is an extra three days of scrutiny of government, and this government contends that is good for democracy.
The member for Nelson said he is disappointed in the debate coming into parliament today. He would have liked more opportunity and time for input from all MLAs. I did go out of my way, as Leader of Government Business, to find time to meet with him. I did go through the proposed changes. I did flag the thinking around the changes additional to the Chief Minister’s announcement, which was the workability and the hour of the adjournment debate; the Wednesday night, and how adjournment could be carried out to give members extra opportunity to adjourn; the idea of incorporating speeches into parliament, which will effectively double the five-minute adjournment to a 10-minute adjournment - if you are organised, doing your job well, efficient, and productive. I guess it is not going to work for the opposition. However, members of government will be using that new change, that opportunity.
The member for Nelson talked about government going outside its original announcement in some areas; for example, the way we would handle adjournment debates in particular. I point out that we also went outside the announcement in the areas put on the table by the opposition. We have agreed to make a reference to the Standing Orders committee regarding General Business Day and how that operates. We have also agreed to have a look at Question Time and how that operates. I want to flag to the member for Nelson that we also picked up on those matters that were put before government by the opposition.
We know that the opposition does not like reports in the morning, as the member for Nelson does not. However, as government we believe they are important opportunities to let the Territory know of initiatives that are occurring in the Territory that are affecting Territorians’ lives. They are not lightweight issues that are raised in reports; they are significant and important issues to Territorians. The members of the opposition complain that they do not get forewarning about what the reports are about, so it does not help with the quality of the debate to not know what the subject is; therefore they cannot research it prior to that and it does not help the quality of the debate.
Guess what Question Time is for ministers? You do not get forewarned. If you want to look at the quality of the debate, you do not get forewarned by the members of the CLP. Yes, the member for Nelson from time to time will give us a heads up on the direction he is going. I used to be able to get the actual written question out of him, which was terrific, but those days are slipping. As far as quality of debate goes, I point out it cuts both ways, members.
The member for Araluen provided a pretty shrill and hysterical contribution to the debate, as usual, but we are getting used to that. She questioned why these reforms are coming about this particular term of government, and why not the last two terms of government of Labor. What have we seen in this term of government from the opposition? An unmitigated rabble – disorganised. They do not know who is speaking when, they decide on the spur of the moment to jump and contribute to debate. They are an absolute rabble. You know the Leader of the - I nearly made a Freudian slip. I nearly called the member for Araluen ‘the Leader of the Opposition’ because that is what she used to be before she was dumped. She gave this pathetic political commentary that went along the lines of the CLP were hopeless before but now they are good, now they are forceful, it is all going to change. If you were to take that to its natural conclusion, what she is saying is that they were hopeless under her leadership and, after they dumped her, they became invigorated. Maybe the slip was a bitter and twisted contribution to the debate because she is on the outer. She knows she is never going to be a leader again. She is looking at the backwash of a failed parliamentary career, drifting away …
Mr Conlan: At least she tells the truth.
Ms LAWRIE: Ah, member for Greatorex, you are upset. He needs to be told the truth. I will not go there because it is an interesting comment. One member of government indicated that maybe the member for Araluen could get two votes in a leadership challenge, which we figure could be the member for Greatorex. However, I reckon she has probably lost his as well. We are down to one vote. Never mind. As Syd said, he was not too proud to vote for himself in the leadership challenge.
I raise this because they would have us think there is this dissension amongst government ranks; that our Chief Minister is under some kind of leadership threat. They want to stir this little pot. They could not be further from the truth. I know my colleagues running this Caucus are a good bunch of people who work together. Every single one of them is 150%-plus behind our Chief Minister. I do not know anyone who has leadership ambitions because we all ‘get’ how tough the job is and how hard the man works and how great he is at it. So, maybe that bitter and twisted contribution was about the failed political career of the member for Araluen.
The member for Fong Lim came in with his fantasy around us starting work at 10 am. Maybe you do, member for Fong Lim, but the rest of us here start work a hell of a lot earlier than 10 am. We come into the Chamber with bells ringing at 10 am, but we started work a lot earlier than that. We work for our two hours, have a lunch break - oh joy, oh joy, to actually get that break. He seems to be somehow stuck in the House of Reps time warp because he keeps questioning all of the standing orders of this parliament. The standing orders have been around for a long time; they have been tried and tested. That little time warp he is stuck in after his defeat in Solomon, I really think it would improve his political career if he could just move on - just come to grips with it and move on.
The one idea he may have been on to something was when he became fixated whether cameras can pan during Question Time. He became quite passionate about this issue. I am reliably advised that our media and camera guidelines in relation to Question Time filming are based on the guidelines of the House of Representatives. He is shocked and dismayed over the practice and guidelines here, but he had spent many years in Canberra and had not noticed that was the practice and guidelines in Canberra. It is a bit surprising.
We now have debated whether people like the GBDs, Question Times; and whether those things are being handled as they should be, as they could be. As I clearly said, the government is having a look at all of that. There are references to the Standing Orders Committee for that.
When you get back to, fundamentally, what this is, it is about the fact that we will have a productive and effective parliament which is not in the realms of nonsense at 2 am, where members opposite think they get a good outcome. If you look at any workplace - and I proudly say, from my union background, I did studies on the 12-hour shifts and looked at research at La Trobe University and what 12-hours shifts do to people physically, and how their brains function. I say very clearly that it has been a nonsense of parliamentarians to think that they are, somehow, superhuman; that after a 16-hour working day, they are still functioning at their most productive, optimum premium. It is a nonsense. We have the same physiology as every other worker in Australia, and long hours affect our bodies and, indeed, our brain in the same way. Not only is it a nonsense, it is arrogant and a pursuit of egos out of control - to not just keep other parliamentarians here for those lengths of time, but to keep the staff of the Assembly and, indeed, hard-working public servants.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the Chief Minister’s strength to pursue the long-overdue parliamentary reforms. I am certainly pleased with the report of the Standing Orders Committee - the First Report of the 11th Assembly. I look forward to this vote on this important motion, and I look forward to the reforms.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before I call on Government Business, I have given my leave to the member for Greatorex to make a personal explanation. I remind honourable members it is the convention in this House to listen to personal explanations in silence, and there is no debate.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, in no way was I diminishing the human cost of the Holocaust; I simply was imitating gestures made across the Chamber by the member for Karama to me earlier in the debate, when she wiped her eyes to simulate tears. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust.
I feel I was bullied into a withdrawal without being able to offer any explanation, simply because the member for Johnston sought it.
It is also worth noting, Madam Speaker, that the member for Karama did not raise a point of order, which indicates that she fully understood the gesture, which is understandable, seeing that she initiated it earlier.
Continued from 30 October 2008.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2007-08 which was tabled on Thursday, 30 October 2008.
Madam Speaker, in the October sittings, in accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act, I deemed tabled the 2007-08 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statements. The statements form part of the 2007-08 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, the TAFR, and presents the Territory’s fiscal performance for that year. The report also satisfies the requirements of the final fiscal results report as set out in the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. We did not get the opportunity to debate the TAFR in the October sittings, but I have brought forward this motion in order to allow that debate to occur.
The highlights of the 2007-08 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report are:
all key fiscal aggregates have improved significantly on the 2006-07 outcome, and those estimated in both May 2007 and May 2008;
achievement of the sixth consecutive cash surplus of $211m for the general government sector;
general government accrual nett operating balance of $340m; and a fiscal balance of $198m.
record capital spending of $653m for the non-financial public sector, an increase of $86m since 2006-07;
a reduction of $156m in nett debt since 2006-07 to a total of $1.257bn, and
The 2007-08 outcome is a testament to our careful financial management over the past seven years. That means we are well placed heading into this period of global economic uncertainty that will, undoubtedly, affect the Territory.
I now turn in more detail to the outcome for the 2007-08 financial year. In addition to the 2007-08 estimate published in the 2008-09 Budget Papers, a pre-election fiscal outlook, the PEFO report, was released subsequent to the writs being issued for the 2008 general election. The PEFO was published on 1 August 2008 and presented preliminary, unaudited outcome for 2007-08. Those aggregates are broadly consistent with the final outcome presented in these 2007-08 financial statements. The 2007-08 outcome of a $211m cash surplus for general government is the sixth consecutive surplus and an improvement of $252m from the May 2007 budget.
This significant improvement since budget time is largely the result of increased specific purpose payments, SPPs, from the Commonwealth that were not fully spent in 2007-08. This will result in higher expenditure of around $100m in 2008-09 and future years when the funds are spent. While timing variations are not unusual, they are about three times higher in 2007-08 than previous years. Part of this additional expenditure requirement will be the reinstatement of $30m of appropriations for the Department of Health and Families that was transferred to other agencies at the end of 2007-08 in order to meet unexpected costs. The majority of the increased funding was the result of funding associated with the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER), including the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program, otherwise known as SIHIP.
I now turn to the 2007-08 accrual outcomes. The operating surplus of $340m and fiscal balance of $198m are both significant improvements on that budgeted. Again, as with the cash outcome, this is largely due to increased specific purpose payments, SPPs, from the Commonwealth which will be spent in future years. Operating revenue for 2007-08 was $486.3m higher than that projected in the May 2007 budget, largely as a result of:
increased taxation revenue of $29m due to continued growth in economic activity in the Territory;
additional GST revenue of $83.8m, being a combined effect of increased population estimates and a higher GST pool growth - oh, for those days;
increased SPP revenue of $267.6m, largely due to the significant levels of Northern Territory Emergency Response and Strategic Indigenous Housing
Infrastructure Program funding received in 2007-08;
increased interest revenue of $24m due to higher than expected cash balances, higher interest rates and, again, on extinguishment of loans in Territory Housing;
increased mining royalty revenue of $21.6m due to increased mining production and commodity prices;
increases in agency revenue across government, largely linked to additional expenditure commitments; and
increased tax equivalent payments as a result of the improved performance of the government’s business entities, offset by lower dividends due to the dividend
moratorium provided to Power and Water Corporation to support additional capital investment.
The increase in general government operating expenses during 2007-08 is $218m higher than budgeted. The main policy-related expenditure variations are:
the Territory government’s commitment to Closing the Gap initiatives as part of the $286m approved over five years that commenced in 2007-08;
funding for new and expanded initiatives including public safety, health, education, and climate change;
additional funding for new local government shires and remote community infrastructure;
funding to the Power and Water Corporation of $16.6m to complete undergrounding of power lines in Millner and Rapid Creek; and
a $50m contribution to Power and Water’s infrastructure program. A further contribution of $50m has also been made in 2008-09.
The key non-discretionary variations of $114m are largely expenditure related to the increase in SPPs from the Commonwealth.
The positive fiscal balance outcome is important as it presents the complete picture of government spending as, like the cash outcome, it incorporates the effects of both capital and operational transactions. Accordingly, all governments, including the Territory’s, strive for a significant positive operating result, and this provides the capacity for investment and capital infrastructure in the general government sector without the need for additional borrowing.
Both the improved operating and fiscal balance outcomes suggest that this government’s target of a sustainable balance by 2012-13 remains achievable. This is despite record levels of capital investment in 2007-08 and projected in 2008-09 and forward years, and the global economic conditions that will put pressure on the achievement of fiscal targets over the upcoming budgetary cycle.
Capital investment plays a central role in the government’s budget strategy, as it is essential for the delivery of the government’s services and contributes to the economic development of the Territory. The non-financial public sector capital investment for 2007-08 was $653m. This is $24m higher than that projected at the time of the 2007-08 budget and $86m more than the 2006-07 outcome. The increase in 2007-08 is largely the result of the additional investment in remote school facilities and housing due to Closing the Gap initiatives.
I now turn to the Territory assets and liabilities. Nett worth for 2007-08 is $3208m - an improvement of $774m from the original budget. Nett debt for 2007-08 is $1257m - $436m lower than that estimated at the time of the budget. It is largely the result of the flow-on effect of the improved outcomes for both 2006-07 and 2007-08. The nett debt to revenue ratio has also reduced to 30%, an improvement from the 44% in May 2007 and a significant improvement from the 67% recorded in 2001-02.
The period since 30 June 2008 has been characterised by instability in the international financial markets. Financial investments of the Territory comprise a range of short- and medium-term investments which include fixed interest securities and long-term investments that are held in the Conditions of Service Reserve, the COSR. Medium- and long-term assets are managed by external fund managers, on the instruction of Treasury’s Investment Committee. The committee, in turn, takes advice from the Treasury Corporations Advisory Board. This strategy of holding and monitoring the performance of a diversified portfolio of short- to medium- and longer-term investments has been in place for many years.
Since 30 June 2008, the Territory’s overall returns on its approximately $1bn investment portfolio is minus-2.70%. That compares favourably to a 23% fall in the Australian share market over the same period. Nett debt plus employee liabilities has decreased by $599m, as a result of the improved nett debt position, together with a decrease in the Territory’s superannuation liability ...
Mr Elferink: Have you read your mid-year report yet?
Ms LAWRIE: You and I are probably the only ones who get these jokes.
In accordance with accounting standards, the Territory’s superannuation liability has been re-valued using the 10-year bond rate at 30 June 2008, which was 6.5%. This resulted in a decrease of $190m in superannuation liabilities from that projected in May 2008, when a long-term rate of 5.7% was used. Since balance date, recent rate cuts and falling financial markets has meant that the bond rate has fallen to around 5%. Accordingly, at the time of publication of the 2008-09 Mid-Year Report, the liability over the budgetary cycle will revert more in line with that predicted in May 2008. Accordingly, while the nett debt plus employee liabilities to revenue ratio at 30 June 2008 is 89%, it is likely that the downturn in the economic and financial markets since year end will revert the ratio up above 100% over the upcoming budgetary cycle, in line with that predicted at budget time. Despite this, the target of nett debt and employer liabilities to revenue to fall over time is still being achieved.
Before I conclude, it is important to note that the 2007-08 financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the new accounting standard AASB 1049, whole-of-government and general government sector financial reporting. The new standard harmonises government financial statistics and generally accepted accounting principles with the objectives of improving the clarity and transparency of government financial statements, and removes the need for two sets of accounts prepared on different bases. While AASB 1049 is applicable to annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 July 2008, the Territory has earlier adopted for the financial year ended 30 June 2008 as permitted by the standard. The Territory also adopted the revised format in its May 2008 Budget Papers.
The presentation of the Territory’s accounts in line with AASB 1049 has resulted in the removal of the long-standing audit qualification that existed - good news to our Auditor-General – due to the Territory presenting financial statements in line with the UPF, but not preparing an additional set of statements in the format required by accounting standards. This means statements are unqualified for the first time ever!
A member: Whoo woo!
Ms LAWRIE: Sorry, folks. The adoption of a new accounting standard has also resulted in a change in accounting treatment of two items. The first is related to income received in the form of distributions that are automatically reinvested into the COSR. The second change results from the recognition of oncosts for superannuation on both recreation and long service leave. Neither of these treatments affects the cash outcome. However, there is an improvement of around $40m on accrual measures, the operating result, and fiscal balance. As this is the first time the Territory has adopted the new standard, the comparative data has been restated to comply with the new standard, which aids comparability and is in line with accounting standard requirements.
In conclusion, 2008 represents another extremely positive outcome for the Territory. The Territory is continuing to maintain its trend towards improved financial outcomes. The cash surplus is the sixth consecutive surplus and flows through to the improvements in nett debt and nett debt past-employee liabilities. The achievement of surpluses for both the operating and fiscal balances also indicates that meeting the target of a balanced result by 2012-13 remains realistic. This is more important when taking into consideration the significant infrastructure investment undertaken in recent years.
The Territory also continues to maintain its competitive tax environment relative to the rest of Australia in order to encourage increased levels of business activity in the Territory. Nett debt and nett debt past employee liabilities to revenue have shown significant improvement on the outcome for 2006-07 and the projections during 2007-08. The 2007-08 outcome shows this government is committed to managing the Territory’s finances responsibility while maintaining an appropriate balance between community needs, the needs of the Territory economy, and maintaining a sound fiscal position.
This stands the Territory in the best position possible to meet head on the challenges to our budget that recent downturns in global financial and economic conditions present.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the 2007-08 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report to the Assembly.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Treasurer for her report and acknowledge at the outset - by the way, I congratulate the people sitting in the public gallery for maintaining their position in the public gallery. There is nothing that more effectively clears a public gallery of interested parties than a report on the state of the Territory. Well done. I appreciate your efforts. The Treasurer has to go through the process of reading out the areas of the annual report that she wishes to highlight. I see the bleachers often clear when these speeches are made because, often, her speeches are written, I presume, by a Treasury official or someone like that. It is expressed in Treasury speak.
I will endeavour to do something that is unusual when it comes to these sorts of speeches; I will attempt to see if I can make my response to this particular speech understandable in plain English. Here I go.
The first thing we have to understand about the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report is that it is the last in a series of documents prepared for a particular financial year. It is prepared after the financial year to which the report refers. What happens in the budget cycle is that, in May, prior to a financial year starting, the government produces its budget. Then, as the course of the year proceeds, the government produces various documents, including the mid-year report and quarterly reports, which are printed in the Gazette. Then, finally, at the completion of the year, the year is reviewed, all the accounts are settled, the pluses and the minuses are added up and, then finally, we get this final report for the end of the year.
The minister made much of the surplus of $211m within this document to which she referred. That, on the face of it, sounds like a very good result. People could be well impressed that the government has returned a $211m surplus - far in excess of what they originally budgeted for. However, now it is time to visit the document and how this surplus was arrived at. A budget is an organic thing; it changes over the financial year. The government is often at pains to point that out, and we are often at pains to point out the shortcomings of the government’s fiscal restraint when budgets change radically during the course of that financial year.
The report we have before us, however, is very much like a photograph in a movie, inasmuch as it is a photograph that is taken on 30 June, the very last day of the financial year. It then takes a while to develop, which is why it takes a while for the developed photograph to get into this House, for all to see. It gives us an opportunity to compare the original budget with the final outcomes of that financial year. We are talking about the last financial year, not the financial year we are currently in. It is interesting, then, to do those comparisons.
I will shortly come to the reason I refer to it as a photograph or a snapshot on a particular day. I draw honourable members’ attention to page 93 of this particular document. It says that in total revenue on the General Government Sector Budgetary Information, their operating statement, it has actually gone up from what the original budget was to what the final result was by $530m. To return a surplus of $211m becomes less of a remarkable achievement when you have the capacity to then compare it with the fact that they actually have $530m more than they expected.
This is really what all of this bureau-speak and gobbledegook is all about. We should be able to glean from all of these numbers, figures, charts and documents some meaningful information that the average punter can understand. I am fully aware that large amounts of that extra income came in the form of tied grants - the specific purpose payments. I am going to go through all of that, and I am not going to pick a fight unless it is worth picking. I am going to explain my argument rationally, rather than simply just waving and have a kicking session. There will be criticism, as you well appreciate.
The other thing that members need to be aware of are some comments made much earlier in the document, because there is admission - or an acceptance, if you like - on page 9 of the document, where the Treasurer, and Treasury, absolutely acknowledges that there has been a significant improvement with the income - an improvement, if you like, in the surplus position that they originally budgeted for. And they state, and I quote a bit of bureau-speak here, folks, please bear with me:
At the risk of anticipating debate, we see them. However, what this means is that, all of a sudden, late in the year, a whole wad of cash comes out of Canberra and hits our books. Up goes our income by $530m, if you use the operating statement results printed on page 98 ...
Ms Lawrie: Mine just says BPs.
Mr ELFERINK: I am not going to argue about the upsies and downsies. You and I both know how they work. Up goes the budget surplus because we have this cash in the bank – click - on 30 June, when that photograph is taken. No problem with that, I accept that. It is clearly reported. In fact, the actual value that is put on these extra SPPs, on page 9 again, is $268m in SPPs from the Commonwealth. That is really what this document does. It enables us to look at what the budget looks like on 30 June, or at the end of the year.
The issue I have with these documents does not actually arise out of the document itself. It is merely an indicator as to what the fiscal position of the Northern Territory is. The issue that we should be debating in this House, and should be turning our mind to, is things like how government does its job and adheres to its own agenda. We started to hear the way the government has changed its policy approach somewhat in more recent years with the increased use by government of the thing called the Treasurer’s Advance - and I will explain that briefly.
The Treasurer’s Advance is like a little piggy bank that we stick into the budget every year. What the Treasurer effectively says when she asks for money for the Treasurer’s Advance is: ‘I cannot know everything that is going to happen in the year ahead’, the same as a household budget. We would like to think that we know all the bills that are coming in but, when the car breaks down, we are going to have to touch the household budget a bit more for that particular week to pay the bill. The same applies to government. There might be a cyclone, there might be some other disaster - goodness gracious, perish the thought - a substation might blow up. Then, all of a sudden, an unbudgeted expenditure has to come out of government. So we …
Ms Lawrie: Or an initiative.
Mr ELFERINK: Or an initiative. I will come back to that shortly, because there you will find a point of difference between you and me. There is, all of a sudden, a reason to need an extra bit of pocket money. The Treasurer, when she comes into this House, provides us with a whole bunch of budget papers to explain the Appropriation Bill, and says: ‘Give me an extra $40m just in case the wheels fall off somewhere’. So, at the beginning of the financial year, we give the Treasurer a little pocket money, and that pocket money is $40m to cover all of those unfortunate circumstances that could occur during the course of the financial year. That is called the Treasurer’s Advance. It might as well be called the piggy bank.
In any instance, what happened over the financial year is an area I am critical of government. And I pick up on the interjection by the minister before of: ‘Or an initiative’, because the government uses this money, not to cover things that go wrong during the year but, from time to time, they make determinations which are off budget spends. At the risk of anticipating debate on the current mid-year report again, if members will humour me, if you take the current mid-year report there is $26m reported in that as ‘new initiatives’, being decided upon by Cabinet, as the year goes on. This comes down to fiscal discipline and planning discipline and the ability to plan for the future.
There is nothing you can do about these sorts of things that occur, such as cyclones. You cannot predict a cyclone, so I can well understand that you have money in the piggy bank. However, the process government goes through to develop a budget is called Budget Cabinet. That happens well before May, prior to the financial year. The Treasurer calls all her ministers around her and says: ‘Right, what do you guys have on for the year? What are your policies for the year? What do you want to achieve in the next year?’ Departments will tell ministers of things they want to achieve, and ministers will have their own particular achievements in mind. So, Budget Cabinet should meet and determine and plot out what they are going to do for the next year and, then, allocate money accordingly.
This government has tended to decide as the year goes on. They have this new initiative, Buildstart which springs to mind. Another one that springs to mind was some road traffic changes recently to road traffic law, which was a decision that was taken outside of the financial year. All of these things cost money, so they start going back to this piggy bank, which is there primarily for the purposes of unexpected expenditure in the area of those things that are beyond government’s control …
Ms Lawrie: No, that is your interpretation.
Mr ELFERINK: It is a very valid interpretation, I might add. They keep touching the piggy bank.
If you go through the government’s operating statement, on page 98, you will see that revenue is actually broken up into different slices, so, revenue comes from different sources. One of the sources we have already discussed. They are the special purpose payments that are made by the federal government. These come in the form of tied grants and, essentially, the Northern Territory government becomes a project manager for specific things that the federal government wants built or done in the Northern Territory. There is not much that the Treasurer can do about those, and I would not expect that she would choose to refuse them, on the grounds that they do not fall in the budget structure of the Northern Territory. Of course, she would not.
However, they do have their own sources of income and they do have control over these. All of this money goes into a single bank account called the Central Holding Authority. The budget that we give at the beginning of the year should be the result of some very solid planning by government. However, as the year proceeds they empty the piggy bank and, so, they go back to the bank account and reach into it and drag some more money into the budget, because of their next Cabinet decision or their next flight of fancy or policy that they decided to bring online, halfway through the financial year.
There is a rule in the Financial Management Act - section 19 from memory; I could be corrected on that - which says: when we give a budget allocation, which means when parliament passes the budget of the Northern Territory at the beginning of the year, we give them X amount of dollars to do their job. Included in that budget allocation is a $40m piggy bank. What has happened in this financial year, however, is that they emptied the $40m piggy bank by December of the financial year - so within the six months of the financial year - and they have gone back to the bank account and touched the bank account. The Financial Management Act says they can do that, but they can only do it to 5% of the overall allocation that this parliament passes.
That is a very magic figure because that means if they exceed that budget allocation, they must come back to parliament and ask for more money. That, of course, would be an embarrassing thing for government to be forced into.
You have this piggy bank of $40m that gets drained. So, the government then keeps going back to the bank account saying: ‘I just need a bit more money’. The curious thing is, they end up taking out of the big piggy bank at the end of the last financial year. So, on the very same day this photograph is taken, they find they have taken out of the piggy bank, an amount of $143.754m. That is a very precise figure. That is down to the last $1000.
What is so interesting and important about this figure? If you calculate out $143.754m, it is precisely 5% of the budget allocation this parliament gave the Treasurer. She has emptied out the $40m out of the piggy bank and, then, she has gone back to the bank account and raided it again and again. Where has she gone to? She has gone to $1000 short of coming back into this House and asking for more money.
This is a government that says: ‘We are fiscally responsible. We have good planning procedures in train, and we very carefully plan our way through the next financial year. Therefore, we should be able to come out the other end of the financial year in some way reflecting what the original budget book said’. The fact is $177.754m has been spent off budget. That is $178m, actually. That is what? Three schools? How many nurses, how many doctors? Goodness gracious me, that is a lot. This is nothing to do with specific purpose payments, and nothing to do with changes in GST income for the year, because we are talking about the money that was actually allocated. To be off by $177m is not a good result - no matter how you would like to dress it up.
The Treasurer is happy to come in here and say: ‘We have this wonderful surplus’. That is fine but you are getting that surplus as a direct result of the Commonwealth government giving you projects to manage, and that money just happens to be sitting in your bank account – click - on 30 June when the snapshot is taken. It has a distorting effect. Your own document says it has a distorting effect. That is the problem I have with this particular arrangement.
By the way, whilst I am touching on the issue of the Treasurer’s Advance, I note that on page 125 of the Annual Financial Statement, the figure of $6223m is still listed on that page as the amount left over. Can I ask the Treasurer to indicate whether that number is correct? Is that number correct?
Ms Lawrie: I am just looking at the page.
Mr ELFERINK: Page 125, Treasurer’s Advance, $6233m. Is that number correct?
Ms Lawrie: That is the final allocation number. If you look over on page 124 - just checking. Yes, around about $6m.
Mr ELFERINK: $6223m, just make sure we are arguing the same number. You are happy the number is correct?
Ms Lawrie: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Because I think it is wrong. Anyway, we will come back it.
That is the problem we have; this document should, and does, reflect the way government goes about its business. The Budget Cabinet process is the process by which you lock in your planning for the year. If you have new programs in the pipeline and you suddenly have to do this and you suddenly have to do that, you have two choices in the budgetary year. You either keep your increased income - and we know that GST went up substantially during the year, so there was extra money in the government’s kick - or you spend it. The Treasurer has already said in this House that when we get extra money, it is now government policy to spend it, to pass it on to Territorians.
That, then, takes me back to the longer-term picture of the last few years. I would like to go back to 1 July 2000, I think was when the GST was finally introduced – 2000 or 2001? Jog my memory.
Ms Lawrie: I think it was 2000.
Mr ELFERINK: 2000, okay. What we discovered with the GST is that, because of the activity of the international economy and national economy, it has always exceeded expectations ...
Ms Lawrie: You know we are only getting just above the minimum guaranteed amount. You know that, come on!
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, so you say. So you say. It always exceeded expectations. The fact is, if you track that through to what the Northern Territory government projects every year, to what actually turns up in the final results for the year, you will find that GST has always over-exceeded the expectations of Treasury. Treasury, being the conservative bunch of people they are, quite rightly, try to say: ‘We are not going to make that much GST’. They tend to err on the side of caution. Growth rates, expenditure rates, consumer confidence, all that stuff, bumps up GST.
I took a little exercise last year, where I went back through every budget paper where the GST was predicted and the final results. Go to the TAFRs and compare the two. Over the period of - I think it was seven years - there was $1.2bn of unexpected extra money out of goods and services tax revenue for the Northern Territory. That would have been enough to obliterate almost all – actually no, it would have been enough to obliterate the nett debt situation ...
Ms Lawrie: If we did nothing.
Mr ELFERINK: It would have been enough to obliterate the nett debt situation of the Northern Territory ...
Ms Lawrie: If we did nothing. If we had no more nurses, no more doctors, no more police - if we did nothing. If we did not build any more roads, we did not repair any houses - if we did nothing.
Mr ELFERINK: There would have been enough to obliterate the nett debt situation of the Northern Territory. I understand that the Treasurer is twitchy about this because it reflects on the urge that this government has to spend everything that comes their way, because they can spend and we have the money. ‘We have the money’, they say. ‘We have a policy of dishing out the money; that is what we give to Territorians’. Okay, so, that is you policy. Why, then, all of a sudden, are we surprised when, finally, the financial worm turns - and some people would say it has been a long time coming - and we suddenly find ourselves looking down the barrel of a contracting GST income? It is actually going to get smaller.
However, we have a government with spend, spend, spend, spend mindset. They go through this process of spend, spend, spend. They now have an issue before them; that is, an issue of fiscal discipline. For the first time, and it is really not that bad, they are going to have to really start scratching around and finding out how it is to truly govern in an environment where the money is a little tighter. In the face of that, the first thing they announce is a deficit budget - immediately, first thing - of $47m.
That brings me to another issue which I am really disturbed about. You are aware, in your …
Ms Lawrie: I am really disturbed you did not ask me any questions in Question Time.
Mr ELFERINK: I beg your pardon?
Ms Lawrie: Why did you not ask me any questions at Question Time if you are so disturbed?
Mr ELFERINK: Because we had law and order issues to be concerned about - an 83% increase in violent crimes in the Northern Territory. We are also …
Ms Lawrie: Oh, right! $47m deficit - not a single question.
Mr ELFERINK: I actually asked you quite a few budget questions in Question Times if you cast your mind back on it …
Ms Lawrie: Not a single question. Two Question Times, not a single question.
Mr ELFERINK: Are you right?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please resume.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is also an issue of some confusion to me. I am, once again, perhaps running the risk of preempting a debate. The GST, according to the Treasurer, is going to contract by – oh, where is my bit of paper?
Ms Lawrie: $48m.
Mr ELFERINK: $48m. You realise, of course, that you also make reference to a document called the Mid-year Economic Fiscal Outlook in your mid-year report ...
Ms Lawrie: MYEFO.
Mr ELFERINK: MYEFO, okay. MYEFO says it is going to be $64m.
Ms Lawrie: I am happy to provide you with the explanation in my wrap-up.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, it is not the same; the federal government is putting one figure on it, and you are putting another. I am really curious about …
Ms Lawrie: Treasury has a very good reason.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, I am sure they have, but it is the federal Treasury which has its reasons for $64m as well. It is a pretty big difference ...
Ms Lawrie: And what do you think that is? Do you think that is a projection?
Mr ELFERINK: Anyway, what these documents come down to is the behaviour of government. All these documents do is demonstrate how much money is going insies and outsies. The fact is that what the options portray is a philosophy of expenditure.
There is one area that I am concerned about in particular, and that deals with these specific purpose payments the federal government makes in the area of Indigenous expenditure, health expenditure and those things. I want to dwell on health particularly.
In this Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement, there is a breakdown, department by department - I cannot lay my eyes on it at the moment, immediately. At one stage, at the end of the year, they produce what is called a Final Approved Budget. If you look at the department of Health, it is at $911m, from memory. All of a sudden, $30m disappears out of the Health department. That is curious. I was so surprised by that transfer of allocations when I saw it, I thought, where did the $30m go …
Ms Lawrie: You got the answer?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I have the answer. $30m goes out of Health but, if you look at the original budget, the $911m was much more than the original budget for the year. So, a lot more money is percolated into Health. Where did that money come from? It came from the Commonwealth government, I presume ...
Ms Lawrie: Not all of it.
Mr ELFERINK: I presume in the form ...
Ms Lawrie: Not all of it.
Mr ELFERINK: Not all of it, but how much? A fair slice.
Ms Lawrie: Not all of it. Come on.
Mr ELFERINK: It comes in the form of special purpose payments ...
Ms Lawrie: Look at our own source revenue.
Mr ELFERINK: Surely, this government would not be engaged in the habit of using specific purpose payments - which just about happen to reflect some of those requirements that are being lodged on its shoulders as a result of the emergency response - to offset against their own allocations. What I am sulking about is that they have allocated some money for a specific job in Health. All of a sudden, along come these SPPs which bump up the Health budget beyond what they are expecting to spend in those specific areas. So, what does she do? She whips out $30m out of Health and lets the specific purpose payments cover the difference. Where does that money go? $10m goes to other departments, $20m goes back to the bank account, which then gets invested into the superannuation fund, COSR ...
Ms Lawrie: No.
Mr ELFERINK: No, she says - not me, not me. Well, the fact is $20m goes into the bank account, into the Central Holding Authority, and then $20m goes out of the Central Holding Authority. Where does it go? Into the superannuation account. This is the account which has lost some $80m since its highs from the last Treasury Annual Report for the - what was it? - 2006-07 financial year, when COSR, the superannuation savings of this government, reached $421m. Now, it has dropped back down to - what was the figure? - $340m-odd in the most recent report. So, after propping up the COSR with $20m, they are still $80m lower than they were 18 months ago.
Madam Speaker, this is a wonderful piece of economic or fiscal shystering. I can tell you ...
Ms Lawrie: No. Wrong, wrong, wrong - you are wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: So you say, Treasurer. Well, then, you stand up in this place and you prove it.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I know I got a bit fired up towards the end of the shadow Treasurer’s contribution to debate, but there is a good reason for that. We can debate policy issues around each other’s policy settings, and that is as it should be; however, to question and be given answers in writing and, then, come into this Chamber and completely ignore the answer that had been provided, and create some fantasy that has no basis in fact or reality after briefings with Treasury officials, I find absolutely appalling.
It does this shadow Treasurer no good at all, because you really question why you bother to provide written responses to these questions on notice which is then ignored and misconstrued - to put it kindly. There are other words I could call it but I will use misconstrued.
I will go, first of all, to the issue of the transfer of money from the Health department. The shadow Treasurer is trying to say that the $30m taken out of the Health department included an amount of $20m that then went into the investment into the COSR that was, obviously, indicated in the May budget of 2008. Nothing could be further from the truth on that little flight of fantasy path he went down. For the record, I will read the written answer provided to the shadow Treasurer to correct the record so the fantasy is not believed:
Despite the written answer that he received, the shadow Treasurer pretends that, when we transferred $30m from the Department of Health and Community Services in June - and it was late June; I know, I did all the sign-offs in late June - $20m of that went into the COSR. The $20m that Central Holding Authority paid into the COSR was paid in May, not June when this transfer occurred. Further to that, it very clearly states ‘for distribution to agencies as required’, not for distribution into the COSR.
Do not come in here, completely ignore a written, accurate answer provided by Treasury officials through the Treasurer to the shadow Treasurer, and then expect me to take anything this man has to say seriously, because this is about the accounts of government. This is not about policy settings. This is about where the money is; where the money is going out and where the money is going into. It is not about policy setting. I take extreme offence to the fact that he completely ignored the written advice he was provided with and then tried to pretend something quite different occurred - and how it occurred and, indeed, when it occurred. He is wrong. He is very wrong - dangerously, stupidly, wrong.
The ignorance and stupidity continues because, ever since he has been shadow Treasurer, he has tried to mount this thing about Treasurer’s Advance is a piggy bank and you use it for just-in-case events. He has been provided with this response on several occasions, so I will provide it again. I know he will probably ignore it again, but I will provide the response again:
Not a piggy bank, not for emergencies - unallocated capacity:
It went on. We explained that we tend to set aside $40m into Treasurer’s Advance in each financial year.
He made great flights of fancy about Treasurer’s Advance and what it is all for. Let us go to the facts rather than flights of fancy. For example, of the Treasurer’s Advance in the financial year that we have been debating in the TAFR, the 2007-08 financial year that has gone, $11m was provided to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for repairs and maintenance on roads as a result of a natural disaster.
I saw the member for Arafura look at me, because she could probably remember the heavy rains that we received that washed out roads across her electorate and in other parts of the Territory. Guess what we had to do? For example, I can remember we quickly went in and for about $1m in one particular section of the road put in a whole new culvert. This is the sort of thing that Treasurer’s Advance has been used for in the 2007-08 budget period, quite appropriately.
You sit there with unallocated capacity for events such as those road repairs - and we make no apology for fixing up roads that have been completely wiped out, so that tourists, for example, can get to Kakadu, and workers at ERA - who are generating a great deal of uranium royalties for the Commonwealth government – can get in and out of that place and continue production at the all-important Ranger mine that fills the Commonwealth coffers with uranium royalties. We look forward to getting hold of uranium royalties one day in this jurisdiction. There is no apology either for providing for the normal to and fro of people who live in the area. I recognise they are living in an area surrounded by floodplains, but we will go in and we will fix roads, as we are doing right now in Central Australia because of the unseasonable rains. We have crews out on the road, fixing them - and that takes money, folks, believe it or not.
In discussions on the Treasurer’s Advance, I have pointed out that we do not, as a government, go into freeze frame from May to May. I will not, as Treasurer, say to colleagues who come forward with a legitimate, well argued, well tested - and when I say well tested, my colleagues well know that it is tested across all agencies of government, and across all ministers, and people know it is a very hard thing to get something out of TA. They are often met with the answer, ‘Find it from within’; that is, ‘Live within your existing budget’. However, there are matters that come along from time to time that are significant enough to require a specific Cabinet decision to fund that specific initiative. We will not be a government in freeze frame from May to May, as the flight of fancy fool from Port Darwin would have us do.
Also explained time and time again to the member from Port Darwin, by me and Treasury officials, is this interesting thing about Treasurer’s Advance. Did we go up to our full 5%? Well, yes, we did. Is that common? Yes, it has been common. When was it common? It was common in the mid-1990s. Let me think, what is the analogy between now and the mid-1990s; they were both periods of growth in the Territory? If you look at what government had to deliver in extra services, and particularly extra infrastructure from the mid-1990s to the period that we are currently in, they were both periods of growth. What should governments do during periods of growth? They are required by their community, quite appropriately, to undertake the expenditure required to meet the growth demand.
I will make this simple for people; I will give an example of this. Example: this government - and you will see it in the debate next year at this time - has decided to bring forward appropriation to ensure that we have a $50m capital works program to provide infrastructure to create new suburbs in Palmerston. Why? Because we have rapid growth that requires land release to provide for housing for Territorians. So, very clearly, population growth demands are driving the need for land release, and we respond by putting the dollars into the infrastructure capital works program to build the infrastructure, to turn off the land. Good government recognises where those growth needs are and responds. Growth needs appear right across the Territory. The SIHIP program is a great example of a program that is funded for dealing with the housing needs across the region.
Despite explanations, despite written explanations, the flights of fancy from the opposite side continue. We make no apology for receiving our fair share - and it is only just a fair share - of GST revenue. We make no apology for having gone out as a government and worked extremely hard to increase our take of the special purpose payments from the Commonwealth. Southern jurisdictions get a far larger slice of SPPs and a far larger contribution into their budgets than the Territory historically has had. We generally are looking at - and we know they are tied grants, and we know we have to spend them in the areas in which they are provided; that is, health, education, housing, and disability. They are clear areas of growth needs in the Territory.
We need to deliver more and more services, particularly into the regions. Disability is a classic example. We had disability services in urban areas only. Bad luck if you happen to have disabled kids out in the regions; you just could not get the access to services you really required. You had no choice if you wanted access to services; you had to move into town. Well, this is a government that is committed to delivering those services out into the regions, for good reason - that is where people also choose to live.
Health is a classic example of where, working with the Commonwealth, we are extending services into the bush, as it should be. Education is another area as well that is a key focus of SPPs, as is police, particularly in the bush, where we have seen a massive expansion of policing. We make no apology that we will aggressively go to Canberra and seek our fair share of the GST, which gives us flexible funding ability, but also those tied grants that have helped growth in those core service delivery areas.
The Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report for 2007-08 shows that not only did we see growth in those areas of Commonwealth funding, in both GST revenue and SPPs, but we are also seeing an increasing trend in growth in own source revenue - royalties are going up and our tax takes are going up. Our taxes are not increasing per se, but our tax take is increasing. Why? Because our economy has growth. We are vibrant and dynamic. We are starting to see growth in own source revenue, which is a very good indicator of where we are headed as an economy.
I commend all the staff in Treasury who work diligently to provide the audited statement of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. It meets the requirements of the Financial Management Act, and the report is set out to meet the requirements of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. These figures are true figures.
I note that the member for Port Darwin seems to think that he can do better calculations than the entire Treasury staff and officials, despite not having an economic background. Well, that goes to show the man’s ego is perhaps bigger than his sense. I am aware that our Auditor-General goes through these statements as well. It will be interesting when the Auditor-General’s audit of the TAFR comes down to see whether he agrees with you. This is signed off by the Under Treasurer and I would back the Under Treasurer any day over the member for Port Darwin.
He has proven to have been very fanciful in his concoction around the transfer of money from the Health department, and he is just as fanciful in whatever strange concoction he has going on in his mind in the $6223m. His flights of fancy do him no good. If he wants to gain the confidence as the shadow Treasurer, of the astute and highly intelligent staff in Treasury, I do not think he is going about it the right way at all - but there you go, we all have different methods. His are particularly strange methods. As I said, he has proven tonight that he is wrong in terms of the COSR - $30m completely wrong; that payment was made in May, not June, when the $30m was transferred from the department of Health into the Central Holding Authority and paid out to agencies across government …
Mr Elferink: Yes, it just happens to be the same number, exactly.
Ms LAWRIE: No, it is a different number. The COSR payment was made in May - not June, in May.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2007-08 to the Assembly.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Auditor-General’s November 2008 Report.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; paper printed.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Braitling:
Member for Braitling.
Is the proposed matter supported? It is supported.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, what I want to talk about is a very sensitive issue. It is not widespread, but one I believe is becoming an issue in Alice Springs. My second speaker will be talking a little about Katherine. I thought long and hard about whether to raise this as a concern; deciding that it was a matter of public importance, with the concerns I am seeing on the streets in my electorate of Braitling and Alice Springs. I am not trying to be alarmist and I will be very careful with my words, so I do not erode the stability of things.
The Territory has a history of being a diverse and tolerant community and it continues to be that way. We have successive partnerships and relationships with people, black and white, throughout the Territory and those relationships have been there for many years. They will continue and we all hope they grow stronger.
However, successive failures of governments, of both parties, have some of us in the community testing our tolerance. The word reconciliation is difficult to describe. There is no measure to determine when you have actually achieved reconciliation, nor at what point on the spectrum you are or how close you are to being reconciled. I would personally describe it as people living and working together in harmony, getting on in life day-by-day with equal classification in the community, and all being one. I am not sure if it will be achieved in our age group. I would like to think it is achieved by many of us in the Territory, providing a point which is very positive, but acknowledging there is still a long way to go, and not focusing on the life expectancy gap.
Since the 1967 referendum there have been a number of actions taken to secure greater rights - rights in terms of such things as land rights, native title, human rights, health and education rights. We have come a long way. I think the best way to see reconciliation achieved is to have a look at our children, black and white, walking, playing and talking together. They do not know what reconciliation is. At their age they are reconciled, if one may put it that way.
Through the reconciliation process, with the rights debates, achievements and losses, we are in a very positive position. My previous reflection on our children, who may be classified as being in a junior reconciled state, in my terminology, can be reflected throughout our community in many ways. For most of us, we do not even think about these issues; we are all people, Australians, Territorians.
There are many successful Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Territorians who are hand–in-hand with such things as owning businesses, playing sport, celebrating culture, working and playing in a relationship or even being elected officials, like in this place today. It is just another day; we do not think about it. Now, many of those people have had to overcome many hurdles, and many people continue to face such hurdles. Some of these hurdles include issues around welfare, lack of education, family breakdown and one that is often unnoticed or overlooked - something that means a lot to me, not personally, but as an acknowledgement - and that is the lack of social and emotional wellbeing and the breakdown of the role of the Aboriginal male in the Northern Territory. It is a serious issue and one that goes unnoticed.
Unfortunately, some of these people who still face terrible hurdles are upsetting some people who are not facing such hurdles. There are many good people, many good Aboriginal people who are traditional owners, native title owners or long time residents in areas such as Alice Springs, who are sick of getting a bad name; who are sick of people coming to their country and not respecting their country; and who are sick of the poor outcomes being achieved by a group of people in the wider community.
From my experience, these Aboriginal people are not alone. I find it hard to differentiate Aboriginal from non-Aboriginal residents of Alice Springs because we are all part of one community. We get on with life and the non-Aboriginal people are, in the main, of the same ilk - we are one. They, like the Arrernte people, do not like their community being disrespected and poorly treated. They are sick of the bad eggs, the public alcoholism, the violent crime, the mischief, and the antisocial behaviour. Black and white and are both concerned. More importantly, they are sick of no one taking action and no one doing something about it. Alice Springs, as a town, wants action to address these social issues. Not all of us agree on the same actions or the same processes, but we do have solidarity in the desire for action - but, no one appears to take it.
I can give many examples of the things people are not happy about in Alice Springs. I will give examples of things which are happening in Alice Springs at the moment that people express displeasure with. There are many people who are talking about leaving town. Many of my good friend have left town, and many people are talking about leaving town. We have heard what happened in Nightcliff with someone sleeping in their business premises to protect it. I know people who are literally sleeping in their business premises now with baseball bats, waiting to beat up the next person who comes and breaks into their shop. You have a sense of moral responsibility to report those people, and you have an unfortunate sense of feeling that this is actually occurring; that people want to attack the people who are breaking into their businesses.
I know businesses that are closing down. Desert Edge in Alice Springs, a motor bike shop, has been broken into seven times in the last few weeks and had many motor bikes stolen. They have just had a $1.5m redevelopment, but they are talking about actually shutting the shop and moving to Queensland, because they cannot get action on law and order. It is very sad.
I know a chemist who is trying to open in the Braitling shops on the North Side; there is a vacant old hairdressers shop – people might know that shop. The chemist has had to resecure the whole ceiling in the shop to protect it from being broken into. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia, which gives the approval for that chemist to open, will not allow it to open because of the antisocial behaviour around the North Side shops, across the road and the things that occur there and the break-ins in town, unless the whole shopping centre roof is completely re-cemented to protect it from vandals breaking in and stealing the medicines and drugs. It is a positive thing for a chemist to want to open up and have what you might call economic growth in that small area of Braitling. However, to not be allowed to open unless you re-concrete a whole roof, is a significant sign of the problems within the community.
Horrifying numbers of people talk to me about vigilantism - if I get the word right - going out and attacking the criminals. They hear the stories about gangs in the streets, and these people want to go out and physically bash them. I play my role in negotiating processes, as a responsible person should, but it is of great concern to me and it really upsets me. It is almost as if there is a bit of martial law in some people’s minds, and that sentiment is growing. I am very concerned about it.
I also understand the side of the people who are committing these crimes; I have a lot of empathy with these people. These people are angry; they are dispossessed - I mentioned before the systemic welfare and lack of education and those other areas that we are all too familiar with. We know that the gaols are full. We know the majority – 83% or whatever it is - are Aboriginal people filling those goals; we know the high turnover rate of people coming in. Gaol, the prison system, has become a destination of choice for many people, a place where you get accommodation, meals and social activities. I do not believe it is tough enough; I really believe the prison system needs to toughen up. It costs $73 000 a year to keep a prisoner in gaol.
Coming from an employment and training background and housing background, I just imagine what $73 000 per annum could do to help support and subsidise someone into a job - perhaps in the SIHIP program, as a teacher or an educational assistant; there are many things that could happen. The benefits of having someone in a job with some hope and sense of purpose, would go a long way.
If we had tougher gaols, with a firm but fair approach, where we penalised people who did not do the right thing in gaol – what I call the right thing - in terms of receiving education and learning numeracy and literacy and participating in work gangs as the carrot; and the stick for non-participation being a lot tougher in the prison system. I think there is an opportunity to try to help people and rehabilitate people when they come out. Perhaps use that $73 000 per person to pathway people into a job when they come out, instead of having them go back through the criminal system - 66% of people go back through the system and back into gaol. I think there are opportunities, whether it is through a halfway house where you can place people with a job; there are many different things that could happen.
Another issue of concern is children running the streets at night. Many people would be aware, through the media, of this problem throughout the Territory. It is not every child in Alice Springs, and it is not the majority, it is a minority. The minority of kids who are giving the people of Alice Springs, as a community, a bad name is a problem. Businesses are affected, people who walk down the streets are affected. It is a problem. We need a night time curfew. There is no reason at all for a child of eight, or six, to be running around the streets at 1 or 2 am. There is no reason for any child under 16 to be on the streets after 10 pm. It is not a political decision, or position, it is my personal feeling. There is no reason for my daughter, who is 12, to be running around the streets after 10 pm, getting up to mischief. Children must be cared for. Those children running around at night must be cared for, and we cannot turn a blind eye.
Most worrying, if I can use my terminology in a non-offensive way, is the criminal and neglected Aboriginal population in Alice Springs, albeit not the majority, has an increasing dislike of non-Aboriginal people, and vice versa. There are many non-Aboriginal people now becoming disaffected with Aboriginal people in Alice Springs, on a small basis, but it is starting to grow. That is the feedback I receive when I talk to people in their houses, go to a public housing complaint, people stop me on the street, or ring me at home; those sort of communication methods. That is happening.
It is the kids on the streets and the people on the streets committing crime who have a growing disenchantment with non-Aboriginal people in Alice Springs. These are the people who are part of Alice Springs, who live it and breathe it. These are the people who might be called reconciled because it is just part of life - you are just an Alice Springs resident, it does not matter who you are.
As an example, when I was in Alice Springs with Nick Xenophon, the Senator from South Australia, we had been out and looked around some communities. When we came back to town after going to Papunya, I think it was about 6.45 pm, and his staffer, Rowan, was walking across the lawns of the Alice Springs Town Council. There is a little chair area and about four ladies were there, drunk, I am advised, who stood up and shouted profanities at him and threatened him. He did not feel threatened, but they threatened him with physical violence because he was white. It was not for any other reason. The words he related to me I will not repeat in this House, but that is just one small example of someone who was a tourist, for one night.
I have spoken before in this House about certain little boiling issues that are just bubbling away. It is a concern of mine that those things will join together. It is very hard to talk about, because you do not want to be alarmist, and you see so much good stuff, but when you see those small problems, and you know they are there and are just underneath, boiling away; I really do fear, and this is not alarmist, but I fear an explosive situation that could be fuelled by these small instances encroaching on one another. If that happens, we will be in a terrible position. That is why I believe our attention needs to be focused on the law and order side of things.
There is huge public support from Australians and Aboriginal Australians for something to be done to effect change in Alice Springs. People are not tough; they support the Country Liberals and our approach of firm but fair. They want to see action on these issues, but with sensitivity. The thing they care about most is the kids, that is the most important thing to the people of Alice Springs, around these issues. We all want them to be looked after and to get an education. The big concerns people raise with me are children not going to school, not getting an education and the future these children have.
I will tell you a story about a child who goes to Yipirinya School, an Indigenous school in my electorate on Lovegrove Drive, and who lives in Charles Creek Camp. He turns up to school every day tired, and the teacher and the Principal asked: ‘Why are you always so tired?’ They could never work it out, so they followed him home one night, and found out what was happening. At the house he was living in, the parents were drunk and fighting and this kid was sleeping under the house. He would never go inside, he would go and sleep under the house and turn up the next day to school - because he really wanted to be at school, which is a good thing. He wanted to be at school, turned up at school, would get fed and clothed at school and does his washing and all that. But when he goes home to his family, and this still happens, he sleeps under the house.
There are many of these stories out there, and it is heartbreaking to see these things happen. When these stories get out into the wider community, it grows that disenchantment. The love, respect and the care for the kids are very important.
These schooling issues are why I proposed my hub-and-spoke model in the last General Business Day. Where we have a school system which has boarding accommodation, works on a week-to-week basis, where kids who are picked up off the streets and who are not getting that love, care, trust, and respect …
Ms Scrymgour: That is the policy. That is what we are doing.
Mr GILES: … are able to go and have somewhere to stay; have a place to sleep, to eat and have a place to get an education. We know how bad the enrolments are and how bad the attendance is. We need to get these kids to school.
I hear the Deputy Chief Minister talk about education and how important it is to get the kids to school. I am surprised that, even though I am on the other side of parliament, every time I have tried to raise the issue of how important it is to get an education, the comments come across. I thought there would be an offer of support about getting kids to school. It surprises me.
Ms Scrymgour: We agree with you. I am not disagreeing with you. No one is disagreeing with you.
Mr GILES: Anyway, people can get bigger than that. This MPI is about race relations. It is about social cohesion in our community, it is about the background of our society, it is so big and so many people care. But more than anything, so many people care about the children. We must encroach on the situation, take action on law and order, restabilise our community ethic and harmony and, above all, show leadership, so these children, who are our future, who we are so highly dependent upon, get a chance to sleep at night, get the food they need and get the clothing they depend on - but above all, get the education they need. For these reasons I spoke about law and order, about the slight disintegration of relations in Alice Springs between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, which is casting a net over the people who are not doing the wrong thing, and the local traditional owners.
For these reasons and more, is why today, I move the motion that the Sessional Committee on Central Australian Development be established. The Sessional Committee forms an important opportunity to fill a void, to provide an access point for community leaders to have direct input into government and for community members to collectively lobby to support, change and resource the Centre - a coalition of the willing. If we do not do these things, we will see more people move from the bush to town and more social problems, due to a lack of housing.
When people start to come to town and they realise that the town is full and there are all these issues - and I have no problem with people coming into town if the services are there, I think it is a positive thing. But when people start coming to town and they see it is full, they start to look at Darwin and say: ‘This is not much bigger than Alice Springs, but there are brighter lights, less alcohol restrictions, and insufficient police resources’. These people will move to Darwin. The same thing has happened in Sydney, Perth, Adelaide, and Melbourne. The issue is real. My oath, they will come. That is why I am a big supporter of regional development; I support the bush. We know that Darwin has a crisis in housing, in police numbers, and law and order. What do you think will happen when the issues of Alice Springs start increasingly to emerge in Darwin? We will start seeing more issues like we have recently seen in Palmerston, and concerns that the Deputy Chief Minister raised, which I read about in the paper the other day, about people being noisy in housing. I get that at my house every night of the week …
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: …when it comes to Darwin, in every house.
A sessional committee presents the opportunity for the bush to stand up and have a voice; to be heard and to voice our concerns. It is an opportunity for the five MLAs in Alice Springs to work and talk together. I started talking about reconciliation. This sessional committee is about reconciliation: five members from the bush, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, walking together, working together, self-determining to fight for a better outcome for the bush and the Red Centre.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for raising this MPI. As he said, it is indeed a sensitive issue. You are not being alarmist, although you are being negative and this wallowing in negativity has become something of a hallmark for the CLP. This government does not deny there are hurdles, but it has taken action and continues to take action to improve outcomes for Indigenous people in health, education, in economic terms for all Indigenous Territorians and to reduce the gap of life expectancy.
I also take on board the concerns in your closing remarks about urban drift, which is why this government has raised the profile of regional development with the announcement today of the appointment of Fran Kilgariff to the new role of Executive Director, which will be based in Alice Springs. So rest assured, member for Braitling, this government takes on board some of your concerns.
When I first read the MPI proffered by the member for Braitling this morning, I had to check that it was not the 1 April or that I was not on another planet, because his suggestion that relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous are being degraded does not bear any relation to the Northern Territory that I know, let alone the East Arnhem Land region where I have lived and worked for more than 18 years. But it is not April fool’s day and I am still on planet earth.
Before I speak briefly on the way in which Indigenous and non-Indigenous relationships are being enhanced in East Arnhem Land, we really should look at the source of this claim. The member for Braitling is a relative newcomer to the Northern Territory and now seeks to speak knowledgeably and, presumably, on behalf of remote and regional parts of the Northern Territory. I can only assume that is why he is spending precious parliamentary time on this issue and that he does actually know what he is talking about. We can hope that he is not only something of a living and breathing expert on the subject, but that he also has a good deal of support from Indigenous Territorians out bush in our regional areas.
Sadly, this does not appear to be the case on either count. Almost a year ago to the day, the current member for Braitling had a tilt at federal politics, going for the seat of Lingiari. He was overwhelmingly rejected, especially in regional in Northern Territory
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Goyder, Deputy Chief Minister, cease interjecting.
Ms WALKER: In areas of the Territory where more than 500 people voted, the current member for Braitling could not crack double figures. His primary vote in some regional areas …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms WALKER: At no other polling booth in Australia was a candidate from a major party so comprehensively rejected. When the member for Braitling talks about …
Ms PURICK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The matter of public importance is about the impact of degradation of relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians in regard to resource centres across the Territory. It is not about a personal attack on the previous aspirations of the member for Braitling. It is about the MPI.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, thank you, member for Goyder. Standing Order 67, of course, relates to no digression from the topic, but there has been a fair bit of digression in all these MPIs every single night. Member for Nhulunbuy, if you would mind coming to the point fairly soon in relation to the MPI as presented by the opposition.
Ms WALKER: Certainly. I am just trying to highlight the lack of experience of the member for Braitling, highlighting some of the results, including in my electorate in the community of Yirrkala …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Despite the title of the MPI - and I do not really care; personal attacks do not bother me, I have big shoulders, I can handle that. This is a sensitive issue and I tried to deal with it in a sensitive way. If the prepared speech that the member for Nhulunbuy is reading, if she wants to go on about this …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, what exactly is your point of order? What standing order are you referring to?
Mr GILES: I am referring to any standing order. If she does not ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, resume your seat.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nhulunbuy, keep it as close as possible to the topic please. Order!
Ms WALKER: As I was saying, by way of an example, Madam Speaker, in the community of Yirrkala, out of the 363 people who voted, just two of them voted for the current member for Braitling.
Nothing is going to be achieved by the current member for Braitling suggesting that he has any greater support from regional Territorians than he does now. In fact, his ignorance of what is happening out in the regional areas, such as my seat of Nhulunbuy, suggests that he is more than a few lights years away from the kind of knowledge needed to move this MPI. For the life of me, I cannot remember when the CLP last visited my electorate of Nhulunbuy; it certainly was not during the last election to support its candidate Djuwalpi Marika, a senior and respected Rirratjingu man from Yirrkala, who is currently employed by the East Arnhem Shire, very successfully, as a Community Liaison Officer. Perhaps if it engaged with him and his people, it might have a better understanding of Indigenous issues in the region.
Ms WALKER: The CLP could not even field candidates in the seats of Arnhem and Macdonnell. I am not sure what kind of message that tells the electorate about what the CLP knows, or cares, about Indigenous people in regional and remote areas.
The key messages from my seat - a bush seat with urban electors at its heart - are a long way from the member for Braitling’s views. Those key messages are that Yolngu and Ngapaki do work collaboratively towards common goals. These goals are often Yolngu inspired. These common goals are about enhancing Yolngu/Ngapaki relationships and not degrading them. This is what living and working in the Territory is about. It is not about playing the divisive wedge politics being waged by the member opposite. Nhulunbuy is a community which possesses enormous ability to work collectively to address community issues, and that means Ngapaki and Yolngu working together.
One of the best examples I can think to sum this up is through the work of the Harmony Group. After four years of working together, it met in March this year. A takeaway liquor permit system, a new system which tackles the negative impacts of antisocial issues and everything that goes with it, in relation to alcohol abuse. Since then, the Gove District Hospital has seen a dramatic reduction in the number of people presenting with alcohol-related cases and, for Nhulunbuy Police, an even more dramatic reduction in police lock-ups. Since March of this year, 79% fewer people have been taken into protective custody. Does this sound like a degradation of relationships between Yolngu and Ngapaki? I do not think so.
The member for Braitling and, indeed the CLP, should learn from this instead of making the claims they do about the state of affairs in Indigenous territory. Blue Mud Bay, another successful example of positive relationships, far from being degraded. In July of this year, the High Court of Australia brought down its decision in the Blue Mud Bay case. A few days after that, news was delivered during mobile polling - and I talked about this in my maiden speech - at Yilpara on the shores of Blue Mud Bay, where this news was greeted with great joy. This decision effects recognition of ownership of the intertidal zone for 80% of the Territory coastline which adjoins Aboriginal land. It gives traditional owners rightful ownership to sea country, which is so important as part of their culture and connection to country. It provides them with some confidence about their future economic opportunities and self-determination …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin! I ask you to cease interjecting, particularly in such a loud and unruly manner.
Mr Elferink: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Mr Tollner: Do it in a whisper.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to cease interjecting. Member for Nhulunbuy, you have the call.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does Blue Mud Bay lead to a degradation of relationships between Ngapaki and Yolngu? No. It has led to a process of negotiation which is a far cry from this. As the NLC Chairman and Yirrkala senior man, Mr Wali Wungunmurra stated:
At the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee meeting I chaired on Monday, which was a public hearing, I asked the Executive Director of Fisheries what the Blue Mud Bay decision meant from the department’s perspective, he said, without hesitation, it represented enormous opportunity for Indigenous people, not only in economic terms, but also in the area of Marine Rangers and sea country management or employment.
Just this morning, one of these negotiation meetings occurred in this very building, where the results of a New Zealand fact finding delegation, which set out to look closely at the Maori involvement in New Zealand fisheries, was delivered. As the Chief Minister pointed out in a release today, the report is an indication of the spirit of cooperation between the parties and is beneficial to negotiating an agreement in the Territory. We hope to build on the experience of New Zealand.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67 – digression from the subject. The MPI clearly states, ‘the impact on the degradation of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians in regional centres across the Territory’. The member for Nhulunbuy has been going on for quite some time in relation to the Blue Mud Bay decision and what is happening in relation to that. It is about regional centres, as opposed to regional areas – so I am just wondering if we could actually ask the member for Nhulunbuy to come back to the actual subject.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. There is no point of order. What they do not want – they can choose to have their dog whistling and the negativity that goes with this. You can have that, because that is what the CLP has continually symbolised. We will never get …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seats, please.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: There is already one point of order before the Chair. This matter of public importance is extremely general. It says: ‘the impact of the degradation of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians in regional centres across the Territory’. It seems to me that what the member for Nhulunbuy is speaking about is definitely linked to this. It is a very general matter of public importance. It is not a very specific issue and the member for Nhulunbuy has the call.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am simply trying to highlight that there are good examples of successful and well negotiated relationships that have not necessarily occurred overnight, some of them have taken 30 years to reach. As the Chief Minister said, member for Greatorex, the Northern Territory marine rangers are doing fantastic work and they will play a greater role in the management of our fisheries. We are committed to reaching an outcome which recognises the cultural importance of tidal waters to traditional owners, and allows recreational fishers continued access to waterways without individual permits.
My colleague, the member for Barkly, will talk about the importance of land and sea management. In the seat of Nhulunbuy the work of the sea rangers is a clear message, not a degradation of relationships, but an enhancement of relationships between Yolngu and Ngapaki. The Dhimurru and Yirralka Indigenous Rangers have a knowledge base which stretches back thousands of years, which links inextricably, not only land and sea and every creature and object in it, but the people and their culture, stories, art, and songs. It is their history, their present and their future, and who better to look after and manage and protect these areas than the traditional owners?
The work of these rangers benefits all Territorians, both Ngapaki and Yolgnu. Dhimurru now employs 16 people and Yirralka another 50. Their work benefits our land and sea country, and is playing an increasingly important role in ecotourism and therefore employment across the region; and the benefit extends across some 700 000 ha and many hundreds of kilometres of coastline between the two groups. Cooperation and working together can be harder, much harder than throwing around allegations of degradation in relationships. If the Member for Braitling and the CLP cannot quite understand those words, then perhaps some pictures will help.
Pictures such as those marketed through Buku-Larrnggay Mulka Arts and Crafts at Yirrkala. As one of the oldest Aboriginal Arts Centres in the nation, it has been in the business of promoting Indigenous culture and values for around four decades. As well as providing employment and income to hundreds of Yolgnu artists, it has provided the nation and the world ways of understanding that transcend the kinds of glib generalisations and stereotypes that we have heard. Perhaps it is the pictures that come from the annual Garma Festival which draws up to 1500 visitors and hosts people from all over the world at the site of Gulkula, outside Nhulunbuy, and is regarded as one of the most important Indigenous cultural festivals in the world.
Both groups, Garma and Buku-Larrnggay Mulka, actively and successfully work to enhance relationships between Yolngu and Ngapaki. Their purpose is to move forward, away from barren and divisive propagandising, and that is the purpose of so many people I represent in the seat of Nhulunbuy. They do not seek to pursue the politics of bitterness, but to work together to advance the interests of each other. That is what the Northern Territory is about.
This government is doing all it can to close the gap. Effectively, what the CLP is doing is staring straight into that gap as they have done for the past 26 years before the Labor government - not knowing how to deal with it. And worse, they have the gall to use the word degradation. This government is about building relationships with Indigenous Territorians, not degrading them; and working towards building capacity in regional and remote communities.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I support the matter of public importance brought before this House by the member for Braitling. Although I do find myself a little lost for words to begin with, I read the document the member for Braitling produced, and I took it to mean that he was concerned about the fact that, on the ground in Alice Springs and in other locations across the Northern Territory, through no fault of any particular person - no one is going to apportion blame - there is a winding back or a degradation of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, as you see them spread out before you on the street.
I am taken aback that the government has interpreted the substance of this matter of public importance to be a shot at them - and that is the way it comes across from what the member for Nhulunbuy said tonight. It is completely unbelievable that a matter such as this would be considered either by the member for Nhulunbuy, if she wrote what she read, the government or the advisors who wrote the paper, could take a matter such as this and turn it into what they consider to be some political gain; standing there criticising the Country Liberals and criticising, personally, the member for Braitling. All he is trying to do is raise this issue as a matter that is occurring on the streets in Alice Springs, Katherine, and in other places in the Northern Territory.
I can understand, to some degree, what the member for Nhulunbuy is saying, there are some wonderful things going on between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. There are some wonderful relationships that have been built over many years, both at an individual level, but also at a business level and cooperation between business and Government and all sorts of things. I can cite one of those wonderful examples in the Jawoyn Association in Katherine; they are an Indigenous organisation that I have had the benefit of watching develop over 20 years, from their very basic roots through a man called Barnaby Lee, who was the Council President or CEO at Barunga many years ago. Unfortunately Barnaby passed away, but he left behind a legacy that should be seen as a shining light in Indigenous business and self-determination. That association has built some wonderful working relationships with non-Indigenous people.
I know what the member for Nhulunbuy is getting at to some degree. It is not all about doom and gloom. I would like to repeat: that is not what the member for Braitling was getting at. The member for Braitling was talking about what is happening on the streets of regional centres in the Northern Territory. I would have talked about it tonight in that vein also - and I am going to - because I believe what the member for Braitling is saying is quite right. This matter needs and deserves to be aired so that we, as a community, can start working towards mending relationships that are broken or damaged between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people; we are talking at that very basic level - on the street.
I see a wedge being driven deeper and deeper into the community, and it is a very sad thing to see. If I can recount a little history: with white settlement there were all sorts of travesties committed against the Indigenous people of this country. That behaviour was replicated and perpetrated for many years and only began to turn around in the last 40-odd years. I can think of some significant parts of history that should not be remembered fondly: of Indigenous people being killed. And that has had a significant impact on both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. The mark it has left is quite indelible. It has, unfortunately, created an atmosphere of mistrust and resentment between many levels of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.
I do not think anyone who has lived in the Northern Territory for more than a couple of years could deny that; that is a fact of life. As we have grown as a Territory, we have seen those horrible things turn around; we find pastoralists employing Indigenous people. The relationships were on the mend. It seemed to me that everything was working and humming along reasonably well. There was a moving on – the Indigenous people moved on – they wanted to get on with their lives and work for the pastoralists; the pastoralists wanted to move on - and they were happy having Indigenous people working for them. That was a wonderful thing.
Unfortunately, some of these things can get turned around quite innocently. If I go back to the early 1970s when the welfare system was changed to such a degree that it allowed open slather access to the welfare system by Indigenous people; I do not think governments really ever have ill intent in what they do. I believe they are sometimes misguided, but what they do is make decisions based on the best information available to them at the time. You cannot blame them; it is a thing that happened in the past. You could say the same thing for the Stolen Generations. The government decisions taken at the time were based on the information they had. They thought they were doing the right thing and now, of course, that has created a significant amount of resentment within our community from both sides.
The sad fact is that Indigenous people are over-represented in our welfare system. That creates from the other side, from the non-Indigenous side, resentment as well, because the non-Indigenous people see the Indigenous people getting welfare; they think that is my hard earned tax money, why should they be getting that, it is not fair. I am not saying it is just Indigenous people, there are non-Indigenous people on the welfare system as well.
However, the issue here is the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people and trying to explain why there might be a degradation of the relationship between the two.
Then the resentment is felt towards one party, the other party picks up on that and fields it back towards the other party and all of a sudden, you have a wedge driven between these two. Often, it is based upon a misunderstanding of what is happening in the life of the other person.
Recently I was in Alice Springs talking to a non-Indigenous fellow who told me a story which I have heard many times before. He knows an Indigenous fellow who said to him one day: ‘You drive that flash white Toyota, you must be getting more welfare money than me’; or words to that effect. There is a strong misunderstanding that people who work hard, build up their capacity to be able to buy nice cars, are getting their money from the welfare system when that is not the case.
Conversely, you have the non-Indigenous person who believes that the Indigenous person is getting things which they are not, such as their kids get paid to go to school and all those sorts of things that there is so much evidence of by federal government interventions. It is all about perception, and perception is reality. No matter who you are, what you are looking at, or what you see, is what you believe to be true. This is where the problem arises, because there is a lack of understanding, the perceptions are incorrect or based on false premise, and you get this resentment building up. That permeates right across the community, despite assertions to the contrary by the member for Nhulunbuy. It does have an adverse effect on relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, generally, on the street.
Many years ago, I was a policeman at Maranboy. I had wonderful working relationship with the Indigenous folk at Barunga, Beswick and Bulman, in that country in south-west Arnhem Land. What I tried to do was break through the barriers that existed then, so that I could better understand how the Indigenous people were, what was affecting them and, in my small way, how I might be able to adapt my style of policing to suit that. They responded very favourably to that. In fact, they adapted some of their behaviours to suit me as well - it was a bit of give and take.
What we are seeing in the community – or more to the point, what we are not seeing in the community - is more of that type of attitude; a giving attitude where people are prepared to give a little and take a little and start to build up and develop an understanding and knowledge of the issues which are affecting the other side of the fence, so to speak.
It is not just a case of white and black. Another example I saw was the resentment between the Sudanese and Indigenous people who live in Alice Springs; it is not a case of black and white, under those circumstances. Again, it comes back to a misunderstanding of what is going on. The Sudanese did not understand that Indigenous people are disaffected; that they have significant social problems and hurdles which they must get over, or try to get over, at some stage. The Indigenous people felt the Sudanese were here to take their women; the Sudanese had jobs, but the Indigenous people did not understand and thought they were on welfare. There is a whole lot of misunderstanding that goes on.
They are the roots that go back to why there is, indeed, a degradation of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. We need to focus more on developing an understanding of the issues that Indigenous people face; and Indigenous people need to start to develop an understanding of the issues that we face. There needs to be a cooperative approach and a two-way street.
A way some of the problems can be overcome is through the use of role models. I was racking my brain before to think of some famous Indigenous role models, and the Rioli brothers sprang to mind. It is people like that who have managed to get themselves above the rest; they stand out as shining lights for Indigenous people to model themselves against, to want to better themselves and improve their lives; just as there are many non-Indigenous role models to whom many white people aspire.
Madam Speaker, it is time we - I know the government has called it Closing the Gap; I like to think of it as bridging the gap - bridge the gap between the people of the Northern Territory, whether they are black or white, so there is less misunderstanding about each individual set of circumstances for the people. It is only then we can start to heal some of the rifts that have developed. You only have to walk on the streets and talk to business owners to understand that there are, indeed, those rifts which can be described as a degrading of the relationship between the two.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I speak to this matter of public importance and to support my parliamentary colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, who rose with passion and conviction that goes back many years into regional and remote areas, representing people who have been building positive relationships - nothing to do with degradation - but building positive relationships, and I share that passion.
I must say to the member for Braitling, I am disturbed by this as a matter of public importance, and I feel, in terms of Country Liberal Party platform and policy, that you are missing the point, and that you are rejected by the bush. Let me share my patch ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: You have missed the point. You simply do not understand what we are talking about.
Mr McCARTHY: … to the Tanami Desert …
Mr Westra van Holthe: You either lack the capacity or the intelligence to know ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, cease interjecting.
Mr McCARTHY: … from the great Roper River to Neutral Junction, let me share the positives in building relationships.
Mr Westra van Holthe: No one denies there are positives, but what you need to recognise …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: The member for Braitling raised the matter of sport. Let us talk about the Henderson government and its promotion of sports to build relationships and the minister for Sport who is building relationships.
I will share an anecdote about the Barkly Football League, which brings in people from all over the southern part of the Territory to compete in a very proactive and healthy sporting activity on Saturdays, celebrated by the Barkly and the community of Tennant Creek. I am not denying there are problems, but they are problems we work on, work towards. Maybe members on the other side of the House would like to come and explore that, in terms of parliamentary research, to see what we do in building positive relationships.
Let us talk about the broader issue of sport and bringing people together. Let us talk about sports people coming from regional centres who have represented the Territory in many sports at an elite level, at an NTIS level, at an Australian affiliated states level, at Indigenous AFL levels. Let us talk about those kids working together.
The member for Braitling wants to talk about kids; I will talk about Barkly kids on a bus together, from all walks of life and from all over the Territory, travelling thousands of kilometres to compete in their sport of choice. I will talk about the sweat, tears, and laughter that those kids have experienced together, to get to that bus, to get to those carnivals, and many of them are in Alice Springs and Darwin, for people coming out of regional areas.
Central Australia, member for Braitling, has the Imparja Cup. I will give a history lesson. The Imparja Cup started from a scratch match between two Aboriginal teams, one from Alice Springs and one from Tennant Creek. It is now a celebrated national event. If that is not relationship-building, then I do not know what is, but it certainly does not smack of any degradation.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: The Alice Springs Golf Club has just taken on eight Indigenous youth and maybe, through positive relationship-building, we might see the first Territory Tiger Woods. Let us hope that the members from the other side of the House will be able to celebrate that with us.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr McCARTHY: Sport in the Territory has a way of being inclusive and does not tolerate discrimination of any kind. Tennant Creek has two major tourist attractions that the Henderson government is promoting through a new initiative called the Tennant Creek Foundation. One represents the mining history of Tennant Creek and the other represents the Indigenous Dreamtime of the Barkly Region and Tennant Creek. If that is not good, positive policy, in merging those two initiatives, not only on social and economic grounds, but on cultural grounds and building relationships, then I do not know what is and that is a very firm lesson that the member for Braitling can take on board - no evidence of degradation.
Let us talk about land rights and the fear of land rights in the Territory. I will not go into the government of the time, let us leave that out if it proves to be offensive …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr McCARTHY: However, let us talk about the recent handover of the Devils Marbles or Karlu Karlu. Member for Braitling, I would like you to celebrate this with me, the people of Tennant Creek, the Barkly, and the people of the Territory, under the direction of the Henderson government. Let us talk about the hand back of the marble that came off Flynn’s grave and how positive that was; the recent handover and the true recognition of land tenure; and the management policy and the leasing back from the traditional owners to the people of the Northern Territory - relationship-building.
Another example is the Julalikari Aboriginal Corporation and the recent partnership with the Commonwealth government. I will not go into too much detail here, however I will just cite a nice example of the satisfactory lifting of native title issues of land in Tennant Creek, which the Henderson government progressed to two successful options that the Commonwealth government has progressed, and now we are looking at the development of new suburbs in Tennant Creek. That is real relationship-building. The Henderson government is on a policy and platform track that I celebrate. However, the matter of public importance tonight does alarm me; it puts fear into me and I think it is unfair to put fear amongst the people of the Territory, and that is why I am enjoying sharing so many positive things.
I will wind this into one very big initiative which is happening in Tennant Creek - and let us take this across the Territory - and that is the Council of Elders and Respected Persons, which has been formed under an initiative supported by the government, of local people in Tennant Creek to look at the particular issues we are talking about in this MPI from the member for Braitling. A very positive action that is supported by elders, but the most powerful thing I see emerging is the group of young Indigenous people who represent the Secretariat.
The people I have been working with are looking at all sorts of strategies - positive stuff, as you were saying - to support the police, the nurses, the teachers, the doctors, and the retail sector. I have heard nothing about concreting roofs, but I have heard about workshops, how to get kids involved, and how to get this communication started – a major initiative in relationship-building.
The McArthur River Mine and the Bootu Creek Mine are setting an amazing pace in building relationships in regional areas. The NT government has entered into an arrangement with MRM to set up a trust which will be worth over $32m in the life of the mine. Already, we are seeing initiatives for youth and communities in regional areas: swimming pools, a crche, visitor accommodation, learning programs run by the Smith Family, the Borroloola Race Club and Rodeo Club, National Trust facilities, and a renal dialysis machine, which two of the members on this side of the House - before they entered into political careers - were part of the fundraising activities in that community, working together with Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, and will shortly go back to Borroloola to celebrate the opening of that facility; to bring people home.
A member: Hear! Hear!
Mr McCARTHY: A powerful initiative to bring people home. What message do we send to youth when we start bringing people home? This is the approach – not the scaremongering, not the fear, not the dogs on chains, not the sticks. Please do not bring cheeky dogs to Barkly youth; do not back them into a corner. Please do not bring sticks, because you will see the other side of Barkly youth. We want to change that.
I would like to talk about the rodeo because, in the Barkly, something as rough and ready as the rodeo has brought together the Indigenous and non-Indigenous community like you would not believe. I feel horrified that I might have to go back to Tennant Creek and report from this House, which I do, on this MPI. I am shocked because I know a hard-working committee of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people will be quite shocked with what I have to say, after the hard work they have done to put together a major event in the Barkly and that is recognized and supported by the Henderson government. I will not talk about all the other events which occur over the three days of that rodeo.
I can guarantee I could put 200 extra people on the hill if the Borroloola cowboys are coming; and 200 people at $5 a head makes a big difference to our committee account.
Mr Tollner: I do know not know what the Borroloola cowboys …
Mr McCARTHY: What do I mean by the Borroloola Cowboys? I mean respected members of the Gulf community who attract the crowd to come and see them participate in a cross-cultural event which reflects the history of the Barkly. Let us have a quick history lesson on the Barkly: Barkly cattle stations were built by Indigenous people, and built on the backs of Indigenous people.
Funnily enough, the wheel has turned, member for Braitling. When I left my previous industry, I had six youths working on the Barkly with the Indigenous Pastoral Program, high profile managers of Barkly cattle stations were coming looking for youth to employ and are working tirelessly to keep them in employment. That is positive relationship-building.
The Barkly has always been a heartland of positive relationship-building. The next exciting initiative, where we will see amazing relationship-building, is the Yanyuwa Sea Rangers. Let us talk about my parliamentary colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, and the area of sea rangers right across to Wadeye. The sea rangers in Borroloola are receiving NT government support and, funnily enough, have asked for extra support. It maybe goes to a bit of trust. My question: What will you do with that support? ‘We will do all sorts of things – managing country, managing our youth, looking after disadvantaged kids. But you know what else we are going to do? We are going to look after the whitefellas who might get lost, stranded or run amok in country and find themselves in trouble. We have to look after them’. I was honoured to hear the total nature of this program that is building in a regional area in the Northern Territory. I am proud to have that as part of the Barkly.
It is time to move on from stereotyping. It is time to move on from the promulgations, attitudes and ideas of the past. No one pretends the way forward is easy or straightforward. That is why the Henderson government has adopted a Closing the Gap policy in clear recognition that we must approach the issues of Aboriginal disadvantage as an inter-generational process. Let us not feed on the ideas of the past; let us not feed on negativity. Let us look at our schools; let us look at our shire councils. Let us look at the Barkly and Gulf Shire Councils and their makeup as a new level of local governance, just in the area I represent. When you start to look at those, you see how positive they are in building relationships for the future.
Madam Speaker, let us look forward. Let us look positive. What I have heard from both sides of the House - let us do this together.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I have to support this MPI. I was not going to speak, but the way the government members - the members for Nhulunbuy and Barkly - have treated this MPI is absolutely abhorrent. It is a disgrace - a complete and utter disgrace. The member for Barkly must have said ‘let us look at this’, ‘let us look at that’ 1000 times. I do not know what he was actually talking about. It was a rant …
Dr Burns: That is a sad indictment on you.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, it is a sad indictment on the member for Barkly. It is a sad indictment on the government’s reaction to this very genuine matter of public importance.
The member for Braitling has raised this matter of public importance with the best intentions at heart. It is something that he sees, certainly the member for Katherine sees, and many of us are aware of similar situations in our own electorates and in other parts of the Northern Territory. It is something that deserves reasonable discussion - not an outrageous rant or a screaming contest. Goodness me, we have hardly heard boo from the members for Nhulunbuy and Barkly since we came into this place. All of a sudden, the member for Braitling puts up a genuine matter of public importance and, for some reason; they take massive offence to it. I cannot understand what is so offensive about the member for Braitling’s genuine matter of public importance.
It seems to me typical of the socialist left, who prefer to bury their heads in the sand rather than look and see some of the more unsavoury problems we have in the Northern Territory. Unless you are ready to confront those issues, things will not change for the better. Burying your head in the sand is not an option. Just ask the previous Chief Minister of the Northern Territory; she brought the Northern Territory into complete and utter national disgrace …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Complete and utter national disgrace because of her utter and complete inaction on an issue that had been staring her in the face for quite a long time - an issue on which she called an inquiry and picked the people to run the inquiry. The inquiry did a lot of work around the Territory, came up with some genuine concerns, and reported those concerns. What did the Chief Minister do? She tried to bury the report.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: She tried to bury the report. She sat on it, wishing that it went away - ignored it. And what happened from that? Rather than being up-front and saying: ‘Look, we have a problem here’ - no, the Chief Minister buries the report. The first the federal government hears about it is when they log onto the Internet and find a copy of the report on the Internet. The former Chief Minister did not even have the courage to send copies of that report through to her federal counterparts. As a result, she brought the Territory, all Territorians, and this parliament into national disgrace; absolutely, utterly shameful. And do you think the government has learnt from that? Do you think the government has learnt one iota from that? No. Well, by the looks of this, no, they have not.
The member for Braitling, in a very genuine way, was trying to raise a very sensitive subject as a matter of public importance, and what happens? He gets attacked in the vilest manner by the member for Nhulunbuy, who, to all intents and purposes, I thought was some sort of shrinking violet who sat up the back corner of the room and said nothing. All of a sudden, now, she jumps up and she smears the member for Braitling in the vilest way. For what? For coming into this place, in a very sensitive way, and putting a matter of public importance before this Chamber. I find that just absolutely appalling.
Rather than the member for Barkly jumping up and trying to say: ‘Well, we understand there are issues here; there have been issues for a long time in this area’ – no, he carries on the attack. He rants and carries on - I could not understand what he was talking about half the time, rodeos and $5 a person turning up, and how much money that is going to make for a committee - screaming at us, like it had some relevance to this particular debate.
Madam Speaker, I am not going to speak for long, but I am just absolutely appalled. I want to express my disappointment at the government members who have spoken on this. I am also very disappointed in the member for Arafura who was completely fired up and has now gone to ground. The expectation was that the member for Arafura, a senior Indigenous woman in this place, would actually have something to say about it. But no, she has scurried off.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is obviously reflecting on the presence or absence of a member in the Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Member for Fong Lim, you are not allowed to do that. I ask you to withdraw those comments.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw. Goodness me. She has not scurried off; she has just shut up and said nothing.
Madam Speaker, this place is a disgrace. I absolutely feel disgusted at the way this matter of public importance has been treated by the government.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak, but I am compelled to get to my feet after listening to the comments made by both the member for Nhulunbuy and Barkly. The last words the member for Barkly spoke just a few minutes ago were: ‘Let us do this together’. I thought that was, from what I heard the member for Braitling say, a matter that we need to address as a whole. I did not hear anywhere in his words any criticism of the programs that are in existence. In fact, I heard him use the words that there are excellent programs in existence.
Members on the other side seem to be missing the point of this. I have not heard anyone say there are not good programs. There are some outstanding people who have, for many years, been working on these programs to improve relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people and, in fact, to improve the lot of Indigenous people. I have been in the Territory for just over 28 years and I have watched, with great interest, the improvements, but also, the going backwards of some of these relations.
I hope the member for Barkly felt good when he got up and read, what appeared to me, prepared notes. The issue being raised is why the member for Barkly and the member for Nhulunbuy want to attack the member for Braitling for what is a very personal and passionate issue, which is very important to him. I suspect they probably did not have anything other than prepared notes to speak on this MPI
Ms Lawrie: No, no, I saw them …
Mr STYLES: I will pick up on the interjection. I was actually watching them both and they were both reading and following with their fingers, reading off bits of paper, so I can only assume they have come into this Chamber with prepared speeches, as opposed to listening to what the Member for Braitling said and addressing those issues. I am of the belief that they have missed the point.
In my time in the Territory I have watched some of these relationships improve dramatically. We are mainly concentrating on regional centres here - and that is great - but I have also watched a deterioration in some of the regional centres. I talk about Darwin, in particular, as being a large regional centre, because in relation to other capital cities around Australia, this town of ours is classified by some as a regional centre; so perhaps I will deal with that. I cannot speak with any real knowledge of Tennant Creek, so I will stay away from there. However, in relation to areas around here, I look at the degradation of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people and I see, over the last couple of years, there has been a downhill slide.
I acknowledge that there are some wonderful programs and that is not an area, I believe, we need to discuss; people in this House have expressed the fact there are, and I believe that is accepted by both sides. However, as the member for Fong Lim said: we cannot, any of us, put our heads in the sand and say that it is all wonderful and it is all great, and not accept that there are some issues which really need to be attended to.
Member: Hear, hear!
Mr STYLES: In July 2005, the government stopped what was a very popular program in schools called the DARE program, which is an acronym for Drug Abuse Resistance Education. They stopped it, which, in effect, took school-based police officers out of classrooms in the Northern Territory and did not replace them with anything. Then they came up with a program called the Seven Core Themes which took them about two and-a-half years to half write, so there was not a great deal for police officers to do in classrooms. From my personal experience, what used to happen is that you would go into classrooms and build rapport with these young people, and it was a great program because you are there - they could come and talk to you and you could help them.
The role of school-based police officers, because you have a rapport with these people - especially young Indigenous people in schools – is that you can build bridges that you just cannot build as a uniformed police officer out in the street. When you start to look at the relationship breakdown between the police and Indigenous youth, you have a perception out there by members of the community, from all different walks of life, that young Indigenous people are a major problem in our community; and that adds to the perception that there is a breakdown. I actually believe there is a breakdown in what is happening between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians and, in particular, there is a breakdown with the youth, and the youth are our future; they are 18% of our population and they are 100% of our future, irrespective of whether they are black, white, or brindle.
This was supposed to be something very serious, to look at the serious aspect of what this MPI is about and what the Member for Braitling is talking about. Unfortunately, a number of people on the other side of this House have taken the argument on; perhaps they believe it is an attack on the government. It is not an attack on the government, it is an attack on a situation for which we are all responsible, because when I leave this House tonight I have to go out and I have to live in the community outside the walls of this building. My children and my two young grandchildren have to live out there as well.
The other aspect is that I have two part-Indigenous grandchildren. This is an area which is dear to my heart, as well, because I do not want them growing up with people thinking that they are a problem. I am taking responsibility to do the very best I can at all times I spend outside this House.
I ask that some of the people on the other side of this House actually look at the issues and some of the problems, instead of gloating about what they see as their great successes. They are probably very successful in certain areas, but there are some areas where they are not.
I ask the members on the other side, especially some who have spoken tonight, to actually look at these very serious issues in a very serious manner and not treat it as an attack on the government. These are things we are all responsible for. I would like to see some of these programs come back in, so young people can get back out there and engage with other people in the community. When you take away the programs that give people the tools to engage these young people, then you disempower them, and they become disengaged.
So what happens at the moment? In the northern suburbs and Palmerston we hear it all the time, and as a police officer working in that area I heard it on a regular basis: people would blame the Indigenous kids. It is not all Indigenous kids; however, they are the ones who are getting the blame out there. Indigenous kids and the term, part-Indigenous kids, are the people who are being blamed for all the gang problems and for the crime; they are being blamed for many things.
What happens on Saturday morning when I stand out the front of my office and I talk to people? People come along and they talk about the problems in the northern suburbs, in particular, and they say: ‘These Indigenous people are just running riot.’ What does that do for the relationships and the degradation of the relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians? It is going backwards, and we, as a group, irrespective of what political party we belong to, need to work on this problem in a bipartisan way.
That is what the member for Braitling is trying to get at. He came in and explained quite calmly that this is a very sensitive matter, but he wants to raise it because it concerns him. Unfortunately, those on the other side do not sit in our wing meetings or our party room and do not listen to the passion expressed by the member for Braitling in relation to this issue. He is an Aboriginal man and he is really concerned about the kids out there and the future of his people. His people, I mean as a group of people - as Australians.
It really disturbs me that you get a couple of people on the other side who want to do that. I ask them to come out to the northern suburbs. If it is great in their area, in Tennant Creek, that is tremendous and I commend the member for Barkly; if he has got things going well, that is fabulous. However, in some of the regional centres we have some major problems confronting us as a parliament and community. If we do not start dealing with some of these issues and look at other programs available to engage the particular people who are causing these problems now, we are going to lose the battle. It is going to take years and years if, in fact, we ever get it back to a point, where the sort of programs the member for Barkly is talking about will actually work, particularly in regional areas of the Northern Territory.
I do not want to take up too much more time with this; I believe we have some other speakers. I thank the House for listening to my words and my concerns about this very important matter.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I wish to express my disappointment with the approach that members opposite have taken in relation to this matter. It is clear from the tenor, sobriety and temperance of the language used by the member for Braitling that he was moving forward with fortitude and temperance. I could feel his desire to keep this as a level-headed, sensible and considered debate on an issue he believed was sufficiently important to stop the business of this House so we could discuss it.
The disappointment I have is that the temperance and sobriety in delivering his speech was not matched by members opposite. I believe they have misread or misunderstood the intent of what the member for Braitling was trying to achieve. That is sufficient to get me to my feet to express my disappointment.
There is also another area I wish to address; the issue of this ‘switch it on again/off again’ policy that the Labor Party has, as a general rule. I have heard now, for the second time since entering this parliament, the member for Nhulunbuy talk about the sea rights for Yolngu and Aboriginal people on the coastal areas of the Northern Territory, and her passion for their right to have those sea rights. Well, that is fine. The High Court made that determination. It is curious that she chooses, as a result of that, to maintain her membership of the Australian Labor Party, because it was the policy of the Australian Labor Party to fight the matter in the Federal Court, then to fight the matter of the Full Bench of the Federal Court; and to go to the High Court of this country to fight the matter, and to take out full-page ads in the paper to tell Territorians how they are going to fight the matter.
Whilst I appreciate that the Northern Territory government is now in a position of having to deal with the issues raised as result of the Blue Mud Bay case - and they are not native title issues; the native title issues in that case were non-exclusive determinations; it is actually the effects of the Land Rights Act and how it operates between the high watermark and the low watermark. Let us not get those two issues mixed up. I read the Full Bench of the Federal Court’s decision very carefully, and I understand the logic of it. I add, anybody who had read that case would have been overwhelmed by the strength of the argument which was used by the Federal Court in making the determination they did in relation to the space between the low watermark and the high watermark. So much so, that I was confidently predicting the result of the High Court case to people in conversation. I said on any number of occasions to people that the Northern Territory government would lose the case because the argument presented by the Full Bench of the Federal Court was just too compelling.
The Northern Territory government would have had similar advice, I suspect. Their choice was to spend more money on pursuing the claimants - the successful claimants as a result of the Full Bench of the Federal Court’s decision - to the High Court of this country. For them to take on this mantle, this cloak, of ‘We are the protectors of Aboriginal rights’, particularly the member for Nhulunbuy, and say how good and important it is, is really a rewriting of history, which certain political regimes in Europe in the 1930s would have been proud of.
I also pick up on the comments by the member for Barkly, regarding native title being accepted over the Tennant Creek area, and as a result ILUAs will flow and the right arrangements will be put in place for future development for the people of Barkly. That is fine, no problem with that. That was actually done in Darwin by the CLP - in Palmerston - in the absence of any native title determination. It was in the suburb of Gunn, where the Larrakia Development Corporation was able to get their start in life, and they have gone from strength to strength. That was a result of a native title negotiation with native title holders who were actively and aggressively fought by this government, subsequent to their forming part of government.
I also took the time to read the whole of the determination of the native title claim over Darwin. One cannot be but struck how this stuff works. It works is like this: what the claimant tries to assert is that they still have a cultural link with the land which is profound and strong, and there are language and spiritual bonds with the land itself, and those bonds have continued unbroken since pre-European settlement. To defend such a claim, the agents of the government - its lawyers in the court - have to run the argument that the link no longer exists or has been broken along the way. What the court then does is listen to as much evidence as it can from the particular claimant families, and makes a determination. That leads to a very sad result because, if you read this case, 80% of that decision is the judge revisiting all the evidence he has.
What he is basically saying is that link has been broken. The more cynical amongst us would say the defence by government against that claim was that cultural genocide had been successful, because that is how you defeat a native title claim; that is the argument you run. That is what this government set out to do. They employed solicitors and lawyers and did not acknowledge the native title claim over Darwin. It turns out they were successfully able to run that argument, but in doing so, they have said: ‘We do not recognise your title rights over Darwin’.
To sit down and read the judge, who was also moved - you can read it in the language of his determination - that the link with the land had been broken, is truly a sad thing. But for the government to come in here and its members say: ‘We are the champions of negotiation rather than litigation’ - which was their policy - and to hear that they had litigated again and again; then to hear them come into this place and cloak themselves as the champions of Aboriginal rights.
A member: Recognising the Larrakia people.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, and that is interesting; I pick up on that interjection. How often do I hear the odd member opposite recognising the Larrakia people? It is the same Cabinet ministers who signed the cheques to pay the lawyers to fight the claim. Do not come in here and pretend you have some sort of high moral ground, or that you are ethically or morally superior. If the history of white men, as they spread through this and other parts of the world, was to speak with forked tongues, then that tradition is alive and well in the members opposite.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, it is extraordinary, I do not know how we are ever going to get anywhere when we have a government on the other side of the House living in complete denial about what is taking place across the Northern Territory.
Not everyone is bad, and I think it is worth pointing that out. A couple of members opposite highlighted all the great things and, there is no doubt about it, not every Aboriginal community or every Aboriginal person in the Northern Territory is causing trouble; the vast majority are doing quite well, and are living quite normal lives, and have jobs and are getting on very well with the rest of the community, or in fact, the community. But there are some bad eggs, and those bad eggs do give many people a bad taste in their mouth. It is very simple; and it is a result of the failed policies by this government.
I do not understand the cheap shots being levelled at the member for Braitling about his failed attempt at the federal election last year - you say failed - I say valiant attempt. Nevertheless, he obviously wants to be in a position to address situations such as this, and being in a position of some authority, he can bring certain matters of importance to the public’s attention and perhaps be in a position to deal with them.
He was not successful in the federal election. He had an enormous swing towards him in Alice Springs, unlike the current member for Lingiari who was belted around the ring in Alice Springs, I might add. The member for Braitling did very, very well.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I find that a very offensive expression. I would like you to withdraw it, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: What? Belted around the ring?
A member: It is a boxing ring, Madam Speaker. It is a sporting contact.
Madam SPEAKER: I would like you to withdraw it, please.
Mr CONLAN: Okay, can I rephrase it, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Please do, yes.
Mr CONLAN: Belted around the boxing ring.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Anyway, he was belted around the boxing ring but, nevertheless, made a very valiant attempt.
It is also worth pointing out that the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory also failed in her first attempt to enter parliament; that is the former Chief Minster, Clare Martin. The current Chief Minister also failed in his first attempt to enter politics, as have many other people. It is highly irrelevant and a cheap shot by the member for Nhulunbuy who, I would suggest, would not know the member for Braitling from a bar of soap, to weigh in on such a personal level. Here is to the member for Braitling for bringing this on. He is finally in this place and I think it is terrific to have him; we all feel very lucky to have him and he has raised this very serious matter of public importance.
Many of the problems we are seeing, which resulted in the member for Braitling raising this, are a consequence of failed policies by the Northern Territory government. That is what is giving many people a bad taste in their mouths and giving the broader Aboriginal people a bad name amongst the general community. It is not everyone who is troubled, but there are a core few, and it is a result of the failed policies, particularly the failed alcohol policies, of the Northern Territory government, which are giving these people a bad name and causing trouble in the communities. It is as a result of, particularly the minister for Alcohol Policy, the failed policy; he does not have an alcohol policy. He is trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
Dr Burns: You said it was a good idea.
Mr CONLAN: He is trying to deal with a big issue problem as a small issue problem. It just does not fit, minister. You cannot address the problems facing 600 or 700 people with alcohol problems across the Northern Territory; you cannot fix it. Therefore, we are unable to address the broader, bigger, deeper, underlying issues with alcohol. It is like looking through foggy glass with you. You have no idea how to deal with it and, of course, the rest of the Northern Territory is suffering.
Dr Burns: You just flip-flop. You are a flip-flop.
Mr CONLAN: I beg your pardon?
Dr Burns: You are a flip-flop.
Ms Carney: And you are a 3%er, so what would you know?
Mr CONLAN: Mr 3%. Good on you.
Madam Speaker, I believe it is also important to point out, and I raised it in a previous adjournment debate, I think it was in the last session; I suggested that we are very lucky to have someone like the member for Arafura, the Minister for Indigenous Policy, in our midst, the most senior Aboriginal politician and parliamentarian in the Northern Territory - surely the one thing we can do, as a parliament, is achieve goals and successful outcomes for Aboriginal people.
The issues, the problems and the successes we see in the Indigenous community across the Northern Territory are prevalent in our day-to-day lives as Northern Territorians. If we are able to achieve anything - our failed alcohol policies, the problems with our health system and our education system, we have serious problems with all of those, but other jurisdictions also have serious issues with those - if there is one area in which we should stand out above all and where we should really punch above our weight, it should be Indigenous affairs.
I think it is worth pointing out and to be fair, I do believe that we as Australians, as governments of whatever persuasion, have failed Aboriginal people. I believe this government is not doing anywhere near enough; in fact, I believe this government is failing when it comes to dealing with Aboriginal issues. This is a marvellous opportunity to be able to punch above our weight. I suggested that to the member for Arafura.
It is also worth pointing out that since the member for Arafura became the Minister for Indigenous Policy, Australia is looking to her. It was championed on radio, on television and in the newspapers across this country, particularly The Australian newspaper, which reports heavily on Indigenous affairs in the major cities; the possibility that there could be a change in the air, that perhaps something might really happen with Indigenous affairs in Australia – not just the Northern Territory, but Australia - because the rest of the country is looking to us and, indeed, should be looking to us for some sort leadership on this. We are not doing that.
Since becoming the Minister for Indigenous Policy last year, how proactive has she been? What has she done? What mark or significant impact has she made on the Indigenous situation facing, not only the Northern Territory, but also Australia? I say, not much. Just a quick look at the media releases put out by the Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Arafura; there are plenty on Arts and Museums, plenty on Deputy Chief Minister. In fact, on Arts and Museums, there were at least two or three each month, in the last 12 months. They are celebrating 365 days today by the way, so one year, and plenty on education, but what about Indigenous affairs? How many? Four media releases on Indigenous Affairs. I think that is absolutely disgraceful. That is an appalling effort by the Indigenous Policy minister, the most senior Indigenous politician in this country; the person this country is looking to for some leadership and real change to address the failed policies of the past, from both sides of politics, federal, Territory and state.
This government has been in power for seven years. We have the most senior Aboriginal politician right here in this Chamber; in fact she is no more than 20 feet across the bench. The country is looking to her for leadership and initiative, and we have four media releases in the last 12 months. That is pathetic; it is nothing more than pathetic and disgraceful. I do not know what is going on. She clearly has no vision to lead the Territory out of the troubled position it is in when it comes to Indigenous Affairs and indeed, Indigenous relations. As I said, not everybody is experiencing troubles; there are plenty of Aboriginal people out there who are living decent lives, great lives, who are part of the community.
There are also a large number who need help and it is up to us to help them. It is up to the Indigenous Policy minister to show the way and show some leadership on this. It is not happening - hence the member for Braitling’s MPI. This is of utmost importance. It should be a matter of utmost public importance - it clearly is.
Alice Springs is experiencing some terrible problems. We spoke about it last time, during the last MPI on Alice Springs, conflicts that are becoming tipping points and boiling points. Even the Minister for Central Australia agreed. She understands it. As I said yesterday, perhaps, the Minister for Central Australia might be able to convince her colleagues, those in Cabinet and those outside Cabinet, that this government needs to do more when it comes to addressing Aboriginal affairs. If there is one thing we can do in this parliament it is to address Indigenous affairs; punch above our weight and lead the way.
What hope do we have when there is constant denial across the Chamber indicating we are talking Aboriginal people down and there are not plenty of success stories? Of course, there are plenty of success stories; no one has denied there are plenty of success stories, plenty of great people and great things, but the fact of the matter is - we have failed Indigenous Australia. We are not going to close that gap when we have the most senior Aboriginal politician in this country, with the whole country looking to her for leadership, and we get four pathetic media releases put out a year. What a dismal performance by the most senior Aboriginal parliamentarian in this country. I do not know how we are ever going to address it when there is constant denial by the other side, and we have the most un-proactive Indigenous affairs minister possibly in the history of Australian parliaments.
I congratulate the member for Braitling for bringing this on. He has big shoulders, so he does not need a pep-up from any of us here. He has done an extraordinary job, and it is great to have him The Deputy Chief Minister, the most senior Indigenous affairs parliamentarian in Australia, will not act. She is curiously silent, I might say, during this debate. Very silent, but nevertheless, if they will not lift their game, and if she will not show leadership, then it is up to people like the member for Braitling to do so. I congratulate him on his matter of public importance. Well done. And if they will not do it, I know we can.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I will keep this short and I am not going to use any of those bits and pieces. I had no intention to speak other than the fact that …
Ms Lawrie: You have a script.
Mr BOHLIN: Well, there is the script – and it is gone. The discussions which have come from this side tonight are really amazing. The member for Braitling spoke on an extremely important issue. He spoke of something that is, in communities, culturally difficult to speak about at times - issues relating to his own race; issues and problems communities are having which are not easily spoken about. In fact, in the Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory these issues are often simply just not spoken about - and that is the problem.
The strength of this young man, the member for Braitling, to stand up and show that caution at the beginning by saying: ‘I was concerned about bringing this up, but I need to’ - because he, obviously, did need to, and it was with great strength that he did so. We are not talking about just Alice Springs, Darwin and Katherine; we are talking about other, similar communities throughout the whole of Australia. They have dysfunctional problems. They do cause a wedge in society. To be cautious, I cannot find true words for it - but, to hear what came out in that prepared speech from over there tonight, left me shocked - absolutely shocked, then disgusted and angered.
It is this mentality of denying that there are problems in our society, in our Territory, at this time that has led to the newspaper articles we see here about crime.
Mr Knight interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: I do not think I need to read it to you because, if you like, you can practice reading it yourself.
These are things which we even brought up in our first few speeches in this parliament - the concerns of the community that there are problems. Then, all we saw from the government was: ‘No, no, no, do not tell me about that, it is not true, there are no problems; we have spent and spent’ - and achieved little. Now, we see the progress which has occurred; the great policing resources which have occurred in Palmerston …
Mr Knight: Fudgy figures, the fudging of figures.
Mr BOHLIN: Yes, the fudging of figures. We now see uncontrolled crimes going through the roof in the last few weeks. Yet, we chose to ignore the problem - that is the problem. If you choose to ignore the problem, you …
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr BOHLIN: I am sorry, I pick up the interjection. It is true. If you fail to accept there is a problem, you will never be able to fix it. To be able to fix a problem you must first identify it - and accept it - they are the two keys. Put them together and you get the beginning of a solution. You can then get together as a Caucus - you do not have to invite us - and start to resolve the issues. Speak to the community and they will tell you some of the problems. Discuss it, work with them, and you can resolve the issues. That is all that was brought up here; that there are emerging issues which are bubbling away and need to be dealt with. If you continue to bury your head like an ostrich, you will not be able to deal with them.
I take note of the member for Barkly. He has done a fantastic job with his young footballers in that region. I acknowledge right now that he has done a brilliant job, and he should be commended for it. That is a tool; that is a way we can deal with the problems. Without that man’s assistance, there would be greater problems in his own region; that member over there understands that without his love, care, dedication, blood, sweat, and tears, there would be greater problems in that community. He knows it, because he told me. He understands the assistance that he has given to those fine young men who he is now developing, and that is what the member for Braitling is talking about - identify the problem and let us work together as a community to fix the problem.
Madam Speaker, it was shameful to hear the comments that originally came from this side as a response.
A member: From the other side.
Mr BOHLIN: That is right, from the other side, over there in the corner. For someone who I thought had good stance, I was very disappointed, because I really do not think they were the words of the person inside.
Mr Mills: I certainly hope not.
Mr BOHLIN: I certainly hope not too, because this gentleman spoke words from the inside. He is concerned, we are all concerned; I hope, on both sides, we are concerned, and we need to work together as a community to fix these problems. The only way is to accept, talk about the problems and move forward. This is the venue to discuss those problems and bring them into the open.
Madam Speaker, I was ashamed of some of those comments. I am very proud of my colleague’s comments, and I hope today we put that type of behaviour to bed and we move forward together to build better relationships, because the pot is boiling and bubbling, and if we do not start to quell it, if we do not start to deal with it and accept there is a problem we are in a lot of trouble and we will be going backwards and not forwards; and the ideas of this gentlemen to my right, they are forward thinking.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I had no intention to speak as there is little time, about six minutes, but I will respond, because I was very disappointed to hear some of the comments.
I have to admit that the member for Braitling has brought a matter of public importance to the House which I think is very important, and I would like to commend him for his concern about his community, the Aboriginal community. The only thing people need to be aware of is: this issue of the relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people did not start yesterday, it did not start a year ago, or six years ago, or seven years ago – it started many years ago. It is also very disappointing that in the past ten years, when there was a coalition government in Canberra, only one member of that government, Mal Brough - and probably he was quite right to do what he did, but he did not have the support of his colleagues - said there is a problem. But the key here is: what is the problem?
Alexander Downer said after the election: ‘Our polling is no good; we better do something about that so our polling will get better’. Well, it did not, so they forgot about it, and that really stopped any chance that it was going to take place in its tracks. ‘I am the one who supported the intervention, I think it should have happened in 1967, the day after the referendum.’ But the Aboriginal community was dropped like a hot potato the day after the referendum. Teachers walked out. They did not go back and were told everything would be fixed - it was not.
I came to Australia in 1983 and I was appalled to see, in a society like Australia, that there were people living in conditions no one in Europe would think people should be allowed to live in.
Unfortunately, the way it is described is wrong. There is no breakdown of relations in all centres in the Northern Territory. In some centres there are, in other ones there are not, and I congratulate the member for his positive comments. Despite being on the other side, some of the things he said are quite right. It takes two to tango and we have to work together because of the communities. At the same time, I am disappointed to hear people criticise government when, in a previous life, some of the comments they made were very inflammatory.
‘The only problem in the Aboriginal community is in the crime statistics’, said the member for Greatorex when he was a radio announcer. Well, that is not positive. And to hear the member for Port Darwin say the Labor government always opposes land rights. Yes, we went to court for Blue Mud Bay, but we went to court together, in agreement with the Northern Land Council, to clarify if the Fisheries Act was still valid in intertidal waters; if the commercial fishers or amateur fishers had the right to fish there; that is why we went to court.
We were the ones who stopped the Kenbi land claim, the fight for the Kenbi that went for years and years and cost Territorians $20m. There are times we have to go to court to try to resolve a situation, and we are not afraid to do it and we will not be afraid to do it. We are not here for us, we are here for all Territorians - black and white - and we will do it again if we have to. But, to stand up and blame us for going to court against these Territorians is absolutely untrue.
I have to say there is degradation in relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians. Sometimes it happens because we do not understand each other; sometimes it happens because people have been pushed into a position because people in Canberra have made the wrong decisions. Nobody came to us, neither the Labor Party nor the CLP at the time, to discuss how we should proceed with the intervention. People in Canberra always know best. When you ban alcohol in the communities, when you put strict controls on communities, guess what is going to happen? People are going to move out of the communities. When you ban alcohol in the communities without asking anyone, they just walk out; they came out of the communities because the government took control of their money, so they migrated to Alice Springs, Katherine, and Tennant Creek. We finish up with people leaving their community. It is not this government’s fault.
The CLP was here many years, and I can blame the CLP for making many mistakes. The thing we have done, and the thing we can do is to work together. My colleague, the member for Barkly, has done something, it is not big, but something, and people recognise what he did. The member for Nhulunbuy lives in Nhulunbuy. I have been there many times and last time I was there, I have never seen Nhulunbuy so peaceful, so clean and without drunks hanging around. So they have done something.
We know Alice Springs has problems, and I am very angry because some people in Alice Springs choose to bag their town, so badly, that it costs them in tourism and in income - the estimate is $7m. Alice Springs was named the crime capital of the world. It is not, and they know it, but they went out and misled the people. Yes, there are problems in Alice Springs. What they did not say is there were a significant number of assaults in Alice Springs, many amongst Aboriginal people, but the number of assaults were going down when we put in the alcohol controls - I have the report to parliament - and that makes me angry.
It is very easy to stand up and bag Greeks, Italians, Chinese, and black fellows, because if one Aboriginal commits a crime, then all Aborigines commit crime. If one Greek commits a crime, the whole Greek community is labelled. We cannot do that; we cannot afford to do that. It is better for us to sit down and work together and stop labelling each other, naming each other and stop bagging each other and blame each other. We can play politics as much as we like, but there are many people out there for whom we are responsible.
The member for Braitling, might be my opponent, might be sitting on the other side of the table, might not think a lot of things are important, but one thing I agree with him, I am prepared to work with him to the betterment of the Aboriginal people.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, this is the last sitting before Christmas and I take the opportunity to share my thanks and Christmas wishes for 2008. I wish you and your family a very, merry Christmas and a happy New Year. I also wish my colleagues on this side of the House, merry Christmas to you and your family and to my colleagues on the other side of the House, merry Christmas and a happy New Year to your family. I know we come and get stuck into each other, but this is the time for good will and enjoyment. I hope you have a safe Christmas, especially if you go away, do not drink and drive; drive safely.
I thank the Clerk, Ian McNeill and his family; David Horton and his family; the Parliamentary staff; the members of staff of the Assembly; the Hansard staff, especially Helen Allmich - a special thanks to Hansard, they have learnt to decipher my accent now and I do not get many mistakes; the drivers who drive us here, there and everywhere; and special thanks to Vicki Long for your patience, tolerance and assistance. To all my local constituents in the electorate of Casuarina, I wish you all a happy, safe and joyous festive season. I am very honoured to represent you and I promise to give you the best possible representation in parliament in 2009.
I would like to thank the Casuarina Police Station Superintendent Peter Gordon, and the Officer in Charge, John Guinane. The police force in Casuarina has done a tremendous job, and continue to do so. They are everywhere around Casuarina and I am very pleased to say I have seen foot patrols, bike patrols, patrol cars around the area. I am very excited about the Police Beat Shopfront that will open in Casuarina before Christmas. Sincere thanks to Peter Gordon and your officers. You are doing a great job and I wish you a fantastic Christmas and a great New Year.
I thank Darwin City Council, because on many occasions it has responded very quickly to my requests and addressed some of the issues in my area.
Some of the people in Casuarina Shopping Centre, Ben Gill and his staff and all tenants, Tony Miaoudis, the tenants of Casuarina Village Shopping Centre, Chris Voudouris and tenants of Casuarina Convenience Centre and all the small business owners and staff within the Casuarina shopping precinct, I wish you all a prosperous, happy festive season and I hope this year people open their wallets and spend.
My office staff and ministerial staff, Mark Hough, Ray Clarke, Phil Hausler, Nikola Lekias, Pui Worarath, Pompea Sweet and Gail Rosswhite, without your help and assistance I would not be able to what I do today. Thank you very much. I thank past staff Alf Leonardi, Carole Frost, Kirk Whelan, Sue Shearer, Adele Young; my departmental staff from Business and Employment, the CEO, Dennis Bree, and all the other people and many thanks for a great October Business Month, everyone commented how wonderful it was; at Tourism, Maree and Rita and all the others who promote the Territory; at Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources, a great team with great results; and finally, Asian Relations for your advice and for letting me know some of the customs they follow in Asia, which I had no idea about.
Although 2008 has been one of the busiest years for me, and I believe for all of us, as a local member and as a minister, particularly with my extensive interstate and overseas travel to promote the Northern Territory, I have enjoyed every minute of it. However, things are tough when you are away from the family, living out of a suitcase. It was a great year, a memorable year for me. I was very fortunate to have a wonderful support team whose tireless efforts and commitment I appreciate very much.
I thank my team of helpers, volunteers and the Labor Party Branch members of Casuarina for assisting me during the election this year. Thank you for your continued support and dedication. It is a loyal group and I take the opportunity to express my sincere gratitude for your continued support and your fundraising efforts this year. I wish you and your families a joyous Christmas and look forward to your support in 2009.
I wish a merry Christmas to my schools in Casuarina. The Alawa Primary School and its staff and principal, Sharon Reeves; Nakara Primary School and principal, Barry Griffin; and the staff and students at Dripstone Middle School with principal, Lyn Elphinstone, and the other staff and students.
My sporting clubs, Darwin Surf Lifesaving Club, of which I am a patron; the Azzuri Soccer Club, of which I am also patron; Casuarina Soccer Club, which the Chief Minister is a patron; and all the sport clubs that train, support and give an alternative to young people in Casuarina.
I thank my Electorate Officer, Debbie Rowland. She is the person who is the politician, because the politician might not be there all the time but the person behind the phone is your Electorate Officer. She is the one who knows everybody, not only in your electorate but also in the necessary areas and organisations, those you may need to ring and respond to. They are the ones who organise everything for you. I would also like to thank Ted, Debbie’s husband, because without his support, Debbie would not be there, so I would not have an Electorate Officer and also her two daughters, Simone and Candice Liddy. I would like to thank very much Natasha, Andrew, Ceryl and Frank Moukaddem. If I forgot anyone, many wishes for a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
Most of my wishes are for my wife, Margaret, for my sons Michael and Alexander who are in Perth. I know I have been away from home for a long time. I have been travelling a lot and I know Michael is missing me. It does not matter what presents you bring, he wants his father. Thank you very much, Margaret, thank you very much Michael and Alexander and I wish you a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
It was an exciting year, 2008, and I am looking forward to an exciting year in 2009. I am pretty sure I will see you again here in February so until then, have a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this will be my last adjournment for the year. I would like to comment initially on something I did not plan to comment on in this adjournment.
This is about a very sad case which occurred in my home of Geraldton on Boxing Day last year. I heard further repercussions from this sad incident the other day in Palmerston. My childhood friend, Billy Rowe, was killed in Geraldton on Boxing Day, whilst with his family on the beach playing cricket. He had an esky and the family were having a wonderful day. We were having a fantastic day down the other end of the street.
On that day, there was a gang of youths moving up and down the beach, and they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol or whatever, interfering with families. When they came to Billy Rowe’s family, down the other end of the street, they sought to avail themselves of the drinks in the esky. The family was surprised at this, and Billy thought it would be wise to lift the esky and move it away, because they became quite aggressive when they were confronted and told that they were not to take those drinks. On moving the esky, one of the young lads picked up a cricket bat and, sadly, bashed my friend Billy to death on the beach. That was Boxing Day.
That was a boiling to the surface of underlying tension. The effect of that one horrible incident still has repercussions to this very day. Sadly, the family was Indigenous, and that has sparked all sorts of hostility and concerns in the community. To great credit to the family involved, particularly the grandparents of the young man involved, they immediately went to the police and made it clear it was their grandson who was involved. The father came forward, and the family made a direct apology and appeal to the family - a good Christian family that has served the community well.
There was forgiveness from the Rowe family, a wonderful family. He is, in fact, my godfather. He forgave the family and there is forgiveness and reconciliation between the two families. Unfortunately, there are elements of that community who cannot bring themselves to reconcile, and there is underlying tensions still in Geraldton today. So much so, that many of my good friends who I grew up with in Geraldton and in Mullewa, many of whom live in Palmerston - I only heard recently that the repercussions of that event in Geraldton on Boxing Day has resulted in families moving from Geraldton to Palmerston, because of the unresolved and underlying tension that has been exacerbated by the incident on Boxing Day. It has widened the gap. It makes it more difficult for those underlying issues and tensions, that have been referred to in this Chamber, to be resolved, even with the immense goodwill of the Indigenous family concerned. They even went to the funeral of Billy. They were very well accepted. My mother went and spent time with that family. It was difficult for them, but there was tremendous healing. Still, it is an immensely difficult business.
I tell that story in the context of the business that has been discussed in this Chamber today. Only a fool would turn their eyes away from the underlying tension and seek to ignore what is there. We just talk about all the good things that happen in Geraldton; there are plenty of them. There are plenty of good things that happen in Mullewa, where I grew up. However, there are other things that you would be a fool to ignore. That was precisely the purpose of the contributions that have been made in this Chamber; to honestly recognise and consider this as a challenge - a personal challenge.
We say at the beginning of each session that our purpose is to advance the true welfare of all Territorians. That is our purpose, our goal, and our objective - the welfare of other people - not our political agenda, ideology, or personal axe to grind, but how we can benefit others. If we cannot find a point of genuine agreement here - mature and heartfelt agreement - on significant issues, how the hell can we expect there to be significant change in places far from here such as Wadeye, Tennant Creek, where there are divisions, or Katherine, or in Palmerston? How on earth can we expect there to be significant social change if we cannot even find a place of common ground here, between community leaders, 25 of us?
I am stuck with that as a challenge. If we cannot find a sensible place to meet, discuss, and turn our collective energies to unlock the challenges, then we are dreaming and we are playing games. Let us recognise that we each have a challenge; to square up to the challenges that ordinary families face across the Territory, and get ahead of them and provide some leadership, so we can increase social cohesion, so we can be honest, and try to resolve some of those issues before those issues consume our community as they, sadly, burst to the surface in Geraldton on Boxing Day. I dedicate this to you, Billy.
I will now discuss the issue of language. This matter has been raised, and sometimes politics surrounds language and our desire for young people to learn to speak English. For anyone who has taught - and there are teachers in this place - or been involved in teaching a kid; a little one who has come to school to learn to read their first words, and for them to develop their confidence and be able to express themselves, as they begin to fly across the page and those words start coming out; they get that wonderful sense, almost as though they could fly, when they feel they can read. They have some kind of control and power. The animals cannot read, but human beings can read. We have the power of language, and if we have the capacity to teach a young person to be able to read and to be confident with language, then we have given them a tremendous start in life. We cannot get that wrong.
I was quite taken by the series featuring Rupert Murdoch’s Boyer Lectures. A quote from his most recent says:
We will just play the game, we will talk the talk, but we actually believe it cannot be changed, I continue the quote:
An education system has at its core three primary elements - qualified teachers, an effective curriculum, and an appropriate facility. The minister for Education’s announcement, of English focused policy for instruction, relates to curriculum and how it is taught. Implied in the Deputy Chief Minister’s announcement is that bilingual education is a significant cause of the abysmal failure to achieve results in remote education, perhaps deliberately, which allows that message or that implication to run.
Yalmay Yunupingu, an Indigenous teacher with 32 years’ experience, is right when she describes this policy position as both threadbare and clumsy. It warrants closer inspection.
Notwithstanding, the announcement is a reversal of long-standing Labor policy, which was announced without adequate consultation, and the approach is clumsy in a number of substantive ways. It fails to substantiate that bilingual education is a problem. Proposing a cure without understanding the cause would be extremely dangerous in medicine. It is equally so in education.
Worse than this, the minister for Education fails to accurately - I believe, deliberately; I hope it is deliberately, because it would be perhaps worse if she does not understand the difference between the two approaches in bilingual education - reflect what is meant by bilingual education, and made the attempt today to try to create some kind of division on the issue of bilingual education – a couple of statements that have been made in this Chamber. What for? Is that of any assistance to those young ones who are trying to learn to read, and those who are trying to help them?
Some approach bilingual education as a means to preserve the mother tongue, by aiming to develop proficiency in two languages and cultural world views at the end of formal education. Perhaps the minister believes this is the approach taken in most of the remote schools - that is the objective. If that is the case, the minister is ill-informed.
The common practice is to develop proficiency in English - that is the objective - to be able to teach proficiency in English through the mother tongue. This approach is concentrated in the early years of schooling, probably better referred to as teaching English as a Second Language. This approach values the language that is spoken at home and links the community to the school. However, the aim of this approach is to most effectively teach English. There is evidence to indicate this approach is superior to the English-only approach, where the connection with the community is removed, and thereby, makes comment on their language.
It is my firm view that it is not the responsibility or within the capacity of the education system to aim to develop proficiency in both English and the first language. It is the responsibility of our education system to graduate students who are proficient in English. Even a rudimentary grasp of language learning recognises that words convey more than letters on a page, but also concepts and ideas. Effective instruction links the known to the unknown. The place this translation occurs in language is in the first years of school, when the foundations are laid. If you do not lay those foundations in early childhood, you will labour, sadly, in vain - as we see the results all the way through the system - if you cannot get it right in those early years. In fact, there is a capacity, a magical capacity, to learn language in those first years. How hard would it be if you ignore, or do not take, that opportunity to translate a concept or an idea in early years, from the language that is spoken into English - to establish a solid foundation upon which to build proficiency in English?
I am convinced that these foundations cannot be effectively laid without reference to the language that is spoken at home. This is in the early childhood years. For those who have spent time in early childhood, you will know what I mean. That is why I support the use of the first language in the first three years of formal learning. Some people, with a good grasp of English but who do not understand how language is taught or learnt - even in our schools in the suburbs - will applaud the sentiment of the minister, because we all want our children to do well. They will think, yes, that sounds good. I have had this discussion with people, they say, that sounds good, but they do not understand what is being said. I think they are being conned.
To support the sentiment expressed by the minister, without an understanding of how language is learnt nor an appreciation of the task of the early childhood teacher - who is charged with society’s most noble task; teaching a child to read and write - is wrong, and amounts to a betrayal.
The task of teaching is difficult enough and more so when the bridge between the first language and English is removed. It is across that bridge that understanding must pass. That is the purpose of it. The purpose of this approach is to ensure that English is taught. I urge the minister to re-consider and to dig a little more deeply when we are discussing these matters, because there is a line in the middle. I believe it is time for some real leadership to ensure that those who are lifting the heavy load in those communities are given proper support. We need to bring to the fore the evidence that surrounds this issue, so that we can work together to ensure we build stronger foundations and develop a greater capacity for the speaking of English with young kids in the remote communities.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge the contributions, over the last 12 months and while I have been minister, of some key people in the departments I have responsibility for.
In the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment, I acknowledge Ken Simpson and all his staff. They do a commendable job. It is obviously problematic and quite a difficult job within the public service, negotiating enterprise bargaining agreements and collective agreements. I acknowledge all the hard work. This year has seen the completion of most of those agreements, and they will be tidied up in the New Year. Congratulations to Ken and to all your staff for a job well done.
I also acknowledge Dr David Ritchie, CEO, the Department of Local Government and Housing. David came on board about the same time as I did in March and he fitted very well into that department. He took up the reins of local government reform and, more recently, remote housing reforms. We have a bit more work to do in Housing. Congratulations to you, David, thanks for all your hard work.
Also, to Eve Robinson who started around the same time in the local government area. She has adapted well from the private sector and brought a great deal of knowledge to the department.
In the Housing area, I acknowledge Fiona Chamberlain and Trish Angus, they do a great job, both in Housing and the Aboriginal Interpreter Service. To all of your staff within the department, who perform tremendously well.
I make a special mention of the regional offices, David Willing at East Arnhem and Nhulunbuy, he and his staff are irreplaceable; to John De Koning in Katherine; Wayne Hoban in Tennant Creek; and Andrea Martin in Alice Springs, I express my gratitude. The regional staff do a job second-to-none and I congratulate every one of them for all of their hard work.
I thank the entire staff of Power and Water. They had some challenging times of late and the standard of their work is far above average, especially the guys on call-out, who are often working in difficult situations. They are just heading into their most dangerous time of the year, fixing power lines in the wet season, in the middle of the storms, at the end of fairly high ladders, trying to fix insulators and whatever it may be. Congratulations to all the staff. I hope everyone stays safe over this wet season and we do not get too many cyclones coming through.
Lastly, a staff member I did not get round to mentioning last night: Deanna Hampton. She has carried out her tasks very well, not just for me but other ministers she has worked for. She is due to have a baby in February or March, so I hope all goes well. She has indicated that it is a boy. I hope it all goes well and that she looks after herself and the bub.
Lastly, I acknowledge someone in my electorate - Mr Rex Hume. Rex has been around the Territory for many years and is probably the most knowledgeable person I know regarding the actual management of CDEP. He has worked in Borroloola and in the Nauiyu Community at Daly River, for many years. He is a wealth of knowledge and operated the best CDEP program in the Northern Territory. He says he is retiring, but I imagine Rex will probably be back doing something very soon. I know he will not be lost to the Territory. The Territory is his home, and I hope he and his wife stick around the Daly region, since they have a lot to contribute.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Acting Deputy Speaker, I am going to give a mixed bag tonight.
On a sad note, I send my condolences to the family of Vic Carusi. Vic Carusi was a well known electrical contractor in the rural area for many years. He died unexpectedly on the weekend. He is someone you might say was a self-made man, in the sense that he never shied away from a fight with the government. He was a man who always called a spade a spade and if he had to get a job done, he was able to do it. He was a person who put up power poles and electrical lines, that was the sort of business he was in. That is why he was well known in the rural area, because over the last 20 to 30 years he helped to open up parts of the Northern Territory. He was the one who cleared through the bush for power lines and knew a lot about his business. If you ever wanted to ask someone about electrical transmission, he knew the lot. He was just one of those great blokes who so many people knew, who lived in the rural area for quite a while - and throughout the Territory. He was one of those special people.
Another person is Norm Hill. Most people would not know Norm but he was from what you would call a pioneering family in the rural area. His wife, sadly, died earlier this year. Whilst he died from a heart attack just this week, some of us feel that it might have been more of a broken heart, because he lived with his wife, Pat, for many years. He put up a brave face when she died, but we think that, in the end, life was much harder than he showed. I believe he is back with Pat now, and I am happy for that, because he missed her very much and was a very lonely man. He and Pat were very much involved in the Litchfield - now Humpty Doo Bowls Club, and the rural garden club. I know a lot of people will miss him.
In relation to Christmas, I thank a few very special people. My wife, Imelda, is not a great fan of politics, but puts up with it. At least I have a nice white shirt to wear every morning. I did not marry her for politics. I can tell you she still does not take a great interest, but I know that, underneath it all, she is proud of me for being the local member. To some extent, I am surrounded by women. That might sound very funny, but I am surrounded by really good women. I could probably say I am blessed by these particular people, because they are wonderful in keeping an eye on me, give me good advice, and stop me from getting a big head. The reason that I am here today is because of their contribution to my electorate office. If people come into my office and find I am not there, they know people are there who can help them.
We have been debating the role of an MLA and how many hours we work in this parliament. I will be honest with you; the real work, I believe, the essential work for an MLA, is out there helping people with little problems, assisting them in any way possible, trying to make your community better. That is the role of a member of parliament. Yes, we can have this more official role, this legal role - and it is important, I am not denying that - but the part of my job that gives me the most satisfaction is working with the community, whether it is in sport, or at the local pub doing the auction the other night for the slave night. I saw the lady - the UGLY lady, as she is called - who is raising money for the Leukaemia Foundation, Tania’s picture was in the paper today. She works at the Howard Springs Tavern and she is topping the list with the most dollars raised for the Leukaemia Foundation. I enjoy being part of the community and it is an important part of the role I have as a member of parliament.
I thank Jenny. She has been with me for five years. She is having a long break at the moment. She has some other issues she is working through at the present time. She is a fantastic lady. I call her my guardian angel when it comes to work in the office. She is my main worker. To Kim, who is up here at the moment doing the electorate office course. It is all new to her, but she is learning very fast. To Trish, my sister, who occasionally has been my woman Friday, helping out. To Dawn, who is working in the office now that Kim is doing the electorate officer role. To Caroline, who was my research officer for the last five years and is now working in the education department for the Legislative Assembly. I thank her for all the work she has done over the last few years, making sure the Hansard was readable, making sure I had information about the bills, analysing those bills, and giving me advice.
Also to my new research officer, Michelle, who has only started this week and comes from Berry Springs. She is a fantastic lady. She has spent a good part of her life in Central Australia - six years out at Areyonga. She worked for nearly 18 years at the Berry Springs Wildlife Park. She has been involved in quarter horse or Western riding; the Mango Growers Association; the Berry Springs Primary School Council for six years. She is a person who has a great knowledge and understanding of the Territory and its issues. I look forward to working with her. She is already keeping me in check and making sure I eat the right foods. She is another person I feel blessed to have working for me.
I thank all the members of the Legislative Assembly. Sometimes we forget they are there, but they are always here. They are here from when we start to when we go home, and later, and I thank them for all their work – the Hansard staff. The member for Casuarina was saying how Hansard is getting better at understanding what he has to say. They also do a pretty good job writing down what I say, especially when I add about four verbs in a row with a few urrs and umms and then repeat myself. They do a pretty good job with Gerry Wood English as a Second Language.
I thank my electorate very much. This has been a busy year. I am not talking politics here, but a fantastic number of people helped out with the rallies about local government. Countless people gave me support during the election. They are the real grassroots people and without them, change would not have occurred. Without them, I would not be elected. I thank the members of my electorate for their support and friendship. It is nice to go into your electorate and though you might not know everybody’s name, you know who they are. In fact, one of the saddest things for me this year was when the redistribution occurred and I lost all of what I call the upper Humpty Doo area. I could take you up and down every street there and know just about everyone who was there. It is all gone.
I believe redistributions, especially now we are having four year terms, should be made halfway. They should be made in the second year, so that members of parliament and candidates know exactly what electorate they will be looking after in the next term; not with five minutes notice, like what happened in the last election. That is why many people were confused as to who was their candidate. It would be good to have that redistribution at the halfway mark, and then we know which people we will, hopefully, be representing after the next election. It seems that you can work four years and at the last minute, those people who you have been working for are not in your electorate. That is not fair for the candidates, the member of parliament, nor the constituents they represent. I put that on notice. That is something that should be changed.
As it is Christmas, I thank the good Lord for allowing me to be in parliament and having this wonderful job. I do occasionally ask for inspiration. It is not always easy, especially as an Independent. You have to sit sometimes and hear the arguments from both sides, and sometimes people accuse me of sitting on the fence. As I say, it is not always a matter of sitting on the fence, sometimes it is a case that there are more than two opinions, more than just black and white. I hope I can contribute to parliament by bringing at least alternative points of view, not that everyone agrees with them. One of the great things we should strive for in this parliament - today is probably a good day to talk about it, because Question Time was not the best Question Time I have had to live with – is to try to work together more. Even in the last debate, you did feel that there was tension.
No matter what differences we have in this parliament, we need to be able to try to work together as best we can. We need robust debate, otherwise parliament would be a waste of time. However, we are here for our fellow Territorians, to do the best for them and to make life, especially for those who are disadvantaged, better.
I heard the Opposition Leader talk about bilingual education, which is a difficult area to discuss. I was on Bathurst Island when bilingual education first started. I have always believed that whilst it is a nice idea - and I am not saying it has not worked - I am still not convinced it has achieved the goals people said it would. I always felt that English is the only way for Aboriginal people to advance.
That is not saying that should be the one and only goal. Language is absolutely important for retaining culture. Without language, culture will die, but are there other ways to do that? I used to work in the vegetable garden at Bathurst Island. I used to work as work supervisor at the Nguiu Shire Council and I used to say, if you cannot read the tractor manual, then how are you ever going to repair the tractor? The tractor manual will not be written in Tiwi, unless someone makes that effort, but the manufacturer is not going to do it. It is going to be written in English and if you want to maintain equipment, then you have to have a good knowledge of the language, otherwise the tractor will break down. At the same time, we need to be putting more responsibility on communities to retain their language and assist them.
It is a partnership. That is why I have said that we should open up schools. This used to happen years ago, through adult classes at night. The government could look at the option of opening up schools, perhaps paying some of the elders - or those people who can teach the language - an adult educator allowance. Some of the younger people who can read and write could get involved in writing the language as that is a difficult area. Most of these languages are not naturally written, they are written by people who are studying languages and that is an area people have to specialise in.
There needs to be more onus on the community to say: ‘We love our language, we think our language is important, so we will take up that responsibility as custodians of our language, and traditions. We will make sure our children have a good knowledge of our language.’
I am not condemning bilingual education, but we have come to a fork in the road where we ask: has it really made a great difference? I understand what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. He is a teacher. I suppose I am one who looks at the results, even when I work at other places.
I see older Aboriginal people, who I knew at Daly River. They did not learn bilingually but they speak both Ngankikurungkurr and English perfectly. This debate will continue on, but the government has to make difficult decisions. We know literacy and numeracy in Aboriginal communities - especially in remote ones - is absolutely woeful. I support what the government is doing, but I would support it only if it is a partnership with people, the communities, and the government to maintain and give those people a chance to keep their languages alive.
I wish everyone a happy Christmas and a safe New Year.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity tonight as we are on our last sitting for the year to acknowledge the people in my electorate.
I would like to tell the parliament of a recent regional education event that took place in Katherine earlier this month. It was the inaugural River Regions Try a Trade held at the Charles Darwin University’s Katherine rural campus. With more than 100 people from remote communities attending the Try a Trade in Katherine, WorldSkills Australia is set to make the extremely popular first-time event an annual one.
Under the guidance of qualified tradespeople, Try a Trade is specifically aimed at year 9 students, to inform and inspire them to consider traditional trades as a career pathway and to start their training, through vocational education programs, while still at school. I heard it was a fantastic day with a great deal of support from businesses in Katherine and the region. Some of the schools from my electorate of Stuart that attended the day were from Barunga, Wugularr, Katherine School of the Air, and Katherine High School.
Try a Trade is about giving students the opportunity to get a hands-on introduction and discuss entry and career pathways available in trades where there has been a major shortage. This will be great in the long-term for the development of the regions, by putting much needed trades into the communities. There were 19 industry areas represented, some of which were hospitality, mechanical, automotive, hairdressing, electrical, welding, rural operations, plumbing, machinery, horticulture, business administration, health and childcare.
The River Regions Try a Trade was organised by a number of partners comprising the Department of Education and Training, River Regions Youth Development Services, Group Training NT and Charles Darwin University. This wonderful opportunity for students was made possible due to the CAA or Careers Advice Australia Initiative and local community partnerships. I will be looking out for this great event next year, checking on the progress, and hopefully attending.
Still with education in the Stuart Electorate, I would like to acknowledge the exceptional job done by the remote schools in my electorate. Amanbidjiis one of those remote schools, which under the leadership of the principal Reg Robinson, does a fantastic job. I acknowledge some of the excellent work down by the following students. Congratulations to Adeline Waterloo, who achieved above benchmark results for year three level in all areas of the MAP testing. Also congratulations goes to June Lura, in Year 5 and Johandon Learing, in Transition, who have both achieved outstanding outcomes in their school work and received awards for August and September. Children must show at least 90% attendance and excellent behaviour to qualify for an award. Well done for this brilliant effort. I also acknowledge the Amanbidji School for their recent Territory Tidy Towns School Award.
At Pine Creek School, congratulations to Dwayne Alangale for his initiative in attending Auskick every week, his excellent work ethic and positive actions within the school. Also congratulations to Pine Creek School staff and students for their gardening project which is providing nutritional brain food for the whole school’s Brain Break program.
Staying with the Pine Creek community, congratulations go to John ‘Robbo’ Robinson, who was recently awarded the Northern Territory’s most True Blue Citizen Award. Robbo was up against some stiff competition, but his credentials are impeccable. His long-term commitment to the Pine Creek community is legendary. He will often be seen helping out at community events, Fire and Emergency Services, the local Turf Club, or just helping family and friends. He has also been named Pine Creek Citizen of the year, twice and has won several bravery awards. Well done to Robbo.
I congratulate Eva Valley School on winning Champion School at the recently held athletics carnival, which was held at the Barunga Oval. Eva Valley was the smallest school in the competition and was up against some stiff competition from Beswick, Bulman and Barunga. I hear it was a great day with lots of exciting close races and team sports that had everyone cheering from the sidelines. Congratulations to Elizabeth Andrews from Eva Valley, who won the Champion Girl and Alistair Blitner from Bulman, who won the Champion Boy awards. The day was a great success, I hear. Thanks to all the teachers, mums and dads who helped out.
As they say, from little things, big things grow; ‘From Little Things, Big Thing Grow’, is a not for profit project aimed at raising funds for arts and literacy programs for the Gurindji people. As part of that fundraising, a book based on the Paul Kelly song, From Little Things, Big Things Grow, tells the story of the Wave Hill walk-off. Two students from Kalkarindji, Daniel Law and Felicia Jimmy, working with the Queensland artist, Peter Hudson, produced the illustrations for the book. When the book was launched earlier this month in Sydney, Daniel and Felicia got to travel there and meet with Pat Dodson, who launched the book. It is a beautiful book about our Northern Territory history and I recommend it to everyone in this House. Once again, well done to Daniel and Felicity for the wonderful work they have done to help produce this book. Congratulations to Rikisha Isaac from Pigeon Hole, who received the George Alexander Foundation Vet Scholarship, for her studies towards Certificate Two in Business. Rikisha is studying at the Charles Darwin University’s Rural campus and I wish her all the best for her future studies.
Moving to the southern part of my electorate, I would like to tell the parliament about the opening of the Yuendumu Swimming Pool, which I had the pleasure attending in October 2008. Also in attendance was the federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Ms Jenny Macklin, the federal member for Lingiari, Mr Warren Snowdon, Territory Senator, Ms Trish Crossin and Northern Territory Senator, Mr Nigel Scullion. The opening of the pool was an exciting day for the Yuendumu community with residents working hard to establish the pool over a long time. Young locals have gained employment through gaining nationally recognised qualifications in water safety and pool management.
These people are Bethany Langdon, Bruno Wilson, Jamie Nelson, Desmond Spencer, also as the trainee manager, and Marla Shannon and Vicky Wayne. Congratulations to them all. A special thank you to the people on the Yuendumu Swimming Committee: Cecil Johnson, Robbie Walit, Enid Gallagher, Riley Oldfield, Gracie Johnson, Coral Gallagher, Kwementyaye Johnson, and Nelly Wayne. Once again, thanks for your hard work and dedication. I am sure the community appreciates it, as well. The community will now be able to teach water safety, learn to swim classes, and also life saving techniques, which will benefit the whole community, as well as the ‘Yes School, Yes Pool’ policy, which will also greatly increase school attendance.
I also congratulate the Mt Theo program and its management for its hard work throughout the years to see this swimming pool become a reality.
I would also like to tell the parliament of the recent Mobfest event that took place at the school at Ti Tree in October 2008, which I had the pleasure of attending. Attending the Mobfest were students from Mulga Bore, Laramba Upper Primary, Stirling, Neutral Junction, and Ti Tree School, all of which are from my electorate of Stuart. The Laramba men and women, Alcoota School and the Rural Health Network also attended. A special thanks to all of those elders who were involved with the Mobfest. There was a very strong and positive feeling amongst the attendees.
Thank you also to Music Outback Foundations who delivered the music program. The music program was all about music education which involves numeracy, literacy, teamwork, and improving the self-esteem of all the students involved. The students performed songs in their local language, as well as English, and the drums from Drum Atweme were as popular as ever and performed with confidence. Other activities during the Mobfest festival were instrument making, traditional stories, songs, body painting, language song writing workshops and health awareness activities. Overall, the Mobfest festival was conducted in a very positive way and with a very positive outlook from all the elders, students and staff involved.
I pay my respects and condolences to the family of the young girl, whom I am sure we all read about in the paper the other day, who, sadly, passed away after an accident jumping from a truck. The young girl was from a local family in Ti Tree, the Long and Presley family. I take this opportunity of passing my condolences on to them in this adjournment.
I also acknowledge and offer my condolences to the Lynch family in Alice Springs on the passing of their patriarch, Pop Lynch, whose funeral is this Friday. Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to attend, so I would like to put on the public record the passing of this old man - a very important man of Central Australia, in terms not only what he and his family have achieved, but the knowledge and cultural strength he has provided to many people over the years. He will be sadly missed. He is one of those iconic people you cannot replace.
Also, to the family of Jessie Palmer, a relative of mine from the Minyerri region. Her funeral is on this Friday here in Darwin. To all of her extended family and her sons, in particular, who I know fairly well, I pass on my condolences.
Finally to the Clarke family, on the passing of Xavier Clarke Senior, one of the Territory’s favourite football sons. We all know Xavier and Raphael who play for the Saints in Melbourne. To the family - Gavin, Ingrid, John, and Michelle, in particular, I pass on my condolences.
I say thanks to quite a few people, starting with the department. It is three to four months into the job and it has been a big task getting on top of things, and the challenges that come with it. To all the staff, leading with the CEOs within NRETAS and, in particular, the Executive Director of Sport and Recreation, Regional Development, and Information, Communications and Technology. Thanks for the briefings and the answers to questions I received, which helped me get on top of the issues. Thanks to all in the department for their patience, their information, the briefings, and for making the job a bit easier for me. I wish all of them and their family the best for Christmas.
To my ministerial staff on the 5th floor, and also to my staff in Alice Springs, I say thanks. They have been very supportive over the last three months that I have had the portfolios. I may be biased, but I think I have one of the hardest diaries to manage, given my travels. I appreciate their patience, understanding and skill at juggling things at the last moment. The great work they have done in the last three months puts me in good stead for next year. I wish you and your families a safe and merry Christmas and look forward to next year.
To all the Legislative Assembly staff, to the Clerk and Deputy Clerk, to the people you see behind us who provide a great level of service to us all in this House, and particularly to the Hansard staff who, no doubt, had some late nights last sittings, but they did a fantastic job. Thanks for all your work this year and over the last two years that I have had the pleasure of being a member in this Chamber. I wish you and all your families a merry Christmas as well.
To all the members here, 25, the 24 others, I wish you and your families a merry Christmas and a safe New Year. I look forward to working with you all next year. In particular, in terms of my portfolios, to the shadow ministers, I look forward to working with you next year as well.
To the members on this side particularly, thanks for your support since the election, and the advice and support you have given me in my new role in Cabinet. I appreciate it and I wish you and your families a merry Christmas.
I would not be here without my constituents, and the member for Nelson touched on this. It has been a challenge, going through two elections in two years, the by-election and now the full election and having to deal with the redistribution. I have probably had one of the biggest changes to an electorate out of all of us and it has been a challenge to get around. In an electorate that stretches from Pine Creek, around Katherine, down to Timber Creek, right down to Nyirripi and Ti Tree, it certainly has its challenges. I thank them for their vote of confidence at the last election. I will do my best to get around and listen to your concerns. Over the last couple of months, it has been great.
I have been receiving many enquiries from the new parts of the electorate. Issues are coming in, so keep them coming. It is an important part of our job. We can debate about the reforms we want to see in the running of this parliament, but for me, the most important part is achieving outcomes for our constituents. That is why they vote for us, is to work hard for them and to work on those issues. Those issues will be flowing in, no doubt, and I will do my best to get around and visit everyone, hopefully before Christmas, but certainly in the New Year.
Finally, to my family, my wife, Rebecca, my three boys, who over the last three months have seen less of me, but that is part of the job. Thanks, particularly to my wife, who also is the father when I am not there, having to take the boys to school and to training, and deal with the issues that fathers should deal with when they are at home. It is greatly appreciated. It deserves to be on the public record. Without your support, Rebecca, Josh, Curtly and Jamie, it would be awfully difficult to continue in this job. So thank you for your support.
I look forward to the challenges next year. We have heard a lot of talking tonight, but I believe my actions will speak louder than words. I will do my best next year to deal with many of the issues from my portfolios.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I pass on my Christmas wishes to people who are now around us. First, to all my new work colleagues, on both sides of the floor - all my new friends on both sides of the floor; I mean that with honesty. As was said earlier today, we do discuss things across the floor - that is what this environment is about. There are people on that side of the floor that are quite enjoyable to talk with, and they could become quite good friends over the time. I am sure we are going to be spending a lot more time together as the years roll on.
The great warmth that has been expressed to me by my fellow colleagues has been an amazing. It has been rapid little journey for the last three months. I wish you all, on both sides, a very safe and merry Christmas. Please take that back to all your families and loved ones. We know we cannot do this job without our electorate officers. They hold the front when we are not there and they wear the talk of the town, shall we say. To everyone’s electorate officers, the best of the festive season to you all. Thank you for the efforts you put into the Territory people. Thank you to my electorate officer, Donna Ellice, for your fantastic work. You have enabled me to hit the ground running. You have enabled us to put together a fantastic office at Palm Village next to Independent Motor Mart. It is amazing that we went from a shell to what we have in such a short period of time. You have done an outstanding job to get us on track with so many very vital things.
I wish the Hansard staff, Legislative Assembly members, the administrative people, the support staff throughout this great building of the Northern Territory and the people behind the scenes, behind the glass to my left, who make this place tick, a happy Christmas. We put the words into this building and they put those words onto the Internet and without those people, this place would come to a grinding halt. I wish them all and their families merry Christmas. They have done a great job and they have inspired me with their true dedication.
I have a few schools in my area and I wish all my schools, the teaching staff and the students of those schools, a very safe Christmas. I know the kids will enjoy the opportunity for a break. I do not think the parents always enjoy that extended break, but the best of the Christmas season to you all. I hope you all come back safe and well with a new vigour to continue to learn.
I have started something I hope is appreciated, which is the giving of book vouchers to my schools for various awards. I enjoyed greatly being able to give out those book vouchers because I believe strongly in that simple gesture. Instead of some other form of entertainment, I give a fundamental tool of learning and that is the opportunity for that child to go and buy a new book from a shop and to look at this beautiful, colourful book or whatever it may be - it is a beautiful, new thing of great learning. I believe that is an amazing thing to be able to give to so many kids in my electorate area. I hope they appreciate it and the gesture, and that in years to come, after learning much, they will appreciate that. Unfortunately, as a young child I was encouraged to read, but did not enjoy it as well as I do today. I hope these young kids can enjoy what I did not.
I would also like to wish all the businesses a great Christmas. I have two industrial areas, plus the Palmerston CBD within my electorate area and I hope they have a fantastic Christmas and for the CBD to have a prosperous Christmas period, under the economic crisis around the world. I hope the Palmerston people come to our shopping centres and do them proud and buy great, loving presents for their families.
I wish the Palmerston City Council, the mayor, Rob Macleod, and his great staff, the best of Christmas tidings. I also wish the Palmerston Police Station and its officers well, for whom I have worked with for a long time. There are still days I actually drive to work, I take the same journey, basically, and the amount of times I have made a left turn to go in past the Post Office and go to the police station to work, is quite amazing. You get in there, turn around and out you go to your normal workplace.
Mr Elferink: Mate, you used to work in Kintore, imagine if you got that wrong.
Mr BOHLIN: Imagine if I got that wrong, going to Kintore - it would take me a long time to get back from there. The officers of the Northern Territory Police Force have done a fantastic job this year, regardless of the lack of support they sometimes get. No matter who is at the top of the reins, it is the officers on the beat who wear the brunt of all the upset and the greatest distress, and hopefully go home to their loving families - they deserve every ounce of respect that I can give them, because they do a fantastic job.
The public in general support them and acknowledge they do a great job. I wish they have a great Christmas and hopefully we do not have any more road fatalities to go with it. I know, in the true spirit of policing, they will make the best of any circumstances - even those rostered on Christmas Eve, or Christmas Day. That always used to be a festive time, and I hope they all enjoy themselves, as we used to when we worked Christmas days, because you have to make the best of it.
Not to forget our Fire department, those handsome young men in their red trucks, who do a great job. They are there to protect us all when required. They are also there on many fun occasions; they are there for the schools at times to put on their displays and their foam pits. They do a great job. In their spare time, as they do best, they get out in their bib and brace and collect money for Christmas charities around this time. I wish them a great Christmas.
I wish my parents, my daughter, and my partner a fantastic Christmas. It will be busy, as it always is, and without the support of family, none of us can do what we do. Merry Christmas to all.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank quite a number of people who have assisted me, both in my journey to this House and since I was elected in August. The first group of people I would like to thank, and probably the most important, are the constituents of the seat of Sanderson, located in the northern suburbs of Darwin. Those people showed, by their choice on election day, the confidence they have in me. It is a great honour to be in this House and represent them and their views, irrespective of which side of politics they choose to follow, or indeed, if they do not choose to follow anyone in politics.
There has been a continual flow of constituents into my office since election day. I am very grateful for the advice they have given me and the issues they have raised. When I have contacted them, they have always been available to give me any advice I may need and, in return, they have accepted any advice I have been able to provide to them. It is a large group of people, who I would like to sincerely thank for their support on election day and up until now. I wish them, their families, their children and all those associated with them, a very happy festive season.
For those who do not subscribe to the Christian belief of Christmas, I wish them a very happy break over the change of years from 2008 to 2009.
The next group that I would like to deal with are the schools. The youth in our community form about 18% of our community, however, they are 100% of our future. It is to the schools that I convey my sincere thanks because, as a person who stands in this House and raises the concerns of our community in an effort to build a better future, it is these people who I represent, and try to make the Northern Territory a better place by my contribution, enabling them to have the very best education that we can provide in the Territory.
The principals of these schools are leaders in our community. I am a great believer that the three pillars of any community are health, education, and law and order. Without education, we do not succeed in moving along and we would all be still sitting in caves or under trees and not doing as well as we are today. There are the principals of the schools who are in my immediate electorate and those on the fringes of my electorate, where people who live within my electorate send their children to schools just out of the electorate into neighbouring electorates.
For instance, one of those within my electorate is Wagaman Primary School. I specifically thank Michele Cody, who has welcomed me on to the school council, and has given me some very informative briefings about what is going on in the school. I thank her for that. I have been on the Wulagi Primary School Council on and off for approximately 10 years. I have been going to those school council meetings. The current principal, Sue Fisher, who I believe is doing an excellent job, has also been very welcoming in my new role as the local member.
At the Anula Primary School, I record my sincere thanks to the previous principal, Sandy Cartwright, who was the acting principal for 18 months and, through no fault of her own, was not successful in obtaining the recently allocated position of principal. There was an interesting set of circumstances that caused the school council at Anula a lot of grief; however, the school council has recorded that and decided to move on, after submitting some reports to the Education department. I sincerely thank the school council for doing that, and for supporting what they saw as a need to improve the process.
Sandy Cartwright did a superb job of running the school and she introduced many new, innovative ideas about how to get kids to school. She lifted the attendance rate, the MAP testing results, the general morale of the staff and students and, generally, did a fantastic job. The interesting point was the final assembly in Term 3 of this year where the whole school turned out, along with probably the largest turnout of parents that I have ever seen, to send off a principal. There was standing room only in the assembly area and they all chose to demonstrate their support and thanks to Sandy by all dressing in purple, which is her favourite colour. It was fascinating to walk into a assembly area where there is standing room only, with hundreds and hundreds of people all dressed in purple, and a deck chair done up as a purple throne at the front. The send-off for that lady was outstanding and befitting of her status in the Anula school community.
My special thanks to Sandy for bringing that school to the point where the new principal, Karen Modoo, could come in and start from a position that is superior and advanced to perhaps where it was when she initially took over. That is not to say that previous principals did not, but Sandy brought with her, skills and capacity that built on the good work done by previous principals.
The Malak Primary School is run by Paul Nyhuis. I have students living in Anula who duck across to Malak Primary School because it is closer to them. I have people from the Malak and KOA Caravan Parks, who attend the Malak Primary School and the Karama Primary School, and the principals at those schools keep me informed on what is going on with those young people, that is Paul Nyhuis and Marg Fenbury. I thank them for the effort to inform me about what is happening when I ask questions regarding students who come from my electorate.
The other school that is very much a part of the constituents of my electorate is Leanyer Primary School and Mr Henry Gray who has been there since the school was built, and has done a superb job in being a community leader and principal of that school.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would now like to work on another part of our community in the electorate and that is the Neighbourhood Watch groups. There are two Neighbourhood Watch groups in my electorate: the Anula Neighbourhood Watch, which represents Northlakes and Anula, and ably run by the coordinator Michael McRostie, and the Neighbourhood Watch group at Wulagi, capably run by the area coordinator, Scottie. There is also the Residents Action Group in Wagaman, a very active and good group of people who are trying to improve their community. I thank all of those people who are involved in the Neighbourhood Watch and community action groups, who bring to our attention issues of importance to people at the grassroots level.
There is another initiative being run in the northern suburbs called community patrols, which are driven by both the community Neighbourhood Watch groups in my electorate. There is a fine group of people – Janice Warren, for instance, and John Lear. They are all ably guided by Paul Wyatt, who is the manager of Neighbourhood Watch. I went to a meeting recently, where they explained to me the success they are having with these community patrols and how it is having an impact. I see a great place for community patrols in the future of the Northern Territory in crime reduction strategies. They are good people, who are by no means vigilantes, but they are concerned citizens who need to be thanked.
I would like to thank the businesses in my electorate for their ongoing commitment to keep the business centres and shopping centres free from itinerants and people who consume alcohol. To their own financial detriment, they refuse to sell itinerants and drunks alcohol, foregoing what is obviously a profitable situation for them. They do a great job of keeping their particular areas under control.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank those in the Chamber. I thank those in Hansard upstairs, who are probably listening at the moment, for all the work behind the scenes into the early hours of the morning, so we can check those things the following day. Of course, the Clerk and associates in this fine House, and the advice and the patience they have given. It is wonderful to have that sort of experience at your disposal.
I also thank the Country Liberals and the party who support me in my role as an MLA and had a lot to do with getting me here. In particular, people who helped me with my Saturday mornings around the shopping centres: John Moyle, Ron Baker, and Bill and Lesley Hodge – I sincerely thank them for their outstanding efforts, and all those other members of my local branch, the North Darwin Branch, who continue to not only support their party and their side of politics, but support me as an individual, as an MLA, and as a member of their branch.
I sincerely thank my Electorate Officer, Fiona Lynch, who has come in at a difficult time and hit the ground running. She has helped me in my role and, when you are new to this House, as a number of people here realise, it is a fairly steep learning curve. I really appreciate what Fiona has done and the back up that she has given me.
I thank my family, my children Kristy Styles, Adam and Damien Styles for their effort and their support over the many years in my endeavours to enter politics. They have been my inspiration over the years and kept me going through a lot of tough times. To my two grandchildren, Telicia Browne and Dakota Browne, they are very much a reason why I keep going and work so hard to make this place better. When I look at them, I see our future in their eyes and realize why it is so important to try to make the Territory a better place. I thank them for all their advice and all the things they think I need, like the play station games for relaxation and the list my grandson gave me of play station games he believes I need, so if I ever got a chance, they are there for me to look at. He did say, also, he would have a trial run of them.
Most importantly, I would like to thank my partner Linda Fazldeen, who has been my back stop, my rock, my greatest critic, and the person who has been there to support me through all of this in my endeavours to enter politics. I have made some commitments to her and my family, that now I am here, I will work hard and not let them down.
I hope I have not missed anyone out. My colleagues on both sides of the House, my newfound friends who I get to have dinner with from time to time, albeit that we might have some serious things here, I thank you all for enriching my life.
The last person I would like to acknowledge is someone who passed from here just a couple of weeks ago. That is a very good friend of mine and to other members, particularly the ex-police officers in this House, and that is Joy Kuhl. I recognise her 30 years in the NT Police Forensic area as a scientist. She was one of the most professional people who had attention to detail, a great family and, unfortunately, was taken from us before her time. She has left not only three wonderful girls, but a partner, Rod Hooper, who has been a rock and stood by her for the last four years of her illness. I acknowledge Rod’s commitment to a wonderful person. We wish that Joy Kuhl rest in peace after a fine contribution to the Territory.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is always a pleasure to participate in the adjournment debate and to update my colleagues and put on the public record the many good things which occur in my electorate of Nhulunbuy. It is, indeed, a wonderful place and home to many wonderful people. I trust my parliamentary colleagues forgive me for reading my speech. It seemed to be a crime earlier in the evening when I was reading my speech, but I do notice it is quite common practice in the Chamber.
A documentary titled In My Father’s Country received an award for the 2008 Best Direction in a Documentary Feature in the recent Australian Director’s Guild Awards. In My Father’s Country was made in collaboration with the people of Dhuruputjpi and Gangan communities of Blue Mud Bay and offers a rare insight into one boy’s passage into becoming a man. The Yolngu language film received a $6000 grant to assist our local linguist, Merrkiyawuy Ganambarr, in developing subtitling skills for film work. As more and more films are being made in Arnhem Land, the experience for her was extremely important. I congratulate her on taking on such a great initiative to assist her community in this field.
Nhulunbuy High School has excelled again in the biannual Eratosthenes’ Project during the 2008 National Science Week coordinated by RMIT in August. It is a re-enactment of Eratosthenes’ famous experiment in measuring the angle of the sun at local noon to determine the radius of the Earth. Nhulunbuy High School is now the repeat winner of the competition, having won it in 2006. My congratulations go to the teacher, Mr Damian Alahakoon, who was also coordinator of the project at the school and who assisted the winning team at Nhulunbuy High School in 2006, as well. Congratulations go to the students who participated from the Year 10 maths group and the Year 11 physics group for winning this year’s award: Lorna Alahakoon, William Blake, Edward Brazier, Jessica Cunningham, Lauren Dunn, Melanie Hammond, Tess Hutchinson, Taylah Lewis, Samuel Marrable, Edward O’Brien, Renita Panetta-Randle, Abby Pollard, Samuel Putland, Nathan Reid, Lauren Richter, Jessie Risely, Dominic Bulters, Kieran Castelli, Dylan Edwards, Charles Hutchinson, Hazem Jebeili, Matthew Smith, Trent Thomas, Cassie Williams, and Ben Zeigler.
I pass on my very best wishes to those students at Nhulunbuy High School who have now completed their exams and other assessments for their Northern Territory Certificate of Education. It is a time of year which places students under a good deal of pressure to demonstrate the skills and knowledge they have acquired and learned, and the outcome of those results, expected before Christmas, will determine their future paths. Nhulunbuy High School students are a fine bunch of young men and women and I know that they will do well. I also know that they, along with their families and teachers, enjoyed a fantastic evening at the Year 12 end of year formal on 15 November, a night to celebrate and reflect on their achievements, not only in 2008 but throughout their school years. I visited the Town Hall as it was being decorated with a fantastic midsummer night’s theme. By the end of the afternoon and that evening the hall looked absolutely spectacular.
I am also delighted to acknowledge the achievements of seven Year 12 students who are the first ever homeland students in my region to complete their Northern Territory Certificate of Education. I add that homeland schools are not a bilingual programme but rather are recognised as English Second Language learners.
I acknowledge and congratulate the following students: Dhawungbung Gumana, Bitharrpuyngu Maymuru, Bulbuyunawuy Guyala, Gundayka Wanambi, Gawiya Mununggurr, Yarrakayngu Marawili and Warrathiri Ganambarr. A celebration was held at Garrthalala on Thursday, 30 October, to acknowledge and celebrate students’ achievements in completing Year 12. Unfortunately, I was in the Chamber for the last day of October sittings so sent my apologies along with a letter of congratulations to each student. I look forward to making a trip to Garrthalala in the near future to catch up with students and their teachers.
The teachers and aides who assisted them through to completion are Muthara Mununggurr, who is well known and highly regarded as a teacher, Abi White, Ruth Micka, Kahra Trower, Bulpunu Mununggurr and Nick Ross.
I had the opportunity in November to attend homeland school sports day coordinated by the teachers of Laynhapuy Homelands School. It was held at Birany Birany, a beautiful community on the coast, there are Gumatj people in that community. There were probably around about 100 kids who attended the sports day from surrounding communities. Given that there was sorry business occurring in a nearby community, numbers were higher than expected, which was fantastic. We had a number of members of the Geelong Football Club who travel to the Nhulunbuy region and provide fantastic development workshops to children.
No discussion about schools and student achievements is complete without acknowledging the contribution our teachers make to education and students’ lives. As a former teacher, the wife of a teacher, and the parent of three school aged children, I know how hard teachers work and greatly value their contribution to not only my children’s education but all of the children in my electorate. Teachers who are working in remote schools, in homeland schools, are extremely dedicated to the work they do.
I had the pleasure very recently of being one of the judges of Nhulunbuy Corporation’s gardening competition. It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience and, along with fellow judges, Kendell Kenway, who is community officer of the Nhulunbuy Corporation, and also Rachel Verdel, a passionate gardener, 40 gardens were visited. There are some beautiful and innovative gardens around Nhulunbuy. Judging was based on a huge range of criteria but, at the end of the day, prize winners for the gardening competition were announced at an art and craft morning, which has become a regular monthly event in Nhulunbuy. This was the October event.
We had celebrity gardener and writer, Leonie Norrington, who appears on the ABC’s Gardening Australia show, come along as a special guest.
The prize winners were: Best Rio Tinto Alcan House was won by Claire Bishop and the second prize was given to Michelle Hockings, as equal winners, because we found it impossible to separate those two beautiful gardens. The runner up in the Rio Tinto Alcan House Garden Section was Bernie Read. The best Rio Tinto Alcan Unit was won by Debbie Grenshaw and the runner up in that section was Stephen Ridden and his wife, Katie, with their new baby. The best Northern Territory Government Employee House or Duplex was won by Bob Small, and the runner up in that section was Lorrain Loftus. I have known Lorrain a long time, and she has moved house in the last 18 months. It is amazing to see what she has done in the short time she has been in her new place. The prize for the Best Private House went to Lynsey and Tom Brown at Ski Beach - an incredible garden they have. Runner up in that section went to Michelle and Mark Hurley. What was particularly impressive about their garden was the very efficient watering systems they had in place. There was one further prize for the gardening competition, awarded to the Best Street, which was Singing Rocks Road, just around the corner from where I used to live. It was judged as the winner, and resident Marie France Gilmer accepted the certificate on her neighbours’ behalf.
Winners were given $500 cash, and second place were given $350. There was also a Water Wise Award and a $50 voucher given out by Rachel Verdel from Gove Plants to Emma Frencham. Competition sponsors were Rio Tinto Alcan Gove, Northern Territory Government and Nhulunbuy Corporation Ltd. I commend Nhulunbuy Corporation for this initiative and, in particular, Kendell Kenway. The competition generated a lot of interest, a lot of community pride and, I am sure, will be even bigger in 2009.
I pay tribute to Graeme Bean. Graeme and his wife, Leonie, have retired and left Gove after 33 years. They arrived in 1975 with Graeme taking up a job with Nabalco, and they raised their two children, Therese and Paul in Nhulunbuy. Many years ago, I was Therese’s teacher. She has gone on to be an English and Drama teacher herself. Leonie worked for 23 years at Gove Hospital, and has already enjoyed a few years of retirement in Gove. The Beans were Labor Party stalwarts and were always active members of the community. Graeme was never short of advice or a tip, and I know that they are happily settled in their new home in Tassie, where I am sure they will continue their active involvement at a party and community level.
As my last adjournment for the year, I take this opportunity to wish my parliamentary colleagues a safe and happy Christmas and new year. As a new member to the Assembly, it has been an interesting and challenging time. I also acknowledge the support of the large number of staff I have met in the parliament, from the fifth floor office, through to the Office of the Speaker and to the Legislative Assembly and Parliamentary Library Services. I trust the Legislative Assembly staff are pleased to be given the gift of 10 pm finishes during sittings for this Christmas, starting next year. It is one thing for the members to go late into the night and the wee hours of the morning, but I have felt for the Clerk, the Table Office staff and the diligent Hansard staff who go until stumps.
I acknowledge my electorate officer, Jenny Djerrkura, who I joking refer to as ‘mum’ sometimes, because she goes to great lengths to look after and support me, as she does our constituents. Her extensive knowledge is absolutely invaluable as is her relationships with Yolngu. She has a big heart and generosity to match. To Jenny Laverty, who was Syd Stirling’s electorate officer and continues to keep her hand in as my relieving casual electorate officer, and provides fantastic and very efficient support. Thank you to both of the Jennys, along with the Nhulunbuy/Yirrkala branch members, who work hard to support me as the new member, which includes baking cakes, selling raffle tickets, and finding new and ingenious ways of raising funds in anticipation of the next federal and Territory elections, as well as always being on the lookout for new members to join the cause.
I thank and acknowledge my husband, Lawrence, and my beautiful children, Zoe, Harry and Patrick. They have been through a bit of an adjustment period in the last few months and, no doubt, will continue to do so, but have a growing understanding and, indeed interest, in my new job and politics, as well as issues at Territory and federal level. I want my kids to know that politics and exercising your right to hold a view and cast a vote is something they must value.
While the last few weeks of the year are always busy, I look forward to getting along to my local schools’ end of year presentation nights. Week after next, I will be in Galiwinku and look forward to an overnight visit, which will enable me to get to Gawa, which is the community at the far end of Elcho Island, some 60 km along a sandy track, as well as visit homeland communities along the way which are looked after by Marthakal Homelands. As members, particularly in bush electorates, know only too well, these people cannot come to you in your electorate office; the local member needs to go out to them and be on the ground to see and hear firsthand what is happening.
I will also be visiting Shepherdson College where, I understand, there has been a great improvement in school attendance. This is great news because, as we know, and as my colleague, the minister for Education has said repeatedly, if we are going to transform Indigenous education in the Territory and see outcomes for children, we have to begin by seeing regular attendance. Without it, no program at the school can hope to succeed.
I take this opportunity to wish my constituents a safe and happy Christmas, and I look forward to working with and for them in 2009. In spite of some very heated arguments this evening, I recognise, as does this government, that there is much work to do to assist my Yolngu constituents, but I also recognise that there is also much to be thankful for and to celebrate.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is my great pleasure to thank a few people for the wonderful support I have received from them during the year. There is, as the member for Nhulunbuy just said, a lot to be thankful for. I am not alone in that regard and there are certain people I need to thank.
In relation to, in no particular order, the Country Liberals, I particularly acknowledge the support I have received from Rick Setter, the President of the party; Bob Johnson, the party secretary and Graeme Lewis, the party treasurer. These three fellows have been there for me and provided great support throughout the year; in fact, throughout the time I have been involved in politics in the Territory.
I thank the staff in the Leader of the Opposition’s office. James Lantry has been a good friend of mine now for some time and provided a great deal of support. Greg Charter and Camden Smith, the two media advisors, have also given me a great deal of support, with Kylie Silvey, Francine Tomsen, Millie Crowe, Bonnie Hageman, Leanne Britton and Michael Delosa. I am sure my Country Liberal colleagues will agree that they do us proud and do a fantastic job for us. It is a small office and we are under-resourced, as I am sure even government members will agree. We are doing better this term than we were last term, but it is very difficult to be in opposition. You rely very heavily on the staff in the Opposition Leader’s office. These guys have been absolutely first rate and I say thank you to all of them.
My electorate officer, Helen Bateman, has been with me in my previous role as the federal member for Solomon and in this role. Helen does a marvellous job. She is probably one of those people you would almost class as apolitical, has a very good understanding of the electorate and government departments, both Northern Territory and federal. That sort of understanding is worth its weight in gold for an electorate officer. Helen has been incredible in the way she deals with constituents by directing them and solving their concerns. She is also a very active person, as most people will know. She relates very well with the public, and I am very thankful that Helen agreed to come to work for me as the member for Fong Lim.
I pay particular thanks to the staff of the Legislative Assembly: Ian McNeill, Brian Cook, Graham Gadd, Hansard staff, the wonderful job that they do, Clifton, Stokesy, he is still sitting in there, well done and thanks mate for all your support in the Chamber throughout the year. Thanks to Greg Connors. I am a bit of a Luddite when it comes to information technology and computers. Greg, as much as I sometimes have a humorous dig at him, does a fantastic job. I would like him to know that his work has been appreciated.
I thank my Country Liberal colleagues, Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills and my other colleagues, for bearing with me through an election campaign and our time in this parliament. They have been towers of strength for me, great mates and colleagues. I have not been in such a wonderful position anywhere in my parliamentary career as I am now. I am very thankful that they put their hands up and managed to win their seats because their support and friendship is fantastic. They are a great bunch of people to be involved with.
I thank members of the government - they keep me on my toes. I hope in some ways I can keep them on their toes. I note the member for Johnston is still here, thank you very much for the lively debate you have provided during the year. It is good to see. It is good that we can punch it out on the floor of this Chamber but still have a laugh and a joke afterwards. It is a bit like a boxing match, where you see these fighters, going hammer and tongs at it for 15 rounds and at the end they shake hands and are best mates.
That is one of the great things about the Territory, politics and religion come a distant second to mateship at times. You do not judge a person by their religion, race or politics - you judge them by their character. Whilst we have our political disagreements, and at times it pains you to come into this place and belt up on the other side, belt blokes that you know are decent blokes at heart, but you have to do it for the good of the electorate, the people in the Territory. I thank them for their patience with me and the like.
I thank my wife, Alicia, and my two boys, William and Henry, for their patience and support. Parliamentary life is impossible without the support of your family. I am sure everyone in this Chamber would agree that you could not do this job without the support of your family and friends. My wife has been the bedrock of my political career, particularly my federal career. It is an appallingly dreadful job as far as the strain it places on marriages and family life. It is a great achievement when a family manages to stay together throughout a parliamentary career. In the federal parliament the average marriage lasts something like one-and-a-half terms. It is a dreadful life, I have to say. You spend six months of the year in Canberra, then you are back and when you are back in your electorate you are constantly worried.
I recall the story from the federal parliament about the class of 1996. Amongst those people who were elected in 1996, not one marriage lasted out the term. That speaks loads. I know John Howard, when he was asked by a journalist once: ‘What is your greatest achievement in your political career?’ he replied that he managed to maintain his marriage. Many people could scoff at that statement, but until you have experienced life as a parliamentarian, particularly a federal parliamentarian, you will not understand what a great achievement it is to spend 30 years in the parliament and retain a marriage.
From my point of view, I could not do this job without the support of my wife and my children. My children are now at an age where they know what I am up to. When I was first elected they were a little bigger than babies. They did not know what dad was doing with his time, but now they are old enough to understand what dad does. It is a great thing that they support me in my position.
It has been a good year. Not quite good enough, politically speaking. We could have won one more seat. It would have been a great year then! Irrespective of that, it has been a good year, and it has been a good year for me. I appreciate the year we have had and my new electorate. It is a fantastic electorate. It is a great cross-section of the Northern Territory. It is very diverse. I thank the constituents in my electorate for supporting me at the last election. I am very keen to repay that support over the next three and a bit years.
Once again, thank you to everyone. Thank you very much to the Legislative Assembly team and thank you, in particular, to my colleagues. It has been a great year. I look forward to getting back here next year and slugging it out again with the government. It should be a lot of fun.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will deal largely with many issues that have been covered tonight as far as recognising the people who have helped me and us to get to where we are and to pass on Christmas wishes.
Before I do that, on 14 November this year, I was asked to go to the MacFarlane Primary School in Katherine to watch the concert the students and teachers had prepared. It was an excellent day. There were some marvellous costumes and terrific singing and dancing. I noted at the time, and I made the comment, that these are only young primary school aged kids. I do not think I had the courage when I was their age to get up and do what they were doing. Kids of today have come a long way. I take my hat off to them for having the bollocks to get up and present themselves to a great crowd of about 120 people there – other students, staff and parents.
On that day also I was asked to present some awards. I would like to take the opportunity tonight to enter into Hansard the names of the people who received those awards and the awards they received. The Sommerville Award for high levels of scholastic work went to Muriel Sholtze. I was honoured to be able to present the Chief Minister’s Literacy Awards on that day as well. The following people were the recipients of the awards. For improved reading, Shantaria Raymond; for imaginative performance, Tyesha Benny-Hobbs; improved reading, Molly Craven; improved writing, Warren Rankine; improved writing, Gordean Winton-Hill; improved oral language, Princess Backhouse; improved writing, Kieren Hayley; improved writing, Benjamin Craven. Many of those were in different age groups, hence there seems to be some repeated.
Other awards that were presented on the day included the Quiet Achiever to Edna Boddington; Sporting and Class Effort to Steven Smetz; Caring and Cooperative Award to Rose Blacksmith; Sportsperson of the Year was Tamara Rankine, and particular congratulations to the Academic Dux of the School, Ben Craven. Well done to him. The Young Australian Citizenship Award was presented to Sheyenne Von Senden.
It has been an interesting year. Many of us are new in parliament. We have changed jobs. That is an enormous step in the life anyone. It has been interesting. I must say that I have, thus far, thoroughly enjoyed the challenges that have been presented to me as a new MLA. The challenges can be broken up into different areas. You have the parliamentary challenges with things that happen here; the challenges in your electorate that are linked to what happens in parliament; and then what happens, in my case, in the shadow portfolios. It has been an interesting time. It is a very steep learning curve.
The reception I have received from people within the industries for which I am a shadow minister has been wonderful. They are very supportive. They understand that, being new to the job, there is much to learn. They have taken me on as a pupil, as such, and imparted a great deal of information to me; for that I am extremely grateful.
What I should do so I do not forget them is to move on to thanking a number of people. I place on record, first, that I thank the constituents of the electorate of Katherine. They have bestowed in me a great deal of trust and faith, and I intend to reward them over many years of service as a member of this Legislative Assembly. First and foremost, I understand they are the people who deserve to be looked after. We need to advance the true welfare of Territorians, and the people of Katherine will be the recipients of all my efforts in that regard. I thank them and I pass on to everyone in Katherine my most sincere Christmas wishes and hope for a safe and happy New Year.
I particularly thank Fay Miller, the previous member for Katherine, who showed me an enormous amount of support in the time leading up to the election. I need not go into it too much, but thanks, Fay, for coming to see me about 12 months ago and suggesting this might a path I could take. That was terrific.
I thank my electorate officer, Pat Witte. Pat has been through a very difficult time this year. She was diagnosed with breast cancer, and she was very fortunate that the diagnosis came quite early. She had to have a mastectomy on one side, which completely removed the cancer. She was, subsequently, tested and had no residual cancer, so there was no requirement for radium or chemotherapy, which is absolutely wonderful. She is now in very good health. I am pleased to report she was only off work for three-and-a-half or four weeks. She is in Darwin at the moment with the other electorate officers doing the courses they are on. I thank Pat for her support. She is a wonderful electorate officer. There is nothing and virtually no one around Katherine whom Pat does not know. That is called, I guess, corporate knowledge. People who have corporate knowledge are held, and should be held, in very high esteem in our jobs because they are the glue that holds us together. When we need some advice, or we do not know something or someone, our electorate officers help us out. Thank you, Pat.
I pass on my thanks to my parliamentary colleagues from the other side of the House. Without you, of course, we do not have a job in a funny way. Regardless of the difficulties we might come up against on the floor of this House between each other, my feelings are that there is no personal intent, no personal offence is taken. I realise it is a part of the robust debate that must go on to ensure good government in the Northern Territory. I am pleased that we have an opposition that is much closer in number to the number in government because, regardless of which side of the political fence you sit, good government can only be achieved, I believe, through having a good opposition. I do thank the members from the Labor government. I know that I am learning things as I go along, and I am learning things from them, as well. Some of the things I am learning, of course, are the things to do, and then there are others I am learning are the things you do not do. I hope I can take those lessons forward with me.
I thank my Country Liberal Party colleagues as well. One of the most enjoyable things about being on this side, I guess, I have not experienced the other side, I do not know, is the sense of teamwork that we feel. We are a terrific team, we are united, we have a common goal, we are all very capable people and very keen and committed to working hard for the people of the Northern Territory. I did not enter the debate on the change to standing orders, but it does seem to be at this juncture that the changes to standing orders are not necessarily in the best interests of Territorians. I came here to work, but it seems like my attempts to work on the floor of this House are going to be stymied by changes to the standing orders that have been put through today.
Nonetheless, thanks to everyone in the House, to the support staff we have in the Leader of the Opposition’s office. To the Hansard staff, I particularly thank them. It must be a difficult job, I could not imagine sitting there listening to 15 or 20 minutes or so at a time of us yabbering along and having to get it all down, they must type at about 120 or 130 words a minute, and hats off to them.
Thank you to all the Legislative Assembly staff. As a new member, you come to a new workplace and there is an enormous amount you have to know. All the Legislative Assembly staff have been extremely helpful; there is nothing that the ‘Legies’ will not do for you. If you ask, it will be done. They are absolutely dedicated and committed people. I extend to them my very warmest thanks for all the help that they have provided me.
I take this opportunity to wish everyone, generally, a very merry Christmas. We are at the point where our road toll is devastating – it is 71 at the moment. It spurs me on to say please, please everyone, drive carefully on our roads in the Northern Territory. It may not be your life that is affected if you choose to drive while you are drinking, while you are drunk, or if you choose to behave in an irresponsible and stupid manner - it is the life of someone else who could be affected.
I know people do silly things under some circumstances, but it is high time that motorists start to take responsibility for their own behaviour. They cannot go around blaming the system, the legislation or anything else, they need to take responsibility for themselves and to decide that they are going to be responsible drivers who are in charge of a vehicle that weighs anything from a tonne and-a-half to three tonnes of potentially deadly metal. I encourage everyone to be very careful on the roads.
In that vein, I wish everybody a very safe new year. I am sure 2009 is going to be a wonderful year for everybody in the Northern Territory. We have a spirited parliament, there is a lot of work to do, and everyone here, regardless of what side of the parliamentary divide we may sit, I believe, has in their hearts the best interests of Territorians. The methods, of course, for delivering those feelings are probably different, but nonetheless, we are all different and that makes life interesting.
I thank the Speaker in this House, the Deputy Speaker, the Acting Deputy Speaker and yourself, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker for presiding over us. It must take a fair bit of patience to sit there and listen to what goes on in the House and try to keep a cool and calm head. I thank you.
I am looking forward to next year and I am looking forward to the break, so I can catch up with a bit of work. I am looking forward to being back here in 2009 to continue the good work I believe we are all doing for the people of the Northern Territory.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about the Motor Vehicle Enthusiast Club which does a remarkable job in the Territory. As patron of the Motor Vehicle Enthusiast Club, I attended the Annual General Meeting held on the 25 October this year. This club is a shining example of volunteers getting together to pursue their interest in vintage cars and, at the same time, devoting their energies to improving the social and historical fabric of the Northern Territory.
The club has a membership of 332, making it the largest of the incorporated motoring clubs in the Northern Territory. The club operates out of the heritage-listed Qantas Hangar in Parap, under government sponsorship. It is fantastic to note the hangar attracted in excess of 5000 visitors, over the last financial year, excluding open days, to view members’ vehicles on display and the antique machinery collection of Leo Izod.
There have been some notable events at the hangar during the last 12 months as mentioned by President Peet Menzies at the AGM. These events included, in December last year, the allocation of $500 of members’ funds for the repair and refurbishment of toys and furniture for preschools. The toys and furniture are remanufactured and repaired as an ongoing project. In February 2008 the hangar was open for the Bombing of Darwin Commemoration and again in September for Father’s Day. In May, Shell/BP Aviation donated the Mercedes Benz aircraft refueller to the MVEC, and in June, the Darwin Youth Orchestra performed at the hangar for free.
The MVEC continues to support Legacy and the Lions Club. The club sponsored five children to the children’s film festival, a film outing held for children who, through no fault of their own, cannot afford the usual joys of childhood. In June, the club donated $1000 to Legacy at the hangar, money raised by providing a sausage sizzle for the Aviation and Heritage Centre open day and topped up with club funds.
During the year club volunteers commenced refurbishing The Sandfly which was relocated to the hangar from the Wharf Precinct. The steam locomotive was gifted to the Territory by Great Southern Railway in August 2005 and was deteriorating badly due to the elements at its location on the wharf. It will be great to see the locomotive restored to its pristine condition.
Of great excitement for the MVEC members was the opportunity to make their motor vehicles available to the film makers during the filming of Balibo in Darwin this year and some of the members were even used as extras. Balibo looks at the death of five newsmen who were gunned down in the town of Balibo in East Timor in 1975. The club also provided military vehicles for the Dawn Service of the Bombing of Darwin and jeeps assisted carrying TPI veterans at the head of the Anzac Day parade through Darwin.
Not only did members lovingly restore and preserve their vehicles, but they lend the vehicles voluntarily to ensure the flavour of community events is enhanced. In keeping with the community-minded spirit of members of the club, a set of miniature metal road traffic signals were purchased for the Anula Preschool. There were many events held during the year, including a Christmas dinner at the Hub, which the Transport minister will fondly remember; an Australia Day barbecue; a club run to Livingstone Reserve, victory at the annual cricket match with the classic Holden Car Club; a Mother’s Day run to Adelaide River; a combined Shannons Club Day and National Heritage Day of Motoring, which started at Hidden Valley and ended at Mindil Beach; the Shannons Extravaganza at the Darwin Show Grounds in June; a town run in July to East Point; and the touring group had a run to Alice Springs and back to Darwin, to meet the arrival of the Talbot, which was in Darwin to celebrate that 100 years ago, Harry H Dutton and mechanic, Murray Aunger, set off to cross the Australian continent from south to north. The 1908, 25 horse power Talbot had repeated the journey in 1959 and 1998, but this time arrived on the back of a trailer.
In August, a very successful Rejex Rally was held with 60 vehicles attending. In late August, members with pre-1930 cars escorted the Talbot from Winnellie Post Office to Parliament House. This is a lot of activity for a club during any given year and I am sure the members have had a great time.
I congratulate the members of the Motor Vehicles Enthusiasts Club on their adventures and their community spirit. Their endeavours are enviable and really valued by the community.
At the Casuarina Senior College meeting this month, I learnt that a large number of students from the college will be competing in the Pacific School Games to be held in Canberra during the first week of December. The Pacific School Games is an international sporting event for primary and secondary school students aged 10 to 19 years. It is the flagship event of School Sport Australia, and its mission is, and I quote:
The students competing this year from Casuarina Senior College are
In the Under 19s Swimming Squad:
Rachel Zagorskis Micaela Gerlach
Stacey Carvolth Jack Rochford
In the Under 16s Hockey Squad:
Katrina Trimble Jade Grace Lee
Jenny Boon Leah Barham
Hayden Clark Mitchell Lockley
Samuel Sommerville Adrian Quan
William Scott
In the Under 19s Track and Field Squad:
Jessica Tudor Daniel Tedcastle
In the Under 18s Bastketball Squad:
Liam Devine Jack Hose
Rhys Thomas Liam Maclachlan
Christian Williams Mitchell Tinley
Joseph Johnson Brianna Grazioli
Kate Hoschke Desiree Weetra
Unfortunately, as of yesterday, a few of the basketball players pulled out of the competition to go to another tournament which will be held in America around the same time. This is a fantastic effort and I wish these competitors all the best in Canberra. I am sure the House looks forward to hearing of their accomplishments.
It is Christmas and people are giving adjournment wrap-ups for the year. I wish the constituents of the Johnston electorate the very best for the festive season and the coming New Year. It has been an exciting and very busy year, with local government elections, electorate boundary changes and, of course, the Northern Territory election. Through these momentous occasions, together with doorknocking and community events, I have had the opportunity to meet with many of my constituents. I have enjoyed hearing their stories, taking up their issues and hearing about their triumphs in life. I have also been inspired by the tribulations that some have been through and the way they have endured and, indeed, persisted and succeeded.
I have four schools in my electorate plus a continuing interest in Wagaman Primary School, which just falls outside the new boundary. There are plenty of people in the section of Wagaman whose children go to Wagaman Primary School. I wish all the principals, Sue Healy, Jodie Green, Pam Erfurt, Michele Cody and Terry Quong, together with their teachers, a very relaxing holiday period, after the trials and tribulations of this year. Our teachers do a fantastic job.
I pray for the safety of our kids and families over the Christmas holiday season and I wish them a fantastic and exciting Christmas.
I continue to support the Wagaman Residents Committee. Unfortunately, I will miss their Christmas party this Thursday evening. This is a group that continues to watch out for their community and endeavour to make it as safe as possible for each other. The police always attend the meeting and do their best to ensure the concerns are listened to and acted upon and there are resources in place to deal with the antisocial behaviour that occurs.
I believe the police on our streets do an incredible job, made harder by increasing antisocial behaviour that we have debated in this parliament and problems with youth gangs we acknowledge. I commend the Northern Territory Police and the very difficult task they undertake and wish them a quiet and peaceful Christmas and safe New Year.
Of course there are too many people to thank individually for all the work they do. I thank all the people in my ministerial office for their support and patience, as well as those in the Australian Labor Party and the strong support I received in the election.
I thank all the people who have been commented on in the running of parliament – the Table Office, the Legislative Assembly, Hansard - you all do a fantastic job, often under difficult circumstances. I commend you and I am deeply appreciative, along with other members, for the fantastic job you do.
There are so many people working in government departments who do an extraordinary job. It is always a pleasure to go to the workplace and meet and greet people doing their everyday job. They are all very important in delivering services to the people of the Northern Territory. I know each one of them take pride in the great jobs they do. I know they will continue to do so. There are difficult times and hard situations, and I particularly commend the staff at Royal Darwin Hospital who work so diligently. There are difficult times. I was at a function there about a week-and-a-half ago, where we gave awards to people, some of whom had been serving up to 40 years. There is a great spirit amongst the people who work at Royal Darwin Hospital and, indeed, all our hospitals - Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, and Gove.
I hope the break over Christmas and New Year can refresh us all, so we can come back and do our jobs next year. Our jobs are difficult. I have heard what members have said. I have been heartened to hear new members say how much they are enjoying their role; how they are rising to the challenges of that role; and how they are enjoying a sense of camaraderie. It is a difficult game we are in. Often parliament is an adversarial place but, as someone commented - I think it was the member for Fong Lim - sometimes adversaries become the best of mates.
I think it was Jim Killen and Fred Daly who became very good mates over time. I suppose that was a bit of an odd couple. It is important, as the member for Fong Lim remarked – politics and religion should not be dividing factors. We are all part of the great fabric of Australian society, and both sides of politics, at every level, have made very significant and positive achievements with time. It is that weft and weave of politics that enriches the fabric of Australian society.
Of course, I thank my electorate officer, Judy Herring, for all her endeavours and for being such a wonderful reader of such an erratic mind. She is a great mind reader and she has been with me from the beginning - or I have been with her. She is one of the few who have been there all the way along. It does take a bit of patience and endurance, and I thank her for all her efforts.
Of course, I thank my family, and my wife, Elizabeth. There has been a lot of talk about family here tonight. I have remarked that my family sometimes gets along better when I am not there. I have always been a bit of an absentee, but I know I have great support. My wife, Elizabeth, is a real self-starter. She has her own life, her own interests, and her own mind. I enjoy her very incisive and reflective comments and appreciate her advice and, sometimes, her corrections. That is very important in our life, to have that balance.
I could not finish my last adjournment for the year without thanking Bruiser. When I get home tonight at about midnight, he will be there waiting for me. He will be happy and welcome me with his tail wagging, with his paramour, Bella, who is now his partner - although we will wait a while until she produces pups. I know there will be great demand for those pups. We are looking forward to the happy event.
It is a pleasure to be here tonight. It is the end of the year and we have one sitting day to go. As always, the last day is a bit of a roller coaster, but at the end of the sitting year, we can look back on the year. Of course, during this year I have lost a number of colleagues; that is sad and those friendships and memories remain. It is also an opportunity to get to know other people, with different points of view and contributions.
It is a funny game we are in. We all have a turn under the spotlight, and it can be uncomfortable at times. As Health Minister you probably have more turns than most, but it is a strange game. I will just say a bit of a motto, you come in here and basically, it is not exactly how you expect it. Sometimes you get to where you think you want to be, and there is an old saying that my wife says to me, ‘be very careful what you wish for’ and it is very true. That is something I think others have to find out for themselves, but I am glad of the opportunities I have had in this place and through being the member for Johnston.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish the minister well when he sends Bruiser a copy of his very kind comments in the Hansard. Bruiser is obviously a dog who can read, and I am sure he will be elated when he reads the adjournment speech.
I will be relatively brief. It has been a big year. An election is the obvious thing that sums up the year. I am being very grateful for being elected a third time and for having increased my vote. I thank all constituents in Araluen and wish each and every one of them a very happy and safe Christmas.
I also wish my colleagues a happy and safe Christmas. It has been very interesting and different - after three-and-a-half years as a one of a team member of four - to all of a sudden be part of a team of 11. The newer members, because I know how hard they work, will have some appreciation, of the almost indescribable workload we had over a three-and-a-half year period. I regarded that period, and will always regard that period, as very enriching. I do not think I have ever worked as hard in my life. I hope no opposition in this country, or others, is reduced to a team of four. It is not good for the running of the parliament, the people of the Northern Territory, or for the government, given the very important roles that oppositions have.
As members have said, we do not always see eye to eye in this Chamber, although often we do, but the role of the opposition can never be underestimated. I have said before and will say again, oppositions must hold governments’ accountable. No government is anywhere near perfect, and governments are famously bad at keeping themselves accountable. Therefore, the role of the opposition is very important. To have so many colleagues, in the last few months and the last couple of sittings, who have an enormous amount of energy and potential, has been very gratifying.
I take this opportunity to thank members of the Legislative Assembly, the Table Office, Hansard staff, and other members of the staff of the Legislative Assembly; they really provide great assistance. I will not name them all, for fear of leaving someone out, but they know who they are.
I would like to make special reference of the Parliamentary Library Service. It is a sensational service and I use them a lot. I pay particular tribute and thanks to Di Sinclair, whose assistance has been truly wonderful. I know that she has been short staffed. She has a colleague who has joined her in relatively recent times. The service the Parliamentary Library Service provides to members is sensational. The detail they can provide, the speed with which they provide it, and their courteous and efficient manner, I believe, is simply outstanding. I urge members on both sides to use the Parliamentary Library Service as often as they can. I have encouraged our newer colleagues to do so. It is endless in terms of what they can provide, and all of us make better politicians if we are well and widely read. Of course, everyone makes mistakes, in and out of this Chamber, but if you have the material, it is generally of great assistance. Thank you to Di Sinclair, in particular, for her efforts over the last year or so.
In conclusion, I cannot finish the last adjournment speech of the year without referring to the government members’ decidedly offensive, aggressive, rude, and hostile conduct. I am also concerned about the arrogance displayed by members opposite. I am deeply concerned that, three-and-a-half months after an election, the government is demonstrating it is lazy, tired, and arrogant. You would have thought that three-and-a-half months in, the government would have a spring in its step. Recently elected, I know it was a tight election, but what a wonderful position you are all in, as ministers of the Crown, to make decisions for the betterment of your fellow Territorians.
I came in with you, minister, and we have all seen things change and different patterns emerge over the seven year period. However, the way I have seen the government performing in the last three months has been the worst. Whilst I suppose that provides political opportunities, I am genuinely saddened by it, because the government and government ministers are the ones who are meant to be working hard for Territorians. I do not believe they are. I believe that, on balance, members opposite have behaved disgracefully, and I remain deeply concerned about that. It will be a long four years if the government continues carrying on the way it has been. It is a government out of ideas, out of talent, and three-and-a-half months after an election, it is a government out of energy. That should be a concern to members within government. It is a concern to my colleagues and I, and I believe it will increasingly become a concern to our fellow Territorians.
With those comments, I conclude. I wish members and parliamentary colleagues, a happy and safe Christmas.
Mr Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the House do now adjourn.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 10
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Giles
Mr Henderson Mr Mills
Mr Knight Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The House is not adjourned yet. Resume your seats. The House stands adjourned until Thursday, 27 November at 10 am.
The Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Pairs Arrangement
Pairs Arrangement
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs for today which is for the period from 11 pm Wednesday, 26 November and covering all of Thursday, 27 November for the member for Karama who will be covered by the member for Port Darwin. I table the document.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Australia – Launch in Darwin
Australia – Launch in Darwin
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I report on the successful launch of Baz Luhrmann’s epic film Australia. On Tuesday, 18 November, Territorians were given the opportunity to join in the celebrations to launch Baz Luhrmann’s latest masterpiece.
Darwin’s celebrations included a pre-screening function at one of Darwin’s newest tourist attractions, Crocosaurus Cove, followed by the screening of the film at Birch Carroll and Coyle Darwin Cinema. The timing of this event occurred simultaneously with Sydney’s gala event and began ahead of Bowen’s celebrations. The red carpet activities at each event were captured live by A Current Affair broadcasting from Darwin. Three hundred and forty-eight invited guests, including one bloke in a suit and thongs, and a display by Mick’s Whips, provided the perfect backdrop for the red carpet at the front of Darwin Cinema; a uniquely Territorian scene broadcast around Australia.
Darwin’s premiere event celebrated who we are and where we live. Nearly 130 civilians and evacuees from the bombing of Darwin, and also from Katherine and Pine Creek during World War II, attended this event and were accompanied by members of their family. These VIP guests are representatives of the true stars of the movie.
We also had one of the film stars attend, young Territorian, Angus Pilakui, who plays the character of Goolaj in the film. He travelled especially to Darwin to watch the end result of this production. Goolaj is one of the two sidekicks who are with Hugh Jackman’s character throughout much of the film. As well as Angus, we had some of Darwin’s extras attend the screening. It was also great to see many of the local volunteers who helped during the production of the film at this event proudly wearing their ‘Australia’ uniforms. Invited guests also included the wharf traders and harbour cruise operators who demonstrated a lot of patience before and during the filming in Darwin last year. As highlighted in the local media, we also had a special guest at our event – Baz Luhrmann personally addressed the audience before screening the film via a pre-recorded message.
Having now seen the film, I can truly say the Northern Territory’s history, landscape, culture and natural beauty play a significant role in providing the backdrop for the film and the substance in its story. Most importantly, this film brings to the forefront awareness of the catastrophe which occurred in 1942 when Japanese air forces bombed Darwin, Pine Creek and Katherine. For many people across Australia, and the world, this is an untold story.
Regardless of where the filming took place, Darwin and the Northern Territory are the true stars in this film. We will be making the most of the attention surrounding the movie to position the Top End, in particular, inviting people to enjoy our tropical summers. Tourism NT plans to link the positives of the film with the NT through our existing marketing programs and campaign schedules. The campaign will include: cinema advertising on 1200 screens across Australia for the first five weeks release of the film; a special cinema campaign in conjunction with Jetstar and Territory Discoveries with Palace Cinemas; a 12-page liftout in the Australian Financial Review released on 29 November promoting deals and packages for the Territory; cooperative products and price advertising featured in Qweekend, The Australian magazine, and Sunday Life; Territory Discoveries Postcards featuring 10 outback travel deals aligned with the themes of the movie and integrated online; and travel trade education programs with Flight Centre, Harvey World Cinemas and Travel Scene.
I acknowledge the people who brought together this fantastic event. Thanks to Fox Studios Australia and Bazmark Productions for agreeing to have this special screening in Darwin; thanks to the local and national media who continue to promote the significance of Darwin in this great film; thanks to the team at Birch Carroll and Coyle Darwin Cinema and Crocosaurus Cove for their support of the event; and thanks to the joint government team from my department and Tourism NT which coordinated the delivery of this special screening.
I encourage all Australians and Territorians, and everyone in this House to see this film, if only to get a strong appreciation not only of the historic role and sacrifice that Darwin and its people played in World War II, but the story is also about our pastoral industry. It is also, very significantly, about our Stolen Generations, and the tragedies and triumphs of that generation during this period. It truly is a fantastic film. It puts the Territory and Darwin on cinema screens to millions of people around the world. I urge everyone to see it. I thank everyone who contributed to making this event such a great success.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, as yet, I have not seen the movie. I will be attending one of the premieres. There seem to be premieres all over the place. Red Cross is running one and I am happy to support them.
This demonstrates, clearly, the power of cinema. Cinema takes images and disburses them all around the world; we recognise that. I recognise that the Chief Minister has taken advantage of the opportunity that has been presented through this film. Crocodile Dundee provided another opportunity where the image of the Territory was sent abroad. To take the opportunity now to drive further the message of the place we live and our story is important.
However, there is the opportunity to create our own opportunity. Recognising the power of cinema, and that an event has occurred which the Chief Minister has played some part in riding off and then driving messages further - that is good and that is taking advantage of the opportunity that does exist. But, right here in the Territory is our own film and television industry. Underneath this is the recognition of the power of cinema. What about investing more deeply and in a more visionary way in the way that our own industry operates? I know that the industry has lobbied for one way long and hard; to not be regarded as an industry that is in the arts, but as an industry in business, and regarded as a business.
Clearly, the movie Australia shows the positive effect that can occur in promoting the Northern Territory. How much more, then, could we invest in our own film and television industry to drive that message much further, right here at home? Here is an opportunity to take it even further …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments. I can advise that it was this government which established the Northern Territory Film Office and supports the local industry with a grants program. Like all industries and every grants program of government - whether it be community groups, multicultural groups, sporting groups – it is always over-subscribed; there could always be more money put to these programs.
There is a review being conducted at the NT Film Office at the moment, and the issue that the Opposition Leader talked about is one of the terms of reference in that review. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments and support of our film industry. Again, I urge everyone to see this great film over the Christmas holidays.
Gamba Grass – Declaration as a Weed
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, today I inform the House that I have declared gamba grass as a weed under the Weeds Management Act. This decision supports the key recommendation from the Environment and Sustainable Development Sessional Committee document Report of Invasive Species and Management Programs in the Northern Territory released in May this year.
My declaration implements a zoned approach which allows the majority of non-pastoral uses of gamba grass to continue to do so while preventing further spread of gamba grass into currently clean areas. As a result of this zoned approach, those properties in what we call the BC Zone will be required to actively control and manage the grass, while properties in the AC Zone will be required to eradicate any infestations of grass. Madam Speaker, I table a map setting out the location of the two zones.
I wish to make it absolutely clear this declaration is about working with property owners in a cooperative manner and not taking a heavy-handed compliance approach. Over the next six months, a gamba grass weeds management plan will be developed in consultation with the general public, and it will provide guidance to landowners on the best approaches to managing gamba on their property.
Gamba grass and the debate on whether to declare or not has been a concern and a very topical issue for some time. It is a highly invasive species, which out-competes our native vegetation. Gamba grass tolerates a wide range of soil types and is capable of sustaining drought and fire, making it well suited to conditions in northern Australian savannahs. Gamba grass has a seed viability of three years, and can grow up to 4 m high and nearly 1 m in diameter. I am sure you would all have seen it as you drive along the Stuart Highway standing tall and green long after the native spear grass is brown and has been flattened or burnt off. Given its density and height, gamba grass can also fuel highly destructive late Dry Season fires, which have three to eight times the intensity of native grass fires. These potentially dangerous fires alter the ecosystem and, in some instances, result in a gamba grass monoculture. The rapid establishment of unmanaged gamba grass populations in the Top End has resulted in significant economic, ecological and cultural impacts. It is a significant risk to property and public safety.
I am well aware that gamba grass is considered an important improved pasture species for cattle production and is still used by some property owners. It has been a focus of this government to ensure that we develop an appropriate response to gamba grass, one which considers not only the environmental risks of the species, but recognises and supports those landowners who use it as cattle fodder. The government has considered its competing interests carefully before making a decision on gamba grass. This has taken some time, but I would prefer to take the time to develop and implement an informed decision rather than feel pressured to make a rush decision on such a significant matter.
The government must be proactive in the development of managed plans for government-owned areas, just as other landowners are obliged to do. I am pleased to announce that my department and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure are currently working closely together to map and control weeds on Crown land, and prevent Crown land from being a point source for invasive species. This is a significant decision and one that provides a good outcome for the environment and for landholders actively using gamba grass for cattle production in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, by joining with Western Australia and Queensland, which have also declared gamba grass as a weed, we now have the opportunity to coordinate action across northern Australia. This is a decision that I firmly believe is in the long-term future interests of the Territory.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report about gamba grass. It is an important issue, but there needs to be a balance. The cattle industry, in particular, needs to be protected because we know gamba grass is such a good fodder for growing cattle. I look forward to seeing the plan you are working on at the moment. On the other side of the coin, this is going to be very difficult for government to manage on Crown land. It will be good to see the plan to manage gamba grass on Crown land.
We all know that gamba grass creates very hot and intensive fires that can be very destructive. It is a fact of life that we have gamba grass in the Northern Territory now, but there needs to be, as I said, that balance. The cattle industry is a big industry in the Northern Territory, and it needs to be protected. One of the hardest things I can see is that government has now declared it a weed. What worries me, when something is declared a weed, is whether there be changes in the future on how you may, perhaps, make people who use gamba grass in the cattle industry get rid of that grass on their lands. They need to be protected with any plan that is put forward. One of the biggest challenges is managing gamba grass on Crown land.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, at last some decision has been made and I do not believe that the government has rushed it. The gamba issue has been around for - I do not know how many years - probably ever since it was introduced. Having been on Litchfield council for some time, and knowing the cost to that council to control that invasive species in its drains and roadsides, I am pleased to see that the government has come to some decision about the control of that particular weed. It is a fine balancing act. There is no doubt that gamba plays an important part, especially in the live cattle industry.
I visited Jindare Station two years ago, and spoke to the manager of that station. He was very much in support of the use of gamba grass as part of his animal husbandry program. However, he did admit that the station next door had gamba grass and it was not controlled or grazed and, therefore, it created some problems.
Even though the government has some ideas about now controlling it - or more or less put a boundary around how far gamba grass can spread outside the Territory - to put these plans into action and to control gamba grass is going to be the real challenge. This challenge is not only for its own government land – there are vast expanses of government land in this area - but also for the councils’ land. The council for Batchelor, the Coomalie council, has major problems with gamba grass, as well as individual landowners. The government may look at playing a role in helping landowners by expanding the role of Landcare groups or by giving subsidies for the use of glyphosate, which would be needed.
I believe there is also room for the government to look at doing some hybridising work with gamba grass. If a gamba grass variety could be grown that produces non-fertile seed it would mean it would not spread by seed being distributed in the wind, in fires or by birds, but could be grown and be useful ...
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: As long as we have Berrimah Research Station there to do that kind of work ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition and the member for Nelson for their positive input. I take this opportunity to say to my shadow that it was stressed in the report that there is a six-month weeds management plan that will be put together in consultation with the pastoral industry. We know that this is a tough decision, but a decision that is based on preserving the environment for the future generations of Territorians. We are working with the pastoral industry. I thank Luke Bowen and other members of the pastoral industry for having input in working with government and taking a positive outlook on the environment.
Building Northern Territory Industry Participation Policy
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, the Building Northern Territory Industry Participation policy was launched in May 2003 in conjunction with broader Northern Territory government procurement reforms. This policy is aimed to increase business and industry participation in projects by providing competitive Territory businesses with more opportunities to compete for business generated by major projects.
It is targeted to maximise business and industry benefits arising from Territory economic growth, including the development of industry capabilities, skills and experience. Under the policy, industry participation plans are intended to assist project proponents and developers to: maximise opportunities; utilise local suppliers, services and labour; improve the capacity of businesses to compete globally; and assist in decision-making in relation to government purchasing and investment, where value will be the primary consideration.
Industry participation plans are required for all Northern Territory government tender projects which have an expected value in excess of $5m, and for Territory public/private partnerships. The requirement is for project proponents and developers to provide a statement of their commitment to local participation through an industry participation plan. Proponents of private sector projects are also actively encouraged to prepare an industry participation plan. Industry participation plans have been integrated into relevant Northern Territory government procurement processes, and enable project proponents to show how they will encourage local industry participation and development.
Industry participations plans are assessed and run by my Department of Business and Employment against a satisfactory explanation of: how services, supplies and labour would be sourced and utilised; proposed enhancements to business and industry capability; regional economic benefits; proposal for Indigenous participation; communication strategy; and reporting methodology.
My department has assisted several companies to prepare suitable plans to address all the criteria. This initiative, together with the government’s procurement policies and its partnership with the Northern Territory industry capability network, are the cornerstones of the government’s approach to local industry engagement for capital works.
My department is currently monitoring 24 industry participation plans, totalling in excess of $1bn of development in the Northern Territory. Examples of projects which have industry participation plans include: ENI Blacktip, APT Bonaparte gas pipeline, Marrara Netball Centre, Berrimah Road duplication, Fort Hill Wharf demolition, Weddell power plant, and the Victoria Highway upgrade.
My department has recently had discussions with a proponent of major projects, including INPEX and Jetstar Airlines, with regard to development of industry participation plans for their projects. Jetstar Airlines industry participation plan was recently approved, and INPEX is working towards lodging an industry participation plan within six months.
I am pleased to advise that my department is working through its Procurement Services Branch to integrate the Building Northern Territory’s Industry Participation policy with tender documentation. Implementation of operational arrangements is being revised in consultation with key stakeholders and will be progressively introduced. The revised policy will be launched on completion of this process.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table a list outlining the projects that are currently covered by industry participation plans.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement. I have some concerns that it is just another example of rhetoric and will, in fact, deliver nothing. Industry participation plans make good business sense for most businesses. It is far better for most businesses, for commercial reasons, to employ people locally rather than having to drag companies up from interstate.
Having said that, this government is the biggest failure in regard to following its own principle. In fact, it has an appalling track record. It is a well-known fact that this government is famous for employing interstate consultants to work on the fifth floor to run its spin when there are plenty of local businesses which could do the job adequately. I encourage the government not just to speak of these things, but to act in the same manner.
One only has to look around the Territory business community to see businesses that operate well and do a great job and, yet, this government constantly recruits services from interstate. I find that an appalling situation and something that should …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his contribution. The reality is that the member sometimes makes statements and, then, he has to take the foot out of his mouth because he leaves himself quite open. As for the rhetoric, I just tabled a document that shows industry participation plans for projects worth $1bn. I invite him to have a look at them and see that we put our money where our mouth is.
I am absolutely thrilled to hear the member for Nelson supporting a GM-modified product, even if it is a grass.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 21)
(Serial 21)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
As previously announced by the government, the proposed legislation provides for four-year fixed-term elections in the Northern Territory, and makes a number of consequential amendments to accommodate this. Currently, South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and the ACT all have fixed-term elections. There was a bill before the previous parliament in Western Australia that would have provided for fixed terms in that state as well. Whilst that bill was discontinued with the proroguing of the Western Australian parliament, I am advised that the incoming government indicated during the election campaign that it supported fixed-term elections.
The population of the current jurisdictions with fixed-term elections represents approximately 70% of Australian electors. Should Western Australia move to a fixed term, this figure would rise to 80%. Fixed terms will reduce public uncertainty, allow participants to pre-plan, and assist in the efficient delivery of voting services. These measures should optimise voter participation in elections, and that can only strengthen our system of parliamentary democracy.
Following the last election, a number of voters expressed concern that the parliament had not run its full term. The government has considered those comments, and has responded. This is a government that listens to the public, and acts appropriately.
The Electoral Act currently provides that a general election must not be held within three years of the first sittings of a new parliament unless extraordinary circumstances occur. The Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act provides that the period from the first sitting of the new parliament to the date of the next general election shall not be more than four years.
Working within the limitations set by the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, the proposed scheme provides that future elections in the Northern Territory will occur on the fourth Saturday of August in the fourth year after the year of the previous general election. Under this formula, the scheduled date for the next Territory general election is Saturday, 25 August 2012. Successive elections will be held in August 2016, 2020, 2024 and so on.
Honourable members will appreciate that there will always be difficulties choosing a date in advance. No matter what the date, it is bound to clash with something or be inconvient for someone. The scheduled date is the best available, having regard to possible weather restrictions, school holidays, major events and financial reporting obligations. Circumstances may rise at some time in the future where it is neither desirable nor feasible for the Legislative Assembly to continue sitting until the next scheduled election date. To deal with such situations, the provisions of the existing act which enabled the Administrator to issue a writ for a general election in extraordinary circumstances will continue. These arise where the parliament has passed a resolution of no confidence in the government of the day, or where the parliament fails to pass an Appropriation Bill for the ordinary annual services of government.
In the 30 years of self-government in the Territory, there has never been a general election under such circumstances but, nevertheless, it is necessary to deal with the issue and to deal with how the date for the election following an extraordinary general election is to be determined. If, at some stage in the future, it was necessary to hold an extraordinary general election in the month of May, and that year was the scheduled year for a general election, then the inflexible system could conceivably require the Northern Territory to hold two general elections within a very short period of time. This is clearly undesirable. It would be costly, create uncertainty and erode stability. To use the date of the extraordinary election as the new date for calculating future elections would be similarly undesirable. The date of the extraordinary election may occur in the middle of the Wet Season or on the AFL Grand Final weekend, and all future elections would be held on the anniversary of this inconvient date.
To avoid the need to hold two general elections within a short period of time, and to avoid having to hold future elections at an unsuitable time of the year, the bill provides a new mechanism for determining the date of the general election following an extraordinary one. It provides that the term of the Legislative Assembly immediately following an extraordinary general election will be for the remainder of the year of that election, and the next election will be held on the scheduled date; that is, the fourth Saturday in August in the third year following. For example, if there was an extraordinary general election held in December 2014, the election following that would not be held on the fourth Saturday in August in 2016, the schedule date that would have been used if there had been no extraordinary event but, rather, on the fourth Saturday in August 2017 and, then, at regular four-yearly intervals after that.
The current Commonwealth Electoral Act prevents states and territories from holding an election on the polling date for a general federal election. The Commonwealth does not have fixed terms, so it is necessary to provide some mechanism to move the Territory scheduled election date if this clashes with a future federal election. A provision in the bill allows the Administrator to set another date for the Territory general election within two months of the scheduled date that had to be abandoned, because of the federal election. The alternative date has to be a Saturday.
Even when the date for the Territory general election is known in advance, the length of the statutory election period - that is, the number of days between the issue of the writ and the polling day - is still an important issue. In this period, nominations need to be lodged, rolls closed and postal and pre-poll voting organised.
Clearly, knowing the date in advance is going to help considerably. Things like mobile polling, staffing and printing can be planned in advanced, and this should make the process more efficient. Where there has been cause for a longer election period in the Territory, there are factors that weigh against too long a period. These include the more time the Territory is in caretaker mode, the longer the period the parliament is not functioning and the greater the likelihood that unforeseen events may arise. The calls for a longer period are based on the view that extra time would assist in the delivery of voter services and, in particular, assist in regard to postal and pre-poll voting.
The government acknowledges the concerns that have been raised and, to address them, the bill contains three specific measures to facilitate an ordinary election. These measures should assist in maximising the opportunity to vote. They are:
an amendment to ensure that postal votes can be despatched as soon as practical after the close of nominations and the draw for positions on the ballot papers
has taken place. This is a significant improvement to the current requirements that postal votes cannot be sent out by the Electoral Commissioner until nine days
after the writ or the election has been issued;
and before polling day. This replaces the provision which prevented the commission from commencing pre-polling until 13 days after the issue of the writ; and, finally,
an amendment to add an extra day to the electoral period. Given that the bill now provides that scheduled elections will be held on Saturdays, this provision will mean
that the writs for the election will be issued on Mondays, rather than on Tuesdays as traditionally occurred in the past.
The government is confident that these measures will provide a strong, robust electoral system that will maximise a number of people being in a position to cast a vote within a reasonable time frame. In regard to the length of the election period, it is noted that the past two elections have been successfully carried out under the current 19-day schedule, and knowing the election date in advance is going to assist preparation and planning in future years.
Fixed-term elections will mark another milestone in the development of the Northern Territory. As we move towards greater certainty in regard to population growth and industrial development, it is time to update the electoral process. The proposed measures will promote certainty and stability, and should assist both the public and industry plan for the future.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
OMBUDSMAN BILL
(Serial 25)
(Serial 25)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The primary purpose of the Ombudsman Bill is to establish a transparent, modern, best practice, and comprehensive scheme for the ongoing operation of the Ombudsman in the Northern Territory. The government commissioned a review of the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act as part of our commitment to strengthening the role of the Ombudsman. The review examined all aspects of the existing framework to ensure that Territorians have in place an accessible and comprehensive scheme for resolving complaints about administrative actions taken by public authorities and the conduct of police officers.
The review considered the Ombudsman’s powers; existing practices and procedures; use of conciliation and mediation as an alternate dispute resolution mechanism; and involvement with the police complaints process with particular regard to best practice in the delivery of a more open and transparent complaints handling process.
The public discussion paper prepared for the review received over 30 submissions in addition to various verbal submissions, and a draft bill was released to targeted stakeholders in September 2004. The comments received through the consultation process, together with input from the new Ombudsman who commenced in August 2006, have all been taken into account in presenting honourable members with the Ombudsman Bill 2008.
As honourable members would be aware, the primary role of the Ombudsman is to investigate and deal with complaints. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction extends to administrative actions of public authorities and the conduct of police officers whilst on duty. As Chief Minister and Minister for Police, I wholly support these additional safeguards to the integrity of our police force. My government has complete confidence in our police force and the conduct of its officers. However, in the unlikely event that corruption was ever suspected or detected, my government and the wider community must be confident that there is legislation in place that provides the Ombudsman with sufficient powers to conduct the necessary investigation.
In carrying out this role, the Ombudsman will proactively improve the quality of public administration through the development of complaints procedures and a resolution of disputes. I am confident that this new legislation will contribute significantly to the Ombudsman fulfilling that role.
Key inclusions of the bill that support the discharge of the Ombudsman’s functions include:
the creation of detailed legislation providing for a clearer and more transparent delivery of a complaints process;
The purpose of this is to allow police officers access to the Ombudsman without comprising the Commissioner of Police’s
management responsibilities; and
In addition, I draw honourable members’ attention to one of the consequential amendments being made to the Police Administration Act. The Ethical and Professional Standards Command is, for the first time, established in legislation. This command conducts the preliminary inquiries and investigations into complaints regarding police conduct. As the command’s name suggests, its role is to ensure the highest ethical and professional standards within our police force.
I now turn to specific elements of the bill.
Part 1 of the bill deals with preliminary matters, including objects upon which the bill is drafted. These objects are to give people a timely, effective, independent, impartial and fair way of investigating and dealing with complaints about administrative action of public authorities and conduct of police officers, and to improve the quality of decision-making and administer the practice by public authorities.
Part 2 contains essential interpretation clauses of the bill, commencing with a detailed definitions clause. Ombudsman legislation is consulted by many people, few of whom have an understanding of legislation, and a comprehensive definition section will aid in understanding the act. Part 2 also defines the basic concepts of public authorities and administrative action, and defines what constitutes police conduct for the purpose of the Ombudsman’s powers. Specifically, the kinds of complaints which can be dealt with by the Ombudsman include: administrative actions such as a decision, an act, or a failure to make a decision or to act; and the conduct of a police officer when the officer is on duty or purporting to be on duty. It should be noted that the conduct of an off-duty police officer is not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
Part 2 also sets out the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman which includes: all government agencies; the police force; Power and Water Corporation; local government councils; any other entities which have been created under the law of the Territory for a public purpose; and any entity in another act or prescribed by regulation as subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
Part 3 of the bill establishes the functions and powers of the Ombudsman. A function of the Ombudsman is to deal with complaints about the administrative actions of public authorities. In doing so, the Ombudsman may make recommendations for the improvement of the practices and procedures of the authority. The role of the Ombudsman includes making recommendations about how administrative practices and procedures can be improved.
Similarly, the Ombudsman can investigate complaints about the conduct of police officers. The Ombudsman may then make recommendations with regard to addressing the complaint. Although the Ombudsman has no power to direct, the Ombudsman position has the power under Part 9 of the bill to make reports on any aspect of an investigation which must be tabled in this Assembly.
Part 3 also includes a strong statement as to the independence of the Ombudsman. It stipulates that the position is not subject to direction from any person with regard to the performance of functions. The Ombudsman is, therefore, free to act independently, impartially, and in the public interest. In cementing the independence of the position even further, my government has decided to change the tenure of the Ombudsman to a one-off appointment of seven years. This is consistent with the Northern Territory’s other significant government officer of accountability, the Auditor-General.
Part 4 of the Ombudsman Bill is critical to understanding the scope of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and sets out clearly what is not within the jurisdiction. Examples of actions and entities outside jurisdiction include:
the deliberations of Executive Council and Cabinet;
This is because there is a less compelling need for access by the Ombudsman to the deliberative processes of bodies that have procedures and processes
that provide substantial and transparent protections of citizens’ rights, and that must operate in accordance with the principles of natural justice and procedural
fairness. However, this provision does not prevent the Ombudsman investigating if there has been an unreasonable delay in relation to action;
Further, the Ombudsman cannot investigate a matter where the complainant has an alternate avenue for resolution, such as an appeal, review or court action, except when it would be unreasonable to expect a person to resort to that alternative avenue. Since the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act first commenced in 1978, a number of bodies have been established to deal with complaints by Territorians. Some complainants choose to exercise all their options and may make the same complaint to a number of complaints entities, for example, the Information Commissioner, the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner and the Ombudsman. In order to avoid inappropriate duplication of investigative activity, provision has been made for complaints entities to refer complaints to each other.
Part 5 of the bill provides for an expansion of who is expressly allowed to make a police complaint to the Ombudsman. In relation to police complaints currently, only the person directly aggrieved by the conduct of an officer can make a complaint. Under the new provisions, a third party who has a substantive issue to raise, or has firsthand evidence about a matter, may complain to the Ombudsman.
Also, for the first time, police officers are able to make a complaint to the Ombudsman about the serious misconduct of another police officer. Should a police officer feel, for whatever reason, that he or she is unable to report the serious misconduct of another officer to a senior officer within the police force, the complaint can be made to the Ombudsman who may then independently investigate the complaint. This represents yet another extremely important safeguard in ensuring that our police force continues to remain free of corruption.
Part 6 is substantial and contains provisions specific to complaints and investigations about the administrative actions of public authorities. First and foremost, this part deals with the process of preliminary inquiries. Preliminary inquiries are an initial request for information made by the Ombudsman about a matter to determine whether it falls within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and, if it does, whether the matter should be investigated.
The vast majority of complaints are resolved at the preliminary inquiry stage. Supporting the utilisation of less resource-intensive preliminary investigations, the Ombudsman has been given additional authority to protect information obtained in such an inquiry from being released. Currently, only information provided during a formal investigation is covered by the existing act’s secrecy provisions. This has led to a number of instances where an investigation has had to be commenced in order to gain access to information which is subject to legislative provisions to maintain its secrecy.
One of the most innovative changes in this bill is the inclusion of conciliation and mediation as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. The Ombudsman may, at any time, offer a complainant the opportunity to resolve a matter through voluntary conciliation or mediation. Through this process parties have the option of attempting to reach an agreement in a confidential environment without fear that disclosed information may be used in the course of a later investigation. Alternate dispute resolution processes present an excellent avenue for resolving complaints in a cost-effective and timely manner.
Part 6 of the bill also contains the Ombudsman’s powers to conduct an investigation, and includes the new power for the Ombudsman to direct a public authority to stop performing an administrative action for a period of up to 45 days. It is expected that this power would be used in a very limited number of instances. The Ombudsman can only make such a direction where the public authority’s action is likely to prejudice the investigation or affect the implementation of a potential Ombudsman’s recommendation. Further, the Ombudsman must be satisfied that compliance with the notice will not breach a contract or other legal obligation.
The Ombudsman’s reporting requirements following an investigation are also set out in this part of the act. The provisions reflect the concept of natural justice; therefore, should the Ombudsman wish to make any adverse comments concerning a person or authority in relation to the investigation, that person or authority must be given an opportunity to make a submission in response to the criticism. This submission must then be taken into account fairly when drafting the final report.
Part 7 of the bill deals exclusively with complaints about police conduct. The current Ombudsman legislation does not deal clearly with complaints about police conduct and has been the subject of judicial interpretation. In response to this, changes have been made to provide a transparent, flexible and responsive scheme for dealing with complaints about on-duty police conduct.
Complaints about police conduct range from alleged poor customer service through to serious misuse of power. To address the range of situations where a complaint may arise, the Ombudsman has been empowered with a variety of options for dealing with a complaint against police conduct. These include conciliation, the police complaints resolution process, investigations by police, investigations by police but with the Ombudsman making the final report, and investigations and report by the Ombudsman. In all instances, the Ombudsman has oversight and audit role as to how each complaint is dealt with. This role should not be underestimated.
Some commentators are of the view that police investigating police will never give a fair outcome. In the scheme established by this bill, at any time and at the Ombudsman’s own volition, the Ombudsman can audit an Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act investigation being undertaken by police. The Ombudsman may then choose to withdraw the handling of complaint from police and undertake the investigation and reporting through the Office of the Ombudsman. Importantly, the Ombudsman is the final arbiter and has the ultimate decision-making power on what recommendations and information should be included in the final report of an investigation.
Part 7 is, by necessity, quite extensive, and for good reason. Territorians need to be able to see in the act how their complaints will be handled, by whom, and the reports the complainants can expect to receive.
Part 8 establishes the confidentiality provisions and also creates offence provisions. Aside from the few exceptions relating to ministerial and Executive Council communications, information which would otherwise be confidential must be disclosed if the Ombudsman requests it for the purposes of a preliminary inquiry or an investigation.
The provisions detailing the offences under the act have been significantly updated to more accurately reflect the appropriate penalties which should be attached to the prescribed offences. I make no apologies for the fact that a number of the penalties are higher than comparable ones in other jurisdictions. It is extremely important that employees of public authorities, police officers, and Territorians generally cooperate with the Ombudsman. The offences include: disclosure of confidential information whilst a complaint is being dealt with; preventing or obstructing a person from making a complaint; making a false complaint; taking reprisal against a person as a result of a complaint having been made; failing to provide a document when requested by the Ombudsman; and providing false or misleading statements.
Turning to Part 9, a significant provision is the change in the Ombudsman’s tenure. Currently, the Ombudsman is appointed by the Administrator on the recommendation of this Assembly for up to five years. There is no limitation to the number of occasions on which the Ombudsman can seek further appointments. Members are already aware that my government indicated its intention in 2006 to change the tenure of the Ombudsman. This bill provides that the Ombudsman will, in future, be appointed for a one-off term of seven years. This will strengthen the independence and impartiality of the Ombudsman and remove any suggestion that the Ombudsman may be politically influenced on matters in pursuit of securing another term of appointment.
Part 9 also provides for the Ombudsman and Commissioner of Police to make an agreement for dealing with police complaints. In keeping with the bill’s other transparent provisions, any agreement must be tabled in this Assembly, published in the Police Gazette, included in the Ombudsman’s Annual Report, and made available for inspection on request.
Part 10 of the bill provides protection from liability to specific classes of people. As an example, protection from civil liability is provided for complainants and informants unless their involvement was in bad faith. Similarly, protection from civil and criminal liability is provided to persons dealing with a complaint.
Part 11 deals with a number of miscellaneous matters including the repeal of all prior Ombudsman legislation and transitional provisions. In particular, the incumbent Ombudsman continues in office with her total tenure being seven years from commencement in 2006.
Part 12 deals with a series of consequential amendments to other legislation. I have already mentioned the establishment of the Ethical and Professional Standards Command in the Police Administration Act. Currently, the Information Act exempts information obtained by the Ombudsman during the investigation and resolution of complaints against police in those rare situations where the Ombudsman conducts the investigation. However, this exemption does not apply when police conduct an investigation. It is important that the full and frank cooperation of individuals is encouraged in investigations about police conduct, regardless of whether the Ombudsman or police undertake the investigation. Consequently, an amendment has been made to the Information Act to protect the confidentiality of information obtained or created during the course of investigations conducted by police under the Ombudsman legislation.
Whilst some may perceive the amendment to the Information Act as acting to reduce transparency, my government believes that the amendment is justified, as it achieves a careful balance between allowing investigations to be open, and protecting the integrity of the investigation. This gives the investigation the greatest opportunity to get to the heart of the matter. In addition, safeguards remain in place which allow the Ombudsman, as the final decision-maker, to retain the right to publish whatever information deemed appropriate from the investigation process.
In conclusion, this bill delivers a major reform package which implements government’s commitment to good government. This Ombudsman Bill not only brings the Territory into line with other Australian jurisdictions but, in many ways, it sets the benchmark for best practice government administration. It provides the public with a transparent, accessible and flexible vehicle for resolving complaints concerned with public administration and police conduct.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 26)
(Serial 26)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill before the House reflects this government’s strong commitment to tackling domestic violence in our community. It enables a community response to a community problem. This bill amends the Domestic and Family Violence Act by creating a mandatory reporting law for abuse that occurs within a domestic relationship and causes serious physical harm.
The bill was tabled during the September sittings as an exposure draft to allow public discussion of the proposed amendments before it was formally introduced. The bill generated some public comment and submissions, all of which have been thoroughly considered. This government believes it is the responsibility of every member of our community to help break the cycle of domestic and family violence, and protect women and children from violence. The mandatory reporting law reflects this important responsibility.
The Domestic and Family Violence Act was developed with its primary objective being to better protect women and children. When the act was introduced, the previous Attorney-General spoke of the unacceptable tragedy of the lost and ruined lives in the Northern Territory that result from domestic and family violence.
One of the key aspects of the Domestic and Family Violence Act is that domestic violence is defined by common domestic violence behaviours such as assault, threats and damage to property, as well as reference to a set of behaviours such as economic abuse, sexual assault, stalking, intimidation, coercion, damage to animals, and acts which, if repeated, indicate a continuing pattern of abuse. The inclusion of economic abuse and intimidation in the definition of domestic violence recognised that socially isolating the victim from their normal channels of support, and economically depriving them is abusive behaviour by shaming and undermining the victim’s capacity to take independent action.
This government is sending a message to the people of the Northern Territory that any such abuse, perpetrated against women and children within a domestic relationship, is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. This message was made clear in the introduction of the Domestic and Family Violence Act, and now through the introduction of mandatory reporting.
The introduction of mandatory reporting is the next step in moving towards a genuine change in the community attitude and behaviour towards domestic and family violence. The amendment will provide further protection to those people who experience abuse and violence within their relationships and families. Mandatory reporting is not about peering over your neighbour’s fence or dobbing people in to the police. It is about no longer ignoring violence and abuse. Mandatory reporting is sending a message to the community, to our friends and neighbours, that abuse will no longer be ignored; that we, the community, will no longer remain silent.
I will now outline the major features of the bill.
The bill amends the Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 to insert a new section 124A requiring all adults in the Northern Territory to make either a verbal or written report to a police officer if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that either:
a person has caused, or is likely to cause, serious physical harm to another person within a domestic relationship; or
another person’s life or safety is under serious or imminent threat because of domestic violence.
The bill creates an offence for failing to make a report, with the defence that the person has a reasonable excuse for not doing so. Such an excuse includes, but is not limited to, reasonably believing one or more of the following:
that another person had also formed the same belief and already made a report to a police officer under section 124A(1);
The maximum penalty for the offence is 200 penalty units, currently a $22 000 fine.
The requirement to report applies to domestic violence that inflicts serious physical harm upon a person, which is physical harm, including the cumulative effect of more than one harm that endangers, or is likely to endanger, a person’s life, or that is, or is likely to be, significant and long-standing.
These reporting requirements acknowledge that domestic and family violence is often a hidden crime and that it is not feasible to extend mandatory reporting to abuse that is not clear and visible. These amendments, however, reflect the government’s commitment to ending community acceptance and end the silence that shrouds domestic and family violence.
When police receive a report, the police officer must ensure that reasonable steps are taken to investigate the report. In order to alleviate any fears that the person may have about making a report to the police, the bill provides protection by ensuring that any person, who in good faith makes a report to a police officer, cannot be held criminally or civilly liable or in breach of any professional code of conduct.
Furthermore, the report, or evidence of its content, is not admissible in proceedings before a court, and a person cannot be compelled to give evidence, or to produce a record about the report or the identity of the person who made the report, except by leave of the court. Such leave may only be granted in limited circumstances, being: where the report, evidence or record is of critical importance to the proceedings; and where failure to grant the leave would prejudice the proper administration of justice.
The bill also rectifies an inconsistency and drafting oversight in the Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007. Currently, if a police officer makes a domestic violence order against a defendant, they may give a copy of the order to the defendant personally. When they do so, the police officer is then required to explain to the defendant the effect and consequences of breach of the order, as well as their right to apply for a review. Currently, the act requires the police officer, as far as it is reasonably practical to do so, to provide this explanation both in a language and in terms that are likely to be readily understood by the defendant. This requirement conflicts with the general requirement in the act that any body or person who is issuing an order - for example, a police officer or a magistrate - must make the same explanation to persons such as a defendant or protected person present before them. However, in that case, the explanation need only be given either in a language or in terms that are likely to be readily understood by the person. Therefore, the act is amended to provide consistency, whereby the police officer’s explanation to the defendant can either be given in a language or in terms that are likely to be readily understood by the defendant.
Additionally, under the Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 past breaches, being a breach of a restraining order which occurred under the repealed Domestic Violence Act, or a breach of a similar order made under a corresponding law in another state, territory or in New Zealand, cannot be taken into account when determining the penalty for contraventions of domestic violence orders under the act. The bill corrects this technical difficulty and ensures that past breaches of restraining orders under the repealed Domestic Violence Act, as well as past breaches of intestate and New Zealand orders, are taken into account when penalties for breaches of domestic violence orders are determined.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
ICHTHYS LNG PROJECT BILL
(Serial 10)
(Serial 10)
Continued from 23 October 2008.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I once again congratulate the Chief Minister and the Northern Territory government for bringing to the Northern Territory a necessary advance in the Territory.
This industry did not simply spring up overnight. Whilst I do nothing to diminish the Northern Territory government’s and the Chief Minister’s work to convince INPEX to come to the Northern Territory, at the outset I point out that the arrangements which enabled the Chief Minister to become aware of bringing INPEX to the Northern Territory started many years ago under a former administration, which also had the foresight to see the importance of gas and the gas industry in the future. Doubly so, because since we last debated this particular issue in the House, the world has changed.
It seems like only a few months ago that we had the last debate on this particular issue. There is a good reason at the moment to be nervous if you live in any other part of the world - less so in Australia if you believe Access Economics and the OECD reports and, even less so if you believe the federal Treasury. Nevertheless, growth projections, both nationally and internationally, have been downgraded as they have been locally.
However, because INPEX is, I understand, contractually bound to its customer down the track, and its customer is essentially energy generation in Japan, it is unlikely that those contracts will dry up or change. Without knowing the details of the contracts, we can take some comfort that INPEX has a signed-up customer ready to go, and that is one of the urgency drivers that is pushing them along so that they can deliver in a timely fashion to the downstream customer.
I presume that in a contractual arrangement of that nature not only is INPEX bound to deliver on a certain time but I presume that the customer is bound to purchase at a certain time as well. Without knowing the ins and outs, I imagine there would be some set price or range of prices which the customer has to pay. Clearly, INPEX is throwing a lot of money at constructing this whole arrangement. I am grateful to Alan Carpenter, the former Premier of Western Australia, for leading Western Australia into an environment where there is essentially - and I will not say a hung parliament - a minority government under their current arrangements in Western Australia. As a consequence of that, the Northern Territory is in a position to provide certainty, where the Western Australian government is less likely to be in that position. As I have said before in this House, the Northern Territory government can reliably go to INPEX as a company and say that we can guarantee 24, if not 25, votes inside this House to support the arrival of INPEX in Darwin.
Having made those observations it is worth noting that there is still the issue of Glyde Point. Blaydin Point has become academic and will definitely be rendered academic by this bill. I still have my reservations about using the harbour as a location for INPEX. Having said that, it is clear that, for the purpose of driving this forward, those reservations will now have to be set aside because INPEX has been offered a location and this legislative instrument will help make the contract for the use of Blaydin Point much more certain. If it is a case - and I have said this before and will restate it here - of INPEX in the harbour or no INPEX at all, then it is INPEX in the harbour. Especially in the current economic times, we simply cannot afford to turn our backs on a company which is going to spend – well, $12bn is the figure I keep hearing bandied around. However, as I understand it, exchange rates may have changed that. At $64, I think is probably around the $A20bn mark at the moment for the value of this project - not to be sneezed at in the least.
I have read the bill. However, I do not have it in front of me. I am aware that one of the elements in the bill is that it seeks to engender the equitable doctrine of specific performance. Specific performance is not unusual, particularly in contracts of land. The doctrine of specific performance in contract law is covered in Chapter 39 of - it used to be Harland and Carter; it is now Carter Peden Tolhurst - Contract Law in Australia …
Ms Carney: Oh, they have changed. Well, there you go.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I think Mr Harland died. However, in any instance, the issue of specific performance is dealt with. It is worth pausing on this particular issue because I want to put on the record my personal understanding of what specific performance means to a future government of the Northern Territory, and to cement in my understanding as to what is being offered to INPEX, and to give my support to this legislative instrument containing that equitable doctrine.
At the outset, I will refer to the text to which I refer to as Carter on Contract, quotes JC Williamson Ltd v Lukey 1931 45 CLR 282 at 297 in which the observation is made, and I quote:
- In the proper sense, it is a remedy to compel the execution in specie of a contract which requires some definite thing to be done before the transition is complete and the
parties’ rights are settled and defined in the manner intended.
To give some colour or meaning to honourable members, what it basically means is that, in the original form of contract law with the absence of equity operating in contract law, then a breach of contract can be settled in the form of damages. What that means is if I, for argument’s sake, walk into a car yard - let us say there is a new car I want to buy and there is a car parked over in the corner, and I say to the guy who sells the cars: ‘That is the car I want’. He says: ‘Absolutely, sign the contract’, so we are both committed to the contract. I come in two days later to pick the car up and he says: ‘Look, that car I sold you, I cannot sell you, but that car over there, which is exactly the same make, model, colour - everything else about it, except the serial number is slightly different. You will have to take that one’.
There are two options available if the matter was to go to court in those instances: (1) I could simply say: ‘Yes, that other one will do. That is fine’; or I can seek damages for my losses in relation to the contract. If I can establish damages beyond just simply the loss of the car - I may have had to have a hire car or a few other things as a result of this process - I might even be able to get some extra damages for it. However, in that instance, I could not demand that I get that specific car or that specific serial number because there is a certain commonness about the product which I am purchasing.
If, however, I choose to buy another vehicle or purchase something which, by its very nature is unique - for argument’s sake, Claude Monet’s Waterlilies was available on the open marketplace and I went to this vendor of that particular painting and said: ‘That is the one I want’. He charges me $35, or whatever these things are worth, for that particular painting and we sign the contract or we have a verbal contract. I then come back the next day and he says: ‘Well, I cannot give you Claude Monet’s Waterlilies, you will have to have Claude Monet’s rubbish bin out the back of the house, because that is all I can offer you’. In that instance, what I am purchasing is actually quite unique. It is something quite different to what I intended to purchase, and there is no other Claude Monet’s Waterlilies, as I understand it …
A member: I have one.
Mr ELFERINK: Not an original, at least. Consequently, I could then turn to the courts of equity or the equitable principles which are observed by courts in the modern era, and I could say that I would want that contract fulfilled. It is not just a case of me wanting my money back; I want the specific contract which has been offered to me fulfilled.
In the context of land, specific performance defines its reality. I point out on page 939 of Carter on Contract in relation to ‘Specific contracts, sales of land’:
- Specific performance has in its main application to contracts for the sale of land or an interest of land, thus, if the defendant had agreed to convey title to a particular parcel of land,
but refuses to complete the transaction, the plaintiff will usually be entitled to specific performance. This will include an order that the defendant executes such documentation as
is necessary to enable the plaintiff to become registered as the owner of the land at the Land Titles Office. The reason this remedy has its main application to land contracts is historical.
Specific performance has been granted on the basis that land is unique; that is, that the purchaser cannot go into the market and buy an equivalent parcel. Damages sufficient to
purchase a replacement are, therefore, not an adequate remedy. In addition, the fact that a binding contract exists between the parties means that the purchaser possesses an
equitable interest in the land.
This is an illustration of what the Privy Council described in Palmer v Carey 1926 37 CLR 545 at 548 as:
… the familiar doctrine of equity that a contract for valuable consideration to transfer or charge a specific subject matter passes a beneficial interest by waive of property in that subject matter.
What the legislation does by encapsulating the equitable principles of specific performance in the legislative instrument is that it says the effect of it will be that any future government will remain contractually bound within the terms that the current government binds us to this contractual arrangement. As a consequence, it will not be available for the Northern Territory government, should it be a Country Liberals government in the future, to simply say: ‘Blaydin Point is off the radar. You are going to Glyde Point’. We would not do it on a moral level; we would consider ourselves bound by the contractual arrangements of the current government.
Having said that, I understand what is implied in the legislation and what will flow from the legislation. I accept that, and give a cast iron commitment or acknowledgement, if you like, that we understand on this side of the House that Blaydin Point will be the location. We have explained our reservations in relation to those issues in the past. However, we will accept the contractual obligations that flow from the contract that is written, and we will accept the bind that will be thrust upon our shoulders as a result of this legislative instrument being passed.
As I said at the outset, it is important that we clear the obstacles out of INPEX’s way. This is a particularly important issue in the current economic environment. There will be budgetary impacts to government which will be very challenging to government as a result of INPEX coming to Darwin. There are also budgetary impacts for the company. In making its announcement that Darwin is the preferred site, they have not said absolutely, of course, they are coming to Darwin. They have to spend some – what? $250m. Someone help me. About $250m, making sure there are no deal breakers between now and when INPEX comes to town - whatever the figure is. However, that is not chump change by any measure or yardstick, even for a company the size of INPEX.
Clearly, they are committed to Darwin, and it will only be reasonable and rational that we acknowledge their commitment in the expenditure they are making right now to form up Darwin as their preferred location by mirroring that, in this place, by saying to them: ‘Yes, we appreciate and understand the value of the commitment you are making and, as a consequence, we will also make a commitment’. This legislative instrument captures that commitment, I hope.
Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned, I would like to see INPEX come to Darwin. I hope there are no deal breakers between now and the time that the structure is built because, clearly, the future of Darwin is at stake. If this comes, and if Greater Sunrise come, the Darwin I grew up in, or have lived in, on and off for the last 40 years, will be unrecognisable in 40 years time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, as this legislation before the House shows today, the Henderson government is committed to the delivery of the INPEX gas processing facility to be built by INPEX and Total in Darwin.
The project involves three main elements: the development of the Ichthys gas field, 850 km south-west of Darwin; piping the gas onshore via a subsea pipeline; and processing gas and storing the LNG onshore for export. This will be the largest single private sector investment ever made in the Northern Territory and the project will be a major foundation for growth in the Darwin region.
The joint venture, INPEX and Total, has signed a project development agreement with the Northern Territory government which will enable it to proceed to front-end engineering design and, ultimately, to final investment decision. Negotiations between the Northern Territory government and the joint venture partners for the Ichthys LNG project have highlighted a number of areas within the Northern Territory regulatory framework which may increase risk for the project.
As the Chief Minister mentioned, the purpose of this bill is to provide certainty for the Ichthys LNG project, in part in relation to the acquisition and development of land. As Treasurer and Lands minister, I support the range of provisions in this bill because they provide a certainty to the joint venture partners so that the government may adhere to its commitments in relation to land.
Specifically clause 5(2) defines the provisions that (a) requires the grant of agreed tenure over Crown land. Tenure includes an estate in fee simple, lease, licence or other tenure; (b) confers an option for the provision of an estate in fee simple or a lease of Crown land; (c) fixing of a purchase price in accordance with either the agreed fixed price or the agreed procedure for fixing the purchase price; (d) requires the renewal or extension of the term of the lease; (e) requires or authorises consent for the assignment, mortgage, charge or encumbrance of the lease; (f) requires the grant of an easement; (g) requires the Territory to enter into a covenant that runs with the land; and (h) restrains the Territory from dealing with the land.
In effect, this act takes precedence over other acts such as the Crown Lands Act and allows the Territory to give effect to the Ichthys LNG project development agreement. The bill gives the certainty that the INPEX/Total joint venture require to proceed – a certainty, I am sure that the members opposite, as supporters of this project that they now seem to be, will be eager to throw their support behind. INPEX and this project is good for the Territory. Our economy is already strong. We have the lowest unemployment on record at 2.6%, the highest population growth in years running at around 2.4%, very strong retail growth, and consumer and business confidence is strong.
However, INPEX is about a long-term sustainable economy. In the midst of a global financial crisis, it will help to underpin our economy – it is a big insurance policy. INPEX will be spending more than $20bn during construction, with approximately 2000 new jobs. ACIL Tasman undertook a report into the economic benefits and it predicts an injection of approximately $50m into the Territory economy over the next few decades. The business community in Darwin has been strongly supportive of the INPEX gas processing facility.
The Northern Territory government is working with INPEX and the local Northern Territory Industry Capability Network to ensure that jobs and business opportunities stay local. As with many other projects, the government has asked INPEX to develop a local industry participation plan which will commit the company to source goods and services from local businesses where possible. The flow-on benefits for the community through the preconstruction, construction, and operational phases of the project, will see increased economic activity and opportunities for local businesses to grow.
A project of this size is not without its challenges, and the government recognises that the significant investment by INPEX will take place during a period of economic buoyancy in the Territory, and while the Darwin rental market is already tight. To ease the pressure on the rental market, the Henderson government has introduced the Buildstart scheme, and is also accelerating the release of more than 3700 residential lots in Palmerston and the northern suburbs, including approximately 3000 lots in Johnston, Zuccoli and Mitchell at Palmerston East.
Through the Power and Water Corporation, the government is also investing almost $190m in expanding the capacity of power, water and sewerage services for the Darwin region. To ensure that the Territory is job ready for INPEX, the government is well on its way to meeting its target of training 10 000 new apprentices across the Territory between the years of 2006 and 2010.
Madam Speaker, this bill provides certainty for the Ichthys LNG project to land in Darwin and, thus, certainty the economic future of the Territory. I wholeheartedly support this bill.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support the bill. The INPEX gas plant will be a large infrastructure project for the Northern Territory and Australia, involving a construction workforce of some 2000 permanent employees, an operating workforce, when the project is complete, of approximately 300 people. The cost is around about $20bn but, as was said, this could vary depending on exchange rates and capital expenditure, which is for the onshore and offshore components. We know it is going to contribute substantially to the economic wellbeing of the Northern Territory and Australia.
The project has a planned long life of about 40 years, which is a major world-class project, and will be fed from a gas field of about 12.8 trillion cubic feet. To put it into perspective, the Sunrise gas field is around 7.5 trillion cubic feet, the Bayu-Undan gas field that feeds the LNG plant is around 4.5 trillion cubic feet, and Blacktip is around 1 trillion cubic feet in gas. You can see that 12.8 trillion cubic feet is a lot of product and, given the size of the project, it is logical and proper that certainty be given to the proponent.
When operating, the plant will produce around 8 million tons of LNG and 1.6 million tons of LPG per annum, and 100 000 barrels of condensate per day. These production levels will contribute substantially to both the Northern Territory and the Australian economies, not only in regard to taxes and royalties but, also, in cumulative goods and services, salary and wages. Interestingly, I encourage and hope that the government and Chief Minister is talking with his federal counterparts in regard to the condensate tax that the Rudd government is proposing, such that this is not brought in and that it will not detrimentally impact on this project.
This project will have challenges, no doubt, none more so than the sheer scale of the construction; securing the workforce, particularly in the specialist areas of welding and the like; accommodating the construction workforce, given our current real estate and housing limitations; and meeting and working with the community and their expectations. There will be infrastructure issues associated with power, sewerage, roads and transport generally. However, I am sure with careful planning and meaningful consultation, satisfactory outcomes can be achieved.
The company has already had extensive discussions with government and has been meeting with the Litchfield Shire Council. Also, the company is currently running a series of fora in Darwin, and attendance will be high as many businesses and non-government organisations are keen to learn what the project is all about and where the opportunities for partnerships and contracts will be. This program of community consultation demonstrates that the company wants to be accessible to the community and to work with the community such that all parties receive benefits from the project and understand the project and what it is all about.
Soon, the company is looking to open an office in Darwin and they will be putting permanent staff here within a couple of months, I am advised. This legislation is a good sign that the project is moving ahead and gives certainty to the proponents such that their billion dollar investment will be secure. Australia has a reputation for a low level of sovereign risk, which counterbalances a range of other technical and geological challenges which can disadvantage us relative to our competitors.
The Country Liberals support the project and will continue to work with the company while in opposition - and when in government in three years time. The company takes a long view of the project and its commitment to the Territory and to Australia is encouraging. I congratulate the company and look forward to working with them over the next five years in the construction phase and, then, into the operation phase.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I preface my comments to the Chief Minister to say that just because I agree with this bill and support the fact that we are getting gas onshore does not mean I support the particular placement of the facility in Darwin Harbour. Be that as it may, Chief Minister, I thank the government for the very good briefing I had.
I have some concerns about whether this bill would override some of the environmental issues that the company would have to negotiate in siting the facility in the middle of the harbour, especially issues such as the disposal of waste materials or any matters related to clearing of land, etcetera. It was certainly confirmed that none of those matters would be overridden by this particular act, which is to deal, really, with the tenure of the land.
It is obvious that a project of this magnitude requires some certainty, because there are many people involved in the financial side of the operation and they want to ensure their money is pretty secure when they put their money towards making this project a reality. It is a good bill and I certainly will support it.
The whole issue of LNG needs to be continually raised in this parliament. There are issues recently raised by the member for Katherine, which I had noted myself, whether there is a move to have a floating LNG plant, and whether this is a threat to this particular project. It appears the reasoning behind the possibility of a floating LNG plant is something to do with the changes in taxation revolving around carbon credits for these types of industries. I am interested to know whether the minister has had any discussions with the federal government regarding if these new taxation policies have the potential to drive this particular facility offshore - or facilities like it; regardless of whether we are just talking about this particular facility. I am interested in the Chief Minister reporting on that.
In relation to future sites, if we get more gas I still think we should not write off Glyde Point. After spending my $90.90, I eventually got the Executive Summary of the environmental impact statement for Glyde Point. It is amazing how time-consuming and difficult it is to get a piece of paper which is not top secret. It is a document that should be freely available to anyone who wanted it. I have done some initial reading of that environmental impact statement regarding Glyde Point, and my reaction would be that I have some concerns about some of the development. That does not mean that it wipes out the whole of Glyde Point as not being suitable for future industrial development. After all, we are talking about a draft environmental impact statement, which means we are able to comment on and change it if necessary.
What the government seems to have done is said: ‘Here is a draft environmental impact statement, but it does not look any good; a couple of people said it is not a good idea’, and it has gone out the door. We did not go through that process where we should have had more public consultation and more input into alternative options for that site. I believe there was an option to build a world-class industrial development that, on one hand, allowed the development to occur and, on the other hand, allowed the environment to be protected. We went one way and we were not willing to go part of the other way. I feel that the government has not quite wiped out the notion of using Glyde Point as future industrial area, simply because they did not zone that land Conservation. If they really believe that land should be locked up forever and a day, it would have been a different zone.
We need to not close that off all together because, eventually, the harbour is going to run out of space anyway. There is not a lot of room in the middle of the harbour to develop heavy industry. When you look at the possible sites that will be required for this Ichthys LNG project, it not only covers Blaydin Point, it will cover a substantial amount of land in the middle of Middle Arm Peninsula. It will take up quite a bit of space. As I said, there is not a large amount of land there for any more future projects. It can take more, but it is limited.
I support the bill as I understand the importance of having it. I understand it because I was given a good briefing; otherwise just reading it as a legal document did not mean much to me. We should encourage this project which will be a good project for the Territory. It has some big issues that we have to deal with, especially the social issues. I thank INPEX for also giving me a briefing yesterday about possible sites for a workers’ village or workers’ camp or whatever you like to call it. It is important that they are out there talking to people. They spoke to Litchfield Shire Council. They need to be up-front with their future plans so the public will know ahead what their plans are so, if there are any possible issues which could disrupt their plans, or those plans may need to be adjusted, then the community has had a chance to have a say and feel comfortable with what they have in mind.
I do not think it is any secret to say three of the sites are in my electorate. There are some pluses and minuses for that. I believe, with some good negotiation and discussions which includes both the council and the community, there will be a good resolution of those particular issues. Time will tell.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing forward this bill, and I will support it.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I also support this bill and congratulate the government on putting it forward. I congratulate the Chief Minister for his fantastic efforts in attracting this project to the Northern Territory. It is welcomed by the community, the opposition and, it seems, by everyone in this Chamber. Hopefully, it is greeted with as much welcome by the community at large.
I encourage the government to work very closely with INPEX on a whole range of areas. There are a range of challenges facing INPEX at the moment which, I believe, largely are out of government’s hands in the Northern Territory. Most particularly, I speak about the instability of the global economy and the recession in Japan. We have seen a reduced value of INPEX stemming from that which, naturally, will create pressures for INPEX. As much support from this government as possible, I believe, will alleviate some of those concerns. Of course, the reduced value of INPEX shares is reflective of Japanese stocks across the board. It is probably fair to say it is reflective of international stocks across the board. Companies across the world are coming to grips with having to deal with the instability of the global economy and, in that regard, INPEX is no different.
However, there are areas where the Territory government can seek to apply its influence - as the member for Goyder mentioned in her address to this Chamber - in the area of the petroleum resource rent tax. I believe it is incumbent on the Chief Minister and the government to prevail with the federal government to make conditions in relation to that tax as conducive as possible to see the further development of INPEX.
The other area which is very important to this government, particularly in the Northern Territory, is the area of the federal government’s proposed emissions trading scheme. Of course, it has been signalled that gas producers will be unfairly penalised by the introduction of the proposed emissions trading scheme. At this stage it is only a proposal and, given the Northern Territory’s reliance on natural gas, I believe the Northern Territory government really has a role to play in championing the interests of natural gas producers in relation to how the emissions trading scheme is implemented. In this regard, I believe the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, in particular, definitely should have quite a large say in relation to federal government policy on something that is quite new, not only for Australia, but for the world; the way Mr Rudd is planning to implement his emissions trading scheme.
We have heard cries across the country from different interest groups, industries and the like. There will be winners and losers in relation to any proposed emissions trading scheme. Gas-dependent industries, gas producers, are some of the loudest voices that we hear with their concerns in relation to the proposed emissions trading scheme. Chief Minister, I call on you to use your influence in Canberra. Raise those matters with the Prime Minister, the minister for Industry and Resources, and the minister for the Environment, and try to convince them that we need to have particular measures put in place that will see further development of our gas industry, not only in the Northern Territory but in northern Western Australia, and across our great continent.
The other challenge for this government is to see that industry in the Territory benefits and that Territorians reap the benefits of this fantastic development in the Northern Territory. I was quite happy this morning when the minister for Business spoke about the industry participation plan. It is something that should be encouraged, particularly in relation to this development. For most businesses it makes good commercial sense that you use local industry, wherever possible. It means you do not have to bring in business from other parts of the country; therefore, you reduce costs. Providing local industry has the capability required to do the work on these projects, local business should benefit from it. With government working with INPEX and Total, there should be a greater emphasis on local industry participation.
Madam Speaker, I did not want to get caught up too much in the detail of the proposal. I congratulate the Chief Minister for bringing this bill forward. It is good news for the Territory. It should, all things working out well, provide huge benefit to the Territory and for Territorians. It should add to our wonderful lifestyle that we enjoy. I do not think it requires my urging, but I urge that all members of this House get behind this bill and support it.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition, in line with all comments, supports this important bill. A range of comments have focused on different aspects of this important matter for the Northern Territory.
At the heart of this bill is the provision, as far as possible, of certainty to reduce regulatory and sovereign risks to the investors. For anyone making an investment, we are aware of the need to reduce risk. It is difficult, as the Chief Minister and others who have been involved in this have said, to grasp the magnitude of this investment; therefore, the magnitude of the risk and the requirement to reduce that risk. It has been most encouraging to have had meetings with INPEX and Total to get a better understanding of the complex nature of this matter - the seriousness and earnestness of getting it right, and the desire to ensure that there are good relationships established.
I can assure both government and those who are involved in this project that there is that commitment from the opposition. That is why this bill is important. It is important for it to gain the support of the opposition because it has long-term effect. In meeting with INPEX I recognised, too, something that was quite sobering in considering that the approach to this massive project is one that has a long-term view: all the planning processes at every level are considered in a 40-year frame. Of course, in that frame you need to commence with as great a degree of certainty as possible. Appreciating the level of thought, consideration and planning that has been undertaken, it is most important to reduce the risk as far as possible. That is why we support this bill.
The notion of certainty, as far as possible, is required to be established; I understand that. When we look at the scope and nature of the investment, and the foundation that is to be laid with this project, it must commence with a high degree of certainty. That word ‘certainty’ has been used a lot related to this project. In specific reference to this bill, without reserve, we provide our support so that we can establish, as far as possible, that degree of certainty that assists the progress of the project.
I cannot ignore the use of that word ‘certainty’ in the lead-up to a very early election and the implication of that slogan. That approach in that campaign was that there would, therefore, be uncertainty and this project would not proceed if there was a change of government. That was exploited for political purposes. I am heartened that our community are not taken for fools, and that judgment has been passed and they saw through that spurious assertion as the grounds for a very early election.
That needs to be put aside and recognise that we are talking about a very different kind of certainty here - real certainty as far as we can possibly establish it in this parliament. The certainty that we can focus on in a realistic way in and through this parliament is the certainty that was described by Margaret Clinch at a public meeting. That was going into an election which, we were spuriously told, was all about certainty for INPEX, when those who were elected to lead were required to address the issue of certainty for the people. She asked: ‘What about certainty for the people of the Northern Territory?’ That is the business that we need to be attending to: certainty on matters such as the economic impacts. I am not implying that there is uncertainty, but we have to reduce the risks as far as possible in recognising that there will be an impact on the labour force. I am pleased to see that there are moves afoot recognising that impact and that there will be processes put in place to reduce what potential risks there may be if we are not adequately prepared.
Consider the railway. The power of that project allowed some tremendous opportunities to be taken to advance training. There is nothing more potent when we are considering welfare than the provision of a real job with real work and real training opportunities. These types of projects provide that. That requires a real commitment.
Another economic issue that requires the attention, leadership, imagination and courage of government is when it comes to land prices. There is uncertainty with the performance of this government to date. It was not that long ago, when it came to the issue of land prices, when there was a call from the community, expressed through the opposition, that the Planning minister was opposing any call for land release on the grounds that it would distort the market significantly …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, do you mind if I acknowledge these young people?
Mr MILLS: Certainly, Madam Speaker.
____________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 9 students from Kormilda College accompanied by Ms Jasmina Bojovic and Ms Pilar Jadue. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
______________________
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, when it comes to the matter of certainty, it makes one very uncertain when you have one strong position espoused by government, and a dramatic shift in a short period of time. When there is, say, a vessel, a ship, that moves direction quickly, you wonder whether it has much of a keel. You get uncertainty when you find a dramatic shift in ideological position - fiercely opposing one view and, then, vigorously adopting it in a matter of one focus group to the next. You get some advice from the community and say: ‘Well, let us shift our position’. It makes one uncertain. That uncertainty then moves into the community, and they wonder about the capacity of government to make the hard decisions and stick to a line. That certainty needs to be addressed, and that is business of government and governing because governing in the Territory and the states is about the provision of services.
This bill will create important certainty for an economic impact into the Territory which has enormous possibility - tremendous possibilities. However, the work of government is to dig deep and to provide that certainty for the people in the business that we and government are involved in, just as those I met with at INPEX are digging very deep to do the best that they can. That is their business and they are paid well to do it. We are also paid well to attend to other business that is our responsibility; that is, to ensure that we maximise the opportunities and reduce the risks as far as possible. Those are the economic risks which will be reduced with courageous, innovative planning. Where is the future for what may occur as the next stage after this, bearing in mind that those who approached this project very sincerely are looking at a complete 40-year plan? It is beyond the life cycle of those who are sitting at that table but are completely immersed in the idea that it is 40 years we are talking about. Everything must have a 40-year context.
That is very different from those who are in politics who can very easily be corralled into thinking that it is around a four-year fixed parliamentary term. That distorts your thinking and judgment and causes severe dramatic shift in positions which are governed by a focus group or some polling research or, principally, by the need to hold onto power. That brings into question certainty when it comes to the real issues being addressed by a government. They are the matters that sit alongside this bill. Of course, notwithstanding those matters, there is then the whole range of social issues which are the primary and core business of a Territory government; that is, the provision of services.
The opposition provides a certainty for this project without reserve, and give their support to this project. We welcome it. We welcome the engagement that we have had from INPEX and the open door. We welcome the involvement of INPEX in public consultation. They are genuine in their desire to engage the community, and I welcome that, as it is a very good step.
I was particularly heartened by the meeting I referred to which Margaret Clinch was at, which was held at the port. That was a very well-attended meeting. I note that members of government were not in attendance. There was a range of views in that room, principally from those who want to protect and have concern for the environment. Also in attendance at that meeting were those who would be seen by the majority of that room as the enemy - those who were going to develop, perhaps bring mining or development of industry in the harbour and so on.
I am very encouraged by the Northern Territory community because, in that room, even though there was a dominant view, there was space created and respect given to those who had a distinctly contrary view. I believe the step that I understand INPEX is to take with community consultation is the right thing to do and the Territory is the right place for that kind of engagement. We have a community that can work through difficult matters, provided there is certain, steady and genuine leadership. That core business of governance and the role of government in this is critical.
This certainty can be established in this bill with regard to land. This certainty is provided with a large draw on trust, which is a trust you must have in government, because there are aspects to the contract that only government knows. People will ask all manner of questions about the contract which, by its nature and the detailed discussions and decisions arrived at between INPEX, Total and the Territory government, we would not be privy to. We recognise the need for commercial-in-confidence. Whatever may or may not come out of what is contracted on behalf of Territorians, it is recognised that there is a large degree of trust involved in this. Normally, if we were going through such a mechanism surrounding a contract, those parties involved in this contract would know a bit more about the details of the contract. Obviously, it is not possible for us to know. So, it is important to recognise the trust element in this, and that trust is provided.
Madam Speaker, in order to establish the certainty, to provide the economic boost to the Territory, to give us the opportunities that will flow from that, provided we can match those opportunities with the resolve to maximise the benefit and reduce the risk as far as possible, the opposition gives its full support to the bill.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I support the bill and commend the Chief Minister, as have other members in the House, in helping to bring INPEX to the Northern Territory. What fascinating times will occur in the next few years!
The only sad thing was to see that INPEX was used as it was through the election period. The truth is that it really does not matter what government of the day is managing the Northern Territory affairs, in the next 50 to 100 years, gas and other energy sources will be required by a world that is ever-growing and in need of energy. I suppose we live in times where, on one side of the coin, we can be very excited. What a wonderful opportunity to have a large company, as the Chief Minister has rightly pointed out, bringing the largest private investment into any state or territory in this country. What a marvellous opportunity to take.
At the same time, we seem to have these polarising issues. On one hand, we have absolute excitement with the potential of a business like this and what it can do for the Northern Territory. I recall stories where people could not get a motor rewound in the Northern Territory prior to ConocoPhillips coming to Darwin. Today, those spin-off industries are there for people who have businesses that need motors. That is a clear indication of how big business can have an effect on other local businesses.
We have discussed many of the social issues occurring today. That is where, I believe, the government is going to have a challenging time ahead in meeting some of the issues we are facing today; knowing that we are going to go through a very large growth spurt. That includes the Rosebery hub schools and making sure that services are going to be there. The bottom line is that I commend the Chief Minister; this is a wonderful opportunity for the Northern Territory. INPEX is a large company.
During the doorknocking campaign, some of the issues that were raised were environmental issues and being the shadow minister for the Environment those issues will now come to the fore. It has been interesting dealing with some of the companies I have spoken to regarding other possible growth in the Northern Territory with mining and so forth. The interesting thing I found is that companies today are, perhaps, different to what they where many years ago. There is a real commitment that the environment is important to them. They have governments, environmentalists, and the media to deal with; they cannot afford to get it wrong today. It is nice to know that they are the kind of comments that are coming out of these businesses. I believe that when we are dealing with the environment, yes, we have some real challenges to ensure that companies like this do get it right, and that other companies that may be using dangerous chemicals have safeguards in place. When you hear firsthand from these companies that they cannot afford to get it wrong, that is the right attitude.
I am mindful of the challenges that we have but feel comforted that these businesses are starting in that frame of mind. It is not all about making money. They are open to new ideas, new suggestions and making sure that our environment is protected. Whenever we bring a new business like the INPEX plant there will almost certainly be some kind of impact on our environment.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Chief Minister and I welcome the bill.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I will be brief given that all members of the House support this legislation. I am proud to see this legislation has bipartisan support from the House. I will quickly deal with some of the issues raised, in particular by the member for Nelson. I thank him for the journey that he has been on to be able to support this project. I congratulate him on the briefing that he sought. I confirm that this legislation we are enacting in no way excludes INPEX and Total, the joint venture, from complying with Territory and Commonwealth environmental legislation. This is all about certainty regarding land tenure and the grant of land when conditions are met by the schedule in the project development agreement that I will shortly be tabling.
A number of members spoke about the challenges facing INPEX given the global economy, the recession in Japan, and what is happening on share markets around the world. I have spoken with the company, and what is happening with global share markets and the Japanese economy is not going to impact on this decision. We are going to wait until the third quarter of next year for a final investment decision by the joint venture.
The reality is that so much of this project as well as being a commercial venture for INPEX is also about security of energy supply for the Japanese economy, and the requirement for Japanese electricity producers to have access to supplies of LNG post-2014. As much as this is a commerce opportunity and investment by INPEX and Total, it is also about security of energy for the Japanese economy.
I can advise the House - I think I have been on the public record at the Australian Pipeline Industry Association (APIA) Conference which was held in Darwin this year - that the Northern Territory government has responded to the Commonwealth government’s Green Paper on the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We have said in our response that we do not believe the CPRS should, in any way, impact on investments in the developing of LNG projects in Australia. We are supporting the APIA position - and APIA is the peak organisation for the petroleum and gas industry. This is a Green Paper; it will move to a White Paper and there will be further iterations and developments. My position, as the Chief Minister, is that LNG is going to be an important part in the slowing of global warming around the world. We can play a significant part in slowing global warming by developing our LNG industry here in Australia. To defer or delay investment in that industry, or see other fields developed around the world, is not in the interests of our economy. I am confident we will have a commonsense solution to that particular issue.
I am also pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has been on his own journey in supporting this bill this afternoon. I was not going to get too political, but the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Brennan spoke about the context of the election. I do not have the letter in front of me today with the public comments made by the Leader of the Opposition. There was a time not too far short of when I called the election that he said he was going to campaign against this project. He wrote to every citizen in the northern suburbs of Darwin and Palmerston saying he opposed this project at Blaydin Point. In fact, he called it a 19th century idea which did not belong in the 21st century. He is now here today supporting this project at Blaydin Point. I commend him for that. He has been on his own journey in this regard and I am glad that he has now seen sense to support the project at Blaydin Point – which has been the Territory government’s position all along.
I thank all members in this House for their support of this legislation; it is defining. We have had the students here from Kormilda College today. This is as much about them as it is about the Territory today. It is about providing opportunities for Territorians into the future. This project will invest tens of millions of dollars, billions of dollars, into our economy over the next 40 to 50 years. It will create opportunities for those kids.
In the light of providing complete openness and transparency with regard to this legislation, this legislation gives legal effect to this project development agreement which my colleague, the Lands minister, signed on behalf of the Northern Territory with the INPEX/Browse joint venture with Total.
Madam Speaker, I table the project development agreement to demonstrate to all Territorians that we are open, transparent and accountable in regard to this issue. The legislation we are supporting today gives legal effect to this agreement. I table the agreement on behalf of government for all Territorians. I thank all honourable members for their support of this bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Hon Syd Stirling – Former Member for Nhulunbuy and Minister
Hon Syd Stirling – Former Member for Nhulunbuy and Minister
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the former member for Nhulunbuy and minister of this Legislative Assembly, Hon Syd Stirling, and his partner, Ms Jenny Djerrkura. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
TABLED PAPER
Standing Orders Committee – Report into Procedures of the Assembly
Standing Orders Committee – Report into Procedures of the Assembly
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the first report of Standing Orders Committee for the Eleventh Assembly which includes recommendations on: sitting and adjournments of the Assembly; speech time limits; sound and vision system; consideration of general business and the conduct of Question Time.
MOTION
Adopt Report - Standing Orders Committee – Report into Procedures of the Assembly
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly adopt the recommendations of the report. It is a very nicely bound report; the Assembly staff have worked hard.
These reforms will make our parliament more contemporary, more functional, and an improved workplace for everyone involved - not just the members of the Legislative Assembly, but everyone who works in Parliament House, and for many people working throughout our public service. Nothing we are doing is radical. Indeed, all these reforms exist in other parliaments. The government has already announced we will have three extra sitting days a year. This does not require an amendment to standing orders.
The first aspect of these reforms is amendments to the sitting hours of parliament. Originally, we proposed starting earlier at 9 am rather than 10 am. Having consulted, including the Independent member, the member for Nelson, we have decided to leave it at 10 am and remove the dinner break instead.
Parliament will finish at a sensible time. Parliament will adjourn right after 9 pm on all other days, other than Wednesday. Adjournments will last a maximum of one hour and the House will rise not after 10 pm. On Wednesdays, the House will adjourn at 9 pm. All 25 members may adjourn if they wish. Provisions are in place that do not prevent the House sitting beyond these times should it be urgently required.
Individual adjournment times will be limited to five minutes. While this is a reduction on the current limit of 15 minutes, it remains at the higher end of adjournment time limits across the country. In a two-week sittings period, members will get to give four or five adjournments should they wish. This is by far the highest in the country.
In addition, members will now be able to have adjournment statements incorporated into Hansard. For this, they will need the approval of the Speaker and the statement for incorporation will need to be provided to the Speaker in advance. The Speaker will provide members with guidelines on this before it comes into effect next calendar year. These guidelines will include maximum length and content guidelines.
Parliament finishing at 10 pm brings us into line with arrangements in most other states. Having undefined finishing times for parliament is outdated. It affects many more people than the 25 members of this Chamber. Everyone in this Parliament House is affected, as are many more people in our public service agencies. Having finishing times will help make a career in parliament a far more attractive option.
These reforms, together with other reforms, will make the parliament more productive, accessible to the public, improve the quality of debate – we can but hope – and, hopefully, encourage more people to enter politics.
The CLP members of the Standing Orders Committee have provided a dissenting report, and I am sure that they will be speaking to that. However, I want to pick up on a few things contained in that. The members of the CLP are calling for an extra week, rather than the three Mondays as scheduled in the 2009 sittings calendar. As you would be aware as Speaker, it is not precluded from calendar year to calendar year as to how those three days are established. Each year, the sitting days are determined with a whole range of factors taken into account. From next year, we have included the three days within the sittings periods already announced, but the allocations of the sittings period and the sittings days are done each year, as you would be well aware.
The government believes that 10 pm is an appropriate time for parliament to finish, and we think that adjourning at 10 pm would mean finishing parliament, obviously, at 11 pm and, potentially later, on Wednesdays. We feel that 10 pm is appropriate. It is amongst the later finishing times in the country. We have removed the dinner break, as I said, and the length of our sittings days will remain amongst the highest in the country.
I know that the members of the CLP remain resolutely opposed to the five minutes proposed for adjournment debate, and would prefer 10-minute adjournments. It was explained clearly during discussions between the parties, and I made the explanation to the Independent member, that by allowing for statements to be incorporated, it will assist the actual cumulative length of time. Members, if they can speak for five minutes and incorporate a contribution of up to five minutes - that is actually 10 minutes. They misconstrued what is able to be incorporated at the moment. Their dissenting report is somewhat misleading, and I will wait to hear their debate on that before I go further. As we pointed out, in a two-week sittings, members will get around four or five adjournments should they wish. This is by far the highest in the country.
The government rejected the proposal that ministers should not receive the same rights as other MLAs in adjournment debate. We note that they did not seek to extend that proposal to shadow ministers.
The government took on board the alternate views on General Business Days. There are a variety of arrangements across the country in General Business Days. The government, as you can see from the Standing Orders Committee report, is proposing that there be a further reference to the Standing Orders Committee to genuinely have a look at how General Business Days are run in parliaments across the nation, to see what would be a workable system for General Business Days. We are not saying we do not believe the system we currently have is not workable. They get one out of every 12 sitting days for opposition business. If the opposition has put on the table views about how they felt, it could be dealt with alternatively.
We are genuinely going to have a look at the Australian parliaments, as a Standing Orders Committee, and make a further report to parliament in April next year. It is not going to be a long-winded, drawn-out research project; it will be done extensively over the sittings period break between the calendar years. There is ability amongst the Assembly staff to provide that research and consideration in February with, hopefully, a resolution in April.
The opposition’s changes to Question Time were a fairly curious proposal. They seem to model their changes on the Senate. I pointed out that we are a very different House of parliament to the Senate. The Senate, as we know, is a House of review. We are a unicameral parliament; very different in nature in what we do and how we proceed. In the proposals the opposition put forward, they conveniently overlooked part of what occurs in Question Time in the Senate. Whilst they picked up on the time limits and the way supplementaries are dealt with in the Senate, they certainly did not pick up on the fact that questions are actually written; the questions are provided by 11 am. It was a bit of a cherry picking exercise: ‘We like that bit, but we do not like that bit, so let us go with the bit we like’. When you are in government, you realise that cherry picking exercises are flawed by their nature.
We are happy, as members of government, to genuinely have a look at how this new Senate trial runs across a 12-month period. Fortuitously, I was in my car and heard a debate on PM, the ABC program, about the issue of the new Question Time for the Senate. I have to say that it struck me as a debacle. The media commentary on the Senate Question Time was very disparaging, and anyone listening to that PM program would have picked up on that. Any of us would be able to get that transcript and read it, if people have not had the opportunity to hear it.
In 12 months time when we have seen that trial run through, we are not going to be focused just on the Senate, we will look at Question Times around the nation in other parliaments. It is a salutary experience to have a look at what occurs elsewhere. As much as members opposite do not like to hear the government’s answers - and members of the public may well be interested in hearing what the government has to say on the questions asked of them, as you would expect - and like to curtail our opportunity to provide answers in their approach to their Question Time reforms, I believe we stack up robustly against other Australian parliaments.
If you have a look at how many questions are asked of ministers in other Australian parliaments, we are up there ahead of the pack in the opportunity for democracy to occur in Question Time - ministers can be robustly questioned by members opposite; there is no curtailment on the numbers of questions directed to ministers; and no questions on notice which have to be provided by a certain time. We have an hour. If you look at those other jurisdictions, many of them are sitting for half-an-hour or 45 minutes.
It is a curious bit of research that I have done on this as Leader of Government Business, and I look forward to further research in the intervening 12-month period where we see that Senate trial undertaken. I hope it improves. It certainly has got off to a bit of a bad start in the way Question Time is handled, if you listen to the media commentary. In the excerpts - and I accept they were excerpts that I heard on PM, edited by the ABC, PM journalists and their editors - I heard more of the President of the Senate than I heard of members opposite asking questions and ministers responding.
Woe betide our parliament ever descending into a farce where it is not genuinely the exchange of information on the public record that we would expect a Question Time in a unicameral system of parliament to be. Woe betide we ever get to that point where we are really playing a theatre of interjections, and a theatre against the clock to try to curtail the debate that I believe the public in the Territory has come to know from our Question Time.
This government is embracing reforms, as we have done and are doing, as is contained in the report of the Standing Orders Committee, albeit with a dissenting report from members of the CLP – no big surprise there. I read through their dissenting report during the lunch recess and it was typical of the whingeing, whining and sooking that comes from the opposition. They are finding it difficult to come to grips with the fact that they are not the government; they are the opposition. I believe it is a very sad, at times, misleading representation.
The government is pleased that we are entering a contemporary era of parliament in the Territory. These reforms are fairly overdue. As an elected member since 2001, I have had a parliamentary reform agenda in my sights for a long time. I recognised that this institution is one that has been reformed in other jurisdictions. Parliaments have changed from the way they were run years ago to a contemporary practice, an effective, efficient, and productive practice. It means discipline by members of the Assembly in how they handle their debates and how they structure their business. It will require a great deal of discipline from the government just as it will require discipline from members opposite.
Whilst we expect workplaces across our great Territory to be productive and expect efficiency across our workplaces, whether they are public or private sector, surely, we should also expect that of ourselves? We are no longer going to be in a cloak of ‘anything goes’ because we have this exalted position to send, I am sure, the Hansard staff into tedium and drudgery that debates at 3 am in this Chamber sometimes get into with the repetitive nature of those debates. l welcome the discipline, because it is discipline that is applied in every workplace across our great Territory. Whether it is a public or a private sector workplace, to survive effectively and efficiently these days, you need to be productive and efficient in the way you operate ...
Ms Carney: You are a hypocrite.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Araluen who likes to be hysterical in her interjections …
Ms Carney: You are just a hypocrite.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: She is rewriting the definition of shrill.
We will have a debate in this Chamber on these parliamentary reforms but, fundamentally, I believe they are reforms that will be widely welcomed by people who are affected by the oft times out-of-control egos of parliamentarians in this Chamber. These are reforms that will require discipline from each one of us, to ensure an effective parliament and effective debate.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the reforms and I thank my government colleagues for the full support they have provided to the Chief Minister in his parliamentary reform agenda, to me, and the members for Nightcliff and Fannie Bay for pursuing these reforms on their behalf.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, how things change from the committee room to the Chamber. There was a chance, I thought, that perhaps this could be done in a nice, pleasant way, but the castigating and nasty words coming out of the member for Karama’s mouth never cease to amaze me. We do not have to agree on everything, but you do not have to be rude and stupid about it - and that is exactly what you are doing. Because you do not agree with what we put forward does not mean that you have to be pathetic, stupid, mean, and nasty, just like you have displayed in this House; considering the complete change in your behaviour from the last couple of days in the committee room. It is a disgrace, member for Karama, and you should be ashamed of yourself, but I know you will not because you have no shame.
We did file a dissenting report and I believe it was quite an appropriate dissenting report, as far as they go. It was all above board. I believe we spelt out our case quite appropriately. I will read from some of that. Essentially, the crux of this is that it is a complete missed opportunity to reform parliament. This is not reform. For crying out loud, this is about you wanting to go home earlier. We have the capacity to keep you up past 9 pm, 10 pm. That is all it is.
It is interesting how it all of a sudden came about because we had a couple of nights past 11 pm and midnight, and a couple of nights to 1 am or 2 am. That is all it is about. Why are we changing it anyway? Why are we reforming the parliamentary hours that we sit now? That is a very good question - a question that the member for Karama could not answer in the committee room yesterday. She simply said: ‘The Chief Minister has said he wants to reform it so, so that is that’ …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex is verballing me. I point out the privilege of the committees is that we generally sit in there and …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is not a point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you wish, you can make comments in your closing remarks or you can approach me to make a personal explanation. Member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN: The Speaker knows there is no point of order because she was there.
We go back to the media release issued by the Chief Minister on the 28 October. A couple of incidents of this have taken place. The first one is Tuesday, 28 October:
- The Henderson government today released its plans for major reforms to increase the transparency, productivity and accessibility of the Northern Territory parliament.
Again yesterday morning we had the example where the parliamentary sitting dates were announced before they had even been ratified in this parliament. Those extra three days were supposedly part of this reform that was to be before the committee as announced in the Chief Minister’s press release on 28 October.
The situation is that, if we really wanted some serious reform, we could have serious reform. This is not serious reform. The three extra sitting days on the Monday between the two sittings is to avoid the extra possible scrutiny by the media, the opposition and the Territory public. The extra sitting days are buried amongst the sitting days rather than having an extra full sitting week. Why not have an extra full sitting week? What is the problem with that? We used to have an extra sitting week for two weeks at the end of the year. But, oh no, it has to be buried into the fortnightly sittings for some reason. It was – what - to save a couple of bob?
I can tell you I will be going home anyway in between sittings. It is not going to necessarily save any money on my part. I will be getting straight back to Alice Springs on that Friday morning to be with my family and my electorate. I am sure most other members will be doing the same thing. That is the only excuse: that it is going to save a bit of money or whatever. What it is really about is trying to avoid the extra scrutiny that would come with having a full extra parliamentary week at the end of the year. That is what Territorians expect; that is what they are not getting.
The adjournments - how outrageous and disgraceful is it? I wonder whether the impact has fully sunk in with members opposite. It has been rammed through a small group of, no doubt, Cabinet ministers, who have said this is what we want to do. Again an attempt to get home early; this is what this is all about - not being held here working.
It is only 36 days a year. We sit the least out of very parliament in Australia, perhaps with the exception of the ACT - I am not sure but I am pretty certain they sit more than us. The federal parliament sits 70-odd days a year, so do most state parliaments. It is two weeks on, two weeks off just about. Here we have up to six weeks or so between sittings. Why not be here in the Chamber until the debates are finished? We are adjourning everything, adjourning legislation, adjourning important statements like the state of Territory police. We do not even know if that is coming back on. The other statement about the third Henderson government has also been adjourned. Why not stay here and debate those?
What is wrong with staying up a little late and doing a bit of work? You guys are afraid of work. It is clear and simple - you do not want to sit here and work through the night. If you were prepared to do that, I am sure it would not happen - we would not be here until 1 am or 2 am every single morning.
It is, clearly, an attempt at that. I do not know what has motivated it apart from to introduce this so-called reform. It is not reform. What we have proposed is at least real reform. Not everyone may agree with these reforms, but this is a genuine attempt to reform the parliamentary sitting structure. I will read through some of that. Some of the members have only just received their Standing Orders Committee document so they may not have had a chance to read it. I will read directly from that.
The opening of parliament – I notice that the government backflipped on their 9 am start. They realised that 10 am is a much more appropriate time to start parliament. The sitting day numbers, as we have said, should be extended to 36 actual sitting days, plus the estimates process. If this proves to be insufficient, then this should be reviewed within 12 months to make necessary increases.
The Country Liberals also believe that these days should be incorporated in an extra sitting parliamentary week, not just buried for the sake of tokenism so that you can say: ‘We are actually sitting an extra three days a week’ when, indeed, with the 10 pm shut down, we are not sitting an extra three days a week. Despite the suspension of the dinner break - there was never a dinner break anyway. We have only had the dinner break in the last couple of sittings since the Eleventh Assembly. That is an absolute furphy to suggest that we take away the dinner break, therefore, we are making up the extra hour which we would normally lose when we finish at 10 pm.
You put it quite appropriately, member for Port Darwin; that the Chief Minister giveth and the Chief Minister taketh away or, in this case, the Standing Orders Committee giveth and the Standing Orders Committee taketh away. Territorians will not be fooled by that. Sometimes, it can be a bit hard to articulate this in the mainstream media to those people out there. All they want to see is us working hard. I am sure with a whole stack of government spin – because the government are terrific at doing this, they cut straight through - the 36 sitting days will be seen by the Territory as an extra three days. However, we know better, they know better.
Finishing times – why are we finishing at 10 pm? Why? Or 9 pm as it is and, then, everything shuts down at 10 pm. Why? Is it because people do not want to be up late? Is it because people do not want to be sitting to the early hours of the morning, or at least until 10.30 pm, 11 pm or 12 o’clock every night? Why not have government business finish at 9 pm, as is the go now, and just let parliament continue until everyone has made their adjournment speeches - continue with the 15 minutes, or at least 10 minutes?
Madam Speaker, the Country Liberals have recommended the adjournment debate begins no later than 11 pm on the Tuesday, no later than 10 pm on the Wednesday, and no later than 9 pm on the Thursday. We say politicians are fresher and the capacity to work through the legislative agenda is greater than sessional orders and should reflect the capacity for later sittings. I do not think that is unreasonable but, nevertheless, it should be debated. No one has had a chance - no one, apart from the Standing Orders Committee or the member for Nelson who made a submission. Apart from that, I wonder how the rest of the parliament feels. No doubt, as we speak right now, they are taking the party line. However, no one has had a chance to debate this, and have a real, meaningful and thoughtful, practical way of reforming parliament. That is reform - the finishing times. That is real reform. Not everyone has to agree with it but, perhaps that can be out there, and we can debate that in a thoughtful and meaningful way to practically get the best out of this parliament. The dinner suspension, well, that is already gone.
General and private members business - I believe this is where maybe some of this is coming from as well. Perhaps it originated from that. We have a GBD every 12 sitting days; sometimes, if you are lucky, twice a year but, normally, once a year. It is not appropriate; practical or fair. It is not fair, not only on the parliamentarians and those people wanting to introduce these bills, but also the people they are representing; that is, the Territory public.
We have proposed some real reform for General Business Day. As I have said, the current arrangement is every 12 days. The Country Liberals recommended an alternative of this approach. We recommend the removal of the GBD itself. We have removed that and replaced it with a General Business Day from 4 pm to 8 pm on Thursdays of each sitting week, or the Monday between 2 pm and 6 pm each sitting week. We were told in no uncertain terms in the committee that that would not be approved, so we did suggest that perhaps two hours of sitting. That has been referred - I think we are going to look at that in the February committee meeting, to perhaps be assessed, and maybe something will happen in April.
It is interesting how we can have some parts of this implemented now. It is so important that it has to be implemented right now, so the Treasurer can go away tomorrow. It also looks like there is something happening to start the year off in 2009. What is good for the goose, is not good for the gander - we can have this, we can have that. It is a bit all over the place and it shows the hidden agenda that is behind this so-called reform. It is not reform; it is a hidden agenda to suit those who do not like staying up late.
We talked about non-controversial bills. There is often legislation which is agreed to by all in the Chamber - non-controversial legislation. They are free of amendments and limited, if any, to committee stage debate. We suggested that this go through in the lunchtime. However, the government has said no as there are committee meetings held at lunchtime and this will be inappropriate. We do not see that that is necessarily a great hurdle. If there was something by way of substantive motion …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: As you said. It was the only example that you could come up with: if it was a substantive motion, then we would deal with that. Then you would just deal with that as it would happen. There would be an understanding that that would not happen, and we would deal with a smooth transition of non-controversial legislation throughout the lunchbreak. That is working hard. People see that. We knock off for two hours for lunch at the moment. People say: ‘What do you do for lunch up there?’ ‘Oh, we knock off at 12 noon, and we come back at 2 pm’. They say: ‘Gee, that is all right, isn’t it?’ People want to see us working. That would be a clear demonstration and indication that we will continue to work. Anyway, that was knocked off.
We did recommend that MPI debate be moved forward to follow Question Time, and the MPI would be capped at one hour. Our proposal was that Question Time return to 10 am. Ministerial reports are gone, because that is, essentially Question Time in reverse. If it was that important, why does the government not give us some heads-up on what they are talking about, if it is about the benefit of the Territory, the portfolio, and of course, then flows on to the electorate? Why are we deprived of knowing what it is, and who is going to talk about what? Surely, we are able to contribute to that ministerial report, as we are expected to do. As it stands, we are expected to do it blindly. We should be able to do it. If it is that important, then why are we kept in the dark? We think the ministerial report is a complete waste of time. When you have a ceremony going on in here, which we see quite often, sometimes we go two hours – it is lunchtime before we have even debated any legislation.
Let us bring back Question Time to a 10 am start, followed by an MPI. Essentially, we would be reaching the lunch break at 12 noon or 12.30 pm, which would free us up from 2 pm until the 9 pm cut-off that the government wants, to deal with government business and legislation - uninterrupted all afternoon. It is practical, simple, and straightforward. It was knocked back in a rude and abrasive way …
Ms Carney: Patronising.
Mr CONLAN: Patronising, exactly. It is amazing how things change from a little intimate room to when you come in here.
I am dumbfounded and quite staggered at the change in attitude by the Treasurer yesterday. I thought we were trying to reach some sort of compromise and that you respected our views and proposals. You jotted them down, we joked, we laughed, we shared a meal and, then, you come in here and it is patronising. I am dumbfounded …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: That is all right - have a laugh, it is okay. I have learnt now; I have learned my lesson …
Ms Carney: Never trust them
Mr CONLAN: Yes, that is right. I gave her a bit of room, but anyway.
We have dealt with ministerial reports; we believe they should be removed. At the very least, let us know what is in those reports so we can prepare and put a little more thought into our response. Our team does a great job in responding to those ministerial reports, considering we do not know what is in them.
This is not reform. This is just tokenistic stuff to avoid scrutiny from the media, the opposition, and the broader Territory public. If the government was committed to real parliamentary reform for the sake of actually improving the business of parliament, then we would have an open, thoughtful, and meaningful discussion - not something that is rammed through because the Treasurer has to leave tomorrow and they want to be seen doing something for the start of the 2009 parliamentary calendar.
I want to draw your attention to Question Time. The Treasurer mentioned Question Time and something about the Senate. The Senate Question Time already has the supplementary question. The changes that you are talking about are the second supplementary question. Why not just run it on that? She is saying that you cannot do it. The Treasurer is saying that she is a bit sceptical or suspicious about it because she heard something on the radio. It said that it was a gambit - or whatever the phrasing said – and they did not quite agree with it. The commentary was not favourable, therefore, it was not something that you would jump into. Why not? Our proposal had no mention of a second supplementary question. Our proposal was the way that the standard Senate Question Time is operating now. If this new one, with the second supplementary question, proves to be good or bad then we can look at that in the 12 months. There is no reason why we cannot adjust Question Time. Our proposal was that we get nine each, at least. The Treasurer said in the committee that we get 20 all the time - she keeps tabs. Since 12 February, the start of the 2008 parliamentary calendar, there have been 26 Question Times and only eight of those have been over 20. The numbers are 15, 14, 13, 17, 15, 16, 17, 15, 18; there is 20, 22, 20, but there are only eight of those over 20.
Our way is certainly maximising Question Time. We believe it is a lot more productive Question Time for the opposition, the media and the broader Northern Territory public. The Treasurer could have easily just said: ‘No, we do not like that idea’. But no, she had to embellish it with a whole stack of insults - as she has extraordinarily done. I cannot believe the change in the attitude.
We welcome the video streaming and the new television set-up that is happening next year, of course. That is great; open and accountable for the Territory. As I said in the first part of this …
Mr Tollner: Will we have access to it?
Mr CONLAN: Access to?
Mr Tollner: The video footage.
Mr CONLAN: I believe we will. Yes, when it comes in we will have access to the video footage.
Mr Tollner: We do not now?
Mr CONLAN: No, we do not have access to this video footage but, yes, with the new system - about $500 000 worth.
As I say, the opposition accepts the intent of these reforms is to provide a more efficient sitting schedule. The parliamentary reform proposed, we believe, is a completely missed opportunity by the Northern Territory government to maximise the business of parliament. It does appear to be that there are hidden agendas; it is not a reform. It is about making sure you get home in time, for some reason.
We oppose, particularly, the adjournments. I wonder what the implications of this are going to be. Are members, particularly newer members of the House who owe so much to their constituency, going to be able to say enough in five minutes, particularly about extremely important events? There are so many important issues that go on in our electorates. Are members of parliament going to be able to express that in the five minutes given?
And the trade-off? We are told the trade-off is that you can submit the remainder of your speech into the Parliamentary Record. Well, that capacity exists now. You can seek leave to incorporate into the Parliamentary Record already; it exists now. If I wanted to seek leave to incorporate this into the Parliamentary Record I could do that. I could show you, you can read it, approve it, and it could go into the Parliamentary Record. That already exists in this parliament. It is not something extra that we are being given. However, we are told that the trade-off is that you really get two bites of the cherry. You get five minutes to talk about your electorate stuff or whatever it is you want, and five minutes to talk about something else and that can be put into the Parliamentary Record. Essentially, it is 10 minutes you are getting.
Well, it is not. It is only five minutes, because that capacity already exists in this parliament. I have concerns about how we are going to articulate and express our feelings on major issues within five minutes. Plenty of people get up here every single night during these sittings and they talk for at least 15 minutes. In fact, many members want to talk for a lot longer than 15 minutes, but their time is limited. To bring that down to five is a disgrace. To limit those times to talk about people - and a lot of those people who have put us in this place and the great achievements they make in their lives - is shameful.
We oppose that and I can only say watch this space when it comes to how other members might feel about that. I wonder how much input members did have when it came to the five-minute adjournment speeches. As I say, why can we not just finish off general business at 9 pm anyway and, then, continue on with adjournments well into the night? Even if it was two hours worth. What is 11 pm? Is that really that late? Is that too late to be working when we …
Ms Carney: For 36 days a year.
Mr CONLAN: For 36 days a year. People expect us to be doing it. We will only sit for 36 days a year. At the moment it is 33. I do not think that is a good enough reason to limit people’s capacity to talk about things that mean a lot to them and people in their electorates to five minutes. They say: ‘Well, you have an extra five minutes and you can incorporate this into the Parliamentary Record with the Speaker’s approval’ when that capacity actually already exists.
We can only hope that the issue with Question Time will be reviewed, and we will be able to maximise the number of questions on both sides of the House with the time limits. For members who have not seen the document, I can tell you it is in here. You can see what we have proposed. It puts a limit on the amount of time to ask a question and the amount of time to answer a question. We feel that will maximise that, to the betterment of both sides of parliament for members and, of course, to the people of the Northern Territory who want these questions asked and answered.
Regarding the situation with General Business Day, the opposition and the Independent often have bills and issues that they want raised in parliament, or they want government to deal with. Hence, if they draft a bill, they want it introduced, looked at, and debated. At this stage, that capacity is extremely limited. I think we had 15 items on the Notice Paper last GBD - it was close to 15 maybe 16 - and we got to six or seven. Obviously, we need to do some time management as well when it comes to how many people are debating those bills.
Nevertheless, if there was a regular capacity for us to be able to introduce these bills during a GBD, then you would find there would not be such a backlog. It would not be such a long time between these bills being debated and, therefore, a lot fairer for all, and to the betterment of the people of the Northern Territory who want to see all members of parliament able to introduce an opposition bill or a private member’s bill. We hope that the government looks at that.
We have been told straight up that four hours a week has been knocked on the head. Perhaps we can come to some sort of compromise. We have proposed two hours a sitting, which is still not a lot, but at least it might clear some of that backlog of some of these bills. At the moment, it is extraordinary how many bills are sitting on the Notice Paper for the next GBD. You wonder when we will get to those. The Aboriginal land amendment by the member for Katherine might not be until this time next year - perhaps even 2010 at that rate ...
Ms Carney: That is what they want, Matt.
Mr CONLAN: Clearly. The agenda is not about reform because, if it was, we would seriously, thoughtfully and meaningfully look at the issues and would canvass, as a parliament, every single member, not only the opposition, to get their thoughts on this. I know the member for Nelson has made his submission.
I am just about out of time, Madam Speaker. We welcome some of those changes but, essentially, we feel that this is a missed opportunity …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, your time has expired.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, thank you for your efforts on the Standing Orders Committee. I know that the opposition tabled a dissenting report. I also thank the members for Greatorex and Sanderson for their work on the committee. I also thank the Leader of Government Business for her leadership role as Chair on the committee. I thank the Clerk and his team for their work.
I want to pick up on one point of what the member for Greatorex was saying. There was plenty in there, but one that struck home with me immediately - because I experienced it this lunchtime – was that he said between 12 noon and 2 pm we have a break and we do not do too much. Well, from 12 noon, I was with the Subordinate Legislation and Publications Committee with the members for Nhulunbuy, Barkly, Drysdale and Braitling. After that, we went to the Public Accounts Committee meeting with the members for Fong Lim and Port Darwin - the same government members, as well the member for Nelson. We were quite busy during that period and we did a bit of work. The committee system is very important to this House and the processes of this House, and that is where we were between 12 pm and 2 pm; picking up on that one point to start with.
I believe these are good and sensible reforms. They make this a more contemporary parliament. Stepping through them, the first is that we are going to have three extra sitting days. The number of sitting days in a year does need to be balanced against the recognition of being in parliament. It is only one part of our job as members of this Legislative Assembly. I believe there is more to what we do than just purely what we do in this Chamber. I never doubt that what we do in this Chamber is very important, but I believe there is more to the work of a member than what we do in here.
Many members in this House have massive electorates, and it takes time for them to get around those electorates. I have three suburbs in my electorate – Parap, Fannie Bay and Stuart Park. I enjoy the challenge of meeting my constituents. I wonder sometimes how the members for Arnhem and Barkly get around their electorates; that is, obviously, a big challenge. While the time we spend here is important, the time we spend in our electorates is also important. That is something we need to bear in mind when we determine the number of days that we sit.
I believe it is perfectly sensible that some certainty be provided around sitting times. One of my concerns is about whether it is appropriate to be debating laws of the land after midnight. I believe that is something the Chief Minister has mentioned in the past, and is something we need to consider when looking at sitting times.
We also need to consider that the sitting times affect more than just the 25 members in this Chamber; it affects the public servants who may come in to brief ministers during the committee stage debates of legislation. Public servants are very professional, they are always willing to work hard and work late, but there is a certainty issue. They come in at, possibly 10.30 am, for some bills and they are not sure how long they will be here and when they are going to get home. I believe what we have done regarding sitting times provides certainty and that is quite important in this House - out of respect for their families and for the families of members in this Chamber.
I believe more friendly sitting hours will help make a career in politics more desirable. Politics, in general, will be better served to make a career in politics a desirable option for as many people as possible. You would expect the CLP to be supportive of this, as it was only at the last election that they were unable to attract a full team of candidates. Maybe if we make being a member of parliament more attractive, they will be able to put a full team in the paddock next time round.
I also believe the changes to adjournments are reasonable; the five-minute limits are amongst the highest in the country. Under the changes, maybe we will get an opportunity four or five times during a sittings fortnight to adjourn. That, I repeat, is by far the highest in the country. The capacity to incorporate adjournments into the Parliamentary Record is also sensible, and provides members with additional opportunity to place things like the achievements of members of the community on to the Parliamentary Record.
As the Leader of Government Business said, these reforms, with other reforms, will make the parliament more productive, accessible to the public, improve the quality of debate and, hopefully, encourage more people to enter politics. The member for Greatorex mentioned that, by having the extra sitting days on a Monday, we could somehow avoid scrutiny. If that means, on those Mondays in the extra Question Times, the CLP will be asking easier questions than normal, I am sure the ministers in this Chamber will appreciate that. I am just a backbencher, you do not ask me questions, but I believe a Question Time on a Monday is going to be just as difficult as a Question Time on a Tuesday, Wednesday or a Thursday. I have a lot of respect for the opposition. I believe they will ask the same quality of questions on a Monday as they do on a Tuesday. As far as whether the media still works on a Monday, they still turn up, so I do not understand where the member for Greatorex is coming from on that point. I believe the scrutiny on a Monday will be exactly the same as that of a Tuesday …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GUNNER: I do. Unless the CLP are not going to go easy on a Monday; they need a whole extra day to prepare their questions – which I do not think they do - the scrutiny on a Monday is the same as the scrutiny on a Tuesday.
Madam Speaker, I support the Standing Orders Committee report and I commend it to the House.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I will talk about this report from the Standing Orders Committee that I was a part. The member for Karama mentioned that there was a dissenting report, and she expressed her disappointment at the fact. She also made comments regarding ‘dissenting report’, and then immediately followed with the words ‘whining and carping’. It appears that if you have a difference of opinion, you are labelled whining and carping. I hardly think that having a different view on the amount of work we would like to do in this House is whining and carping. On the committee, we asked for an extra week to be here to get some work done. We also spoke about a number of other things in relation to debates.
I refer to the media release issued on 28 October by the Chief Minister, which is incorporated in this Standing Orders Committee report:
- We want to make parliament open and accountable - and these fresh ideas will deliver real results for Territorians ...
On the first point, one fresh idea that we will incorporate, as the member for Greatorex said, actually already exists. That is not a fresh idea - it already exists. Here is a good one:
- The extra three sitting days every year will give government more opportunities to implement policies.
You just have to do some quick mathematics to work out that, if you stop the parliament sitting at 10 pm - for instance, not going through to midnight on 33 days a year; not the 36 that is proposed but the 33 - that equates to 66 hours. If you divide that by the same number of days, a 14-hour day, you are taking away 4.71 days. As the member for Port Darwin said, the Chief Minister giveth and the Chief Minister takes away. I will lend you a calculator if anyone on the other side needs it - it is a simple calculation. We get three days, but we lose 4.71. In actual fact, there is a nett loss of 1.71 days if you shut down early. If you stay later that just extrapolates it out to greater numbers. Those are just some basic figures that we can have a look at.
The member went on to say that it will provide the opposition with more opportunity to scrutinise the work the government is doing. One of things you cannot do, when you have 1.71 days fewer than you had before, is to have more scrutiny. I do not know where they are going to pull the time from. The other thing the report says, and we agreed to this, is that the day will start earlier, at 9 am and finish no later than 10 pm. Our side disagreed with the actual finishing time, but we did agree to start at 10 am, given that there are many people affected.
The member for Karama also said that the time for adjournments are the highest in the country and probably the most. I point out that when you compare us with the rest of Australia, we are different in the Northern Territory - we are a small electorate, we have far smaller electorates which are very personal in nature. There are people out there who would like to hear what is going on in the local school, because most people in the community probably know some of those sporting stars and those successful people in our communities. Yes, you do need time to talk about those things.
I must say that, as a new member of this House, I thought it was a great idea that we had 15 minutes in which to do these adjournment debates. When it came my turn to do them, because I do know - and I am sure that members on both sides agree - not everyone did them each night. However, if you spoke on your side, you would actually get an opportunity to get 15 minutes to praise people in your electorate, or raise issues and concerns for members of your electorate.
The member for Karama said that we are in a contemporary era in Territory parliament. It is interesting that as a new member of this House, we see that we are now shutting down the ability for the opposition to have time to speak about matters that affect their electorate. I do not know whether we are moving into some positive area, or an area where we are trying to shut down debate and the ability for opposition members to speak in relation to those things.
Efficiency in the public service is another matter raised by member for Karama. When we talk about efficiency in this House, I would have thought that, rather than sitting for an extra three days and having the cost of doing that, you would just tack on an extra couple of hours to the sitting days we have. That would give you far more effective and efficient management of time, resources and staff. In relation to efficiency, you are going backwards by limiting the time we can spend in here each day.
I will now comment on a few issues raised by the member for Fannie Bay. First of all, in relation to the meetings of the Standing Orders Committee, I must say there was, what appeared to me, to be a rush to hold these meetings before today so that these things could be rushed through these sittings so that they can be implemented by 2009. I note in the Chief Minister’s media release of 28 October, he said he wants to implement these in the 2009 parliamentary year. However, given that we had the first meeting in relation to this last Monday, which was 24 November, two days ago, and the second meeting was – behold - yesterday, Tuesday, 25 November, we have all the reports printed, done and, apart from a couple of things that have been referred to the committee, we are now before this House having a debate.
I do not know that is a lot of time. I am new here, but I will watch with interest over my time in this session to see whether that is what one would call a fair amount of time to debate issues ...
Mr Wood: No, definitely not.
Mr STYLES: Well, there you go, there are more experienced members around me who have just given me good advice saying it is hardly good enough and hardly enough time.
I listened with great interest when the member for Fannie Bay said we do more than just sit in this parliament. That is very true, we do. He said we need time to get around our electorates. He also said ‘and we need to get about our electorates’. I can do a letterbox drop in about four or five hours if I walk fast around my electorate. I accept there are members in this House who have enormous electorates. However, I do not know whether Fannie Bay would be called one of those enormous electorates. I suggest that the member for Fannie Bay saying he needs more time to get around his electorate, when we only actually sit currently this year for 33 years and propose 36 for next year ...
Mr Vatskalis: 33 years? Let us get real now.
Mr STYLES: Did I say 33 years? We could sit here for 33 years. With some of stuff that is still on the Notice Paper, maybe we might be here until 2030 or 30 years debating it. I note with interest, for instance, there are still two things on the Orders of the Day that have not been finished and we are going to start cutting off times; that is, the economic direction of the third Labor government and the increase in police presence. That is a good one we should debate given what is happening on our streets at the present time.
The member for Fannie Bay said: ‘We need some certainty around sitting times’. I thought that that was a very interesting point. He then went on to say that ‘others, advisors and other people who it affects, they are not sure what time they are going to get home’. I can say that every day that I went to work as a police officer, I had no idea what time I was going to get home. There are many jobs out there like that, and I am sure that it is not just in here or in the police force. There were times when I went to work and I did not get home for a week. You just did not get home because, suddenly, you were shipped out of town to somewhere, and you just did not even have time to say to your family: ‘See you in a week’.
There were times when I worked in town and I did not get home for three days. You actually slept on the floor at work. If someone does not like that sort of stuff well, I suggest you get another job, because it is only 33 days. We are talking about trying to be efficient, as the member for Karama said; to try to get as much done as we can whilst we sit in this House.
The other matter I raise is the incorporation into Hansard. When I come into this House, I would like to be able to speak about things in my electorate, and people in my electorate. Currently, I can do that. However, what is going to happen is that I will not be able to have time in five minutes, in a small electorate that I have in Sanderson - roughly 5000 people, and that is for all of us - to be able to express all those things. Five minutes does not give you a lot of time. In fact, I look at the clock now and I have been on my feet for 20 minutes, and it just seems like a fraction of time ...
Mr Knight: You have not said anything.
Mr STYLES: That is good. I am glad that the member sees some humour in that. It is good to be able to make a laugh.
I would really like government to consider that they, too, might want a little more time to be able to express some of their feelings …
Mr Conlan: It will come back and bite them.
Mr STYLES: Well, it probably will at some stage in the future.
These are some of the issues that I would really like to see covered. I believe that my colleague on this committee, the member for Greatorex, has covered many of the issues contained in the report so I do not intend to go over that report and repeat what he said. However, I do think that the government should take notice of some of the recommendations that we have made. The other members on the committee are probably under pressure from the Chief Minister to actually fulfil the obligation that he made in this media release. There are a number of them that he cannot because it seems, now, to be slightly misleading in relation to more time. Obviously, someone did not get the calculator out and do some of those sums.
Madam Speaker, I commend the report from the opposition members to the committee. I ask the government and the committee to consider those things in that report in future deliberations.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, to say that I am disappointed with this coming to parliament today is an understatement. The Chief Minister said on Tuesday, 28 October:
- The Henderson government today released its plans for major reform to increase the transparency, productivity, and accessibility of the Northern Territory parliament.
He also said:
- We want to make parliament open and accountable, and these fresh ideas will deliver real results for Territorians ...
If this is about major reform then, surely, we should give this debate far more time to enable all members of parliament to have time to have input into what reforms they would like to see in parliament. Also, open it up for staff of the Legislative Assembly and for the community if they wish to also be included in what they believe should be major reforms for our parliament. After all, this is a parliament for the people. It seems that we, basically, have a fait accompli. I had a meeting with the Leader of Government Business, which was a general discussion about some issues. However, there was nothing given to me that was necessarily in concrete. I gave some ideas to the member for Sanderson, which I thought might go to the Standing Orders Committee. That was my input into that.
What should have happened, I believe, is a discussion paper covering all matters about reform should have been put forward to all members of parliament, at least. It is difficult to say that the changes that the Labor government is putting forward today are nothing more than window dressing, in some cases, because I always felt that the hours are quite sufficient. Sometimes, we can go late at night, but that is not very often. I have sat in parliament and heard speeches made that were not made, necessarily, for the benefit of the debate; they were done for the benefit of filling in time.
Whilst people might say everyone has the right to speak in parliament - and I do not say that that is not the case - having been in parliament for a reasonable length of time, I know there are times when speeches are sometimes made as fillers. That is usually in the case of when statements are being put forward and there is not much else on the Notice Paper to do for the rest of today. I do think that what should have been looked at is the efficient use of the time we have.
A number of issues have been recommended and I presume, because the government has the numbers, these will go through. the Chief Minister mentioned a number of these in his press release which are included in the recommendations, but there are other things which the Chief Minister did not speak about.
First of all, the sitting day shall start at 10 am and finish at 10 pm. When we start and finish has been adjusted, and was one thing the Chief Minister asked for. There will be video and audio streaming of parliamentary proceedings. That is fine, I agree with that.
However, there were a few other things that the Chief Minister did not include in his media release that have now become part of the proceedings. One is, on the Wednesday night, for instance, there are changes I did not know about which relate to a different manner in which the adjournment debates will be carried out. Second, except for what I knew from the briefing with the Leader of Government Business, is that we will now only have five minutes per member for the adjournment debate. None of that was spoken about by the Chief Minister in his media release, or when the Leader of Government Business introduced a reference to the Standing Orders Committee on 30 October this year.
If the government then had the ability to go outside the three areas that it had told the community it was going to look at - that is, the days we are sitting, the length of time we are sitting, and the business of the radio and television broadcasting - why did it not look at a range of other issues? The opposition has said that it raised some of those issues in the committee stage, for instance, Question Time. I do not necessarily agree with the opposition’s view of 10 questions for the opposition, and 10 for the government. I am not in the opposition, so that gives me nil. I would rather see it weighted - something more like one for the government and three for this side of parliament, simply because we all know that the government does not question itself. The government merely asks itself for a report on some of the things it does. Question Time should be about questioning the government. That is what people want to hear. I would prefer it if the ratio of questions to the government from the opposition or the crossbenches be changed so that we have the ability to question the government as the people of the Northern Territory expect.
The issue of reports - how many times have I heard people complain about reports? The government has five minutes, the opposition has two minutes, and the crossbenches or Independent has two minutes as well - and we have no idea what is coming. It is like some kind of television show: guess what the report will be, and now you will have to respond. It reminds me of going to some public speaking meetings where you had to do impromptu speeches, because that is what it is. The government gives you the subject and, in five minutes, you have to respond to it. You wonder whether, for the sake of better parliamentary debate, government would give, on a regular basis, an inkling of what the report was about.
The reason they do not do that is because they would not want the opposition or the Independent to do a little research before that particular matter comes up - which would improve the quality of the debate. Surely, if we believe in good parliamentary debate, we would do everything to ensure that happened. We might be parliament but, as the previous member for Nhulunbuy said, this place is also about politics. That is why the reports are not necessarily highlighted to members on this side. There is an area I believe we should have put forward for discussion.
The opposition raised some other issues. It did not quite agree with the number of sitting days. One of the areas I have not seen discussed is that I believe we can fit all our work into these existing days. I do not know how many thousands of dollars it costs to operate the building when we are here. If we intended to go for another three days, then we have to prove that we really need those extra three days. People have to come back in for those days. I presume there is more airconditioning going. I know that there are figures that show how much this building costs to run. If we are using it for a purpose that is legitimate, I do not have a problem. However, if we can do all the work that is required of us each year within the existing hours – and I take the point from the members for Sanderson and Greatorex - I do not have a problem working until 11 pm. If it is an extra hour added on to each night which, basically, covers the extra three days, I would rather do that. A little common sense could have come into that. It means the building is not operating on full airconditioning for an extra three days. I know this is a very energy conscience, environmentally-friendly government and they should have taken that into consideration - it is a costly building to run.
The dinner suspension does not particularly worry me; people will find the time to come and go. I understand where the opposition is coming from with the MPIs.
General Business Days are an area in which I am not going to say one way or the other what kind of changes should happen. It is an area we could have discussed. Obviously the government, because this is the political side of the debate, does not want too many GBDs, as the opposition gets a lot of publicity because it is putting forward its bills and motions. It is a day that the government has to work in reverse, where it has to act, to some extent, nearly as the opposition because it has to respond and it does not have the final say in a debate, and they do respond. To some extent, from a government’s point of view, they do not want too many GBDs because they control parliament in the system we have. We could look at the introduction of bills by the opposition or the Independent, to see whether we could speed that up because, from this side of parliament, it is a very slow process to introduce legislation into this House.
I have mentioned ministerial reports. I believe we have missed an opportunity. I find it difficult to be told that this is going to get dropped off this afternoon and debated. I am trying to think, even with the environment reports, whether it was the case that it was adjourned so people could have a chance to debate it. If this is the process, that is a great argument for reform. If one is to put changes that affect all of us, surely, if the Chief Minister believes in an open and transparent government and in major reforms, then one major reform would be not to debate something so important in two or three hours and pass it. That is directly opposite to the philosophy which he is telling us he is trying to change.
I can accept some of these changes. It was probably good that we went back to 10 am; it gives people time to prepare before parliament. The government is concerned that it is being seen that parliamentarians do not do any work, therefore, we will shift the hours from 9 am to 10 am for an extra three hours. It appears that this is being run because of a perception that the public do not believe we do work because we are not in here all the time. If that is the reason, then the government ought to go out and better explain what parliament does. The media portrays the idea quite a lot that the only time we work is when we are in this parliament. It is one of those great furphies that the media likes to put forward. If the government is listening to those sorts of ideas pushed in the media, then it needs to put the facts out to the public regarding what this parliament is about and what the other roles of MLAs are; that is, to work within their electorates. I do not think that anyone here could say they do not do a heck of a lot of work in their own electorates.
Fannie Bay, admittedly, you could do on a bicycle, but the member for Barkly’s electorate is nearly as big as Victoria. The member for Stuart’s is bigger than Victoria! The member for Daly’s is half as big as Tasmania. They are big electorates that require a fair bit of work by the members. That is part of the role of the MLA; he or she should be out in that electorate. That is also part of the work an MLA does. If the government is saying that people out there believe we are only working here 33 days a year and we should bump it up to 36 to make it look better, then it is not selling the real story about what members of parliament have to do.
Instead of window dressing, which it is, make our time in here more efficient and go a bit longer at night. It does not worry me; I do not believe 11 pm is late. I am not disagreeing that 1 am or 2 am might be late but if you go to the movies in town the movie will not be finished until 11.30 pm if it is a long movie. No one worries about that. We are only in here for the 33 days. Those 33 days until 11 pm are not a real problem. As the member for Sanderson said, when you do the extra hours, you actually make the three days, anyway.
I hope to see us discussing some of the bills. In reality, say, tomorrow night when we are working the new hours, we get to the Plant Bill - a very important bill. The next sittings are not until February next year, and people want to discuss it. It is a pretty important bill; it is a whole new bill covering plant movements and all those sorts of things in the Northern Territory. When we get to 8.55 pm and there is to be another three speakers, does that mean the bill will move to the next sittings? Unless it is on Wednesday ...
A member: Or, does it get rammed through undebated?
Mr WOOD: I am not sure. I thank you, Madam Speaker, for saying that is not true. However, what you might highlight is the fact that I have just received this document and you are insinuating that I have it wrong. I am happy to be told I am wrong on that matter, but I have not had the time to look at this properly, to talk about it with other people and, then, come back to parliament and give a more prepared response. It only highlights to me more the fact that this should have been put on the table. We all should have had a say, even if the Standing Orders Committee invited all members of the parliament to go to a public hearing of the Standing Orders Committee, and give their particular version of what they think should happen.
I might be wrong but I believe what is being put in here as recommendations has gone to Cabinet, and Cabinet has agreed to this. Then, the members of the Standing Orders Committee belonging to the government have brought back Cabinet’s viewpoint. So, there is no way there can be change. What should have happened is it should not have gone to Cabinet. The government should have said: ‘We are looking at reforming. Here are the general concepts we are looking at. Standing Orders Committee, you go and talk and give all the parliamentarians in this House an opportunity to comment on it. Have some public meetings that allow MLAs to put forward their points of view. When you finish with that, come back with a recommendation’. You might have a couple of versions. If it needs Cabinet to then approve it, at least Cabinet has been given a whole range of options by all members of this House.
No one should have been bound by any party discipline at the discussion at the Standing Orders Committee. They should have been able to give their own free opinion, not a conscience vote, as the reform of parliament is such a mild-mannered issue. It would have been good to hear how individual members of parliament thought the parliament should be reformed. We have new people and, sometimes, the new people are the best people. They see things that those people who have been in parliament for a long time have become so used to it, they do not see how stupid it all is, in some …
A member: Forty-nine hours ago we started this - 49 hours.
Mr WOOD: Right, okay. It would have been nice to hear the member for Barkly’s first impressions of how this parliament is running.
Madam Speaker, I believe we have missed an opportunity to look at reform in a serious manner. We have rushed it through too quickly and, in the end, we have rubber stamped a Cabinet decision through a committee that all of us have really not had a genuine say in. As it is, as much as I support reform, and as much as I support some of what is in here, I will not support this particular document.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Greatorex, Sanderson and Nelson for their contribution. They were, on any objective analysis, considerably better than those from the other side.
I am genuinely concerned about not only the manner in which the government has brought about these changes, but the substance of them. In particular, and in no particular order: adjournments. That is outrageous. It is offensive that you would cut adjournments to five minutes. Some members opposite will say: ‘It happens in interstate parliaments’. Well, we are different. The Northern Territory is meant to be different; that is what makes us unique. How many times have we heard people on both sides of the Chamber say, in and outside: ‘the unique Territory lifestyle’? We should look at what happens around us, obviously. However, who wants to be the same as everywhere else? It is not why most of us who have come from other places came here to live, frankly.
In the Northern Territory, as parliamentarians we have the privilege of talking about, more often than not, our electorate. The member for Greatorex put it very well. In essence, we owe them a lot. It is an honour to serve. That is why we are here. That is what we do. Despite all the huffing and puffing and yelling, we are actually representing our electorates.
The best way, arguably the only way - save and except for a question in Question Time whenever it is possible – we can effectively talk about the people in our electorate whom we represent is in adjournments. We are now in the invidious position of having to apparently look them in the eye and say: ‘I talked about you in parliament’, but without disclosing, ‘I talked about you for five minutes but, then, I needed to slip a copy of my speech to someone to get it approved and have it incorporated in the Parliamentary Record’. That is outrageous; it borders on undemocratic. It is undemocratic to deprive a parliamentarian the right to speak. This is a parliament and it is what we do.
I also make the observation that many of us, particularly those who have been here a bit longer than some others, actually do adjournment debates off the top of our heads without a written speech. What am I to do if I have a very important event in my electorate, a fantastic constituent, or many of them whom I wish to talk about on a particular day because something has come to me or I did not feel it was necessary for me to write a speech? I get to the five minute mark - but how on earth am I to explain that to a constituent? ‘Look, I gave you five minutes, and I was cut off mid-sentence’. That is the worst thing you have done, frankly, since the election and, certainly, for a very long time.
I am also concerned about the fixed times for everything else. Parliament should be reasonably flexible. Again, because of our unique position, we are a wonderful parliament in the sense that we are a small jurisdiction. We should be able to carve out a niche for ourselves and, as a group of human beings, be pretty flexible, given that almost without exception, most of us take our jobs very seriously. We should be able to not be wedded to time lines set in stone when it comes to having debates in this place.
For instance, even in this term, we have had a condolence motion recently. There were a number of speakers. I cannot remember exactly how long it went on for, but, from memory, it was close to a couple of hours, maybe an hour-and-a-half. Is it the case that condolence motions are to be shortened so that we can all rush to the finish line at 9 pm? That is not okay. That is, similarly, outrageous.
It is also unacceptable for us, as a parliament, to be debating matters which are urgent, of serious public importance - perhaps an issue, perhaps legislation – and, yet, we have to finish by a certain time. That is unacceptable, and that really makes a mockery of the parliament. Of course we have seen that a lot in recent times.
Talking about adjournments, I am noting something in the report. I note the member for Nelson’s comments, and others. This was rushed through. You people are just not fair dinkum about doing your job properly. No wonder the word ‘mediocrity’ has been used a lot in the last 24 hours. You really seem to thrive on mediocrity. This was rushed through. You have not encouraged a proper debate but it is very obvious you do not want to debate much.
Anyway, I understand from reading this that, on the Wednesday adjournment, we have all these time restrictions left, right and centre, but a minister may extend a debate - this is on a Wednesday adjournment under paragraph A:
- Where the Speaker interrupts the Adjournment debate, a minister may ask for the debate to be extended by 10 minutes to enable the minister or ministers
to speak in reply to matters raised during the debate.
Right, so, a garden variety member of parliament who comes in and wants to talk about their electorate only gets five minutes but, if someone wants to raise some matters, electorate-based or otherwise, that the government and the Speaker deem appropriate, then the minister not only gets 10 minutes, not only can extend the time, but could arguably have two bites at the cherry because that minister may have been speaking earlier in the five-minute adjournment debate while on his or her feet.
I spoke to the member for Nelson about this particular part of the report. He said, if I understood him correctly, that this was not discussed in the committee. This shows why it is unwise to rush. We have seen the government rush over the years, and it does not make a good policy. You have yourselves in a position where you are obsessed with time frames, and you are not at all concerned, apparently, with the good operation of the parliament. Shame on you. Shame on you all – all of you – Labor members of parliament, either ministers or backbenchers.
Mr Conlan: No one else has spoken in support of it, do you notice?
Ms CARNEY: Well, that is right. They just do not want to speak; they want to get home.
I am pleased I raised the matters I have. I raised them very genuinely, not just as a member of the opposition, but as a member who has been in this place for seven years. Parliament, in my experience of parliament, is far from perfect, but it runs okay. What the Labor government is doing now is trying to close down debate. Of course, we have seen form on this since the election. The oft interjection made by the member for Fong Lim to the Leader of Government Business is ‘gag girl’. Well, if the glove fits, certainly wear it. We have seen the government gag this opposition more than they did the last. This takes me neatly to the final part of my contribution.
These changes have nothing to do with reform, and you should be very honest about that. It has more to do with a headline than reforming parliament. To my knowledge, no mention was made during the election campaign about reforming parliament. I do not remember seeing the media release or policy, and there was no discussion about reforming parliament. So, let us track it back as best we can. Why not go for a little walk down memory lane to when Labor took office in 2001?
Labor was at its best in 2001 - by far your best term of government. You had enthusiastic new members, you had a good Chief Minister, you had waited an awfully long time to come into government, and you hit the ground running. The Country Liberal Party, on the other hand, had some members who had previously been government ministers who could not get used to the fact that the CLP had lost government. They were angry, resentful and, frankly, not very good at being in opposition. It took pretty much the whole term for most of those people to work that out. Even a casual observer would say that that is a fairly good summing up of the first term of Labor’s government and the CLP’s opposition.
So, Labor had it all its own way, due to what I regard as a pretty disastrous …
Ms Lawrie: Considers herself a political commentator. What incredible arrogance.
Ms CARNEY: Hang on. You have had your go. If you want more time, you should have asked for more time. You are just rude and offensive, so you just sit there and be quiet ...
Ms Lawrie: Incredible arrogance to consider yourself a political commentator.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I ask for your protection against this maggot on the other side, who is just revolting …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw that comment, thank you.
Ms CARNEY: I will withdraw ‘maggot’ and replace it with ‘grub’.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, withdraw ‘grub’ as well.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw ‘grub’. I ask, Madam Speaker, as you know as well as I do how very offensive she is, that you protect me as a member in this House, and that you …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, just pause. Members, I remind you of Standing Order 51. Leader of Government Business, I ask that you try to keep the interjections to a lower level. Thank you.
Ms CARNEY: So, in Labor’s first term, they had it pretty much all their own way. The CLP …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I question the relevance of where the member for Araluen is going in her pretence that she is some kind of independent political commentator when she clearly has a little axe to grind. She was dumped as Leader of the Opposition, she is absolutely offensive …
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order. The member for Karama was asserting, I gather, that I maintained I was an independent commentator. I referred in my discussions - and it will show up in Hansard - to ‘even the most casual observer’.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen …
Ms CARNEY: There is no point of order and I ask you to rule …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen …
Ms CARNEY: … accordingly and shut her up, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, that was extremely rude. I was actually speaking then.
Ms CARNEY: My apologies, Madam Speaker.
Mr Conlan: Oh, so it is okay for her to be rude.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you are on a warning. I believe the Leader of Government Business is referring to Standing Order 67, which is no digression from the subject. Member for Araluen, there is a fair bit of latitude in this sort of thing, but if you could keep as close as possible to the debate at hand.
Ms CARNEY: The relevance is this, Madam Speaker, and member for Karama: you hypocrites say and have pitched the changes to the parliamentary sittings under the banner of reform. I am saying, and the opposition is saying, that there is a reason why you have changed this in seven years of government. You had it all your own way, pretty much, between 2001 and 2005. You were a pretty good government then – but, by god, you have gone downhill - and we were not a good opposition, and casual observers would agree with me.
In the second term of government, Labor was in a great position because it had 19 members and we had four. No changes for that term because they had their own way. However, it was a terrible term, in a sense, for Labor because of all the infighting and the knifing of the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister. You have had two terms where you are strutting your stuff and you are feeling pretty cool and groovy.
The third term comes along and, because of the appalling judgment of the current Chief Minister - who will not be there for long - the person who is sitting in the seat now, by going to the election when he did, my, the numbers have changed. They are very much closer and, in our second parliamentary sittings in October, government members felt the heat. You had not seen the force of opposition by reason of us only having four numbers in the preceding term. Now, you have seen the force of members on our side and the vigour with which they seek to bring you to account …
Ms Lawrie: You flatter yourselves.
Ms CARNEY: You can mutter all you like, and I would like to think that you will be picked up by Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, are you reflecting on the Speaker.
Ms CARNEY: No, Madam Speaker, I was just hoping that you would, obviously, protect me in the way that all of us would like.
Madam SPEAKER: There have been interjections on both sides. As you are aware, I do not pull up everyone for every interjection.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I am deeply offended by that comment.
A member interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
Ms CARNEY: I did not say anything, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Just be careful, member for Araluen, in this reflecting on the Speaker.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, Madam Speaker, what exactly are you …
Madam SPEAKER: I would like you to stick to the topic and get on with it, thank you.
Ms CARNEY: Had it not been, for the ongoing interjections of the member for Karama, I would have been done and dusted by now.
In any event, what happened in the October sittings? You were held to account. And what else happened? You stayed up late. For the first time in a number of years, you had to do a bit of work. You and all your little factotums up the back all had to stay out late. It nearly killed you. We could see it. You just did not want to work.
Then, all of a sudden, we are going to reform parliament, they say. Nothing mentioned during the election campaign. No mention of anything, to my recollection, over the preceding seven years. All of a sudden, you want to reform, because you cannot have it all your own way any more and you do not like it.
As a result of the Chief Minister now, finally, embracing our policy of fixed parliamentary terms as a result of the legislation introduced today, you also know it is going to be a long, hard four years for you. You also know that we have spring in our step and we are going to go as hard as we can against the Labor government of the Northern Territory on behalf of the people we have the privilege of representing. That is why it was necessary, member for Karama, to look at what you have done in the context of the last seven-and-a-bit years.
We have your number. We all know very few people are listening to this parliamentary debate. In a sense that is not surprising. However, in so many ways it does not matter, because we are debating what they already know; that is, arrogance, stupidity, obsession with staying in power, those sorts of things …
Mr Conlan: Tokenism.
Ms CARNEY: Tokenism and just lunging from crisis to crisis. We saw it in the second half of the last term and, in three-and-a-half months since the election, that is pretty much what is happening.
We have your number, and we want you to know we know why you are doing this. You can call it whatever you like. You call it a reform. We say it is a spiteful, vindictive, mean attempt to ensure that members of the opposition have less time to speak on their feet - that is, adjournment debates – and less time to talk about the people in their electorates. This is a spiteful, mean-spirited series of changes veiled under the banner of reform so you get your couple of inches space in the Northern Territory News. Well, bully for you! I am glad I have risen. I did not intend to speak in this debate, but it is important. Based on the discussions I had with my colleagues earlier, we wanted you to know that we know why you have done it. So, wrap it up however you like. You are just unbelievable.
I do not know what is worse. I do not know whether we try to put up with the Chief Minister the way he is, or whether we egg on the member for Karama. I am not sure who will be better. I wait to see the outcome, but I can honestly say that if it is the member for Karama then the opposition is probably going to be deprived of significantly more time because she cannot stand it when people disagree with her. She cannot stand hearing any alternative view because she is top of the pack, as opposed to middle of the pack, when it comes to arrogance. The way she has conducted herself, based on conversations I have had with the member for Greatorex, and from what my colleagues, the members for Sanderson and Greatorex have said to me privately and during this debate, is just astounding.
I thought the member for Greatorex was very sincere when he talked about it earlier. He was genuinely let down. He was genuinely surprised, poor thing. He can still be surprised by the member for Karama. I cannot be but, no doubt, member for Greatorex, you will get the hang of that as the years roll on.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, the poor work ethic of the government is appalling, because that is what this report is about. It is about their reluctance to commit to the job. We currently sit for a mere 33 days a year. We are about to sit for a mere 36 days under this new regime and, yet, parliament must now end at 10 pm.
As the member for Greatorex said, the fact that when you are sitting there talking to people and they ask what hours you work when you are in parliament, and you say: ‘We start at 10 am; we work until 12 noon; we have a two-hour lunch break; then we go through to a dinner break from 6 pm to 7.30 pm; and then we come back in and are all gone by 9:30 pm, 10 pm’, it is hardly what most people out there in the real world think is a big day. The fact that this only occurs 33 days of the year is a total farce.
As a person who has spent a bit of time in parliaments around the rest of the country, dealing with parliamentarians around the rest of the country, I have to tell you that we are seen as the laughing stock of the nation because of the hours this parliament works. The fact that there is so much left undebated on the Notice Paper and that members are constantly shut down is a very poor look in relation to this particular parliament. It is not just embarrassing for me, but it should be embarrassing for every single one of us in this place. The fact that the government gets tired and cannot work past 10 pm at night for 36 days a year - only 36 days a year - is appalling. If that is the case; if you cannot work past 10 pm, let us double the sitting days. It would not be a big deal to double the sitting days. We could turn up for 70 days a year.
The federal parliament sits for somewhere between 100 and 120 days a year. When you work it out, they are in Canberra for almost six months of the year as a federal parliamentarian. I look at a Labor colleague of the members on the other side, the member for Lingiari - not a person who I agree with politically on many things at all. In actual fact, we disagree on a hell of a lot things and we have had some pretty terrible fights over the years. However, one thing I will say about the member for Lingiari is that he is an extraordinarily hard worker. I have said that for many years. Not only does the member for Lingiari sit in federal parliament for almost six months of the year but, when he comes back to his electorate, he virtually flies around the whole of the Northern Territory in light aeroplanes and rarely complains about it - rarely complains about it. I could not even count on one hand the people who would do the travel and commit to the time the member for Lingiari does to represent the people in his electorate. I do not think he does a great job representing them, I do not think he expresses their views particularly well. The fact is he does get around and works extraordinarily hard.
To listen to the member for Fannie Bay complain that he could not work an extra three days a year because that would take time away from him being in his electorate …
Mr Conlan: His three suburbs.
Mr TOLLNER: He said three suburbs. Is it three suburbs? Probably not even three suburbs - Fannie Bay and Stuart Park, isn’t? What else is there?
Mr Gunner: Parap.
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, Parap, of course - three suburbs.
A member: Ludmilla.
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, and Ludmilla. He is a good constituent of mine, I have to say. However, I digress, Madam Speaker.
To listen to the member for Fannie Bay complaining about the extraordinary workload he has trying to cover his electorate flies in the face of reason. It is absolutely appalling - the poor little blighters in the Labor Party do not get their sleep, therefore, huge numbers of issues which are of concern to people across the Territory do not get debated.
The Opposition Whip made the point about the member for Karama; how people have called her ‘the gag girl’. I suppose it is meant to be a bit of a slap to the member for Karama but every time things do not go the government’s way, the member for Karama jumps up and gags the parliament - shuts it down. It is a terrible thing, and it happens time and time again. We do not get 10 questions each side in Question Time; we simply get an hour. The member for Karama could not give a toss whether we only get two questions in Question Time because it is going to be shut down. I cannot understand, for the life of me, in a parliament of this size, why we could not even just exhaust questions - just let it run? There is no reason at all, in a parliament the size of this, with 365 days a year to work with, that people cannot ask as many questions as they like. To be shut down constantly, over 33 days a year, is just appalling.
Talking about questions, I am stunned that in a place like this that you cannot ask the Speaker a question without asking leave of the parliament. To me, that is just so ridiculous. Members will recall I made an attempt to ask the Speaker a question. I was informed that I needed to seek leave of the parliament. Oddly enough, ‘gag girl’ jumped up and said: ‘No, no, no, we are not going to let this happen’; voted on government lines and would not allow me to ask an innocent question of the Speaker.
In federal parliament – a place where I spent a considerable amount of time; six years - after every Question Time, members of both sides get up and pose questions to the Speaker. The Speaker would answer them as best they could. In some cases, the Speaker would say: ‘I will have to get further information’, come back and report to the Chamber. That would occur, but there was no requirement to seek leave of the Chamber to ask the Speaker a question - that is just ridiculous.
It is a similar thing with personal explanations. I hear this: ‘You can approach me at some stage and request to make a personal explanation’. I wonder why you have to approach the Speaker to make a personal explanation. Why can we not stand up after Question Time and say, ‘Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation’? Why can somebody not just stand up and say: ‘Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation’? Does the Speaker vet personal explanations; determine what is a suitable personal explanation and what is not? The Speaker has the ability to pull someone up whilst they are making a personal explanation, as we are not allowed to bait or that sort of stuff, but why should somebody have to seek the Speaker out in the morning in order to make a personal explanation that day? To me, that is another abrogation of democracy in the parliament.
Regarding access to video and audio clips, we know the cameras here are not of the best quality. The video footage is not of the best quality. I cannot understand why a member of this Chamber cannot access that footage. It is just ridiculous. I wrote to the Speaker asking for access to some of the footage and was flatly declined. I could not access footage. There was no explanation why that was the case ...
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wonder whether the member is reflecting on the Chair. He is making some fairly crude insinuations about the rulings of the Speaker. I believe it is bordering on reflecting on the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think it is. However, I remind you, member for Fong Lim, that I did write to you and give you the explanation in the letter as to why I had refused you having that. You can continue, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I will check that record again.
Madam SPEAKER: It did explain exactly why.
Mr TOLLNER: I do recall it was a very short letter. You may well be right, and I apologise if I have offended you in some way. I did not mean to reflect on the Chair at all; I was more reflecting on the processes of this parliament. I apologise if I have offended you in any way.
I know the member for Daly is quite keen to make his little mark on this place. He is a well known as ‘silent knight’. Somebody asked me the other day: ‘What is the difference between the member for Daly and a shed?’ I said: ‘I do not know’. He said: ‘If it moves it is a shed’. We know on this side that the Chief Minister is under threat. He is not only under threat from the Treasurer, but the dark horse in the whole thing, the member for Daly, who is gearing up, working the numbers, working the backbench. He was in your ear, member for Fannie Bay. He will be in your ear, minister, yours too, and the member for Nhulunbuy …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 49. The member for Fong Lim, the former member for Solomon, knows that he should be addressing his comments through the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct. Thank you. Order!
Mr TOLLNER: He makes a relevant point, Madam Speaker, but I will address my colleagues adequately.
We know what is going on in the back rooms of the Labor Party ...
Dr Burns: That is because you walked through our lobby for a bet, you goose. Is that not right?
Mr TOLLNER: The minister has just pulled me up for not addressing my comments through the Chair, and here he is yelling across the Chamber.
Dr Burns: I am interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is an interesting debate. Standing Order 51:
- No Member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance which in the opinion of the Speaker is designed to interrupt or has the effect of interrupting a Member speaking.
Honourable members …
Mr TOLLNER: We know that the Chief Minister …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I am still speaking, if you would resume your seat. Member for Fong Lim, you may now speak. You are aware that the standing orders are that if the Speaker is speaking you resume your seat? Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: My apologies, Madam Speaker.
I digress. This debate is not about who is about to stick the knife into the Chief Minister. It is about the accountability of this parliament and the lacklustre performance of the government in their desire to get home to bed nice and early. That is the fundamental point.
In relation to accountability, I was taken aback by the fact that video and audio footage is not accessible in the same manner that it is in other parliaments around this country to members of those particular parliaments. I was also quite taken aback today when I overheard a comment. I do not know the truth of this, but I do know that the cameras that come into this place during Question Time can only get footage during Question Time. Well, something that I found out today from somebody – it may have been a discussion we were having about this particular legislation - is that those cameras are not allowed to pan. They cannot pan the Chamber. I found that rather extraordinary. I thought, goodness me, what do these people have to hide when the media is told that they are not allowed to pan the Chamber in order to - I do not know, the media may want to get a bit of footage of reaction on members’ faces and the like. I do not know, but they are told straight out that they are not allowed to pan the Chamber. I find that abhorrent, as well.
In relation to this report, there is a whole range of things which are totally abhorrent to the citizens of the Northern Territory - or should be, were they properly informed about what was happening. As I said yesterday, this government is not interested in results. It is not interested in getting things done. What it is interested in is the message - getting the message out there.
We know this is all about a headline. We know the media releases have been issued. I see one in this little booklet from the Chief Minister - somewhere in here - talking about reforms to the parliament, making the parliament more open and accountable. He put that in a media release. It has been clearly shown here today that it is nothing to do with onus or accountability. These reforms being put in place are everything to do with everything but openness and accountability.
What they are about are media releases, putting a shine on an appalling government, a lacklustre government. It is a government that is not interested in doing the hard yards for Territorians; that wants to get home to bed early, and refuses to extend the sitting times of the parliament. I find it quite amazing.
These lunch breaks, for instance. Why do we have lunch breaks? If people want to keep a lunch break, surely, we could add a few extra days to the sitting period? Why can we not have an extra 20 or 30 days a year to get through some of the debates that we have in this place? All of these things are supposedly so important – we have the economic direction of the Third Reich, we have the police legislation …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim has been pulled up in the past for being offensive in referring to this government as the Third Reich. I have pulled him up in this Chamber before about how offensive that is to Jewish people …
Mr Conlan: Reich is just German for rule. That is all it is.
Ms LAWRIE: Picking up on the member for Greatorex, who wants to defend the indefensible …
Mr Conlan: It is just German for rule. It is just a word.
Ms LAWRIE: We know he is referring to the Hitler era. He has form on this and you know it. It is offensive.
Mr Conlan: Oh, you are so offended by that. It is pathetic.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw those comments, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw.
Mr Conlan: Boo hoo. He is not talking about that and you know it.
Mr TOLLNER: The Leader of Government Business …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I took the member for Greatorex gesticulating across the Chamber as an act of saying how sorry he was about the Third Reich destroying millions of Jews in the war - which I find offensive also. He should withdraw that gesticulation he made across the Chamber, sarcastically saying how sorry he was about what happened with the Third Reich during the World War II. That is offensive and he needs to withdraw it.
Mr Conlan: No, I do not.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I ask you to withdraw the comments.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, can I just say that …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you are actually on a warning.
Mr CONLAN: Okay, so where are we?
Madam SPEAKER: Are you going to withdraw the comments?
Mr CONLAN: Can I speak to the point of order?
Madam SPEAKER: Are you going to withdraw the comments? Simply withdraw the comments.
Mr CONLAN: What comments? There was no comment.
Dr Burns: It was a gesticulation, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr CONLAN: Okay. I withdraw it, whatever.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Again, a second instance of a total disregard of standing orders by the Leader of Government Business - now, the minister for Justice, Minister for Health.
There is nowhere in standing orders that says you cannot refer to the government in a particular way. You cannot refer to individuals. I withdrew that comment the first time around, because of a comment I made in relation to the Chief Minister, comparing him with another leader in another place of a particularly bad government. To refer to the government in a particular manner is not a breach of standing orders. It is a complete disregard and a lack of understanding, and getting on your high horse about nothing.
What I was saying was there is a whole range of items sitting on the Notice Paper waiting to be debated, but it rarely gets debated. Why? Because this government does not want to debate it. We will go into it again: The Economic Direction off the Third Labor Government; Increasing Police Presence, Making Communities Safer. Goodness me, we went to an election on law and order; both sides campaigned heavily on it. We have not discussed it. We have not discussed the Chief Minister’s statement.
Madam Speaker, this report is hypocrisy at its highest. There is nothing open and accountable about this parliament ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, your time is expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on a few points that have been raised in this debate. Some were relevant to the debate, some certainly were not relevant.
What I want to point out in the dissenting report is a comment on page 17 by the CLP which refers to the notifications for MPIs. It says that it is required at 8 am. They think it is difficult to accept that there will be staff in the office or, for that matter the Speaker, at 7 am. They are saying there is no doubt that requiring a 7 am drop-off and notification of an MPI will necessitate staff members being in the building outside normal working hours; that this has implications on the budget.
They are saying - and I am just looking for the exact words here, Madam Speaker. They are saying, essentially, that it has been their experience that there have not been staff available in your office to register their MPIs prior to 8 am. This certainly flies in the face of what actually has occurred in the Speaker’s Office in the receipt of matters of public importance. For the purposes of setting this record straight and making sure that we have some accuracy in this debate, I will table a few examples of the MPIs I have obtained that clearly identify the time at which they were received in the Speaker’s Office.
For example, the MPI we will be debating later this evening was received at 7.56 am in your office. Very clearly, your staff is available to receive this, despite the statement in the dissenting report by the CLP that says:
The current arrangement is for 8 am, and on almost all occasions this year, no Speaker’s staff or the Speaker have been available to provide the paperwork
to so as to meet the stipulated time Parliamentary requirements.
But here we have 7.56 am for the MPI this morning. The MPI on 10 September was received at 7.43 am. The MPI on 16 September was received at 7.45 am. There was one MPI on 17 September received at 7.45 am. The MPI on 23 October was received at 7.50 am. So, saying that, on almost all occasions this year, Madam Speaker or her staff have been available – clearly, that is patently wrong, as is evidenced by the MPIs with the time of receipt marked on them that I have tabled.
It is one thing for members opposite to come in here and have a go - as we know, it is starting to be their form to have a go at the Speaker, a form that does them no great service and, indeed, shows the depths to which this opposition is prepared to sink. Also, through a dissention report, they attacked your staff, Madam Speaker. Again, it is part of their form - they like to attack public servants. Now, they are extending their attacks to the staff of members …
Mr Tollner: You are offensive.
Ms LAWRIE: Well actually, it is offensive in here - and I point out the dissenting report and read it again: … no Speaker’s staff or the Speaker have been available …’ etcetera. To have a go at the staff is offensive and, clearly, the evidence shows that you are wrong - you are completely wrong. So, do not have a go at the staff when, in fact, you are wrong. Madam Speaker, I felt it was important in this debate, because there have been many things said that have no substance to them, but we are getting used to that coming from the CLP.
Page 18 of the dissenting report refers to the issue of incorporating material. It is part of their argument that there is no change in incorporating material. They are saying you can incorporate now, and what the government is proposing to do in incorporating speeches in adjournment is no change. Well, that is wrong because, currently, a member can be given leave from the Speaker to have lists of names such as school students or awardees, incorporated into the Parliamentary Record, but only after the member has indicated what that item is. This is not a speech incorporated into the Parliamentary Record, it is a list of names – not a speech, so there is a change.
Member for Sanderson, you might not get what the practice has been, but you could have sought some independent advice from the Clerk. Very clearly, this is a change. It was stated at the Standing Orders Committee meeting that this is a change. You could have sought extra independent advice before you shot from the hip and said there was no change.
Members opposite would have us walk into this fantasy that they are creating that no work occurs in parliament other than between the hours of 10 am and 12 pm, and then between the hours of 2 pm until we rise; that there is no work, that politicians are not working. I congratulate the member for Nelson for pointing out just how foolish and ridiculous this is in a debate, to lead this notion that there is no work that politicians do outside of the hours when we are in this Chamber. It is an absolute nonsense.
It will vary from member to member, depending on what their role is, whether they have a role in government, a role in opposition, an Independent member, a minister, a shadow minister, a Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Minister, etcetera. It will vary, but each member, I am assured, is working, certainly by, at the very latest - you would be hard pushed not to be - 9 am prior to a 10 am start. I then hazard to guess that each member would really be working by 8.30 am for a 10 am start, and there would be many who are starting far earlier than 8.30 am to get their work done. As I said, it will vary depending on the roles and responsibilities of the members of this Assembly.
Equally, they would have us believe that we have two hours off for lunch. Well, my goodness - unbelievable. I have been a backbencher in government …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can the Leader of Government Business clarify for us whether it was your office or the Clerk’s office that received those particular MPIs?
Ms LAWRIE: There is no point of order. There is no clarification. I was actually talking about …
Mr ELFERINK: Well, no. A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Leader of Government Business has come into this place and accused us of making allegations against members of your staff. I am now asking whether it was your office or the Clerk’s office which received these MPIs. If it was the Clerk’s office, she is borderline misleading this House ...
Ms Lawrie: Oh, not at all. She would know ...
Mr ELFERINK: Was it the Clerk’s office or was it the Speaker’s office?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The documents will indicate on them who received them.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, it is your signature on them, Madam Speaker, so it is from your office ...
Mr Elferink: Oh, was it? Really? We will check that, because the advice I have received is quite different.
Ms LAWRIE: Misleading again. Oh, really? So argumentative. What about the fact that he steps in here and leads with his chin?
I was on the subject of the lunch break. The member for Greatorex started this theme of why can we not work through the lunch break? It might be news to him but many people do work through the lunch break. The backbenchers of the government work through all their lunch breaks. It is nonsense to call it a break – we are only broken from the Chamber, because they are all on committees, and those committees meet every lunch period of a sittings day.
I have been in that role and I know what it is like. You literally go from committee meeting to committee meeting. It is a big workload in those parliamentary committees. It is important work and I sincerely thank the backbenchers for the heavy workload they carry through those parliamentary lunch breaks, as they are called.
Also, as we all know, there is media that is occurring for members of parliament during the lunch break, and meetings with stakeholders. I saw members opposite today meeting with stakeholders, just as government members meet with stakeholders. It is not a downtime. We are not sitting down, having a cup of coffee, with our feet up on the table and having a bit of a relax. It is work!
I do not know anyone who can afford to be a member of parliament and functioning well, if they are not working through that two-hour period, then the bells start ringing to get us back in here. It is nonsense that is being put by the opposition that these two hours are actually a break. It is continued work, albeit not in the Chamber. It is work, and it is work that supports, particularly in the area of parliamentary committees, the work of the parliament and the work done in this Chamber.
The member for Sanderson led this bizarre line that we need an extra week to get some extra work done. Three days is three days. No matter how you cut it, three days is extra time to get extra work done.
It is strange that there would not be extra scrutiny. The member for Fannie Bay picked up on that, he pointed out that if the three extra days happen to fall on a Monday, which in the 2009 calendar they are going to, well, the media is working on Monday so they are scrutinising. There will be three Question Times on those Mondays - so, hello, that is scrutiny. Any way you cut it, whether it is three days of a week, or three days spread across weeks, it is an extra three days of scrutiny of government, and this government contends that is good for democracy.
The member for Nelson said he is disappointed in the debate coming into parliament today. He would have liked more opportunity and time for input from all MLAs. I did go out of my way, as Leader of Government Business, to find time to meet with him. I did go through the proposed changes. I did flag the thinking around the changes additional to the Chief Minister’s announcement, which was the workability and the hour of the adjournment debate; the Wednesday night, and how adjournment could be carried out to give members extra opportunity to adjourn; the idea of incorporating speeches into parliament, which will effectively double the five-minute adjournment to a 10-minute adjournment - if you are organised, doing your job well, efficient, and productive. I guess it is not going to work for the opposition. However, members of government will be using that new change, that opportunity.
The member for Nelson talked about government going outside its original announcement in some areas; for example, the way we would handle adjournment debates in particular. I point out that we also went outside the announcement in the areas put on the table by the opposition. We have agreed to make a reference to the Standing Orders committee regarding General Business Day and how that operates. We have also agreed to have a look at Question Time and how that operates. I want to flag to the member for Nelson that we also picked up on those matters that were put before government by the opposition.
We know that the opposition does not like reports in the morning, as the member for Nelson does not. However, as government we believe they are important opportunities to let the Territory know of initiatives that are occurring in the Territory that are affecting Territorians’ lives. They are not lightweight issues that are raised in reports; they are significant and important issues to Territorians. The members of the opposition complain that they do not get forewarning about what the reports are about, so it does not help with the quality of the debate to not know what the subject is; therefore they cannot research it prior to that and it does not help the quality of the debate.
Guess what Question Time is for ministers? You do not get forewarned. If you want to look at the quality of the debate, you do not get forewarned by the members of the CLP. Yes, the member for Nelson from time to time will give us a heads up on the direction he is going. I used to be able to get the actual written question out of him, which was terrific, but those days are slipping. As far as quality of debate goes, I point out it cuts both ways, members.
The member for Araluen provided a pretty shrill and hysterical contribution to the debate, as usual, but we are getting used to that. She questioned why these reforms are coming about this particular term of government, and why not the last two terms of government of Labor. What have we seen in this term of government from the opposition? An unmitigated rabble – disorganised. They do not know who is speaking when, they decide on the spur of the moment to jump and contribute to debate. They are an absolute rabble. You know the Leader of the - I nearly made a Freudian slip. I nearly called the member for Araluen ‘the Leader of the Opposition’ because that is what she used to be before she was dumped. She gave this pathetic political commentary that went along the lines of the CLP were hopeless before but now they are good, now they are forceful, it is all going to change. If you were to take that to its natural conclusion, what she is saying is that they were hopeless under her leadership and, after they dumped her, they became invigorated. Maybe the slip was a bitter and twisted contribution to the debate because she is on the outer. She knows she is never going to be a leader again. She is looking at the backwash of a failed parliamentary career, drifting away …
Mr Conlan: At least she tells the truth.
Ms LAWRIE: Ah, member for Greatorex, you are upset. He needs to be told the truth. I will not go there because it is an interesting comment. One member of government indicated that maybe the member for Araluen could get two votes in a leadership challenge, which we figure could be the member for Greatorex. However, I reckon she has probably lost his as well. We are down to one vote. Never mind. As Syd said, he was not too proud to vote for himself in the leadership challenge.
I raise this because they would have us think there is this dissension amongst government ranks; that our Chief Minister is under some kind of leadership threat. They want to stir this little pot. They could not be further from the truth. I know my colleagues running this Caucus are a good bunch of people who work together. Every single one of them is 150%-plus behind our Chief Minister. I do not know anyone who has leadership ambitions because we all ‘get’ how tough the job is and how hard the man works and how great he is at it. So, maybe that bitter and twisted contribution was about the failed political career of the member for Araluen.
The member for Fong Lim came in with his fantasy around us starting work at 10 am. Maybe you do, member for Fong Lim, but the rest of us here start work a hell of a lot earlier than 10 am. We come into the Chamber with bells ringing at 10 am, but we started work a lot earlier than that. We work for our two hours, have a lunch break - oh joy, oh joy, to actually get that break. He seems to be somehow stuck in the House of Reps time warp because he keeps questioning all of the standing orders of this parliament. The standing orders have been around for a long time; they have been tried and tested. That little time warp he is stuck in after his defeat in Solomon, I really think it would improve his political career if he could just move on - just come to grips with it and move on.
The one idea he may have been on to something was when he became fixated whether cameras can pan during Question Time. He became quite passionate about this issue. I am reliably advised that our media and camera guidelines in relation to Question Time filming are based on the guidelines of the House of Representatives. He is shocked and dismayed over the practice and guidelines here, but he had spent many years in Canberra and had not noticed that was the practice and guidelines in Canberra. It is a bit surprising.
We now have debated whether people like the GBDs, Question Times; and whether those things are being handled as they should be, as they could be. As I clearly said, the government is having a look at all of that. There are references to the Standing Orders Committee for that.
When you get back to, fundamentally, what this is, it is about the fact that we will have a productive and effective parliament which is not in the realms of nonsense at 2 am, where members opposite think they get a good outcome. If you look at any workplace - and I proudly say, from my union background, I did studies on the 12-hour shifts and looked at research at La Trobe University and what 12-hours shifts do to people physically, and how their brains function. I say very clearly that it has been a nonsense of parliamentarians to think that they are, somehow, superhuman; that after a 16-hour working day, they are still functioning at their most productive, optimum premium. It is a nonsense. We have the same physiology as every other worker in Australia, and long hours affect our bodies and, indeed, our brain in the same way. Not only is it a nonsense, it is arrogant and a pursuit of egos out of control - to not just keep other parliamentarians here for those lengths of time, but to keep the staff of the Assembly and, indeed, hard-working public servants.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the Chief Minister’s strength to pursue the long-overdue parliamentary reforms. I am certainly pleased with the report of the Standing Orders Committee - the First Report of the 11th Assembly. I look forward to this vote on this important motion, and I look forward to the reforms.
Motion agreed to.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Greatorex
Member for Greatorex
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before I call on Government Business, I have given my leave to the member for Greatorex to make a personal explanation. I remind honourable members it is the convention in this House to listen to personal explanations in silence, and there is no debate.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, in no way was I diminishing the human cost of the Holocaust; I simply was imitating gestures made across the Chamber by the member for Karama to me earlier in the debate, when she wiped her eyes to simulate tears. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust.
I feel I was bullied into a withdrawal without being able to offer any explanation, simply because the member for Johnston sought it.
It is also worth noting, Madam Speaker, that the member for Karama did not raise a point of order, which indicates that she fully understood the gesture, which is understandable, seeing that she initiated it earlier.
MOTION
Note Paper – Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2007-08
Note Paper – Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2007-08
Continued from 30 October 2008.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2007-08 which was tabled on Thursday, 30 October 2008.
Madam Speaker, in the October sittings, in accordance with section 9 of the Financial Management Act, I deemed tabled the 2007-08 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statements. The statements form part of the 2007-08 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report, the TAFR, and presents the Territory’s fiscal performance for that year. The report also satisfies the requirements of the final fiscal results report as set out in the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. We did not get the opportunity to debate the TAFR in the October sittings, but I have brought forward this motion in order to allow that debate to occur.
The highlights of the 2007-08 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report are:
all key fiscal aggregates have improved significantly on the 2006-07 outcome, and those estimated in both May 2007 and May 2008;
achievement of the sixth consecutive cash surplus of $211m for the general government sector;
general government accrual nett operating balance of $340m; and a fiscal balance of $198m.
record capital spending of $653m for the non-financial public sector, an increase of $86m since 2006-07;
a reduction of $156m in nett debt since 2006-07 to a total of $1.257bn, and
The 2007-08 outcome is a testament to our careful financial management over the past seven years. That means we are well placed heading into this period of global economic uncertainty that will, undoubtedly, affect the Territory.
I now turn in more detail to the outcome for the 2007-08 financial year. In addition to the 2007-08 estimate published in the 2008-09 Budget Papers, a pre-election fiscal outlook, the PEFO report, was released subsequent to the writs being issued for the 2008 general election. The PEFO was published on 1 August 2008 and presented preliminary, unaudited outcome for 2007-08. Those aggregates are broadly consistent with the final outcome presented in these 2007-08 financial statements. The 2007-08 outcome of a $211m cash surplus for general government is the sixth consecutive surplus and an improvement of $252m from the May 2007 budget.
This significant improvement since budget time is largely the result of increased specific purpose payments, SPPs, from the Commonwealth that were not fully spent in 2007-08. This will result in higher expenditure of around $100m in 2008-09 and future years when the funds are spent. While timing variations are not unusual, they are about three times higher in 2007-08 than previous years. Part of this additional expenditure requirement will be the reinstatement of $30m of appropriations for the Department of Health and Families that was transferred to other agencies at the end of 2007-08 in order to meet unexpected costs. The majority of the increased funding was the result of funding associated with the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER), including the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program, otherwise known as SIHIP.
I now turn to the 2007-08 accrual outcomes. The operating surplus of $340m and fiscal balance of $198m are both significant improvements on that budgeted. Again, as with the cash outcome, this is largely due to increased specific purpose payments, SPPs, from the Commonwealth which will be spent in future years. Operating revenue for 2007-08 was $486.3m higher than that projected in the May 2007 budget, largely as a result of:
increased taxation revenue of $29m due to continued growth in economic activity in the Territory;
additional GST revenue of $83.8m, being a combined effect of increased population estimates and a higher GST pool growth - oh, for those days;
increased SPP revenue of $267.6m, largely due to the significant levels of Northern Territory Emergency Response and Strategic Indigenous Housing
Infrastructure Program funding received in 2007-08;
increased interest revenue of $24m due to higher than expected cash balances, higher interest rates and, again, on extinguishment of loans in Territory Housing;
increased mining royalty revenue of $21.6m due to increased mining production and commodity prices;
increases in agency revenue across government, largely linked to additional expenditure commitments; and
increased tax equivalent payments as a result of the improved performance of the government’s business entities, offset by lower dividends due to the dividend
moratorium provided to Power and Water Corporation to support additional capital investment.
The increase in general government operating expenses during 2007-08 is $218m higher than budgeted. The main policy-related expenditure variations are:
the Territory government’s commitment to Closing the Gap initiatives as part of the $286m approved over five years that commenced in 2007-08;
funding for new and expanded initiatives including public safety, health, education, and climate change;
additional funding for new local government shires and remote community infrastructure;
funding to the Power and Water Corporation of $16.6m to complete undergrounding of power lines in Millner and Rapid Creek; and
a $50m contribution to Power and Water’s infrastructure program. A further contribution of $50m has also been made in 2008-09.
The key non-discretionary variations of $114m are largely expenditure related to the increase in SPPs from the Commonwealth.
The positive fiscal balance outcome is important as it presents the complete picture of government spending as, like the cash outcome, it incorporates the effects of both capital and operational transactions. Accordingly, all governments, including the Territory’s, strive for a significant positive operating result, and this provides the capacity for investment and capital infrastructure in the general government sector without the need for additional borrowing.
Both the improved operating and fiscal balance outcomes suggest that this government’s target of a sustainable balance by 2012-13 remains achievable. This is despite record levels of capital investment in 2007-08 and projected in 2008-09 and forward years, and the global economic conditions that will put pressure on the achievement of fiscal targets over the upcoming budgetary cycle.
Capital investment plays a central role in the government’s budget strategy, as it is essential for the delivery of the government’s services and contributes to the economic development of the Territory. The non-financial public sector capital investment for 2007-08 was $653m. This is $24m higher than that projected at the time of the 2007-08 budget and $86m more than the 2006-07 outcome. The increase in 2007-08 is largely the result of the additional investment in remote school facilities and housing due to Closing the Gap initiatives.
I now turn to the Territory assets and liabilities. Nett worth for 2007-08 is $3208m - an improvement of $774m from the original budget. Nett debt for 2007-08 is $1257m - $436m lower than that estimated at the time of the budget. It is largely the result of the flow-on effect of the improved outcomes for both 2006-07 and 2007-08. The nett debt to revenue ratio has also reduced to 30%, an improvement from the 44% in May 2007 and a significant improvement from the 67% recorded in 2001-02.
The period since 30 June 2008 has been characterised by instability in the international financial markets. Financial investments of the Territory comprise a range of short- and medium-term investments which include fixed interest securities and long-term investments that are held in the Conditions of Service Reserve, the COSR. Medium- and long-term assets are managed by external fund managers, on the instruction of Treasury’s Investment Committee. The committee, in turn, takes advice from the Treasury Corporations Advisory Board. This strategy of holding and monitoring the performance of a diversified portfolio of short- to medium- and longer-term investments has been in place for many years.
Since 30 June 2008, the Territory’s overall returns on its approximately $1bn investment portfolio is minus-2.70%. That compares favourably to a 23% fall in the Australian share market over the same period. Nett debt plus employee liabilities has decreased by $599m, as a result of the improved nett debt position, together with a decrease in the Territory’s superannuation liability ...
Mr Elferink: Have you read your mid-year report yet?
Ms LAWRIE: You and I are probably the only ones who get these jokes.
In accordance with accounting standards, the Territory’s superannuation liability has been re-valued using the 10-year bond rate at 30 June 2008, which was 6.5%. This resulted in a decrease of $190m in superannuation liabilities from that projected in May 2008, when a long-term rate of 5.7% was used. Since balance date, recent rate cuts and falling financial markets has meant that the bond rate has fallen to around 5%. Accordingly, at the time of publication of the 2008-09 Mid-Year Report, the liability over the budgetary cycle will revert more in line with that predicted in May 2008. Accordingly, while the nett debt plus employee liabilities to revenue ratio at 30 June 2008 is 89%, it is likely that the downturn in the economic and financial markets since year end will revert the ratio up above 100% over the upcoming budgetary cycle, in line with that predicted at budget time. Despite this, the target of nett debt and employer liabilities to revenue to fall over time is still being achieved.
Before I conclude, it is important to note that the 2007-08 financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the new accounting standard AASB 1049, whole-of-government and general government sector financial reporting. The new standard harmonises government financial statistics and generally accepted accounting principles with the objectives of improving the clarity and transparency of government financial statements, and removes the need for two sets of accounts prepared on different bases. While AASB 1049 is applicable to annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 July 2008, the Territory has earlier adopted for the financial year ended 30 June 2008 as permitted by the standard. The Territory also adopted the revised format in its May 2008 Budget Papers.
The presentation of the Territory’s accounts in line with AASB 1049 has resulted in the removal of the long-standing audit qualification that existed - good news to our Auditor-General – due to the Territory presenting financial statements in line with the UPF, but not preparing an additional set of statements in the format required by accounting standards. This means statements are unqualified for the first time ever!
A member: Whoo woo!
Ms LAWRIE: Sorry, folks. The adoption of a new accounting standard has also resulted in a change in accounting treatment of two items. The first is related to income received in the form of distributions that are automatically reinvested into the COSR. The second change results from the recognition of oncosts for superannuation on both recreation and long service leave. Neither of these treatments affects the cash outcome. However, there is an improvement of around $40m on accrual measures, the operating result, and fiscal balance. As this is the first time the Territory has adopted the new standard, the comparative data has been restated to comply with the new standard, which aids comparability and is in line with accounting standard requirements.
In conclusion, 2008 represents another extremely positive outcome for the Territory. The Territory is continuing to maintain its trend towards improved financial outcomes. The cash surplus is the sixth consecutive surplus and flows through to the improvements in nett debt and nett debt past-employee liabilities. The achievement of surpluses for both the operating and fiscal balances also indicates that meeting the target of a balanced result by 2012-13 remains realistic. This is more important when taking into consideration the significant infrastructure investment undertaken in recent years.
The Territory also continues to maintain its competitive tax environment relative to the rest of Australia in order to encourage increased levels of business activity in the Territory. Nett debt and nett debt past employee liabilities to revenue have shown significant improvement on the outcome for 2006-07 and the projections during 2007-08. The 2007-08 outcome shows this government is committed to managing the Territory’s finances responsibility while maintaining an appropriate balance between community needs, the needs of the Territory economy, and maintaining a sound fiscal position.
This stands the Territory in the best position possible to meet head on the challenges to our budget that recent downturns in global financial and economic conditions present.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the 2007-08 Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report to the Assembly.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Treasurer for her report and acknowledge at the outset - by the way, I congratulate the people sitting in the public gallery for maintaining their position in the public gallery. There is nothing that more effectively clears a public gallery of interested parties than a report on the state of the Territory. Well done. I appreciate your efforts. The Treasurer has to go through the process of reading out the areas of the annual report that she wishes to highlight. I see the bleachers often clear when these speeches are made because, often, her speeches are written, I presume, by a Treasury official or someone like that. It is expressed in Treasury speak.
I will endeavour to do something that is unusual when it comes to these sorts of speeches; I will attempt to see if I can make my response to this particular speech understandable in plain English. Here I go.
The first thing we have to understand about the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report is that it is the last in a series of documents prepared for a particular financial year. It is prepared after the financial year to which the report refers. What happens in the budget cycle is that, in May, prior to a financial year starting, the government produces its budget. Then, as the course of the year proceeds, the government produces various documents, including the mid-year report and quarterly reports, which are printed in the Gazette. Then, finally, at the completion of the year, the year is reviewed, all the accounts are settled, the pluses and the minuses are added up and, then finally, we get this final report for the end of the year.
The minister made much of the surplus of $211m within this document to which she referred. That, on the face of it, sounds like a very good result. People could be well impressed that the government has returned a $211m surplus - far in excess of what they originally budgeted for. However, now it is time to visit the document and how this surplus was arrived at. A budget is an organic thing; it changes over the financial year. The government is often at pains to point that out, and we are often at pains to point out the shortcomings of the government’s fiscal restraint when budgets change radically during the course of that financial year.
The report we have before us, however, is very much like a photograph in a movie, inasmuch as it is a photograph that is taken on 30 June, the very last day of the financial year. It then takes a while to develop, which is why it takes a while for the developed photograph to get into this House, for all to see. It gives us an opportunity to compare the original budget with the final outcomes of that financial year. We are talking about the last financial year, not the financial year we are currently in. It is interesting, then, to do those comparisons.
I will shortly come to the reason I refer to it as a photograph or a snapshot on a particular day. I draw honourable members’ attention to page 93 of this particular document. It says that in total revenue on the General Government Sector Budgetary Information, their operating statement, it has actually gone up from what the original budget was to what the final result was by $530m. To return a surplus of $211m becomes less of a remarkable achievement when you have the capacity to then compare it with the fact that they actually have $530m more than they expected.
This is really what all of this bureau-speak and gobbledegook is all about. We should be able to glean from all of these numbers, figures, charts and documents some meaningful information that the average punter can understand. I am fully aware that large amounts of that extra income came in the form of tied grants - the specific purpose payments. I am going to go through all of that, and I am not going to pick a fight unless it is worth picking. I am going to explain my argument rationally, rather than simply just waving and have a kicking session. There will be criticism, as you well appreciate.
The other thing that members need to be aware of are some comments made much earlier in the document, because there is admission - or an acceptance, if you like - on page 9 of the document, where the Treasurer, and Treasury, absolutely acknowledges that there has been a significant improvement with the income - an improvement, if you like, in the surplus position that they originally budgeted for. And they state, and I quote a bit of bureau-speak here, folks, please bear with me:
- The significant improvement is generally the result of increased specific purpose payments (SPPs) from the Commonwealth that were not fully spent in the year 2007-08.
This will result in higher expenditure in 2008-09 and future years, when the funds are spent. These timing variations are not unusual, however they are around three times
higher in 2007-08 than previous years. The effect of these timing differences on the current year and the forward estimates period will be seen in the 2008-09 Mid-Year Report.
At the risk of anticipating debate, we see them. However, what this means is that, all of a sudden, late in the year, a whole wad of cash comes out of Canberra and hits our books. Up goes our income by $530m, if you use the operating statement results printed on page 98 ...
Ms Lawrie: Mine just says BPs.
Mr ELFERINK: I am not going to argue about the upsies and downsies. You and I both know how they work. Up goes the budget surplus because we have this cash in the bank – click - on 30 June, when that photograph is taken. No problem with that, I accept that. It is clearly reported. In fact, the actual value that is put on these extra SPPs, on page 9 again, is $268m in SPPs from the Commonwealth. That is really what this document does. It enables us to look at what the budget looks like on 30 June, or at the end of the year.
The issue I have with these documents does not actually arise out of the document itself. It is merely an indicator as to what the fiscal position of the Northern Territory is. The issue that we should be debating in this House, and should be turning our mind to, is things like how government does its job and adheres to its own agenda. We started to hear the way the government has changed its policy approach somewhat in more recent years with the increased use by government of the thing called the Treasurer’s Advance - and I will explain that briefly.
The Treasurer’s Advance is like a little piggy bank that we stick into the budget every year. What the Treasurer effectively says when she asks for money for the Treasurer’s Advance is: ‘I cannot know everything that is going to happen in the year ahead’, the same as a household budget. We would like to think that we know all the bills that are coming in but, when the car breaks down, we are going to have to touch the household budget a bit more for that particular week to pay the bill. The same applies to government. There might be a cyclone, there might be some other disaster - goodness gracious, perish the thought - a substation might blow up. Then, all of a sudden, an unbudgeted expenditure has to come out of government. So we …
Ms Lawrie: Or an initiative.
Mr ELFERINK: Or an initiative. I will come back to that shortly, because there you will find a point of difference between you and me. There is, all of a sudden, a reason to need an extra bit of pocket money. The Treasurer, when she comes into this House, provides us with a whole bunch of budget papers to explain the Appropriation Bill, and says: ‘Give me an extra $40m just in case the wheels fall off somewhere’. So, at the beginning of the financial year, we give the Treasurer a little pocket money, and that pocket money is $40m to cover all of those unfortunate circumstances that could occur during the course of the financial year. That is called the Treasurer’s Advance. It might as well be called the piggy bank.
In any instance, what happened over the financial year is an area I am critical of government. And I pick up on the interjection by the minister before of: ‘Or an initiative’, because the government uses this money, not to cover things that go wrong during the year but, from time to time, they make determinations which are off budget spends. At the risk of anticipating debate on the current mid-year report again, if members will humour me, if you take the current mid-year report there is $26m reported in that as ‘new initiatives’, being decided upon by Cabinet, as the year goes on. This comes down to fiscal discipline and planning discipline and the ability to plan for the future.
There is nothing you can do about these sorts of things that occur, such as cyclones. You cannot predict a cyclone, so I can well understand that you have money in the piggy bank. However, the process government goes through to develop a budget is called Budget Cabinet. That happens well before May, prior to the financial year. The Treasurer calls all her ministers around her and says: ‘Right, what do you guys have on for the year? What are your policies for the year? What do you want to achieve in the next year?’ Departments will tell ministers of things they want to achieve, and ministers will have their own particular achievements in mind. So, Budget Cabinet should meet and determine and plot out what they are going to do for the next year and, then, allocate money accordingly.
This government has tended to decide as the year goes on. They have this new initiative, Buildstart which springs to mind. Another one that springs to mind was some road traffic changes recently to road traffic law, which was a decision that was taken outside of the financial year. All of these things cost money, so they start going back to this piggy bank, which is there primarily for the purposes of unexpected expenditure in the area of those things that are beyond government’s control …
Ms Lawrie: No, that is your interpretation.
Mr ELFERINK: It is a very valid interpretation, I might add. They keep touching the piggy bank.
If you go through the government’s operating statement, on page 98, you will see that revenue is actually broken up into different slices, so, revenue comes from different sources. One of the sources we have already discussed. They are the special purpose payments that are made by the federal government. These come in the form of tied grants and, essentially, the Northern Territory government becomes a project manager for specific things that the federal government wants built or done in the Northern Territory. There is not much that the Treasurer can do about those, and I would not expect that she would choose to refuse them, on the grounds that they do not fall in the budget structure of the Northern Territory. Of course, she would not.
However, they do have their own sources of income and they do have control over these. All of this money goes into a single bank account called the Central Holding Authority. The budget that we give at the beginning of the year should be the result of some very solid planning by government. However, as the year proceeds they empty the piggy bank and, so, they go back to the bank account and reach into it and drag some more money into the budget, because of their next Cabinet decision or their next flight of fancy or policy that they decided to bring online, halfway through the financial year.
There is a rule in the Financial Management Act - section 19 from memory; I could be corrected on that - which says: when we give a budget allocation, which means when parliament passes the budget of the Northern Territory at the beginning of the year, we give them X amount of dollars to do their job. Included in that budget allocation is a $40m piggy bank. What has happened in this financial year, however, is that they emptied the $40m piggy bank by December of the financial year - so within the six months of the financial year - and they have gone back to the bank account and touched the bank account. The Financial Management Act says they can do that, but they can only do it to 5% of the overall allocation that this parliament passes.
That is a very magic figure because that means if they exceed that budget allocation, they must come back to parliament and ask for more money. That, of course, would be an embarrassing thing for government to be forced into.
You have this piggy bank of $40m that gets drained. So, the government then keeps going back to the bank account saying: ‘I just need a bit more money’. The curious thing is, they end up taking out of the big piggy bank at the end of the last financial year. So, on the very same day this photograph is taken, they find they have taken out of the piggy bank, an amount of $143.754m. That is a very precise figure. That is down to the last $1000.
What is so interesting and important about this figure? If you calculate out $143.754m, it is precisely 5% of the budget allocation this parliament gave the Treasurer. She has emptied out the $40m out of the piggy bank and, then, she has gone back to the bank account and raided it again and again. Where has she gone to? She has gone to $1000 short of coming back into this House and asking for more money.
This is a government that says: ‘We are fiscally responsible. We have good planning procedures in train, and we very carefully plan our way through the next financial year. Therefore, we should be able to come out the other end of the financial year in some way reflecting what the original budget book said’. The fact is $177.754m has been spent off budget. That is $178m, actually. That is what? Three schools? How many nurses, how many doctors? Goodness gracious me, that is a lot. This is nothing to do with specific purpose payments, and nothing to do with changes in GST income for the year, because we are talking about the money that was actually allocated. To be off by $177m is not a good result - no matter how you would like to dress it up.
The Treasurer is happy to come in here and say: ‘We have this wonderful surplus’. That is fine but you are getting that surplus as a direct result of the Commonwealth government giving you projects to manage, and that money just happens to be sitting in your bank account – click - on 30 June when the snapshot is taken. It has a distorting effect. Your own document says it has a distorting effect. That is the problem I have with this particular arrangement.
By the way, whilst I am touching on the issue of the Treasurer’s Advance, I note that on page 125 of the Annual Financial Statement, the figure of $6223m is still listed on that page as the amount left over. Can I ask the Treasurer to indicate whether that number is correct? Is that number correct?
Ms Lawrie: I am just looking at the page.
Mr ELFERINK: Page 125, Treasurer’s Advance, $6233m. Is that number correct?
Ms Lawrie: That is the final allocation number. If you look over on page 124 - just checking. Yes, around about $6m.
Mr ELFERINK: $6223m, just make sure we are arguing the same number. You are happy the number is correct?
Ms Lawrie: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Because I think it is wrong. Anyway, we will come back it.
That is the problem we have; this document should, and does, reflect the way government goes about its business. The Budget Cabinet process is the process by which you lock in your planning for the year. If you have new programs in the pipeline and you suddenly have to do this and you suddenly have to do that, you have two choices in the budgetary year. You either keep your increased income - and we know that GST went up substantially during the year, so there was extra money in the government’s kick - or you spend it. The Treasurer has already said in this House that when we get extra money, it is now government policy to spend it, to pass it on to Territorians.
That, then, takes me back to the longer-term picture of the last few years. I would like to go back to 1 July 2000, I think was when the GST was finally introduced – 2000 or 2001? Jog my memory.
Ms Lawrie: I think it was 2000.
Mr ELFERINK: 2000, okay. What we discovered with the GST is that, because of the activity of the international economy and national economy, it has always exceeded expectations ...
Ms Lawrie: You know we are only getting just above the minimum guaranteed amount. You know that, come on!
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, so you say. So you say. It always exceeded expectations. The fact is, if you track that through to what the Northern Territory government projects every year, to what actually turns up in the final results for the year, you will find that GST has always over-exceeded the expectations of Treasury. Treasury, being the conservative bunch of people they are, quite rightly, try to say: ‘We are not going to make that much GST’. They tend to err on the side of caution. Growth rates, expenditure rates, consumer confidence, all that stuff, bumps up GST.
I took a little exercise last year, where I went back through every budget paper where the GST was predicted and the final results. Go to the TAFRs and compare the two. Over the period of - I think it was seven years - there was $1.2bn of unexpected extra money out of goods and services tax revenue for the Northern Territory. That would have been enough to obliterate almost all – actually no, it would have been enough to obliterate the nett debt situation ...
Ms Lawrie: If we did nothing.
Mr ELFERINK: It would have been enough to obliterate the nett debt situation of the Northern Territory ...
Ms Lawrie: If we did nothing. If we had no more nurses, no more doctors, no more police - if we did nothing. If we did not build any more roads, we did not repair any houses - if we did nothing.
Mr ELFERINK: There would have been enough to obliterate the nett debt situation of the Northern Territory. I understand that the Treasurer is twitchy about this because it reflects on the urge that this government has to spend everything that comes their way, because they can spend and we have the money. ‘We have the money’, they say. ‘We have a policy of dishing out the money; that is what we give to Territorians’. Okay, so, that is you policy. Why, then, all of a sudden, are we surprised when, finally, the financial worm turns - and some people would say it has been a long time coming - and we suddenly find ourselves looking down the barrel of a contracting GST income? It is actually going to get smaller.
However, we have a government with spend, spend, spend, spend mindset. They go through this process of spend, spend, spend. They now have an issue before them; that is, an issue of fiscal discipline. For the first time, and it is really not that bad, they are going to have to really start scratching around and finding out how it is to truly govern in an environment where the money is a little tighter. In the face of that, the first thing they announce is a deficit budget - immediately, first thing - of $47m.
That brings me to another issue which I am really disturbed about. You are aware, in your …
Ms Lawrie: I am really disturbed you did not ask me any questions in Question Time.
Mr ELFERINK: I beg your pardon?
Ms Lawrie: Why did you not ask me any questions at Question Time if you are so disturbed?
Mr ELFERINK: Because we had law and order issues to be concerned about - an 83% increase in violent crimes in the Northern Territory. We are also …
Ms Lawrie: Oh, right! $47m deficit - not a single question.
Mr ELFERINK: I actually asked you quite a few budget questions in Question Times if you cast your mind back on it …
Ms Lawrie: Not a single question. Two Question Times, not a single question.
Mr ELFERINK: Are you right?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please resume.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is also an issue of some confusion to me. I am, once again, perhaps running the risk of preempting a debate. The GST, according to the Treasurer, is going to contract by – oh, where is my bit of paper?
Ms Lawrie: $48m.
Mr ELFERINK: $48m. You realise, of course, that you also make reference to a document called the Mid-year Economic Fiscal Outlook in your mid-year report ...
Ms Lawrie: MYEFO.
Mr ELFERINK: MYEFO, okay. MYEFO says it is going to be $64m.
Ms Lawrie: I am happy to provide you with the explanation in my wrap-up.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, it is not the same; the federal government is putting one figure on it, and you are putting another. I am really curious about …
Ms Lawrie: Treasury has a very good reason.
Mr ELFERINK: Oh, I am sure they have, but it is the federal Treasury which has its reasons for $64m as well. It is a pretty big difference ...
Ms Lawrie: And what do you think that is? Do you think that is a projection?
Mr ELFERINK: Anyway, what these documents come down to is the behaviour of government. All these documents do is demonstrate how much money is going insies and outsies. The fact is that what the options portray is a philosophy of expenditure.
There is one area that I am concerned about in particular, and that deals with these specific purpose payments the federal government makes in the area of Indigenous expenditure, health expenditure and those things. I want to dwell on health particularly.
In this Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement, there is a breakdown, department by department - I cannot lay my eyes on it at the moment, immediately. At one stage, at the end of the year, they produce what is called a Final Approved Budget. If you look at the department of Health, it is at $911m, from memory. All of a sudden, $30m disappears out of the Health department. That is curious. I was so surprised by that transfer of allocations when I saw it, I thought, where did the $30m go …
Ms Lawrie: You got the answer?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I have the answer. $30m goes out of Health but, if you look at the original budget, the $911m was much more than the original budget for the year. So, a lot more money is percolated into Health. Where did that money come from? It came from the Commonwealth government, I presume ...
Ms Lawrie: Not all of it.
Mr ELFERINK: I presume in the form ...
Ms Lawrie: Not all of it.
Mr ELFERINK: Not all of it, but how much? A fair slice.
Ms Lawrie: Not all of it. Come on.
Mr ELFERINK: It comes in the form of special purpose payments ...
Ms Lawrie: Look at our own source revenue.
Mr ELFERINK: Surely, this government would not be engaged in the habit of using specific purpose payments - which just about happen to reflect some of those requirements that are being lodged on its shoulders as a result of the emergency response - to offset against their own allocations. What I am sulking about is that they have allocated some money for a specific job in Health. All of a sudden, along come these SPPs which bump up the Health budget beyond what they are expecting to spend in those specific areas. So, what does she do? She whips out $30m out of Health and lets the specific purpose payments cover the difference. Where does that money go? $10m goes to other departments, $20m goes back to the bank account, which then gets invested into the superannuation fund, COSR ...
Ms Lawrie: No.
Mr ELFERINK: No, she says - not me, not me. Well, the fact is $20m goes into the bank account, into the Central Holding Authority, and then $20m goes out of the Central Holding Authority. Where does it go? Into the superannuation account. This is the account which has lost some $80m since its highs from the last Treasury Annual Report for the - what was it? - 2006-07 financial year, when COSR, the superannuation savings of this government, reached $421m. Now, it has dropped back down to - what was the figure? - $340m-odd in the most recent report. So, after propping up the COSR with $20m, they are still $80m lower than they were 18 months ago.
Madam Speaker, this is a wonderful piece of economic or fiscal shystering. I can tell you ...
Ms Lawrie: No. Wrong, wrong, wrong - you are wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: So you say, Treasurer. Well, then, you stand up in this place and you prove it.
Debate suspended.
__________________
The sitting suspended.
__________________
__________________
MOTION
Note Paper – Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2007-08
Note Paper – Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2007-08
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I know I got a bit fired up towards the end of the shadow Treasurer’s contribution to debate, but there is a good reason for that. We can debate policy issues around each other’s policy settings, and that is as it should be; however, to question and be given answers in writing and, then, come into this Chamber and completely ignore the answer that had been provided, and create some fantasy that has no basis in fact or reality after briefings with Treasury officials, I find absolutely appalling.
It does this shadow Treasurer no good at all, because you really question why you bother to provide written responses to these questions on notice which is then ignored and misconstrued - to put it kindly. There are other words I could call it but I will use misconstrued.
I will go, first of all, to the issue of the transfer of money from the Health department. The shadow Treasurer is trying to say that the $30m taken out of the Health department included an amount of $20m that then went into the investment into the COSR that was, obviously, indicated in the May budget of 2008. Nothing could be further from the truth on that little flight of fantasy path he went down. For the record, I will read the written answer provided to the shadow Treasurer to correct the record so the fantasy is not believed:
- Question:
On 30 June 2008, $3 617 000 was transferred primarily into the Central Holding Authority.
- 1. Why was that money transferred out of health?
Answer:
The budget papers include updated estimates of revenue and expenditure for the current financial year. The estimate is based on updated information as at one month before the
budget is introduced, usually around early April. However, funding arrangements for some agencies may vary subsequent to April and prior to the end of the financial year if they
receive additional unexpected Commonwealth revenue or have unanticipated one-off expenditure commitments.
During 2007-08, the Department of Health and Community Services received significant additional funding from the Commonwealth, largely related to the Northern Territory
Emergency Response. It was not clear during April and May that an agreement would be reached with the Commonwealth about these additional funds. However, when the
agreement was finalised, the Commonwealth determined that it would provide its funding in 2007-08.
It was acknowledged at the time that these funds would not be spent in 2007-08 but would be transferred to 2008-09. The extent of the additional cash capacity within DHCS
could not be quantified until June when the expenditure requirements and additional revenue was known. Issues similar to this which are linked to the timing of Commonwealth
payments occur each year.
In addition, at the end of 2007-08 some agencies required one-off additional funding to meet unexpected costs in 2007-08. Given the cash was available in DHCS, but not
required until 2008-09, appropriation was transferred from DHCS to Treasurer’s Advance, within the Central Holding Authority, for distribution to agencies as required.
Despite the written answer that he received, the shadow Treasurer pretends that, when we transferred $30m from the Department of Health and Community Services in June - and it was late June; I know, I did all the sign-offs in late June - $20m of that went into the COSR. The $20m that Central Holding Authority paid into the COSR was paid in May, not June when this transfer occurred. Further to that, it very clearly states ‘for distribution to agencies as required’, not for distribution into the COSR.
Do not come in here, completely ignore a written, accurate answer provided by Treasury officials through the Treasurer to the shadow Treasurer, and then expect me to take anything this man has to say seriously, because this is about the accounts of government. This is not about policy settings. This is about where the money is; where the money is going out and where the money is going into. It is not about policy setting. I take extreme offence to the fact that he completely ignored the written advice he was provided with and then tried to pretend something quite different occurred - and how it occurred and, indeed, when it occurred. He is wrong. He is very wrong - dangerously, stupidly, wrong.
The ignorance and stupidity continues because, ever since he has been shadow Treasurer, he has tried to mount this thing about Treasurer’s Advance is a piggy bank and you use it for just-in-case events. He has been provided with this response on several occasions, so I will provide it again. I know he will probably ignore it again, but I will provide the response again:
- Treasurer’s Advance is a mechanism for providing additional funding to agencies during a financial year. This is provided either as a transfer for a specific, one-off unexpected item
or at the end of a budget exercise for appropriations both transferred to and from Treasurer’s Advance. An amount for Treasurer’s Advance is set at the time of the budget. This
allows a level of unallocated capacity …
Not a piggy bank, not for emergencies - unallocated capacity:
- … in the budget at the start of the financial year. If additional requirements throughout the year are greater than the amount originally set aside in Treasurer’s Advance, then the
Financial Management Act allows for Treasurer’s Advance to be increased.
It went on. We explained that we tend to set aside $40m into Treasurer’s Advance in each financial year.
He made great flights of fancy about Treasurer’s Advance and what it is all for. Let us go to the facts rather than flights of fancy. For example, of the Treasurer’s Advance in the financial year that we have been debating in the TAFR, the 2007-08 financial year that has gone, $11m was provided to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for repairs and maintenance on roads as a result of a natural disaster.
I saw the member for Arafura look at me, because she could probably remember the heavy rains that we received that washed out roads across her electorate and in other parts of the Territory. Guess what we had to do? For example, I can remember we quickly went in and for about $1m in one particular section of the road put in a whole new culvert. This is the sort of thing that Treasurer’s Advance has been used for in the 2007-08 budget period, quite appropriately.
You sit there with unallocated capacity for events such as those road repairs - and we make no apology for fixing up roads that have been completely wiped out, so that tourists, for example, can get to Kakadu, and workers at ERA - who are generating a great deal of uranium royalties for the Commonwealth government – can get in and out of that place and continue production at the all-important Ranger mine that fills the Commonwealth coffers with uranium royalties. We look forward to getting hold of uranium royalties one day in this jurisdiction. There is no apology either for providing for the normal to and fro of people who live in the area. I recognise they are living in an area surrounded by floodplains, but we will go in and we will fix roads, as we are doing right now in Central Australia because of the unseasonable rains. We have crews out on the road, fixing them - and that takes money, folks, believe it or not.
In discussions on the Treasurer’s Advance, I have pointed out that we do not, as a government, go into freeze frame from May to May. I will not, as Treasurer, say to colleagues who come forward with a legitimate, well argued, well tested - and when I say well tested, my colleagues well know that it is tested across all agencies of government, and across all ministers, and people know it is a very hard thing to get something out of TA. They are often met with the answer, ‘Find it from within’; that is, ‘Live within your existing budget’. However, there are matters that come along from time to time that are significant enough to require a specific Cabinet decision to fund that specific initiative. We will not be a government in freeze frame from May to May, as the flight of fancy fool from Port Darwin would have us do.
Also explained time and time again to the member from Port Darwin, by me and Treasury officials, is this interesting thing about Treasurer’s Advance. Did we go up to our full 5%? Well, yes, we did. Is that common? Yes, it has been common. When was it common? It was common in the mid-1990s. Let me think, what is the analogy between now and the mid-1990s; they were both periods of growth in the Territory? If you look at what government had to deliver in extra services, and particularly extra infrastructure from the mid-1990s to the period that we are currently in, they were both periods of growth. What should governments do during periods of growth? They are required by their community, quite appropriately, to undertake the expenditure required to meet the growth demand.
I will make this simple for people; I will give an example of this. Example: this government - and you will see it in the debate next year at this time - has decided to bring forward appropriation to ensure that we have a $50m capital works program to provide infrastructure to create new suburbs in Palmerston. Why? Because we have rapid growth that requires land release to provide for housing for Territorians. So, very clearly, population growth demands are driving the need for land release, and we respond by putting the dollars into the infrastructure capital works program to build the infrastructure, to turn off the land. Good government recognises where those growth needs are and responds. Growth needs appear right across the Territory. The SIHIP program is a great example of a program that is funded for dealing with the housing needs across the region.
Despite explanations, despite written explanations, the flights of fancy from the opposite side continue. We make no apology for receiving our fair share - and it is only just a fair share - of GST revenue. We make no apology for having gone out as a government and worked extremely hard to increase our take of the special purpose payments from the Commonwealth. Southern jurisdictions get a far larger slice of SPPs and a far larger contribution into their budgets than the Territory historically has had. We generally are looking at - and we know they are tied grants, and we know we have to spend them in the areas in which they are provided; that is, health, education, housing, and disability. They are clear areas of growth needs in the Territory.
We need to deliver more and more services, particularly into the regions. Disability is a classic example. We had disability services in urban areas only. Bad luck if you happen to have disabled kids out in the regions; you just could not get the access to services you really required. You had no choice if you wanted access to services; you had to move into town. Well, this is a government that is committed to delivering those services out into the regions, for good reason - that is where people also choose to live.
Health is a classic example of where, working with the Commonwealth, we are extending services into the bush, as it should be. Education is another area as well that is a key focus of SPPs, as is police, particularly in the bush, where we have seen a massive expansion of policing. We make no apology that we will aggressively go to Canberra and seek our fair share of the GST, which gives us flexible funding ability, but also those tied grants that have helped growth in those core service delivery areas.
The Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report for 2007-08 shows that not only did we see growth in those areas of Commonwealth funding, in both GST revenue and SPPs, but we are also seeing an increasing trend in growth in own source revenue - royalties are going up and our tax takes are going up. Our taxes are not increasing per se, but our tax take is increasing. Why? Because our economy has growth. We are vibrant and dynamic. We are starting to see growth in own source revenue, which is a very good indicator of where we are headed as an economy.
I commend all the staff in Treasury who work diligently to provide the audited statement of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. It meets the requirements of the Financial Management Act, and the report is set out to meet the requirements of the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. These figures are true figures.
I note that the member for Port Darwin seems to think that he can do better calculations than the entire Treasury staff and officials, despite not having an economic background. Well, that goes to show the man’s ego is perhaps bigger than his sense. I am aware that our Auditor-General goes through these statements as well. It will be interesting when the Auditor-General’s audit of the TAFR comes down to see whether he agrees with you. This is signed off by the Under Treasurer and I would back the Under Treasurer any day over the member for Port Darwin.
He has proven to have been very fanciful in his concoction around the transfer of money from the Health department, and he is just as fanciful in whatever strange concoction he has going on in his mind in the $6223m. His flights of fancy do him no good. If he wants to gain the confidence as the shadow Treasurer, of the astute and highly intelligent staff in Treasury, I do not think he is going about it the right way at all - but there you go, we all have different methods. His are particularly strange methods. As I said, he has proven tonight that he is wrong in terms of the COSR - $30m completely wrong; that payment was made in May, not June, when the $30m was transferred from the department of Health into the Central Holding Authority and paid out to agencies across government …
Mr Elferink: Yes, it just happens to be the same number, exactly.
Ms LAWRIE: No, it is a different number. The COSR payment was made in May - not June, in May.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2007-08 to the Assembly.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
TABLED PAPER
Auditor-General’s November 2008 Report
Auditor-General’s November 2008 Report
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the Auditor-General’s November 2008 Report.
MOTION
Print Paper - Auditor-General’s November 2008 Report
Print Paper - Auditor-General’s November 2008 Report
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; paper printed.
MOTION
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s November 2008 Report
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s November 2008 Report
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Degradation of Relationships between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Territorians
Degradation of Relationships between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Territorians
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Braitling:
- Dear Madam Speaker,
I propose for discussion this day the following definite matter of public importance: the impact of the degradation of the relationship between Indigenous
and non-Indigenous Territorians in regional centres across the Territory.
Member for Braitling.
Is the proposed matter supported? It is supported.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, what I want to talk about is a very sensitive issue. It is not widespread, but one I believe is becoming an issue in Alice Springs. My second speaker will be talking a little about Katherine. I thought long and hard about whether to raise this as a concern; deciding that it was a matter of public importance, with the concerns I am seeing on the streets in my electorate of Braitling and Alice Springs. I am not trying to be alarmist and I will be very careful with my words, so I do not erode the stability of things.
The Territory has a history of being a diverse and tolerant community and it continues to be that way. We have successive partnerships and relationships with people, black and white, throughout the Territory and those relationships have been there for many years. They will continue and we all hope they grow stronger.
However, successive failures of governments, of both parties, have some of us in the community testing our tolerance. The word reconciliation is difficult to describe. There is no measure to determine when you have actually achieved reconciliation, nor at what point on the spectrum you are or how close you are to being reconciled. I would personally describe it as people living and working together in harmony, getting on in life day-by-day with equal classification in the community, and all being one. I am not sure if it will be achieved in our age group. I would like to think it is achieved by many of us in the Territory, providing a point which is very positive, but acknowledging there is still a long way to go, and not focusing on the life expectancy gap.
Since the 1967 referendum there have been a number of actions taken to secure greater rights - rights in terms of such things as land rights, native title, human rights, health and education rights. We have come a long way. I think the best way to see reconciliation achieved is to have a look at our children, black and white, walking, playing and talking together. They do not know what reconciliation is. At their age they are reconciled, if one may put it that way.
Through the reconciliation process, with the rights debates, achievements and losses, we are in a very positive position. My previous reflection on our children, who may be classified as being in a junior reconciled state, in my terminology, can be reflected throughout our community in many ways. For most of us, we do not even think about these issues; we are all people, Australians, Territorians.
There are many successful Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Territorians who are hand–in-hand with such things as owning businesses, playing sport, celebrating culture, working and playing in a relationship or even being elected officials, like in this place today. It is just another day; we do not think about it. Now, many of those people have had to overcome many hurdles, and many people continue to face such hurdles. Some of these hurdles include issues around welfare, lack of education, family breakdown and one that is often unnoticed or overlooked - something that means a lot to me, not personally, but as an acknowledgement - and that is the lack of social and emotional wellbeing and the breakdown of the role of the Aboriginal male in the Northern Territory. It is a serious issue and one that goes unnoticed.
Unfortunately, some of these people who still face terrible hurdles are upsetting some people who are not facing such hurdles. There are many good people, many good Aboriginal people who are traditional owners, native title owners or long time residents in areas such as Alice Springs, who are sick of getting a bad name; who are sick of people coming to their country and not respecting their country; and who are sick of the poor outcomes being achieved by a group of people in the wider community.
From my experience, these Aboriginal people are not alone. I find it hard to differentiate Aboriginal from non-Aboriginal residents of Alice Springs because we are all part of one community. We get on with life and the non-Aboriginal people are, in the main, of the same ilk - we are one. They, like the Arrernte people, do not like their community being disrespected and poorly treated. They are sick of the bad eggs, the public alcoholism, the violent crime, the mischief, and the antisocial behaviour. Black and white and are both concerned. More importantly, they are sick of no one taking action and no one doing something about it. Alice Springs, as a town, wants action to address these social issues. Not all of us agree on the same actions or the same processes, but we do have solidarity in the desire for action - but, no one appears to take it.
I can give many examples of the things people are not happy about in Alice Springs. I will give examples of things which are happening in Alice Springs at the moment that people express displeasure with. There are many people who are talking about leaving town. Many of my good friend have left town, and many people are talking about leaving town. We have heard what happened in Nightcliff with someone sleeping in their business premises to protect it. I know people who are literally sleeping in their business premises now with baseball bats, waiting to beat up the next person who comes and breaks into their shop. You have a sense of moral responsibility to report those people, and you have an unfortunate sense of feeling that this is actually occurring; that people want to attack the people who are breaking into their businesses.
I know businesses that are closing down. Desert Edge in Alice Springs, a motor bike shop, has been broken into seven times in the last few weeks and had many motor bikes stolen. They have just had a $1.5m redevelopment, but they are talking about actually shutting the shop and moving to Queensland, because they cannot get action on law and order. It is very sad.
I know a chemist who is trying to open in the Braitling shops on the North Side; there is a vacant old hairdressers shop – people might know that shop. The chemist has had to resecure the whole ceiling in the shop to protect it from being broken into. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia, which gives the approval for that chemist to open, will not allow it to open because of the antisocial behaviour around the North Side shops, across the road and the things that occur there and the break-ins in town, unless the whole shopping centre roof is completely re-cemented to protect it from vandals breaking in and stealing the medicines and drugs. It is a positive thing for a chemist to want to open up and have what you might call economic growth in that small area of Braitling. However, to not be allowed to open unless you re-concrete a whole roof, is a significant sign of the problems within the community.
Horrifying numbers of people talk to me about vigilantism - if I get the word right - going out and attacking the criminals. They hear the stories about gangs in the streets, and these people want to go out and physically bash them. I play my role in negotiating processes, as a responsible person should, but it is of great concern to me and it really upsets me. It is almost as if there is a bit of martial law in some people’s minds, and that sentiment is growing. I am very concerned about it.
I also understand the side of the people who are committing these crimes; I have a lot of empathy with these people. These people are angry; they are dispossessed - I mentioned before the systemic welfare and lack of education and those other areas that we are all too familiar with. We know that the gaols are full. We know the majority – 83% or whatever it is - are Aboriginal people filling those goals; we know the high turnover rate of people coming in. Gaol, the prison system, has become a destination of choice for many people, a place where you get accommodation, meals and social activities. I do not believe it is tough enough; I really believe the prison system needs to toughen up. It costs $73 000 a year to keep a prisoner in gaol.
Coming from an employment and training background and housing background, I just imagine what $73 000 per annum could do to help support and subsidise someone into a job - perhaps in the SIHIP program, as a teacher or an educational assistant; there are many things that could happen. The benefits of having someone in a job with some hope and sense of purpose, would go a long way.
If we had tougher gaols, with a firm but fair approach, where we penalised people who did not do the right thing in gaol – what I call the right thing - in terms of receiving education and learning numeracy and literacy and participating in work gangs as the carrot; and the stick for non-participation being a lot tougher in the prison system. I think there is an opportunity to try to help people and rehabilitate people when they come out. Perhaps use that $73 000 per person to pathway people into a job when they come out, instead of having them go back through the criminal system - 66% of people go back through the system and back into gaol. I think there are opportunities, whether it is through a halfway house where you can place people with a job; there are many different things that could happen.
Another issue of concern is children running the streets at night. Many people would be aware, through the media, of this problem throughout the Territory. It is not every child in Alice Springs, and it is not the majority, it is a minority. The minority of kids who are giving the people of Alice Springs, as a community, a bad name is a problem. Businesses are affected, people who walk down the streets are affected. It is a problem. We need a night time curfew. There is no reason at all for a child of eight, or six, to be running around the streets at 1 or 2 am. There is no reason for any child under 16 to be on the streets after 10 pm. It is not a political decision, or position, it is my personal feeling. There is no reason for my daughter, who is 12, to be running around the streets after 10 pm, getting up to mischief. Children must be cared for. Those children running around at night must be cared for, and we cannot turn a blind eye.
Most worrying, if I can use my terminology in a non-offensive way, is the criminal and neglected Aboriginal population in Alice Springs, albeit not the majority, has an increasing dislike of non-Aboriginal people, and vice versa. There are many non-Aboriginal people now becoming disaffected with Aboriginal people in Alice Springs, on a small basis, but it is starting to grow. That is the feedback I receive when I talk to people in their houses, go to a public housing complaint, people stop me on the street, or ring me at home; those sort of communication methods. That is happening.
It is the kids on the streets and the people on the streets committing crime who have a growing disenchantment with non-Aboriginal people in Alice Springs. These are the people who are part of Alice Springs, who live it and breathe it. These are the people who might be called reconciled because it is just part of life - you are just an Alice Springs resident, it does not matter who you are.
As an example, when I was in Alice Springs with Nick Xenophon, the Senator from South Australia, we had been out and looked around some communities. When we came back to town after going to Papunya, I think it was about 6.45 pm, and his staffer, Rowan, was walking across the lawns of the Alice Springs Town Council. There is a little chair area and about four ladies were there, drunk, I am advised, who stood up and shouted profanities at him and threatened him. He did not feel threatened, but they threatened him with physical violence because he was white. It was not for any other reason. The words he related to me I will not repeat in this House, but that is just one small example of someone who was a tourist, for one night.
I have spoken before in this House about certain little boiling issues that are just bubbling away. It is a concern of mine that those things will join together. It is very hard to talk about, because you do not want to be alarmist, and you see so much good stuff, but when you see those small problems, and you know they are there and are just underneath, boiling away; I really do fear, and this is not alarmist, but I fear an explosive situation that could be fuelled by these small instances encroaching on one another. If that happens, we will be in a terrible position. That is why I believe our attention needs to be focused on the law and order side of things.
There is huge public support from Australians and Aboriginal Australians for something to be done to effect change in Alice Springs. People are not tough; they support the Country Liberals and our approach of firm but fair. They want to see action on these issues, but with sensitivity. The thing they care about most is the kids, that is the most important thing to the people of Alice Springs, around these issues. We all want them to be looked after and to get an education. The big concerns people raise with me are children not going to school, not getting an education and the future these children have.
I will tell you a story about a child who goes to Yipirinya School, an Indigenous school in my electorate on Lovegrove Drive, and who lives in Charles Creek Camp. He turns up to school every day tired, and the teacher and the Principal asked: ‘Why are you always so tired?’ They could never work it out, so they followed him home one night, and found out what was happening. At the house he was living in, the parents were drunk and fighting and this kid was sleeping under the house. He would never go inside, he would go and sleep under the house and turn up the next day to school - because he really wanted to be at school, which is a good thing. He wanted to be at school, turned up at school, would get fed and clothed at school and does his washing and all that. But when he goes home to his family, and this still happens, he sleeps under the house.
There are many of these stories out there, and it is heartbreaking to see these things happen. When these stories get out into the wider community, it grows that disenchantment. The love, respect and the care for the kids are very important.
These schooling issues are why I proposed my hub-and-spoke model in the last General Business Day. Where we have a school system which has boarding accommodation, works on a week-to-week basis, where kids who are picked up off the streets and who are not getting that love, care, trust, and respect …
Ms Scrymgour: That is the policy. That is what we are doing.
Mr GILES: … are able to go and have somewhere to stay; have a place to sleep, to eat and have a place to get an education. We know how bad the enrolments are and how bad the attendance is. We need to get these kids to school.
I hear the Deputy Chief Minister talk about education and how important it is to get the kids to school. I am surprised that, even though I am on the other side of parliament, every time I have tried to raise the issue of how important it is to get an education, the comments come across. I thought there would be an offer of support about getting kids to school. It surprises me.
Ms Scrymgour: We agree with you. I am not disagreeing with you. No one is disagreeing with you.
Mr GILES: Anyway, people can get bigger than that. This MPI is about race relations. It is about social cohesion in our community, it is about the background of our society, it is so big and so many people care. But more than anything, so many people care about the children. We must encroach on the situation, take action on law and order, restabilise our community ethic and harmony and, above all, show leadership, so these children, who are our future, who we are so highly dependent upon, get a chance to sleep at night, get the food they need and get the clothing they depend on - but above all, get the education they need. For these reasons I spoke about law and order, about the slight disintegration of relations in Alice Springs between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, which is casting a net over the people who are not doing the wrong thing, and the local traditional owners.
For these reasons and more, is why today, I move the motion that the Sessional Committee on Central Australian Development be established. The Sessional Committee forms an important opportunity to fill a void, to provide an access point for community leaders to have direct input into government and for community members to collectively lobby to support, change and resource the Centre - a coalition of the willing. If we do not do these things, we will see more people move from the bush to town and more social problems, due to a lack of housing.
When people start to come to town and they realise that the town is full and there are all these issues - and I have no problem with people coming into town if the services are there, I think it is a positive thing. But when people start coming to town and they see it is full, they start to look at Darwin and say: ‘This is not much bigger than Alice Springs, but there are brighter lights, less alcohol restrictions, and insufficient police resources’. These people will move to Darwin. The same thing has happened in Sydney, Perth, Adelaide, and Melbourne. The issue is real. My oath, they will come. That is why I am a big supporter of regional development; I support the bush. We know that Darwin has a crisis in housing, in police numbers, and law and order. What do you think will happen when the issues of Alice Springs start increasingly to emerge in Darwin? We will start seeing more issues like we have recently seen in Palmerston, and concerns that the Deputy Chief Minister raised, which I read about in the paper the other day, about people being noisy in housing. I get that at my house every night of the week …
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: …when it comes to Darwin, in every house.
A sessional committee presents the opportunity for the bush to stand up and have a voice; to be heard and to voice our concerns. It is an opportunity for the five MLAs in Alice Springs to work and talk together. I started talking about reconciliation. This sessional committee is about reconciliation: five members from the bush, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, walking together, working together, self-determining to fight for a better outcome for the bush and the Red Centre.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for raising this MPI. As he said, it is indeed a sensitive issue. You are not being alarmist, although you are being negative and this wallowing in negativity has become something of a hallmark for the CLP. This government does not deny there are hurdles, but it has taken action and continues to take action to improve outcomes for Indigenous people in health, education, in economic terms for all Indigenous Territorians and to reduce the gap of life expectancy.
I also take on board the concerns in your closing remarks about urban drift, which is why this government has raised the profile of regional development with the announcement today of the appointment of Fran Kilgariff to the new role of Executive Director, which will be based in Alice Springs. So rest assured, member for Braitling, this government takes on board some of your concerns.
When I first read the MPI proffered by the member for Braitling this morning, I had to check that it was not the 1 April or that I was not on another planet, because his suggestion that relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous are being degraded does not bear any relation to the Northern Territory that I know, let alone the East Arnhem Land region where I have lived and worked for more than 18 years. But it is not April fool’s day and I am still on planet earth.
Before I speak briefly on the way in which Indigenous and non-Indigenous relationships are being enhanced in East Arnhem Land, we really should look at the source of this claim. The member for Braitling is a relative newcomer to the Northern Territory and now seeks to speak knowledgeably and, presumably, on behalf of remote and regional parts of the Northern Territory. I can only assume that is why he is spending precious parliamentary time on this issue and that he does actually know what he is talking about. We can hope that he is not only something of a living and breathing expert on the subject, but that he also has a good deal of support from Indigenous Territorians out bush in our regional areas.
Sadly, this does not appear to be the case on either count. Almost a year ago to the day, the current member for Braitling had a tilt at federal politics, going for the seat of Lingiari. He was overwhelmingly rejected, especially in regional in Northern Territory
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Goyder, Deputy Chief Minister, cease interjecting.
Ms WALKER: In areas of the Territory where more than 500 people voted, the current member for Braitling could not crack double figures. His primary vote in some regional areas …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms WALKER: At no other polling booth in Australia was a candidate from a major party so comprehensively rejected. When the member for Braitling talks about …
Ms PURICK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The matter of public importance is about the impact of degradation of relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians in regard to resource centres across the Territory. It is not about a personal attack on the previous aspirations of the member for Braitling. It is about the MPI.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, thank you, member for Goyder. Standing Order 67, of course, relates to no digression from the topic, but there has been a fair bit of digression in all these MPIs every single night. Member for Nhulunbuy, if you would mind coming to the point fairly soon in relation to the MPI as presented by the opposition.
Ms WALKER: Certainly. I am just trying to highlight the lack of experience of the member for Braitling, highlighting some of the results, including in my electorate in the community of Yirrkala …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Despite the title of the MPI - and I do not really care; personal attacks do not bother me, I have big shoulders, I can handle that. This is a sensitive issue and I tried to deal with it in a sensitive way. If the prepared speech that the member for Nhulunbuy is reading, if she wants to go on about this …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, what exactly is your point of order? What standing order are you referring to?
Mr GILES: I am referring to any standing order. If she does not ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, resume your seat.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nhulunbuy, keep it as close as possible to the topic please. Order!
Ms WALKER: As I was saying, by way of an example, Madam Speaker, in the community of Yirrkala, out of the 363 people who voted, just two of them voted for the current member for Braitling.
Nothing is going to be achieved by the current member for Braitling suggesting that he has any greater support from regional Territorians than he does now. In fact, his ignorance of what is happening out in the regional areas, such as my seat of Nhulunbuy, suggests that he is more than a few lights years away from the kind of knowledge needed to move this MPI. For the life of me, I cannot remember when the CLP last visited my electorate of Nhulunbuy; it certainly was not during the last election to support its candidate Djuwalpi Marika, a senior and respected Rirratjingu man from Yirrkala, who is currently employed by the East Arnhem Shire, very successfully, as a Community Liaison Officer. Perhaps if it engaged with him and his people, it might have a better understanding of Indigenous issues in the region.
- Members interjecting.
Ms WALKER: The CLP could not even field candidates in the seats of Arnhem and Macdonnell. I am not sure what kind of message that tells the electorate about what the CLP knows, or cares, about Indigenous people in regional and remote areas.
The key messages from my seat - a bush seat with urban electors at its heart - are a long way from the member for Braitling’s views. Those key messages are that Yolngu and Ngapaki do work collaboratively towards common goals. These goals are often Yolngu inspired. These common goals are about enhancing Yolngu/Ngapaki relationships and not degrading them. This is what living and working in the Territory is about. It is not about playing the divisive wedge politics being waged by the member opposite. Nhulunbuy is a community which possesses enormous ability to work collectively to address community issues, and that means Ngapaki and Yolngu working together.
One of the best examples I can think to sum this up is through the work of the Harmony Group. After four years of working together, it met in March this year. A takeaway liquor permit system, a new system which tackles the negative impacts of antisocial issues and everything that goes with it, in relation to alcohol abuse. Since then, the Gove District Hospital has seen a dramatic reduction in the number of people presenting with alcohol-related cases and, for Nhulunbuy Police, an even more dramatic reduction in police lock-ups. Since March of this year, 79% fewer people have been taken into protective custody. Does this sound like a degradation of relationships between Yolngu and Ngapaki? I do not think so.
The member for Braitling and, indeed the CLP, should learn from this instead of making the claims they do about the state of affairs in Indigenous territory. Blue Mud Bay, another successful example of positive relationships, far from being degraded. In July of this year, the High Court of Australia brought down its decision in the Blue Mud Bay case. A few days after that, news was delivered during mobile polling - and I talked about this in my maiden speech - at Yilpara on the shores of Blue Mud Bay, where this news was greeted with great joy. This decision effects recognition of ownership of the intertidal zone for 80% of the Territory coastline which adjoins Aboriginal land. It gives traditional owners rightful ownership to sea country, which is so important as part of their culture and connection to country. It provides them with some confidence about their future economic opportunities and self-determination …
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin! I ask you to cease interjecting, particularly in such a loud and unruly manner.
Mr Elferink: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Mr Tollner: Do it in a whisper.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to cease interjecting. Member for Nhulunbuy, you have the call.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does Blue Mud Bay lead to a degradation of relationships between Ngapaki and Yolngu? No. It has led to a process of negotiation which is a far cry from this. As the NLC Chairman and Yirrkala senior man, Mr Wali Wungunmurra stated:
- A negotiated outcome will mean that traditional owners around the Northern Territory’s coastline can jointly participate in the management and development of a sustainable fishing industry - including the protection of fishing stocks, protection of sacred sites and participation in enterprises. Traditional owners have developed a constructive relationship with commercial and recreational fishing representatives over the last year, and the NLC looks forward to continuing that relationship and obtaining a win-win outcome for all Territorians.
At the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee meeting I chaired on Monday, which was a public hearing, I asked the Executive Director of Fisheries what the Blue Mud Bay decision meant from the department’s perspective, he said, without hesitation, it represented enormous opportunity for Indigenous people, not only in economic terms, but also in the area of Marine Rangers and sea country management or employment.
Just this morning, one of these negotiation meetings occurred in this very building, where the results of a New Zealand fact finding delegation, which set out to look closely at the Maori involvement in New Zealand fisheries, was delivered. As the Chief Minister pointed out in a release today, the report is an indication of the spirit of cooperation between the parties and is beneficial to negotiating an agreement in the Territory. We hope to build on the experience of New Zealand.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67 – digression from the subject. The MPI clearly states, ‘the impact on the degradation of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians in regional centres across the Territory’. The member for Nhulunbuy has been going on for quite some time in relation to the Blue Mud Bay decision and what is happening in relation to that. It is about regional centres, as opposed to regional areas – so I am just wondering if we could actually ask the member for Nhulunbuy to come back to the actual subject.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. There is no point of order. What they do not want – they can choose to have their dog whistling and the negativity that goes with this. You can have that, because that is what the CLP has continually symbolised. We will never get …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seats, please.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: There is already one point of order before the Chair. This matter of public importance is extremely general. It says: ‘the impact of the degradation of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians in regional centres across the Territory’. It seems to me that what the member for Nhulunbuy is speaking about is definitely linked to this. It is a very general matter of public importance. It is not a very specific issue and the member for Nhulunbuy has the call.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am simply trying to highlight that there are good examples of successful and well negotiated relationships that have not necessarily occurred overnight, some of them have taken 30 years to reach. As the Chief Minister said, member for Greatorex, the Northern Territory marine rangers are doing fantastic work and they will play a greater role in the management of our fisheries. We are committed to reaching an outcome which recognises the cultural importance of tidal waters to traditional owners, and allows recreational fishers continued access to waterways without individual permits.
My colleague, the member for Barkly, will talk about the importance of land and sea management. In the seat of Nhulunbuy the work of the sea rangers is a clear message, not a degradation of relationships, but an enhancement of relationships between Yolngu and Ngapaki. The Dhimurru and Yirralka Indigenous Rangers have a knowledge base which stretches back thousands of years, which links inextricably, not only land and sea and every creature and object in it, but the people and their culture, stories, art, and songs. It is their history, their present and their future, and who better to look after and manage and protect these areas than the traditional owners?
The work of these rangers benefits all Territorians, both Ngapaki and Yolgnu. Dhimurru now employs 16 people and Yirralka another 50. Their work benefits our land and sea country, and is playing an increasingly important role in ecotourism and therefore employment across the region; and the benefit extends across some 700 000 ha and many hundreds of kilometres of coastline between the two groups. Cooperation and working together can be harder, much harder than throwing around allegations of degradation in relationships. If the Member for Braitling and the CLP cannot quite understand those words, then perhaps some pictures will help.
Pictures such as those marketed through Buku-Larrnggay Mulka Arts and Crafts at Yirrkala. As one of the oldest Aboriginal Arts Centres in the nation, it has been in the business of promoting Indigenous culture and values for around four decades. As well as providing employment and income to hundreds of Yolgnu artists, it has provided the nation and the world ways of understanding that transcend the kinds of glib generalisations and stereotypes that we have heard. Perhaps it is the pictures that come from the annual Garma Festival which draws up to 1500 visitors and hosts people from all over the world at the site of Gulkula, outside Nhulunbuy, and is regarded as one of the most important Indigenous cultural festivals in the world.
Both groups, Garma and Buku-Larrnggay Mulka, actively and successfully work to enhance relationships between Yolngu and Ngapaki. Their purpose is to move forward, away from barren and divisive propagandising, and that is the purpose of so many people I represent in the seat of Nhulunbuy. They do not seek to pursue the politics of bitterness, but to work together to advance the interests of each other. That is what the Northern Territory is about.
This government is doing all it can to close the gap. Effectively, what the CLP is doing is staring straight into that gap as they have done for the past 26 years before the Labor government - not knowing how to deal with it. And worse, they have the gall to use the word degradation. This government is about building relationships with Indigenous Territorians, not degrading them; and working towards building capacity in regional and remote communities.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I support the matter of public importance brought before this House by the member for Braitling. Although I do find myself a little lost for words to begin with, I read the document the member for Braitling produced, and I took it to mean that he was concerned about the fact that, on the ground in Alice Springs and in other locations across the Northern Territory, through no fault of any particular person - no one is going to apportion blame - there is a winding back or a degradation of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, as you see them spread out before you on the street.
I am taken aback that the government has interpreted the substance of this matter of public importance to be a shot at them - and that is the way it comes across from what the member for Nhulunbuy said tonight. It is completely unbelievable that a matter such as this would be considered either by the member for Nhulunbuy, if she wrote what she read, the government or the advisors who wrote the paper, could take a matter such as this and turn it into what they consider to be some political gain; standing there criticising the Country Liberals and criticising, personally, the member for Braitling. All he is trying to do is raise this issue as a matter that is occurring on the streets in Alice Springs, Katherine, and in other places in the Northern Territory.
I can understand, to some degree, what the member for Nhulunbuy is saying, there are some wonderful things going on between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. There are some wonderful relationships that have been built over many years, both at an individual level, but also at a business level and cooperation between business and Government and all sorts of things. I can cite one of those wonderful examples in the Jawoyn Association in Katherine; they are an Indigenous organisation that I have had the benefit of watching develop over 20 years, from their very basic roots through a man called Barnaby Lee, who was the Council President or CEO at Barunga many years ago. Unfortunately Barnaby passed away, but he left behind a legacy that should be seen as a shining light in Indigenous business and self-determination. That association has built some wonderful working relationships with non-Indigenous people.
I know what the member for Nhulunbuy is getting at to some degree. It is not all about doom and gloom. I would like to repeat: that is not what the member for Braitling was getting at. The member for Braitling was talking about what is happening on the streets of regional centres in the Northern Territory. I would have talked about it tonight in that vein also - and I am going to - because I believe what the member for Braitling is saying is quite right. This matter needs and deserves to be aired so that we, as a community, can start working towards mending relationships that are broken or damaged between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people; we are talking at that very basic level - on the street.
I see a wedge being driven deeper and deeper into the community, and it is a very sad thing to see. If I can recount a little history: with white settlement there were all sorts of travesties committed against the Indigenous people of this country. That behaviour was replicated and perpetrated for many years and only began to turn around in the last 40-odd years. I can think of some significant parts of history that should not be remembered fondly: of Indigenous people being killed. And that has had a significant impact on both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. The mark it has left is quite indelible. It has, unfortunately, created an atmosphere of mistrust and resentment between many levels of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.
I do not think anyone who has lived in the Northern Territory for more than a couple of years could deny that; that is a fact of life. As we have grown as a Territory, we have seen those horrible things turn around; we find pastoralists employing Indigenous people. The relationships were on the mend. It seemed to me that everything was working and humming along reasonably well. There was a moving on – the Indigenous people moved on – they wanted to get on with their lives and work for the pastoralists; the pastoralists wanted to move on - and they were happy having Indigenous people working for them. That was a wonderful thing.
Unfortunately, some of these things can get turned around quite innocently. If I go back to the early 1970s when the welfare system was changed to such a degree that it allowed open slather access to the welfare system by Indigenous people; I do not think governments really ever have ill intent in what they do. I believe they are sometimes misguided, but what they do is make decisions based on the best information available to them at the time. You cannot blame them; it is a thing that happened in the past. You could say the same thing for the Stolen Generations. The government decisions taken at the time were based on the information they had. They thought they were doing the right thing and now, of course, that has created a significant amount of resentment within our community from both sides.
The sad fact is that Indigenous people are over-represented in our welfare system. That creates from the other side, from the non-Indigenous side, resentment as well, because the non-Indigenous people see the Indigenous people getting welfare; they think that is my hard earned tax money, why should they be getting that, it is not fair. I am not saying it is just Indigenous people, there are non-Indigenous people on the welfare system as well.
However, the issue here is the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people and trying to explain why there might be a degradation of the relationship between the two.
Then the resentment is felt towards one party, the other party picks up on that and fields it back towards the other party and all of a sudden, you have a wedge driven between these two. Often, it is based upon a misunderstanding of what is happening in the life of the other person.
Recently I was in Alice Springs talking to a non-Indigenous fellow who told me a story which I have heard many times before. He knows an Indigenous fellow who said to him one day: ‘You drive that flash white Toyota, you must be getting more welfare money than me’; or words to that effect. There is a strong misunderstanding that people who work hard, build up their capacity to be able to buy nice cars, are getting their money from the welfare system when that is not the case.
Conversely, you have the non-Indigenous person who believes that the Indigenous person is getting things which they are not, such as their kids get paid to go to school and all those sorts of things that there is so much evidence of by federal government interventions. It is all about perception, and perception is reality. No matter who you are, what you are looking at, or what you see, is what you believe to be true. This is where the problem arises, because there is a lack of understanding, the perceptions are incorrect or based on false premise, and you get this resentment building up. That permeates right across the community, despite assertions to the contrary by the member for Nhulunbuy. It does have an adverse effect on relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, generally, on the street.
Many years ago, I was a policeman at Maranboy. I had wonderful working relationship with the Indigenous folk at Barunga, Beswick and Bulman, in that country in south-west Arnhem Land. What I tried to do was break through the barriers that existed then, so that I could better understand how the Indigenous people were, what was affecting them and, in my small way, how I might be able to adapt my style of policing to suit that. They responded very favourably to that. In fact, they adapted some of their behaviours to suit me as well - it was a bit of give and take.
What we are seeing in the community – or more to the point, what we are not seeing in the community - is more of that type of attitude; a giving attitude where people are prepared to give a little and take a little and start to build up and develop an understanding and knowledge of the issues which are affecting the other side of the fence, so to speak.
It is not just a case of white and black. Another example I saw was the resentment between the Sudanese and Indigenous people who live in Alice Springs; it is not a case of black and white, under those circumstances. Again, it comes back to a misunderstanding of what is going on. The Sudanese did not understand that Indigenous people are disaffected; that they have significant social problems and hurdles which they must get over, or try to get over, at some stage. The Indigenous people felt the Sudanese were here to take their women; the Sudanese had jobs, but the Indigenous people did not understand and thought they were on welfare. There is a whole lot of misunderstanding that goes on.
They are the roots that go back to why there is, indeed, a degradation of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. We need to focus more on developing an understanding of the issues that Indigenous people face; and Indigenous people need to start to develop an understanding of the issues that we face. There needs to be a cooperative approach and a two-way street.
A way some of the problems can be overcome is through the use of role models. I was racking my brain before to think of some famous Indigenous role models, and the Rioli brothers sprang to mind. It is people like that who have managed to get themselves above the rest; they stand out as shining lights for Indigenous people to model themselves against, to want to better themselves and improve their lives; just as there are many non-Indigenous role models to whom many white people aspire.
Madam Speaker, it is time we - I know the government has called it Closing the Gap; I like to think of it as bridging the gap - bridge the gap between the people of the Northern Territory, whether they are black or white, so there is less misunderstanding about each individual set of circumstances for the people. It is only then we can start to heal some of the rifts that have developed. You only have to walk on the streets and talk to business owners to understand that there are, indeed, those rifts which can be described as a degrading of the relationship between the two.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I speak to this matter of public importance and to support my parliamentary colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, who rose with passion and conviction that goes back many years into regional and remote areas, representing people who have been building positive relationships - nothing to do with degradation - but building positive relationships, and I share that passion.
I must say to the member for Braitling, I am disturbed by this as a matter of public importance, and I feel, in terms of Country Liberal Party platform and policy, that you are missing the point, and that you are rejected by the bush. Let me share my patch ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: You have missed the point. You simply do not understand what we are talking about.
Mr McCARTHY: … to the Tanami Desert …
Mr Westra van Holthe: You either lack the capacity or the intelligence to know ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, cease interjecting.
Mr McCARTHY: … from the great Roper River to Neutral Junction, let me share the positives in building relationships.
Mr Westra van Holthe: No one denies there are positives, but what you need to recognise …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: The member for Braitling raised the matter of sport. Let us talk about the Henderson government and its promotion of sports to build relationships and the minister for Sport who is building relationships.
I will share an anecdote about the Barkly Football League, which brings in people from all over the southern part of the Territory to compete in a very proactive and healthy sporting activity on Saturdays, celebrated by the Barkly and the community of Tennant Creek. I am not denying there are problems, but they are problems we work on, work towards. Maybe members on the other side of the House would like to come and explore that, in terms of parliamentary research, to see what we do in building positive relationships.
Let us talk about the broader issue of sport and bringing people together. Let us talk about sports people coming from regional centres who have represented the Territory in many sports at an elite level, at an NTIS level, at an Australian affiliated states level, at Indigenous AFL levels. Let us talk about those kids working together.
The member for Braitling wants to talk about kids; I will talk about Barkly kids on a bus together, from all walks of life and from all over the Territory, travelling thousands of kilometres to compete in their sport of choice. I will talk about the sweat, tears, and laughter that those kids have experienced together, to get to that bus, to get to those carnivals, and many of them are in Alice Springs and Darwin, for people coming out of regional areas.
Central Australia, member for Braitling, has the Imparja Cup. I will give a history lesson. The Imparja Cup started from a scratch match between two Aboriginal teams, one from Alice Springs and one from Tennant Creek. It is now a celebrated national event. If that is not relationship-building, then I do not know what is, but it certainly does not smack of any degradation.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: The Alice Springs Golf Club has just taken on eight Indigenous youth and maybe, through positive relationship-building, we might see the first Territory Tiger Woods. Let us hope that the members from the other side of the House will be able to celebrate that with us.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr McCARTHY: Sport in the Territory has a way of being inclusive and does not tolerate discrimination of any kind. Tennant Creek has two major tourist attractions that the Henderson government is promoting through a new initiative called the Tennant Creek Foundation. One represents the mining history of Tennant Creek and the other represents the Indigenous Dreamtime of the Barkly Region and Tennant Creek. If that is not good, positive policy, in merging those two initiatives, not only on social and economic grounds, but on cultural grounds and building relationships, then I do not know what is and that is a very firm lesson that the member for Braitling can take on board - no evidence of degradation.
Let us talk about land rights and the fear of land rights in the Territory. I will not go into the government of the time, let us leave that out if it proves to be offensive …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr McCARTHY: However, let us talk about the recent handover of the Devils Marbles or Karlu Karlu. Member for Braitling, I would like you to celebrate this with me, the people of Tennant Creek, the Barkly, and the people of the Territory, under the direction of the Henderson government. Let us talk about the hand back of the marble that came off Flynn’s grave and how positive that was; the recent handover and the true recognition of land tenure; and the management policy and the leasing back from the traditional owners to the people of the Northern Territory - relationship-building.
Another example is the Julalikari Aboriginal Corporation and the recent partnership with the Commonwealth government. I will not go into too much detail here, however I will just cite a nice example of the satisfactory lifting of native title issues of land in Tennant Creek, which the Henderson government progressed to two successful options that the Commonwealth government has progressed, and now we are looking at the development of new suburbs in Tennant Creek. That is real relationship-building. The Henderson government is on a policy and platform track that I celebrate. However, the matter of public importance tonight does alarm me; it puts fear into me and I think it is unfair to put fear amongst the people of the Territory, and that is why I am enjoying sharing so many positive things.
I will wind this into one very big initiative which is happening in Tennant Creek - and let us take this across the Territory - and that is the Council of Elders and Respected Persons, which has been formed under an initiative supported by the government, of local people in Tennant Creek to look at the particular issues we are talking about in this MPI from the member for Braitling. A very positive action that is supported by elders, but the most powerful thing I see emerging is the group of young Indigenous people who represent the Secretariat.
The people I have been working with are looking at all sorts of strategies - positive stuff, as you were saying - to support the police, the nurses, the teachers, the doctors, and the retail sector. I have heard nothing about concreting roofs, but I have heard about workshops, how to get kids involved, and how to get this communication started – a major initiative in relationship-building.
The McArthur River Mine and the Bootu Creek Mine are setting an amazing pace in building relationships in regional areas. The NT government has entered into an arrangement with MRM to set up a trust which will be worth over $32m in the life of the mine. Already, we are seeing initiatives for youth and communities in regional areas: swimming pools, a crche, visitor accommodation, learning programs run by the Smith Family, the Borroloola Race Club and Rodeo Club, National Trust facilities, and a renal dialysis machine, which two of the members on this side of the House - before they entered into political careers - were part of the fundraising activities in that community, working together with Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, and will shortly go back to Borroloola to celebrate the opening of that facility; to bring people home.
A member: Hear! Hear!
Mr McCARTHY: A powerful initiative to bring people home. What message do we send to youth when we start bringing people home? This is the approach – not the scaremongering, not the fear, not the dogs on chains, not the sticks. Please do not bring cheeky dogs to Barkly youth; do not back them into a corner. Please do not bring sticks, because you will see the other side of Barkly youth. We want to change that.
I would like to talk about the rodeo because, in the Barkly, something as rough and ready as the rodeo has brought together the Indigenous and non-Indigenous community like you would not believe. I feel horrified that I might have to go back to Tennant Creek and report from this House, which I do, on this MPI. I am shocked because I know a hard-working committee of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people will be quite shocked with what I have to say, after the hard work they have done to put together a major event in the Barkly and that is recognized and supported by the Henderson government. I will not talk about all the other events which occur over the three days of that rodeo.
I can guarantee I could put 200 extra people on the hill if the Borroloola cowboys are coming; and 200 people at $5 a head makes a big difference to our committee account.
Mr Tollner: I do know not know what the Borroloola cowboys …
Mr McCARTHY: What do I mean by the Borroloola Cowboys? I mean respected members of the Gulf community who attract the crowd to come and see them participate in a cross-cultural event which reflects the history of the Barkly. Let us have a quick history lesson on the Barkly: Barkly cattle stations were built by Indigenous people, and built on the backs of Indigenous people.
Funnily enough, the wheel has turned, member for Braitling. When I left my previous industry, I had six youths working on the Barkly with the Indigenous Pastoral Program, high profile managers of Barkly cattle stations were coming looking for youth to employ and are working tirelessly to keep them in employment. That is positive relationship-building.
The Barkly has always been a heartland of positive relationship-building. The next exciting initiative, where we will see amazing relationship-building, is the Yanyuwa Sea Rangers. Let us talk about my parliamentary colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, and the area of sea rangers right across to Wadeye. The sea rangers in Borroloola are receiving NT government support and, funnily enough, have asked for extra support. It maybe goes to a bit of trust. My question: What will you do with that support? ‘We will do all sorts of things – managing country, managing our youth, looking after disadvantaged kids. But you know what else we are going to do? We are going to look after the whitefellas who might get lost, stranded or run amok in country and find themselves in trouble. We have to look after them’. I was honoured to hear the total nature of this program that is building in a regional area in the Northern Territory. I am proud to have that as part of the Barkly.
It is time to move on from stereotyping. It is time to move on from the promulgations, attitudes and ideas of the past. No one pretends the way forward is easy or straightforward. That is why the Henderson government has adopted a Closing the Gap policy in clear recognition that we must approach the issues of Aboriginal disadvantage as an inter-generational process. Let us not feed on the ideas of the past; let us not feed on negativity. Let us look at our schools; let us look at our shire councils. Let us look at the Barkly and Gulf Shire Councils and their makeup as a new level of local governance, just in the area I represent. When you start to look at those, you see how positive they are in building relationships for the future.
Madam Speaker, let us look forward. Let us look positive. What I have heard from both sides of the House - let us do this together.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I have to support this MPI. I was not going to speak, but the way the government members - the members for Nhulunbuy and Barkly - have treated this MPI is absolutely abhorrent. It is a disgrace - a complete and utter disgrace. The member for Barkly must have said ‘let us look at this’, ‘let us look at that’ 1000 times. I do not know what he was actually talking about. It was a rant …
Dr Burns: That is a sad indictment on you.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, it is a sad indictment on the member for Barkly. It is a sad indictment on the government’s reaction to this very genuine matter of public importance.
The member for Braitling has raised this matter of public importance with the best intentions at heart. It is something that he sees, certainly the member for Katherine sees, and many of us are aware of similar situations in our own electorates and in other parts of the Northern Territory. It is something that deserves reasonable discussion - not an outrageous rant or a screaming contest. Goodness me, we have hardly heard boo from the members for Nhulunbuy and Barkly since we came into this place. All of a sudden, the member for Braitling puts up a genuine matter of public importance and, for some reason; they take massive offence to it. I cannot understand what is so offensive about the member for Braitling’s genuine matter of public importance.
It seems to me typical of the socialist left, who prefer to bury their heads in the sand rather than look and see some of the more unsavoury problems we have in the Northern Territory. Unless you are ready to confront those issues, things will not change for the better. Burying your head in the sand is not an option. Just ask the previous Chief Minister of the Northern Territory; she brought the Northern Territory into complete and utter national disgrace …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Complete and utter national disgrace because of her utter and complete inaction on an issue that had been staring her in the face for quite a long time - an issue on which she called an inquiry and picked the people to run the inquiry. The inquiry did a lot of work around the Territory, came up with some genuine concerns, and reported those concerns. What did the Chief Minister do? She tried to bury the report.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: She tried to bury the report. She sat on it, wishing that it went away - ignored it. And what happened from that? Rather than being up-front and saying: ‘Look, we have a problem here’ - no, the Chief Minister buries the report. The first the federal government hears about it is when they log onto the Internet and find a copy of the report on the Internet. The former Chief Minister did not even have the courage to send copies of that report through to her federal counterparts. As a result, she brought the Territory, all Territorians, and this parliament into national disgrace; absolutely, utterly shameful. And do you think the government has learnt from that? Do you think the government has learnt one iota from that? No. Well, by the looks of this, no, they have not.
The member for Braitling, in a very genuine way, was trying to raise a very sensitive subject as a matter of public importance, and what happens? He gets attacked in the vilest manner by the member for Nhulunbuy, who, to all intents and purposes, I thought was some sort of shrinking violet who sat up the back corner of the room and said nothing. All of a sudden, now, she jumps up and she smears the member for Braitling in the vilest way. For what? For coming into this place, in a very sensitive way, and putting a matter of public importance before this Chamber. I find that just absolutely appalling.
Rather than the member for Barkly jumping up and trying to say: ‘Well, we understand there are issues here; there have been issues for a long time in this area’ – no, he carries on the attack. He rants and carries on - I could not understand what he was talking about half the time, rodeos and $5 a person turning up, and how much money that is going to make for a committee - screaming at us, like it had some relevance to this particular debate.
Madam Speaker, I am not going to speak for long, but I am just absolutely appalled. I want to express my disappointment at the government members who have spoken on this. I am also very disappointed in the member for Arafura who was completely fired up and has now gone to ground. The expectation was that the member for Arafura, a senior Indigenous woman in this place, would actually have something to say about it. But no, she has scurried off.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is obviously reflecting on the presence or absence of a member in the Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Member for Fong Lim, you are not allowed to do that. I ask you to withdraw those comments.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw. Goodness me. She has not scurried off; she has just shut up and said nothing.
Madam Speaker, this place is a disgrace. I absolutely feel disgusted at the way this matter of public importance has been treated by the government.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak, but I am compelled to get to my feet after listening to the comments made by both the member for Nhulunbuy and Barkly. The last words the member for Barkly spoke just a few minutes ago were: ‘Let us do this together’. I thought that was, from what I heard the member for Braitling say, a matter that we need to address as a whole. I did not hear anywhere in his words any criticism of the programs that are in existence. In fact, I heard him use the words that there are excellent programs in existence.
Members on the other side seem to be missing the point of this. I have not heard anyone say there are not good programs. There are some outstanding people who have, for many years, been working on these programs to improve relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people and, in fact, to improve the lot of Indigenous people. I have been in the Territory for just over 28 years and I have watched, with great interest, the improvements, but also, the going backwards of some of these relations.
I hope the member for Barkly felt good when he got up and read, what appeared to me, prepared notes. The issue being raised is why the member for Barkly and the member for Nhulunbuy want to attack the member for Braitling for what is a very personal and passionate issue, which is very important to him. I suspect they probably did not have anything other than prepared notes to speak on this MPI
Ms Lawrie: No, no, I saw them …
Mr STYLES: I will pick up on the interjection. I was actually watching them both and they were both reading and following with their fingers, reading off bits of paper, so I can only assume they have come into this Chamber with prepared speeches, as opposed to listening to what the Member for Braitling said and addressing those issues. I am of the belief that they have missed the point.
In my time in the Territory I have watched some of these relationships improve dramatically. We are mainly concentrating on regional centres here - and that is great - but I have also watched a deterioration in some of the regional centres. I talk about Darwin, in particular, as being a large regional centre, because in relation to other capital cities around Australia, this town of ours is classified by some as a regional centre; so perhaps I will deal with that. I cannot speak with any real knowledge of Tennant Creek, so I will stay away from there. However, in relation to areas around here, I look at the degradation of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people and I see, over the last couple of years, there has been a downhill slide.
I acknowledge that there are some wonderful programs and that is not an area, I believe, we need to discuss; people in this House have expressed the fact there are, and I believe that is accepted by both sides. However, as the member for Fong Lim said: we cannot, any of us, put our heads in the sand and say that it is all wonderful and it is all great, and not accept that there are some issues which really need to be attended to.
Member: Hear, hear!
Mr STYLES: In July 2005, the government stopped what was a very popular program in schools called the DARE program, which is an acronym for Drug Abuse Resistance Education. They stopped it, which, in effect, took school-based police officers out of classrooms in the Northern Territory and did not replace them with anything. Then they came up with a program called the Seven Core Themes which took them about two and-a-half years to half write, so there was not a great deal for police officers to do in classrooms. From my personal experience, what used to happen is that you would go into classrooms and build rapport with these young people, and it was a great program because you are there - they could come and talk to you and you could help them.
The role of school-based police officers, because you have a rapport with these people - especially young Indigenous people in schools – is that you can build bridges that you just cannot build as a uniformed police officer out in the street. When you start to look at the relationship breakdown between the police and Indigenous youth, you have a perception out there by members of the community, from all different walks of life, that young Indigenous people are a major problem in our community; and that adds to the perception that there is a breakdown. I actually believe there is a breakdown in what is happening between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians and, in particular, there is a breakdown with the youth, and the youth are our future; they are 18% of our population and they are 100% of our future, irrespective of whether they are black, white, or brindle.
This was supposed to be something very serious, to look at the serious aspect of what this MPI is about and what the Member for Braitling is talking about. Unfortunately, a number of people on the other side of this House have taken the argument on; perhaps they believe it is an attack on the government. It is not an attack on the government, it is an attack on a situation for which we are all responsible, because when I leave this House tonight I have to go out and I have to live in the community outside the walls of this building. My children and my two young grandchildren have to live out there as well.
The other aspect is that I have two part-Indigenous grandchildren. This is an area which is dear to my heart, as well, because I do not want them growing up with people thinking that they are a problem. I am taking responsibility to do the very best I can at all times I spend outside this House.
I ask that some of the people on the other side of this House actually look at the issues and some of the problems, instead of gloating about what they see as their great successes. They are probably very successful in certain areas, but there are some areas where they are not.
I ask the members on the other side, especially some who have spoken tonight, to actually look at these very serious issues in a very serious manner and not treat it as an attack on the government. These are things we are all responsible for. I would like to see some of these programs come back in, so young people can get back out there and engage with other people in the community. When you take away the programs that give people the tools to engage these young people, then you disempower them, and they become disengaged.
So what happens at the moment? In the northern suburbs and Palmerston we hear it all the time, and as a police officer working in that area I heard it on a regular basis: people would blame the Indigenous kids. It is not all Indigenous kids; however, they are the ones who are getting the blame out there. Indigenous kids and the term, part-Indigenous kids, are the people who are being blamed for all the gang problems and for the crime; they are being blamed for many things.
What happens on Saturday morning when I stand out the front of my office and I talk to people? People come along and they talk about the problems in the northern suburbs, in particular, and they say: ‘These Indigenous people are just running riot.’ What does that do for the relationships and the degradation of the relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians? It is going backwards, and we, as a group, irrespective of what political party we belong to, need to work on this problem in a bipartisan way.
That is what the member for Braitling is trying to get at. He came in and explained quite calmly that this is a very sensitive matter, but he wants to raise it because it concerns him. Unfortunately, those on the other side do not sit in our wing meetings or our party room and do not listen to the passion expressed by the member for Braitling in relation to this issue. He is an Aboriginal man and he is really concerned about the kids out there and the future of his people. His people, I mean as a group of people - as Australians.
It really disturbs me that you get a couple of people on the other side who want to do that. I ask them to come out to the northern suburbs. If it is great in their area, in Tennant Creek, that is tremendous and I commend the member for Barkly; if he has got things going well, that is fabulous. However, in some of the regional centres we have some major problems confronting us as a parliament and community. If we do not start dealing with some of these issues and look at other programs available to engage the particular people who are causing these problems now, we are going to lose the battle. It is going to take years and years if, in fact, we ever get it back to a point, where the sort of programs the member for Barkly is talking about will actually work, particularly in regional areas of the Northern Territory.
I do not want to take up too much more time with this; I believe we have some other speakers. I thank the House for listening to my words and my concerns about this very important matter.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I wish to express my disappointment with the approach that members opposite have taken in relation to this matter. It is clear from the tenor, sobriety and temperance of the language used by the member for Braitling that he was moving forward with fortitude and temperance. I could feel his desire to keep this as a level-headed, sensible and considered debate on an issue he believed was sufficiently important to stop the business of this House so we could discuss it.
The disappointment I have is that the temperance and sobriety in delivering his speech was not matched by members opposite. I believe they have misread or misunderstood the intent of what the member for Braitling was trying to achieve. That is sufficient to get me to my feet to express my disappointment.
There is also another area I wish to address; the issue of this ‘switch it on again/off again’ policy that the Labor Party has, as a general rule. I have heard now, for the second time since entering this parliament, the member for Nhulunbuy talk about the sea rights for Yolngu and Aboriginal people on the coastal areas of the Northern Territory, and her passion for their right to have those sea rights. Well, that is fine. The High Court made that determination. It is curious that she chooses, as a result of that, to maintain her membership of the Australian Labor Party, because it was the policy of the Australian Labor Party to fight the matter in the Federal Court, then to fight the matter of the Full Bench of the Federal Court; and to go to the High Court of this country to fight the matter, and to take out full-page ads in the paper to tell Territorians how they are going to fight the matter.
Whilst I appreciate that the Northern Territory government is now in a position of having to deal with the issues raised as result of the Blue Mud Bay case - and they are not native title issues; the native title issues in that case were non-exclusive determinations; it is actually the effects of the Land Rights Act and how it operates between the high watermark and the low watermark. Let us not get those two issues mixed up. I read the Full Bench of the Federal Court’s decision very carefully, and I understand the logic of it. I add, anybody who had read that case would have been overwhelmed by the strength of the argument which was used by the Federal Court in making the determination they did in relation to the space between the low watermark and the high watermark. So much so, that I was confidently predicting the result of the High Court case to people in conversation. I said on any number of occasions to people that the Northern Territory government would lose the case because the argument presented by the Full Bench of the Federal Court was just too compelling.
The Northern Territory government would have had similar advice, I suspect. Their choice was to spend more money on pursuing the claimants - the successful claimants as a result of the Full Bench of the Federal Court’s decision - to the High Court of this country. For them to take on this mantle, this cloak, of ‘We are the protectors of Aboriginal rights’, particularly the member for Nhulunbuy, and say how good and important it is, is really a rewriting of history, which certain political regimes in Europe in the 1930s would have been proud of.
I also pick up on the comments by the member for Barkly, regarding native title being accepted over the Tennant Creek area, and as a result ILUAs will flow and the right arrangements will be put in place for future development for the people of Barkly. That is fine, no problem with that. That was actually done in Darwin by the CLP - in Palmerston - in the absence of any native title determination. It was in the suburb of Gunn, where the Larrakia Development Corporation was able to get their start in life, and they have gone from strength to strength. That was a result of a native title negotiation with native title holders who were actively and aggressively fought by this government, subsequent to their forming part of government.
I also took the time to read the whole of the determination of the native title claim over Darwin. One cannot be but struck how this stuff works. It works is like this: what the claimant tries to assert is that they still have a cultural link with the land which is profound and strong, and there are language and spiritual bonds with the land itself, and those bonds have continued unbroken since pre-European settlement. To defend such a claim, the agents of the government - its lawyers in the court - have to run the argument that the link no longer exists or has been broken along the way. What the court then does is listen to as much evidence as it can from the particular claimant families, and makes a determination. That leads to a very sad result because, if you read this case, 80% of that decision is the judge revisiting all the evidence he has.
What he is basically saying is that link has been broken. The more cynical amongst us would say the defence by government against that claim was that cultural genocide had been successful, because that is how you defeat a native title claim; that is the argument you run. That is what this government set out to do. They employed solicitors and lawyers and did not acknowledge the native title claim over Darwin. It turns out they were successfully able to run that argument, but in doing so, they have said: ‘We do not recognise your title rights over Darwin’.
To sit down and read the judge, who was also moved - you can read it in the language of his determination - that the link with the land had been broken, is truly a sad thing. But for the government to come in here and its members say: ‘We are the champions of negotiation rather than litigation’ - which was their policy - and to hear that they had litigated again and again; then to hear them come into this place and cloak themselves as the champions of Aboriginal rights.
A member: Recognising the Larrakia people.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, and that is interesting; I pick up on that interjection. How often do I hear the odd member opposite recognising the Larrakia people? It is the same Cabinet ministers who signed the cheques to pay the lawyers to fight the claim. Do not come in here and pretend you have some sort of high moral ground, or that you are ethically or morally superior. If the history of white men, as they spread through this and other parts of the world, was to speak with forked tongues, then that tradition is alive and well in the members opposite.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, it is extraordinary, I do not know how we are ever going to get anywhere when we have a government on the other side of the House living in complete denial about what is taking place across the Northern Territory.
Not everyone is bad, and I think it is worth pointing that out. A couple of members opposite highlighted all the great things and, there is no doubt about it, not every Aboriginal community or every Aboriginal person in the Northern Territory is causing trouble; the vast majority are doing quite well, and are living quite normal lives, and have jobs and are getting on very well with the rest of the community, or in fact, the community. But there are some bad eggs, and those bad eggs do give many people a bad taste in their mouth. It is very simple; and it is a result of the failed policies by this government.
I do not understand the cheap shots being levelled at the member for Braitling about his failed attempt at the federal election last year - you say failed - I say valiant attempt. Nevertheless, he obviously wants to be in a position to address situations such as this, and being in a position of some authority, he can bring certain matters of importance to the public’s attention and perhaps be in a position to deal with them.
He was not successful in the federal election. He had an enormous swing towards him in Alice Springs, unlike the current member for Lingiari who was belted around the ring in Alice Springs, I might add. The member for Braitling did very, very well.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I find that a very offensive expression. I would like you to withdraw it, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: What? Belted around the ring?
A member: It is a boxing ring, Madam Speaker. It is a sporting contact.
Madam SPEAKER: I would like you to withdraw it, please.
Mr CONLAN: Okay, can I rephrase it, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Please do, yes.
Mr CONLAN: Belted around the boxing ring.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Anyway, he was belted around the boxing ring but, nevertheless, made a very valiant attempt.
It is also worth pointing out that the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory also failed in her first attempt to enter parliament; that is the former Chief Minster, Clare Martin. The current Chief Minister also failed in his first attempt to enter politics, as have many other people. It is highly irrelevant and a cheap shot by the member for Nhulunbuy who, I would suggest, would not know the member for Braitling from a bar of soap, to weigh in on such a personal level. Here is to the member for Braitling for bringing this on. He is finally in this place and I think it is terrific to have him; we all feel very lucky to have him and he has raised this very serious matter of public importance.
Many of the problems we are seeing, which resulted in the member for Braitling raising this, are a consequence of failed policies by the Northern Territory government. That is what is giving many people a bad taste in their mouths and giving the broader Aboriginal people a bad name amongst the general community. It is not everyone who is troubled, but there are a core few, and it is a result of the failed policies, particularly the failed alcohol policies, of the Northern Territory government, which are giving these people a bad name and causing trouble in the communities. It is as a result of, particularly the minister for Alcohol Policy, the failed policy; he does not have an alcohol policy. He is trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
Dr Burns: You said it was a good idea.
Mr CONLAN: He is trying to deal with a big issue problem as a small issue problem. It just does not fit, minister. You cannot address the problems facing 600 or 700 people with alcohol problems across the Northern Territory; you cannot fix it. Therefore, we are unable to address the broader, bigger, deeper, underlying issues with alcohol. It is like looking through foggy glass with you. You have no idea how to deal with it and, of course, the rest of the Northern Territory is suffering.
Dr Burns: You just flip-flop. You are a flip-flop.
Mr CONLAN: I beg your pardon?
Dr Burns: You are a flip-flop.
Ms Carney: And you are a 3%er, so what would you know?
Mr CONLAN: Mr 3%. Good on you.
Madam Speaker, I believe it is also important to point out, and I raised it in a previous adjournment debate, I think it was in the last session; I suggested that we are very lucky to have someone like the member for Arafura, the Minister for Indigenous Policy, in our midst, the most senior Aboriginal politician and parliamentarian in the Northern Territory - surely the one thing we can do, as a parliament, is achieve goals and successful outcomes for Aboriginal people.
The issues, the problems and the successes we see in the Indigenous community across the Northern Territory are prevalent in our day-to-day lives as Northern Territorians. If we are able to achieve anything - our failed alcohol policies, the problems with our health system and our education system, we have serious problems with all of those, but other jurisdictions also have serious issues with those - if there is one area in which we should stand out above all and where we should really punch above our weight, it should be Indigenous affairs.
I think it is worth pointing out and to be fair, I do believe that we as Australians, as governments of whatever persuasion, have failed Aboriginal people. I believe this government is not doing anywhere near enough; in fact, I believe this government is failing when it comes to dealing with Aboriginal issues. This is a marvellous opportunity to be able to punch above our weight. I suggested that to the member for Arafura.
It is also worth pointing out that since the member for Arafura became the Minister for Indigenous Policy, Australia is looking to her. It was championed on radio, on television and in the newspapers across this country, particularly The Australian newspaper, which reports heavily on Indigenous affairs in the major cities; the possibility that there could be a change in the air, that perhaps something might really happen with Indigenous affairs in Australia – not just the Northern Territory, but Australia - because the rest of the country is looking to us and, indeed, should be looking to us for some sort leadership on this. We are not doing that.
Since becoming the Minister for Indigenous Policy last year, how proactive has she been? What has she done? What mark or significant impact has she made on the Indigenous situation facing, not only the Northern Territory, but also Australia? I say, not much. Just a quick look at the media releases put out by the Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Arafura; there are plenty on Arts and Museums, plenty on Deputy Chief Minister. In fact, on Arts and Museums, there were at least two or three each month, in the last 12 months. They are celebrating 365 days today by the way, so one year, and plenty on education, but what about Indigenous affairs? How many? Four media releases on Indigenous Affairs. I think that is absolutely disgraceful. That is an appalling effort by the Indigenous Policy minister, the most senior Indigenous politician in this country; the person this country is looking to for some leadership and real change to address the failed policies of the past, from both sides of politics, federal, Territory and state.
This government has been in power for seven years. We have the most senior Aboriginal politician right here in this Chamber; in fact she is no more than 20 feet across the bench. The country is looking to her for leadership and initiative, and we have four media releases in the last 12 months. That is pathetic; it is nothing more than pathetic and disgraceful. I do not know what is going on. She clearly has no vision to lead the Territory out of the troubled position it is in when it comes to Indigenous Affairs and indeed, Indigenous relations. As I said, not everybody is experiencing troubles; there are plenty of Aboriginal people out there who are living decent lives, great lives, who are part of the community.
There are also a large number who need help and it is up to us to help them. It is up to the Indigenous Policy minister to show the way and show some leadership on this. It is not happening - hence the member for Braitling’s MPI. This is of utmost importance. It should be a matter of utmost public importance - it clearly is.
Alice Springs is experiencing some terrible problems. We spoke about it last time, during the last MPI on Alice Springs, conflicts that are becoming tipping points and boiling points. Even the Minister for Central Australia agreed. She understands it. As I said yesterday, perhaps, the Minister for Central Australia might be able to convince her colleagues, those in Cabinet and those outside Cabinet, that this government needs to do more when it comes to addressing Aboriginal affairs. If there is one thing we can do in this parliament it is to address Indigenous affairs; punch above our weight and lead the way.
What hope do we have when there is constant denial across the Chamber indicating we are talking Aboriginal people down and there are not plenty of success stories? Of course, there are plenty of success stories; no one has denied there are plenty of success stories, plenty of great people and great things, but the fact of the matter is - we have failed Indigenous Australia. We are not going to close that gap when we have the most senior Aboriginal politician in this country, with the whole country looking to her for leadership, and we get four pathetic media releases put out a year. What a dismal performance by the most senior Aboriginal parliamentarian in this country. I do not know how we are ever going to address it when there is constant denial by the other side, and we have the most un-proactive Indigenous affairs minister possibly in the history of Australian parliaments.
I congratulate the member for Braitling for bringing this on. He has big shoulders, so he does not need a pep-up from any of us here. He has done an extraordinary job, and it is great to have him The Deputy Chief Minister, the most senior Indigenous affairs parliamentarian in Australia, will not act. She is curiously silent, I might say, during this debate. Very silent, but nevertheless, if they will not lift their game, and if she will not show leadership, then it is up to people like the member for Braitling to do so. I congratulate him on his matter of public importance. Well done. And if they will not do it, I know we can.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I will keep this short and I am not going to use any of those bits and pieces. I had no intention to speak other than the fact that …
Ms Lawrie: You have a script.
Mr BOHLIN: Well, there is the script – and it is gone. The discussions which have come from this side tonight are really amazing. The member for Braitling spoke on an extremely important issue. He spoke of something that is, in communities, culturally difficult to speak about at times - issues relating to his own race; issues and problems communities are having which are not easily spoken about. In fact, in the Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory these issues are often simply just not spoken about - and that is the problem.
The strength of this young man, the member for Braitling, to stand up and show that caution at the beginning by saying: ‘I was concerned about bringing this up, but I need to’ - because he, obviously, did need to, and it was with great strength that he did so. We are not talking about just Alice Springs, Darwin and Katherine; we are talking about other, similar communities throughout the whole of Australia. They have dysfunctional problems. They do cause a wedge in society. To be cautious, I cannot find true words for it - but, to hear what came out in that prepared speech from over there tonight, left me shocked - absolutely shocked, then disgusted and angered.
It is this mentality of denying that there are problems in our society, in our Territory, at this time that has led to the newspaper articles we see here about crime.
Mr Knight interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: I do not think I need to read it to you because, if you like, you can practice reading it yourself.
These are things which we even brought up in our first few speeches in this parliament - the concerns of the community that there are problems. Then, all we saw from the government was: ‘No, no, no, do not tell me about that, it is not true, there are no problems; we have spent and spent’ - and achieved little. Now, we see the progress which has occurred; the great policing resources which have occurred in Palmerston …
Mr Knight: Fudgy figures, the fudging of figures.
Mr BOHLIN: Yes, the fudging of figures. We now see uncontrolled crimes going through the roof in the last few weeks. Yet, we chose to ignore the problem - that is the problem. If you choose to ignore the problem, you …
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr BOHLIN: I am sorry, I pick up the interjection. It is true. If you fail to accept there is a problem, you will never be able to fix it. To be able to fix a problem you must first identify it - and accept it - they are the two keys. Put them together and you get the beginning of a solution. You can then get together as a Caucus - you do not have to invite us - and start to resolve the issues. Speak to the community and they will tell you some of the problems. Discuss it, work with them, and you can resolve the issues. That is all that was brought up here; that there are emerging issues which are bubbling away and need to be dealt with. If you continue to bury your head like an ostrich, you will not be able to deal with them.
I take note of the member for Barkly. He has done a fantastic job with his young footballers in that region. I acknowledge right now that he has done a brilliant job, and he should be commended for it. That is a tool; that is a way we can deal with the problems. Without that man’s assistance, there would be greater problems in his own region; that member over there understands that without his love, care, dedication, blood, sweat, and tears, there would be greater problems in that community. He knows it, because he told me. He understands the assistance that he has given to those fine young men who he is now developing, and that is what the member for Braitling is talking about - identify the problem and let us work together as a community to fix the problem.
Madam Speaker, it was shameful to hear the comments that originally came from this side as a response.
A member: From the other side.
Mr BOHLIN: That is right, from the other side, over there in the corner. For someone who I thought had good stance, I was very disappointed, because I really do not think they were the words of the person inside.
Mr Mills: I certainly hope not.
Mr BOHLIN: I certainly hope not too, because this gentleman spoke words from the inside. He is concerned, we are all concerned; I hope, on both sides, we are concerned, and we need to work together as a community to fix these problems. The only way is to accept, talk about the problems and move forward. This is the venue to discuss those problems and bring them into the open.
Madam Speaker, I was ashamed of some of those comments. I am very proud of my colleague’s comments, and I hope today we put that type of behaviour to bed and we move forward together to build better relationships, because the pot is boiling and bubbling, and if we do not start to quell it, if we do not start to deal with it and accept there is a problem we are in a lot of trouble and we will be going backwards and not forwards; and the ideas of this gentlemen to my right, they are forward thinking.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I had no intention to speak as there is little time, about six minutes, but I will respond, because I was very disappointed to hear some of the comments.
I have to admit that the member for Braitling has brought a matter of public importance to the House which I think is very important, and I would like to commend him for his concern about his community, the Aboriginal community. The only thing people need to be aware of is: this issue of the relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people did not start yesterday, it did not start a year ago, or six years ago, or seven years ago – it started many years ago. It is also very disappointing that in the past ten years, when there was a coalition government in Canberra, only one member of that government, Mal Brough - and probably he was quite right to do what he did, but he did not have the support of his colleagues - said there is a problem. But the key here is: what is the problem?
Alexander Downer said after the election: ‘Our polling is no good; we better do something about that so our polling will get better’. Well, it did not, so they forgot about it, and that really stopped any chance that it was going to take place in its tracks. ‘I am the one who supported the intervention, I think it should have happened in 1967, the day after the referendum.’ But the Aboriginal community was dropped like a hot potato the day after the referendum. Teachers walked out. They did not go back and were told everything would be fixed - it was not.
I came to Australia in 1983 and I was appalled to see, in a society like Australia, that there were people living in conditions no one in Europe would think people should be allowed to live in.
Unfortunately, the way it is described is wrong. There is no breakdown of relations in all centres in the Northern Territory. In some centres there are, in other ones there are not, and I congratulate the member for his positive comments. Despite being on the other side, some of the things he said are quite right. It takes two to tango and we have to work together because of the communities. At the same time, I am disappointed to hear people criticise government when, in a previous life, some of the comments they made were very inflammatory.
‘The only problem in the Aboriginal community is in the crime statistics’, said the member for Greatorex when he was a radio announcer. Well, that is not positive. And to hear the member for Port Darwin say the Labor government always opposes land rights. Yes, we went to court for Blue Mud Bay, but we went to court together, in agreement with the Northern Land Council, to clarify if the Fisheries Act was still valid in intertidal waters; if the commercial fishers or amateur fishers had the right to fish there; that is why we went to court.
We were the ones who stopped the Kenbi land claim, the fight for the Kenbi that went for years and years and cost Territorians $20m. There are times we have to go to court to try to resolve a situation, and we are not afraid to do it and we will not be afraid to do it. We are not here for us, we are here for all Territorians - black and white - and we will do it again if we have to. But, to stand up and blame us for going to court against these Territorians is absolutely untrue.
I have to say there is degradation in relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians. Sometimes it happens because we do not understand each other; sometimes it happens because people have been pushed into a position because people in Canberra have made the wrong decisions. Nobody came to us, neither the Labor Party nor the CLP at the time, to discuss how we should proceed with the intervention. People in Canberra always know best. When you ban alcohol in the communities, when you put strict controls on communities, guess what is going to happen? People are going to move out of the communities. When you ban alcohol in the communities without asking anyone, they just walk out; they came out of the communities because the government took control of their money, so they migrated to Alice Springs, Katherine, and Tennant Creek. We finish up with people leaving their community. It is not this government’s fault.
The CLP was here many years, and I can blame the CLP for making many mistakes. The thing we have done, and the thing we can do is to work together. My colleague, the member for Barkly, has done something, it is not big, but something, and people recognise what he did. The member for Nhulunbuy lives in Nhulunbuy. I have been there many times and last time I was there, I have never seen Nhulunbuy so peaceful, so clean and without drunks hanging around. So they have done something.
We know Alice Springs has problems, and I am very angry because some people in Alice Springs choose to bag their town, so badly, that it costs them in tourism and in income - the estimate is $7m. Alice Springs was named the crime capital of the world. It is not, and they know it, but they went out and misled the people. Yes, there are problems in Alice Springs. What they did not say is there were a significant number of assaults in Alice Springs, many amongst Aboriginal people, but the number of assaults were going down when we put in the alcohol controls - I have the report to parliament - and that makes me angry.
It is very easy to stand up and bag Greeks, Italians, Chinese, and black fellows, because if one Aboriginal commits a crime, then all Aborigines commit crime. If one Greek commits a crime, the whole Greek community is labelled. We cannot do that; we cannot afford to do that. It is better for us to sit down and work together and stop labelling each other, naming each other and stop bagging each other and blame each other. We can play politics as much as we like, but there are many people out there for whom we are responsible.
The member for Braitling, might be my opponent, might be sitting on the other side of the table, might not think a lot of things are important, but one thing I agree with him, I am prepared to work with him to the betterment of the Aboriginal people.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, this is the last sitting before Christmas and I take the opportunity to share my thanks and Christmas wishes for 2008. I wish you and your family a very, merry Christmas and a happy New Year. I also wish my colleagues on this side of the House, merry Christmas to you and your family and to my colleagues on the other side of the House, merry Christmas and a happy New Year to your family. I know we come and get stuck into each other, but this is the time for good will and enjoyment. I hope you have a safe Christmas, especially if you go away, do not drink and drive; drive safely.
I thank the Clerk, Ian McNeill and his family; David Horton and his family; the Parliamentary staff; the members of staff of the Assembly; the Hansard staff, especially Helen Allmich - a special thanks to Hansard, they have learnt to decipher my accent now and I do not get many mistakes; the drivers who drive us here, there and everywhere; and special thanks to Vicki Long for your patience, tolerance and assistance. To all my local constituents in the electorate of Casuarina, I wish you all a happy, safe and joyous festive season. I am very honoured to represent you and I promise to give you the best possible representation in parliament in 2009.
I would like to thank the Casuarina Police Station Superintendent Peter Gordon, and the Officer in Charge, John Guinane. The police force in Casuarina has done a tremendous job, and continue to do so. They are everywhere around Casuarina and I am very pleased to say I have seen foot patrols, bike patrols, patrol cars around the area. I am very excited about the Police Beat Shopfront that will open in Casuarina before Christmas. Sincere thanks to Peter Gordon and your officers. You are doing a great job and I wish you a fantastic Christmas and a great New Year.
I thank Darwin City Council, because on many occasions it has responded very quickly to my requests and addressed some of the issues in my area.
Some of the people in Casuarina Shopping Centre, Ben Gill and his staff and all tenants, Tony Miaoudis, the tenants of Casuarina Village Shopping Centre, Chris Voudouris and tenants of Casuarina Convenience Centre and all the small business owners and staff within the Casuarina shopping precinct, I wish you all a prosperous, happy festive season and I hope this year people open their wallets and spend.
My office staff and ministerial staff, Mark Hough, Ray Clarke, Phil Hausler, Nikola Lekias, Pui Worarath, Pompea Sweet and Gail Rosswhite, without your help and assistance I would not be able to what I do today. Thank you very much. I thank past staff Alf Leonardi, Carole Frost, Kirk Whelan, Sue Shearer, Adele Young; my departmental staff from Business and Employment, the CEO, Dennis Bree, and all the other people and many thanks for a great October Business Month, everyone commented how wonderful it was; at Tourism, Maree and Rita and all the others who promote the Territory; at Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources, a great team with great results; and finally, Asian Relations for your advice and for letting me know some of the customs they follow in Asia, which I had no idea about.
Although 2008 has been one of the busiest years for me, and I believe for all of us, as a local member and as a minister, particularly with my extensive interstate and overseas travel to promote the Northern Territory, I have enjoyed every minute of it. However, things are tough when you are away from the family, living out of a suitcase. It was a great year, a memorable year for me. I was very fortunate to have a wonderful support team whose tireless efforts and commitment I appreciate very much.
I thank my team of helpers, volunteers and the Labor Party Branch members of Casuarina for assisting me during the election this year. Thank you for your continued support and dedication. It is a loyal group and I take the opportunity to express my sincere gratitude for your continued support and your fundraising efforts this year. I wish you and your families a joyous Christmas and look forward to your support in 2009.
I wish a merry Christmas to my schools in Casuarina. The Alawa Primary School and its staff and principal, Sharon Reeves; Nakara Primary School and principal, Barry Griffin; and the staff and students at Dripstone Middle School with principal, Lyn Elphinstone, and the other staff and students.
My sporting clubs, Darwin Surf Lifesaving Club, of which I am a patron; the Azzuri Soccer Club, of which I am also patron; Casuarina Soccer Club, which the Chief Minister is a patron; and all the sport clubs that train, support and give an alternative to young people in Casuarina.
I thank my Electorate Officer, Debbie Rowland. She is the person who is the politician, because the politician might not be there all the time but the person behind the phone is your Electorate Officer. She is the one who knows everybody, not only in your electorate but also in the necessary areas and organisations, those you may need to ring and respond to. They are the ones who organise everything for you. I would also like to thank Ted, Debbie’s husband, because without his support, Debbie would not be there, so I would not have an Electorate Officer and also her two daughters, Simone and Candice Liddy. I would like to thank very much Natasha, Andrew, Ceryl and Frank Moukaddem. If I forgot anyone, many wishes for a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
Most of my wishes are for my wife, Margaret, for my sons Michael and Alexander who are in Perth. I know I have been away from home for a long time. I have been travelling a lot and I know Michael is missing me. It does not matter what presents you bring, he wants his father. Thank you very much, Margaret, thank you very much Michael and Alexander and I wish you a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
It was an exciting year, 2008, and I am looking forward to an exciting year in 2009. I am pretty sure I will see you again here in February so until then, have a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this will be my last adjournment for the year. I would like to comment initially on something I did not plan to comment on in this adjournment.
This is about a very sad case which occurred in my home of Geraldton on Boxing Day last year. I heard further repercussions from this sad incident the other day in Palmerston. My childhood friend, Billy Rowe, was killed in Geraldton on Boxing Day, whilst with his family on the beach playing cricket. He had an esky and the family were having a wonderful day. We were having a fantastic day down the other end of the street.
On that day, there was a gang of youths moving up and down the beach, and they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol or whatever, interfering with families. When they came to Billy Rowe’s family, down the other end of the street, they sought to avail themselves of the drinks in the esky. The family was surprised at this, and Billy thought it would be wise to lift the esky and move it away, because they became quite aggressive when they were confronted and told that they were not to take those drinks. On moving the esky, one of the young lads picked up a cricket bat and, sadly, bashed my friend Billy to death on the beach. That was Boxing Day.
That was a boiling to the surface of underlying tension. The effect of that one horrible incident still has repercussions to this very day. Sadly, the family was Indigenous, and that has sparked all sorts of hostility and concerns in the community. To great credit to the family involved, particularly the grandparents of the young man involved, they immediately went to the police and made it clear it was their grandson who was involved. The father came forward, and the family made a direct apology and appeal to the family - a good Christian family that has served the community well.
There was forgiveness from the Rowe family, a wonderful family. He is, in fact, my godfather. He forgave the family and there is forgiveness and reconciliation between the two families. Unfortunately, there are elements of that community who cannot bring themselves to reconcile, and there is underlying tensions still in Geraldton today. So much so, that many of my good friends who I grew up with in Geraldton and in Mullewa, many of whom live in Palmerston - I only heard recently that the repercussions of that event in Geraldton on Boxing Day has resulted in families moving from Geraldton to Palmerston, because of the unresolved and underlying tension that has been exacerbated by the incident on Boxing Day. It has widened the gap. It makes it more difficult for those underlying issues and tensions, that have been referred to in this Chamber, to be resolved, even with the immense goodwill of the Indigenous family concerned. They even went to the funeral of Billy. They were very well accepted. My mother went and spent time with that family. It was difficult for them, but there was tremendous healing. Still, it is an immensely difficult business.
I tell that story in the context of the business that has been discussed in this Chamber today. Only a fool would turn their eyes away from the underlying tension and seek to ignore what is there. We just talk about all the good things that happen in Geraldton; there are plenty of them. There are plenty of good things that happen in Mullewa, where I grew up. However, there are other things that you would be a fool to ignore. That was precisely the purpose of the contributions that have been made in this Chamber; to honestly recognise and consider this as a challenge - a personal challenge.
We say at the beginning of each session that our purpose is to advance the true welfare of all Territorians. That is our purpose, our goal, and our objective - the welfare of other people - not our political agenda, ideology, or personal axe to grind, but how we can benefit others. If we cannot find a point of genuine agreement here - mature and heartfelt agreement - on significant issues, how the hell can we expect there to be significant change in places far from here such as Wadeye, Tennant Creek, where there are divisions, or Katherine, or in Palmerston? How on earth can we expect there to be significant social change if we cannot even find a place of common ground here, between community leaders, 25 of us?
I am stuck with that as a challenge. If we cannot find a sensible place to meet, discuss, and turn our collective energies to unlock the challenges, then we are dreaming and we are playing games. Let us recognise that we each have a challenge; to square up to the challenges that ordinary families face across the Territory, and get ahead of them and provide some leadership, so we can increase social cohesion, so we can be honest, and try to resolve some of those issues before those issues consume our community as they, sadly, burst to the surface in Geraldton on Boxing Day. I dedicate this to you, Billy.
I will now discuss the issue of language. This matter has been raised, and sometimes politics surrounds language and our desire for young people to learn to speak English. For anyone who has taught - and there are teachers in this place - or been involved in teaching a kid; a little one who has come to school to learn to read their first words, and for them to develop their confidence and be able to express themselves, as they begin to fly across the page and those words start coming out; they get that wonderful sense, almost as though they could fly, when they feel they can read. They have some kind of control and power. The animals cannot read, but human beings can read. We have the power of language, and if we have the capacity to teach a young person to be able to read and to be confident with language, then we have given them a tremendous start in life. We cannot get that wrong.
I was quite taken by the series featuring Rupert Murdoch’s Boyer Lectures. A quote from his most recent says:
- Sometimes I think that because we are doing well enough for most people, it’s easier to close our eyes to the tens of thousands of children we are betraying.
We have too many people who secretly believe that the gap between those who are getting an education and those who are not is something that cannot
be changed …
We will just play the game, we will talk the talk, but we actually believe it cannot be changed, I continue the quote:
… So they blame the difference on demographics or race or utter inevitability.
An education system has at its core three primary elements - qualified teachers, an effective curriculum, and an appropriate facility. The minister for Education’s announcement, of English focused policy for instruction, relates to curriculum and how it is taught. Implied in the Deputy Chief Minister’s announcement is that bilingual education is a significant cause of the abysmal failure to achieve results in remote education, perhaps deliberately, which allows that message or that implication to run.
Yalmay Yunupingu, an Indigenous teacher with 32 years’ experience, is right when she describes this policy position as both threadbare and clumsy. It warrants closer inspection.
Notwithstanding, the announcement is a reversal of long-standing Labor policy, which was announced without adequate consultation, and the approach is clumsy in a number of substantive ways. It fails to substantiate that bilingual education is a problem. Proposing a cure without understanding the cause would be extremely dangerous in medicine. It is equally so in education.
Worse than this, the minister for Education fails to accurately - I believe, deliberately; I hope it is deliberately, because it would be perhaps worse if she does not understand the difference between the two approaches in bilingual education - reflect what is meant by bilingual education, and made the attempt today to try to create some kind of division on the issue of bilingual education – a couple of statements that have been made in this Chamber. What for? Is that of any assistance to those young ones who are trying to learn to read, and those who are trying to help them?
Some approach bilingual education as a means to preserve the mother tongue, by aiming to develop proficiency in two languages and cultural world views at the end of formal education. Perhaps the minister believes this is the approach taken in most of the remote schools - that is the objective. If that is the case, the minister is ill-informed.
The common practice is to develop proficiency in English - that is the objective - to be able to teach proficiency in English through the mother tongue. This approach is concentrated in the early years of schooling, probably better referred to as teaching English as a Second Language. This approach values the language that is spoken at home and links the community to the school. However, the aim of this approach is to most effectively teach English. There is evidence to indicate this approach is superior to the English-only approach, where the connection with the community is removed, and thereby, makes comment on their language.
It is my firm view that it is not the responsibility or within the capacity of the education system to aim to develop proficiency in both English and the first language. It is the responsibility of our education system to graduate students who are proficient in English. Even a rudimentary grasp of language learning recognises that words convey more than letters on a page, but also concepts and ideas. Effective instruction links the known to the unknown. The place this translation occurs in language is in the first years of school, when the foundations are laid. If you do not lay those foundations in early childhood, you will labour, sadly, in vain - as we see the results all the way through the system - if you cannot get it right in those early years. In fact, there is a capacity, a magical capacity, to learn language in those first years. How hard would it be if you ignore, or do not take, that opportunity to translate a concept or an idea in early years, from the language that is spoken into English - to establish a solid foundation upon which to build proficiency in English?
I am convinced that these foundations cannot be effectively laid without reference to the language that is spoken at home. This is in the early childhood years. For those who have spent time in early childhood, you will know what I mean. That is why I support the use of the first language in the first three years of formal learning. Some people, with a good grasp of English but who do not understand how language is taught or learnt - even in our schools in the suburbs - will applaud the sentiment of the minister, because we all want our children to do well. They will think, yes, that sounds good. I have had this discussion with people, they say, that sounds good, but they do not understand what is being said. I think they are being conned.
To support the sentiment expressed by the minister, without an understanding of how language is learnt nor an appreciation of the task of the early childhood teacher - who is charged with society’s most noble task; teaching a child to read and write - is wrong, and amounts to a betrayal.
The task of teaching is difficult enough and more so when the bridge between the first language and English is removed. It is across that bridge that understanding must pass. That is the purpose of it. The purpose of this approach is to ensure that English is taught. I urge the minister to re-consider and to dig a little more deeply when we are discussing these matters, because there is a line in the middle. I believe it is time for some real leadership to ensure that those who are lifting the heavy load in those communities are given proper support. We need to bring to the fore the evidence that surrounds this issue, so that we can work together to ensure we build stronger foundations and develop a greater capacity for the speaking of English with young kids in the remote communities.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge the contributions, over the last 12 months and while I have been minister, of some key people in the departments I have responsibility for.
In the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment, I acknowledge Ken Simpson and all his staff. They do a commendable job. It is obviously problematic and quite a difficult job within the public service, negotiating enterprise bargaining agreements and collective agreements. I acknowledge all the hard work. This year has seen the completion of most of those agreements, and they will be tidied up in the New Year. Congratulations to Ken and to all your staff for a job well done.
I also acknowledge Dr David Ritchie, CEO, the Department of Local Government and Housing. David came on board about the same time as I did in March and he fitted very well into that department. He took up the reins of local government reform and, more recently, remote housing reforms. We have a bit more work to do in Housing. Congratulations to you, David, thanks for all your hard work.
Also, to Eve Robinson who started around the same time in the local government area. She has adapted well from the private sector and brought a great deal of knowledge to the department.
In the Housing area, I acknowledge Fiona Chamberlain and Trish Angus, they do a great job, both in Housing and the Aboriginal Interpreter Service. To all of your staff within the department, who perform tremendously well.
I make a special mention of the regional offices, David Willing at East Arnhem and Nhulunbuy, he and his staff are irreplaceable; to John De Koning in Katherine; Wayne Hoban in Tennant Creek; and Andrea Martin in Alice Springs, I express my gratitude. The regional staff do a job second-to-none and I congratulate every one of them for all of their hard work.
I thank the entire staff of Power and Water. They had some challenging times of late and the standard of their work is far above average, especially the guys on call-out, who are often working in difficult situations. They are just heading into their most dangerous time of the year, fixing power lines in the wet season, in the middle of the storms, at the end of fairly high ladders, trying to fix insulators and whatever it may be. Congratulations to all the staff. I hope everyone stays safe over this wet season and we do not get too many cyclones coming through.
Lastly, a staff member I did not get round to mentioning last night: Deanna Hampton. She has carried out her tasks very well, not just for me but other ministers she has worked for. She is due to have a baby in February or March, so I hope all goes well. She has indicated that it is a boy. I hope it all goes well and that she looks after herself and the bub.
Lastly, I acknowledge someone in my electorate - Mr Rex Hume. Rex has been around the Territory for many years and is probably the most knowledgeable person I know regarding the actual management of CDEP. He has worked in Borroloola and in the Nauiyu Community at Daly River, for many years. He is a wealth of knowledge and operated the best CDEP program in the Northern Territory. He says he is retiring, but I imagine Rex will probably be back doing something very soon. I know he will not be lost to the Territory. The Territory is his home, and I hope he and his wife stick around the Daly region, since they have a lot to contribute.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Acting Deputy Speaker, I am going to give a mixed bag tonight.
On a sad note, I send my condolences to the family of Vic Carusi. Vic Carusi was a well known electrical contractor in the rural area for many years. He died unexpectedly on the weekend. He is someone you might say was a self-made man, in the sense that he never shied away from a fight with the government. He was a man who always called a spade a spade and if he had to get a job done, he was able to do it. He was a person who put up power poles and electrical lines, that was the sort of business he was in. That is why he was well known in the rural area, because over the last 20 to 30 years he helped to open up parts of the Northern Territory. He was the one who cleared through the bush for power lines and knew a lot about his business. If you ever wanted to ask someone about electrical transmission, he knew the lot. He was just one of those great blokes who so many people knew, who lived in the rural area for quite a while - and throughout the Territory. He was one of those special people.
Another person is Norm Hill. Most people would not know Norm but he was from what you would call a pioneering family in the rural area. His wife, sadly, died earlier this year. Whilst he died from a heart attack just this week, some of us feel that it might have been more of a broken heart, because he lived with his wife, Pat, for many years. He put up a brave face when she died, but we think that, in the end, life was much harder than he showed. I believe he is back with Pat now, and I am happy for that, because he missed her very much and was a very lonely man. He and Pat were very much involved in the Litchfield - now Humpty Doo Bowls Club, and the rural garden club. I know a lot of people will miss him.
In relation to Christmas, I thank a few very special people. My wife, Imelda, is not a great fan of politics, but puts up with it. At least I have a nice white shirt to wear every morning. I did not marry her for politics. I can tell you she still does not take a great interest, but I know that, underneath it all, she is proud of me for being the local member. To some extent, I am surrounded by women. That might sound very funny, but I am surrounded by really good women. I could probably say I am blessed by these particular people, because they are wonderful in keeping an eye on me, give me good advice, and stop me from getting a big head. The reason that I am here today is because of their contribution to my electorate office. If people come into my office and find I am not there, they know people are there who can help them.
We have been debating the role of an MLA and how many hours we work in this parliament. I will be honest with you; the real work, I believe, the essential work for an MLA, is out there helping people with little problems, assisting them in any way possible, trying to make your community better. That is the role of a member of parliament. Yes, we can have this more official role, this legal role - and it is important, I am not denying that - but the part of my job that gives me the most satisfaction is working with the community, whether it is in sport, or at the local pub doing the auction the other night for the slave night. I saw the lady - the UGLY lady, as she is called - who is raising money for the Leukaemia Foundation, Tania’s picture was in the paper today. She works at the Howard Springs Tavern and she is topping the list with the most dollars raised for the Leukaemia Foundation. I enjoy being part of the community and it is an important part of the role I have as a member of parliament.
I thank Jenny. She has been with me for five years. She is having a long break at the moment. She has some other issues she is working through at the present time. She is a fantastic lady. I call her my guardian angel when it comes to work in the office. She is my main worker. To Kim, who is up here at the moment doing the electorate office course. It is all new to her, but she is learning very fast. To Trish, my sister, who occasionally has been my woman Friday, helping out. To Dawn, who is working in the office now that Kim is doing the electorate officer role. To Caroline, who was my research officer for the last five years and is now working in the education department for the Legislative Assembly. I thank her for all the work she has done over the last few years, making sure the Hansard was readable, making sure I had information about the bills, analysing those bills, and giving me advice.
Also to my new research officer, Michelle, who has only started this week and comes from Berry Springs. She is a fantastic lady. She has spent a good part of her life in Central Australia - six years out at Areyonga. She worked for nearly 18 years at the Berry Springs Wildlife Park. She has been involved in quarter horse or Western riding; the Mango Growers Association; the Berry Springs Primary School Council for six years. She is a person who has a great knowledge and understanding of the Territory and its issues. I look forward to working with her. She is already keeping me in check and making sure I eat the right foods. She is another person I feel blessed to have working for me.
I thank all the members of the Legislative Assembly. Sometimes we forget they are there, but they are always here. They are here from when we start to when we go home, and later, and I thank them for all their work – the Hansard staff. The member for Casuarina was saying how Hansard is getting better at understanding what he has to say. They also do a pretty good job writing down what I say, especially when I add about four verbs in a row with a few urrs and umms and then repeat myself. They do a pretty good job with Gerry Wood English as a Second Language.
I thank my electorate very much. This has been a busy year. I am not talking politics here, but a fantastic number of people helped out with the rallies about local government. Countless people gave me support during the election. They are the real grassroots people and without them, change would not have occurred. Without them, I would not be elected. I thank the members of my electorate for their support and friendship. It is nice to go into your electorate and though you might not know everybody’s name, you know who they are. In fact, one of the saddest things for me this year was when the redistribution occurred and I lost all of what I call the upper Humpty Doo area. I could take you up and down every street there and know just about everyone who was there. It is all gone.
I believe redistributions, especially now we are having four year terms, should be made halfway. They should be made in the second year, so that members of parliament and candidates know exactly what electorate they will be looking after in the next term; not with five minutes notice, like what happened in the last election. That is why many people were confused as to who was their candidate. It would be good to have that redistribution at the halfway mark, and then we know which people we will, hopefully, be representing after the next election. It seems that you can work four years and at the last minute, those people who you have been working for are not in your electorate. That is not fair for the candidates, the member of parliament, nor the constituents they represent. I put that on notice. That is something that should be changed.
As it is Christmas, I thank the good Lord for allowing me to be in parliament and having this wonderful job. I do occasionally ask for inspiration. It is not always easy, especially as an Independent. You have to sit sometimes and hear the arguments from both sides, and sometimes people accuse me of sitting on the fence. As I say, it is not always a matter of sitting on the fence, sometimes it is a case that there are more than two opinions, more than just black and white. I hope I can contribute to parliament by bringing at least alternative points of view, not that everyone agrees with them. One of the great things we should strive for in this parliament - today is probably a good day to talk about it, because Question Time was not the best Question Time I have had to live with – is to try to work together more. Even in the last debate, you did feel that there was tension.
No matter what differences we have in this parliament, we need to be able to try to work together as best we can. We need robust debate, otherwise parliament would be a waste of time. However, we are here for our fellow Territorians, to do the best for them and to make life, especially for those who are disadvantaged, better.
I heard the Opposition Leader talk about bilingual education, which is a difficult area to discuss. I was on Bathurst Island when bilingual education first started. I have always believed that whilst it is a nice idea - and I am not saying it has not worked - I am still not convinced it has achieved the goals people said it would. I always felt that English is the only way for Aboriginal people to advance.
That is not saying that should be the one and only goal. Language is absolutely important for retaining culture. Without language, culture will die, but are there other ways to do that? I used to work in the vegetable garden at Bathurst Island. I used to work as work supervisor at the Nguiu Shire Council and I used to say, if you cannot read the tractor manual, then how are you ever going to repair the tractor? The tractor manual will not be written in Tiwi, unless someone makes that effort, but the manufacturer is not going to do it. It is going to be written in English and if you want to maintain equipment, then you have to have a good knowledge of the language, otherwise the tractor will break down. At the same time, we need to be putting more responsibility on communities to retain their language and assist them.
It is a partnership. That is why I have said that we should open up schools. This used to happen years ago, through adult classes at night. The government could look at the option of opening up schools, perhaps paying some of the elders - or those people who can teach the language - an adult educator allowance. Some of the younger people who can read and write could get involved in writing the language as that is a difficult area. Most of these languages are not naturally written, they are written by people who are studying languages and that is an area people have to specialise in.
There needs to be more onus on the community to say: ‘We love our language, we think our language is important, so we will take up that responsibility as custodians of our language, and traditions. We will make sure our children have a good knowledge of our language.’
I am not condemning bilingual education, but we have come to a fork in the road where we ask: has it really made a great difference? I understand what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. He is a teacher. I suppose I am one who looks at the results, even when I work at other places.
I see older Aboriginal people, who I knew at Daly River. They did not learn bilingually but they speak both Ngankikurungkurr and English perfectly. This debate will continue on, but the government has to make difficult decisions. We know literacy and numeracy in Aboriginal communities - especially in remote ones - is absolutely woeful. I support what the government is doing, but I would support it only if it is a partnership with people, the communities, and the government to maintain and give those people a chance to keep their languages alive.
I wish everyone a happy Christmas and a safe New Year.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity tonight as we are on our last sitting for the year to acknowledge the people in my electorate.
I would like to tell the parliament of a recent regional education event that took place in Katherine earlier this month. It was the inaugural River Regions Try a Trade held at the Charles Darwin University’s Katherine rural campus. With more than 100 people from remote communities attending the Try a Trade in Katherine, WorldSkills Australia is set to make the extremely popular first-time event an annual one.
Under the guidance of qualified tradespeople, Try a Trade is specifically aimed at year 9 students, to inform and inspire them to consider traditional trades as a career pathway and to start their training, through vocational education programs, while still at school. I heard it was a fantastic day with a great deal of support from businesses in Katherine and the region. Some of the schools from my electorate of Stuart that attended the day were from Barunga, Wugularr, Katherine School of the Air, and Katherine High School.
Try a Trade is about giving students the opportunity to get a hands-on introduction and discuss entry and career pathways available in trades where there has been a major shortage. This will be great in the long-term for the development of the regions, by putting much needed trades into the communities. There were 19 industry areas represented, some of which were hospitality, mechanical, automotive, hairdressing, electrical, welding, rural operations, plumbing, machinery, horticulture, business administration, health and childcare.
The River Regions Try a Trade was organised by a number of partners comprising the Department of Education and Training, River Regions Youth Development Services, Group Training NT and Charles Darwin University. This wonderful opportunity for students was made possible due to the CAA or Careers Advice Australia Initiative and local community partnerships. I will be looking out for this great event next year, checking on the progress, and hopefully attending.
Still with education in the Stuart Electorate, I would like to acknowledge the exceptional job done by the remote schools in my electorate. Amanbidjiis one of those remote schools, which under the leadership of the principal Reg Robinson, does a fantastic job. I acknowledge some of the excellent work down by the following students. Congratulations to Adeline Waterloo, who achieved above benchmark results for year three level in all areas of the MAP testing. Also congratulations goes to June Lura, in Year 5 and Johandon Learing, in Transition, who have both achieved outstanding outcomes in their school work and received awards for August and September. Children must show at least 90% attendance and excellent behaviour to qualify for an award. Well done for this brilliant effort. I also acknowledge the Amanbidji School for their recent Territory Tidy Towns School Award.
At Pine Creek School, congratulations to Dwayne Alangale for his initiative in attending Auskick every week, his excellent work ethic and positive actions within the school. Also congratulations to Pine Creek School staff and students for their gardening project which is providing nutritional brain food for the whole school’s Brain Break program.
Staying with the Pine Creek community, congratulations go to John ‘Robbo’ Robinson, who was recently awarded the Northern Territory’s most True Blue Citizen Award. Robbo was up against some stiff competition, but his credentials are impeccable. His long-term commitment to the Pine Creek community is legendary. He will often be seen helping out at community events, Fire and Emergency Services, the local Turf Club, or just helping family and friends. He has also been named Pine Creek Citizen of the year, twice and has won several bravery awards. Well done to Robbo.
I congratulate Eva Valley School on winning Champion School at the recently held athletics carnival, which was held at the Barunga Oval. Eva Valley was the smallest school in the competition and was up against some stiff competition from Beswick, Bulman and Barunga. I hear it was a great day with lots of exciting close races and team sports that had everyone cheering from the sidelines. Congratulations to Elizabeth Andrews from Eva Valley, who won the Champion Girl and Alistair Blitner from Bulman, who won the Champion Boy awards. The day was a great success, I hear. Thanks to all the teachers, mums and dads who helped out.
As they say, from little things, big things grow; ‘From Little Things, Big Thing Grow’, is a not for profit project aimed at raising funds for arts and literacy programs for the Gurindji people. As part of that fundraising, a book based on the Paul Kelly song, From Little Things, Big Things Grow, tells the story of the Wave Hill walk-off. Two students from Kalkarindji, Daniel Law and Felicia Jimmy, working with the Queensland artist, Peter Hudson, produced the illustrations for the book. When the book was launched earlier this month in Sydney, Daniel and Felicia got to travel there and meet with Pat Dodson, who launched the book. It is a beautiful book about our Northern Territory history and I recommend it to everyone in this House. Once again, well done to Daniel and Felicity for the wonderful work they have done to help produce this book. Congratulations to Rikisha Isaac from Pigeon Hole, who received the George Alexander Foundation Vet Scholarship, for her studies towards Certificate Two in Business. Rikisha is studying at the Charles Darwin University’s Rural campus and I wish her all the best for her future studies.
Moving to the southern part of my electorate, I would like to tell the parliament about the opening of the Yuendumu Swimming Pool, which I had the pleasure attending in October 2008. Also in attendance was the federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Ms Jenny Macklin, the federal member for Lingiari, Mr Warren Snowdon, Territory Senator, Ms Trish Crossin and Northern Territory Senator, Mr Nigel Scullion. The opening of the pool was an exciting day for the Yuendumu community with residents working hard to establish the pool over a long time. Young locals have gained employment through gaining nationally recognised qualifications in water safety and pool management.
These people are Bethany Langdon, Bruno Wilson, Jamie Nelson, Desmond Spencer, also as the trainee manager, and Marla Shannon and Vicky Wayne. Congratulations to them all. A special thank you to the people on the Yuendumu Swimming Committee: Cecil Johnson, Robbie Walit, Enid Gallagher, Riley Oldfield, Gracie Johnson, Coral Gallagher, Kwementyaye Johnson, and Nelly Wayne. Once again, thanks for your hard work and dedication. I am sure the community appreciates it, as well. The community will now be able to teach water safety, learn to swim classes, and also life saving techniques, which will benefit the whole community, as well as the ‘Yes School, Yes Pool’ policy, which will also greatly increase school attendance.
I also congratulate the Mt Theo program and its management for its hard work throughout the years to see this swimming pool become a reality.
I would also like to tell the parliament of the recent Mobfest event that took place at the school at Ti Tree in October 2008, which I had the pleasure of attending. Attending the Mobfest were students from Mulga Bore, Laramba Upper Primary, Stirling, Neutral Junction, and Ti Tree School, all of which are from my electorate of Stuart. The Laramba men and women, Alcoota School and the Rural Health Network also attended. A special thanks to all of those elders who were involved with the Mobfest. There was a very strong and positive feeling amongst the attendees.
Thank you also to Music Outback Foundations who delivered the music program. The music program was all about music education which involves numeracy, literacy, teamwork, and improving the self-esteem of all the students involved. The students performed songs in their local language, as well as English, and the drums from Drum Atweme were as popular as ever and performed with confidence. Other activities during the Mobfest festival were instrument making, traditional stories, songs, body painting, language song writing workshops and health awareness activities. Overall, the Mobfest festival was conducted in a very positive way and with a very positive outlook from all the elders, students and staff involved.
I pay my respects and condolences to the family of the young girl, whom I am sure we all read about in the paper the other day, who, sadly, passed away after an accident jumping from a truck. The young girl was from a local family in Ti Tree, the Long and Presley family. I take this opportunity of passing my condolences on to them in this adjournment.
I also acknowledge and offer my condolences to the Lynch family in Alice Springs on the passing of their patriarch, Pop Lynch, whose funeral is this Friday. Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to attend, so I would like to put on the public record the passing of this old man - a very important man of Central Australia, in terms not only what he and his family have achieved, but the knowledge and cultural strength he has provided to many people over the years. He will be sadly missed. He is one of those iconic people you cannot replace.
Also, to the family of Jessie Palmer, a relative of mine from the Minyerri region. Her funeral is on this Friday here in Darwin. To all of her extended family and her sons, in particular, who I know fairly well, I pass on my condolences.
Finally to the Clarke family, on the passing of Xavier Clarke Senior, one of the Territory’s favourite football sons. We all know Xavier and Raphael who play for the Saints in Melbourne. To the family - Gavin, Ingrid, John, and Michelle, in particular, I pass on my condolences.
I say thanks to quite a few people, starting with the department. It is three to four months into the job and it has been a big task getting on top of things, and the challenges that come with it. To all the staff, leading with the CEOs within NRETAS and, in particular, the Executive Director of Sport and Recreation, Regional Development, and Information, Communications and Technology. Thanks for the briefings and the answers to questions I received, which helped me get on top of the issues. Thanks to all in the department for their patience, their information, the briefings, and for making the job a bit easier for me. I wish all of them and their family the best for Christmas.
To my ministerial staff on the 5th floor, and also to my staff in Alice Springs, I say thanks. They have been very supportive over the last three months that I have had the portfolios. I may be biased, but I think I have one of the hardest diaries to manage, given my travels. I appreciate their patience, understanding and skill at juggling things at the last moment. The great work they have done in the last three months puts me in good stead for next year. I wish you and your families a safe and merry Christmas and look forward to next year.
To all the Legislative Assembly staff, to the Clerk and Deputy Clerk, to the people you see behind us who provide a great level of service to us all in this House, and particularly to the Hansard staff who, no doubt, had some late nights last sittings, but they did a fantastic job. Thanks for all your work this year and over the last two years that I have had the pleasure of being a member in this Chamber. I wish you and all your families a merry Christmas as well.
To all the members here, 25, the 24 others, I wish you and your families a merry Christmas and a safe New Year. I look forward to working with you all next year. In particular, in terms of my portfolios, to the shadow ministers, I look forward to working with you next year as well.
To the members on this side particularly, thanks for your support since the election, and the advice and support you have given me in my new role in Cabinet. I appreciate it and I wish you and your families a merry Christmas.
I would not be here without my constituents, and the member for Nelson touched on this. It has been a challenge, going through two elections in two years, the by-election and now the full election and having to deal with the redistribution. I have probably had one of the biggest changes to an electorate out of all of us and it has been a challenge to get around. In an electorate that stretches from Pine Creek, around Katherine, down to Timber Creek, right down to Nyirripi and Ti Tree, it certainly has its challenges. I thank them for their vote of confidence at the last election. I will do my best to get around and listen to your concerns. Over the last couple of months, it has been great.
I have been receiving many enquiries from the new parts of the electorate. Issues are coming in, so keep them coming. It is an important part of our job. We can debate about the reforms we want to see in the running of this parliament, but for me, the most important part is achieving outcomes for our constituents. That is why they vote for us, is to work hard for them and to work on those issues. Those issues will be flowing in, no doubt, and I will do my best to get around and visit everyone, hopefully before Christmas, but certainly in the New Year.
Finally, to my family, my wife, Rebecca, my three boys, who over the last three months have seen less of me, but that is part of the job. Thanks, particularly to my wife, who also is the father when I am not there, having to take the boys to school and to training, and deal with the issues that fathers should deal with when they are at home. It is greatly appreciated. It deserves to be on the public record. Without your support, Rebecca, Josh, Curtly and Jamie, it would be awfully difficult to continue in this job. So thank you for your support.
I look forward to the challenges next year. We have heard a lot of talking tonight, but I believe my actions will speak louder than words. I will do my best next year to deal with many of the issues from my portfolios.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I pass on my Christmas wishes to people who are now around us. First, to all my new work colleagues, on both sides of the floor - all my new friends on both sides of the floor; I mean that with honesty. As was said earlier today, we do discuss things across the floor - that is what this environment is about. There are people on that side of the floor that are quite enjoyable to talk with, and they could become quite good friends over the time. I am sure we are going to be spending a lot more time together as the years roll on.
The great warmth that has been expressed to me by my fellow colleagues has been an amazing. It has been rapid little journey for the last three months. I wish you all, on both sides, a very safe and merry Christmas. Please take that back to all your families and loved ones. We know we cannot do this job without our electorate officers. They hold the front when we are not there and they wear the talk of the town, shall we say. To everyone’s electorate officers, the best of the festive season to you all. Thank you for the efforts you put into the Territory people. Thank you to my electorate officer, Donna Ellice, for your fantastic work. You have enabled me to hit the ground running. You have enabled us to put together a fantastic office at Palm Village next to Independent Motor Mart. It is amazing that we went from a shell to what we have in such a short period of time. You have done an outstanding job to get us on track with so many very vital things.
I wish the Hansard staff, Legislative Assembly members, the administrative people, the support staff throughout this great building of the Northern Territory and the people behind the scenes, behind the glass to my left, who make this place tick, a happy Christmas. We put the words into this building and they put those words onto the Internet and without those people, this place would come to a grinding halt. I wish them all and their families merry Christmas. They have done a great job and they have inspired me with their true dedication.
I have a few schools in my area and I wish all my schools, the teaching staff and the students of those schools, a very safe Christmas. I know the kids will enjoy the opportunity for a break. I do not think the parents always enjoy that extended break, but the best of the Christmas season to you all. I hope you all come back safe and well with a new vigour to continue to learn.
I have started something I hope is appreciated, which is the giving of book vouchers to my schools for various awards. I enjoyed greatly being able to give out those book vouchers because I believe strongly in that simple gesture. Instead of some other form of entertainment, I give a fundamental tool of learning and that is the opportunity for that child to go and buy a new book from a shop and to look at this beautiful, colourful book or whatever it may be - it is a beautiful, new thing of great learning. I believe that is an amazing thing to be able to give to so many kids in my electorate area. I hope they appreciate it and the gesture, and that in years to come, after learning much, they will appreciate that. Unfortunately, as a young child I was encouraged to read, but did not enjoy it as well as I do today. I hope these young kids can enjoy what I did not.
I would also like to wish all the businesses a great Christmas. I have two industrial areas, plus the Palmerston CBD within my electorate area and I hope they have a fantastic Christmas and for the CBD to have a prosperous Christmas period, under the economic crisis around the world. I hope the Palmerston people come to our shopping centres and do them proud and buy great, loving presents for their families.
I wish the Palmerston City Council, the mayor, Rob Macleod, and his great staff, the best of Christmas tidings. I also wish the Palmerston Police Station and its officers well, for whom I have worked with for a long time. There are still days I actually drive to work, I take the same journey, basically, and the amount of times I have made a left turn to go in past the Post Office and go to the police station to work, is quite amazing. You get in there, turn around and out you go to your normal workplace.
Mr Elferink: Mate, you used to work in Kintore, imagine if you got that wrong.
Mr BOHLIN: Imagine if I got that wrong, going to Kintore - it would take me a long time to get back from there. The officers of the Northern Territory Police Force have done a fantastic job this year, regardless of the lack of support they sometimes get. No matter who is at the top of the reins, it is the officers on the beat who wear the brunt of all the upset and the greatest distress, and hopefully go home to their loving families - they deserve every ounce of respect that I can give them, because they do a fantastic job.
The public in general support them and acknowledge they do a great job. I wish they have a great Christmas and hopefully we do not have any more road fatalities to go with it. I know, in the true spirit of policing, they will make the best of any circumstances - even those rostered on Christmas Eve, or Christmas Day. That always used to be a festive time, and I hope they all enjoy themselves, as we used to when we worked Christmas days, because you have to make the best of it.
Not to forget our Fire department, those handsome young men in their red trucks, who do a great job. They are there to protect us all when required. They are also there on many fun occasions; they are there for the schools at times to put on their displays and their foam pits. They do a great job. In their spare time, as they do best, they get out in their bib and brace and collect money for Christmas charities around this time. I wish them a great Christmas.
I wish my parents, my daughter, and my partner a fantastic Christmas. It will be busy, as it always is, and without the support of family, none of us can do what we do. Merry Christmas to all.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank quite a number of people who have assisted me, both in my journey to this House and since I was elected in August. The first group of people I would like to thank, and probably the most important, are the constituents of the seat of Sanderson, located in the northern suburbs of Darwin. Those people showed, by their choice on election day, the confidence they have in me. It is a great honour to be in this House and represent them and their views, irrespective of which side of politics they choose to follow, or indeed, if they do not choose to follow anyone in politics.
There has been a continual flow of constituents into my office since election day. I am very grateful for the advice they have given me and the issues they have raised. When I have contacted them, they have always been available to give me any advice I may need and, in return, they have accepted any advice I have been able to provide to them. It is a large group of people, who I would like to sincerely thank for their support on election day and up until now. I wish them, their families, their children and all those associated with them, a very happy festive season.
For those who do not subscribe to the Christian belief of Christmas, I wish them a very happy break over the change of years from 2008 to 2009.
The next group that I would like to deal with are the schools. The youth in our community form about 18% of our community, however, they are 100% of our future. It is to the schools that I convey my sincere thanks because, as a person who stands in this House and raises the concerns of our community in an effort to build a better future, it is these people who I represent, and try to make the Northern Territory a better place by my contribution, enabling them to have the very best education that we can provide in the Territory.
The principals of these schools are leaders in our community. I am a great believer that the three pillars of any community are health, education, and law and order. Without education, we do not succeed in moving along and we would all be still sitting in caves or under trees and not doing as well as we are today. There are the principals of the schools who are in my immediate electorate and those on the fringes of my electorate, where people who live within my electorate send their children to schools just out of the electorate into neighbouring electorates.
For instance, one of those within my electorate is Wagaman Primary School. I specifically thank Michele Cody, who has welcomed me on to the school council, and has given me some very informative briefings about what is going on in the school. I thank her for that. I have been on the Wulagi Primary School Council on and off for approximately 10 years. I have been going to those school council meetings. The current principal, Sue Fisher, who I believe is doing an excellent job, has also been very welcoming in my new role as the local member.
At the Anula Primary School, I record my sincere thanks to the previous principal, Sandy Cartwright, who was the acting principal for 18 months and, through no fault of her own, was not successful in obtaining the recently allocated position of principal. There was an interesting set of circumstances that caused the school council at Anula a lot of grief; however, the school council has recorded that and decided to move on, after submitting some reports to the Education department. I sincerely thank the school council for doing that, and for supporting what they saw as a need to improve the process.
Sandy Cartwright did a superb job of running the school and she introduced many new, innovative ideas about how to get kids to school. She lifted the attendance rate, the MAP testing results, the general morale of the staff and students and, generally, did a fantastic job. The interesting point was the final assembly in Term 3 of this year where the whole school turned out, along with probably the largest turnout of parents that I have ever seen, to send off a principal. There was standing room only in the assembly area and they all chose to demonstrate their support and thanks to Sandy by all dressing in purple, which is her favourite colour. It was fascinating to walk into a assembly area where there is standing room only, with hundreds and hundreds of people all dressed in purple, and a deck chair done up as a purple throne at the front. The send-off for that lady was outstanding and befitting of her status in the Anula school community.
My special thanks to Sandy for bringing that school to the point where the new principal, Karen Modoo, could come in and start from a position that is superior and advanced to perhaps where it was when she initially took over. That is not to say that previous principals did not, but Sandy brought with her, skills and capacity that built on the good work done by previous principals.
The Malak Primary School is run by Paul Nyhuis. I have students living in Anula who duck across to Malak Primary School because it is closer to them. I have people from the Malak and KOA Caravan Parks, who attend the Malak Primary School and the Karama Primary School, and the principals at those schools keep me informed on what is going on with those young people, that is Paul Nyhuis and Marg Fenbury. I thank them for the effort to inform me about what is happening when I ask questions regarding students who come from my electorate.
The other school that is very much a part of the constituents of my electorate is Leanyer Primary School and Mr Henry Gray who has been there since the school was built, and has done a superb job in being a community leader and principal of that school.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would now like to work on another part of our community in the electorate and that is the Neighbourhood Watch groups. There are two Neighbourhood Watch groups in my electorate: the Anula Neighbourhood Watch, which represents Northlakes and Anula, and ably run by the coordinator Michael McRostie, and the Neighbourhood Watch group at Wulagi, capably run by the area coordinator, Scottie. There is also the Residents Action Group in Wagaman, a very active and good group of people who are trying to improve their community. I thank all of those people who are involved in the Neighbourhood Watch and community action groups, who bring to our attention issues of importance to people at the grassroots level.
There is another initiative being run in the northern suburbs called community patrols, which are driven by both the community Neighbourhood Watch groups in my electorate. There is a fine group of people – Janice Warren, for instance, and John Lear. They are all ably guided by Paul Wyatt, who is the manager of Neighbourhood Watch. I went to a meeting recently, where they explained to me the success they are having with these community patrols and how it is having an impact. I see a great place for community patrols in the future of the Northern Territory in crime reduction strategies. They are good people, who are by no means vigilantes, but they are concerned citizens who need to be thanked.
I would like to thank the businesses in my electorate for their ongoing commitment to keep the business centres and shopping centres free from itinerants and people who consume alcohol. To their own financial detriment, they refuse to sell itinerants and drunks alcohol, foregoing what is obviously a profitable situation for them. They do a great job of keeping their particular areas under control.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank those in the Chamber. I thank those in Hansard upstairs, who are probably listening at the moment, for all the work behind the scenes into the early hours of the morning, so we can check those things the following day. Of course, the Clerk and associates in this fine House, and the advice and the patience they have given. It is wonderful to have that sort of experience at your disposal.
I also thank the Country Liberals and the party who support me in my role as an MLA and had a lot to do with getting me here. In particular, people who helped me with my Saturday mornings around the shopping centres: John Moyle, Ron Baker, and Bill and Lesley Hodge – I sincerely thank them for their outstanding efforts, and all those other members of my local branch, the North Darwin Branch, who continue to not only support their party and their side of politics, but support me as an individual, as an MLA, and as a member of their branch.
I sincerely thank my Electorate Officer, Fiona Lynch, who has come in at a difficult time and hit the ground running. She has helped me in my role and, when you are new to this House, as a number of people here realise, it is a fairly steep learning curve. I really appreciate what Fiona has done and the back up that she has given me.
I thank my family, my children Kristy Styles, Adam and Damien Styles for their effort and their support over the many years in my endeavours to enter politics. They have been my inspiration over the years and kept me going through a lot of tough times. To my two grandchildren, Telicia Browne and Dakota Browne, they are very much a reason why I keep going and work so hard to make this place better. When I look at them, I see our future in their eyes and realize why it is so important to try to make the Territory a better place. I thank them for all their advice and all the things they think I need, like the play station games for relaxation and the list my grandson gave me of play station games he believes I need, so if I ever got a chance, they are there for me to look at. He did say, also, he would have a trial run of them.
Most importantly, I would like to thank my partner Linda Fazldeen, who has been my back stop, my rock, my greatest critic, and the person who has been there to support me through all of this in my endeavours to enter politics. I have made some commitments to her and my family, that now I am here, I will work hard and not let them down.
I hope I have not missed anyone out. My colleagues on both sides of the House, my newfound friends who I get to have dinner with from time to time, albeit that we might have some serious things here, I thank you all for enriching my life.
The last person I would like to acknowledge is someone who passed from here just a couple of weeks ago. That is a very good friend of mine and to other members, particularly the ex-police officers in this House, and that is Joy Kuhl. I recognise her 30 years in the NT Police Forensic area as a scientist. She was one of the most professional people who had attention to detail, a great family and, unfortunately, was taken from us before her time. She has left not only three wonderful girls, but a partner, Rod Hooper, who has been a rock and stood by her for the last four years of her illness. I acknowledge Rod’s commitment to a wonderful person. We wish that Joy Kuhl rest in peace after a fine contribution to the Territory.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is always a pleasure to participate in the adjournment debate and to update my colleagues and put on the public record the many good things which occur in my electorate of Nhulunbuy. It is, indeed, a wonderful place and home to many wonderful people. I trust my parliamentary colleagues forgive me for reading my speech. It seemed to be a crime earlier in the evening when I was reading my speech, but I do notice it is quite common practice in the Chamber.
A documentary titled In My Father’s Country received an award for the 2008 Best Direction in a Documentary Feature in the recent Australian Director’s Guild Awards. In My Father’s Country was made in collaboration with the people of Dhuruputjpi and Gangan communities of Blue Mud Bay and offers a rare insight into one boy’s passage into becoming a man. The Yolngu language film received a $6000 grant to assist our local linguist, Merrkiyawuy Ganambarr, in developing subtitling skills for film work. As more and more films are being made in Arnhem Land, the experience for her was extremely important. I congratulate her on taking on such a great initiative to assist her community in this field.
Nhulunbuy High School has excelled again in the biannual Eratosthenes’ Project during the 2008 National Science Week coordinated by RMIT in August. It is a re-enactment of Eratosthenes’ famous experiment in measuring the angle of the sun at local noon to determine the radius of the Earth. Nhulunbuy High School is now the repeat winner of the competition, having won it in 2006. My congratulations go to the teacher, Mr Damian Alahakoon, who was also coordinator of the project at the school and who assisted the winning team at Nhulunbuy High School in 2006, as well. Congratulations go to the students who participated from the Year 10 maths group and the Year 11 physics group for winning this year’s award: Lorna Alahakoon, William Blake, Edward Brazier, Jessica Cunningham, Lauren Dunn, Melanie Hammond, Tess Hutchinson, Taylah Lewis, Samuel Marrable, Edward O’Brien, Renita Panetta-Randle, Abby Pollard, Samuel Putland, Nathan Reid, Lauren Richter, Jessie Risely, Dominic Bulters, Kieran Castelli, Dylan Edwards, Charles Hutchinson, Hazem Jebeili, Matthew Smith, Trent Thomas, Cassie Williams, and Ben Zeigler.
I pass on my very best wishes to those students at Nhulunbuy High School who have now completed their exams and other assessments for their Northern Territory Certificate of Education. It is a time of year which places students under a good deal of pressure to demonstrate the skills and knowledge they have acquired and learned, and the outcome of those results, expected before Christmas, will determine their future paths. Nhulunbuy High School students are a fine bunch of young men and women and I know that they will do well. I also know that they, along with their families and teachers, enjoyed a fantastic evening at the Year 12 end of year formal on 15 November, a night to celebrate and reflect on their achievements, not only in 2008 but throughout their school years. I visited the Town Hall as it was being decorated with a fantastic midsummer night’s theme. By the end of the afternoon and that evening the hall looked absolutely spectacular.
I am also delighted to acknowledge the achievements of seven Year 12 students who are the first ever homeland students in my region to complete their Northern Territory Certificate of Education. I add that homeland schools are not a bilingual programme but rather are recognised as English Second Language learners.
I acknowledge and congratulate the following students: Dhawungbung Gumana, Bitharrpuyngu Maymuru, Bulbuyunawuy Guyala, Gundayka Wanambi, Gawiya Mununggurr, Yarrakayngu Marawili and Warrathiri Ganambarr. A celebration was held at Garrthalala on Thursday, 30 October, to acknowledge and celebrate students’ achievements in completing Year 12. Unfortunately, I was in the Chamber for the last day of October sittings so sent my apologies along with a letter of congratulations to each student. I look forward to making a trip to Garrthalala in the near future to catch up with students and their teachers.
The teachers and aides who assisted them through to completion are Muthara Mununggurr, who is well known and highly regarded as a teacher, Abi White, Ruth Micka, Kahra Trower, Bulpunu Mununggurr and Nick Ross.
I had the opportunity in November to attend homeland school sports day coordinated by the teachers of Laynhapuy Homelands School. It was held at Birany Birany, a beautiful community on the coast, there are Gumatj people in that community. There were probably around about 100 kids who attended the sports day from surrounding communities. Given that there was sorry business occurring in a nearby community, numbers were higher than expected, which was fantastic. We had a number of members of the Geelong Football Club who travel to the Nhulunbuy region and provide fantastic development workshops to children.
No discussion about schools and student achievements is complete without acknowledging the contribution our teachers make to education and students’ lives. As a former teacher, the wife of a teacher, and the parent of three school aged children, I know how hard teachers work and greatly value their contribution to not only my children’s education but all of the children in my electorate. Teachers who are working in remote schools, in homeland schools, are extremely dedicated to the work they do.
I had the pleasure very recently of being one of the judges of Nhulunbuy Corporation’s gardening competition. It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience and, along with fellow judges, Kendell Kenway, who is community officer of the Nhulunbuy Corporation, and also Rachel Verdel, a passionate gardener, 40 gardens were visited. There are some beautiful and innovative gardens around Nhulunbuy. Judging was based on a huge range of criteria but, at the end of the day, prize winners for the gardening competition were announced at an art and craft morning, which has become a regular monthly event in Nhulunbuy. This was the October event.
We had celebrity gardener and writer, Leonie Norrington, who appears on the ABC’s Gardening Australia show, come along as a special guest.
The prize winners were: Best Rio Tinto Alcan House was won by Claire Bishop and the second prize was given to Michelle Hockings, as equal winners, because we found it impossible to separate those two beautiful gardens. The runner up in the Rio Tinto Alcan House Garden Section was Bernie Read. The best Rio Tinto Alcan Unit was won by Debbie Grenshaw and the runner up in that section was Stephen Ridden and his wife, Katie, with their new baby. The best Northern Territory Government Employee House or Duplex was won by Bob Small, and the runner up in that section was Lorrain Loftus. I have known Lorrain a long time, and she has moved house in the last 18 months. It is amazing to see what she has done in the short time she has been in her new place. The prize for the Best Private House went to Lynsey and Tom Brown at Ski Beach - an incredible garden they have. Runner up in that section went to Michelle and Mark Hurley. What was particularly impressive about their garden was the very efficient watering systems they had in place. There was one further prize for the gardening competition, awarded to the Best Street, which was Singing Rocks Road, just around the corner from where I used to live. It was judged as the winner, and resident Marie France Gilmer accepted the certificate on her neighbours’ behalf.
Winners were given $500 cash, and second place were given $350. There was also a Water Wise Award and a $50 voucher given out by Rachel Verdel from Gove Plants to Emma Frencham. Competition sponsors were Rio Tinto Alcan Gove, Northern Territory Government and Nhulunbuy Corporation Ltd. I commend Nhulunbuy Corporation for this initiative and, in particular, Kendell Kenway. The competition generated a lot of interest, a lot of community pride and, I am sure, will be even bigger in 2009.
I pay tribute to Graeme Bean. Graeme and his wife, Leonie, have retired and left Gove after 33 years. They arrived in 1975 with Graeme taking up a job with Nabalco, and they raised their two children, Therese and Paul in Nhulunbuy. Many years ago, I was Therese’s teacher. She has gone on to be an English and Drama teacher herself. Leonie worked for 23 years at Gove Hospital, and has already enjoyed a few years of retirement in Gove. The Beans were Labor Party stalwarts and were always active members of the community. Graeme was never short of advice or a tip, and I know that they are happily settled in their new home in Tassie, where I am sure they will continue their active involvement at a party and community level.
As my last adjournment for the year, I take this opportunity to wish my parliamentary colleagues a safe and happy Christmas and new year. As a new member to the Assembly, it has been an interesting and challenging time. I also acknowledge the support of the large number of staff I have met in the parliament, from the fifth floor office, through to the Office of the Speaker and to the Legislative Assembly and Parliamentary Library Services. I trust the Legislative Assembly staff are pleased to be given the gift of 10 pm finishes during sittings for this Christmas, starting next year. It is one thing for the members to go late into the night and the wee hours of the morning, but I have felt for the Clerk, the Table Office staff and the diligent Hansard staff who go until stumps.
I acknowledge my electorate officer, Jenny Djerrkura, who I joking refer to as ‘mum’ sometimes, because she goes to great lengths to look after and support me, as she does our constituents. Her extensive knowledge is absolutely invaluable as is her relationships with Yolngu. She has a big heart and generosity to match. To Jenny Laverty, who was Syd Stirling’s electorate officer and continues to keep her hand in as my relieving casual electorate officer, and provides fantastic and very efficient support. Thank you to both of the Jennys, along with the Nhulunbuy/Yirrkala branch members, who work hard to support me as the new member, which includes baking cakes, selling raffle tickets, and finding new and ingenious ways of raising funds in anticipation of the next federal and Territory elections, as well as always being on the lookout for new members to join the cause.
I thank and acknowledge my husband, Lawrence, and my beautiful children, Zoe, Harry and Patrick. They have been through a bit of an adjustment period in the last few months and, no doubt, will continue to do so, but have a growing understanding and, indeed interest, in my new job and politics, as well as issues at Territory and federal level. I want my kids to know that politics and exercising your right to hold a view and cast a vote is something they must value.
While the last few weeks of the year are always busy, I look forward to getting along to my local schools’ end of year presentation nights. Week after next, I will be in Galiwinku and look forward to an overnight visit, which will enable me to get to Gawa, which is the community at the far end of Elcho Island, some 60 km along a sandy track, as well as visit homeland communities along the way which are looked after by Marthakal Homelands. As members, particularly in bush electorates, know only too well, these people cannot come to you in your electorate office; the local member needs to go out to them and be on the ground to see and hear firsthand what is happening.
I will also be visiting Shepherdson College where, I understand, there has been a great improvement in school attendance. This is great news because, as we know, and as my colleague, the minister for Education has said repeatedly, if we are going to transform Indigenous education in the Territory and see outcomes for children, we have to begin by seeing regular attendance. Without it, no program at the school can hope to succeed.
I take this opportunity to wish my constituents a safe and happy Christmas, and I look forward to working with and for them in 2009. In spite of some very heated arguments this evening, I recognise, as does this government, that there is much work to do to assist my Yolngu constituents, but I also recognise that there is also much to be thankful for and to celebrate.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is my great pleasure to thank a few people for the wonderful support I have received from them during the year. There is, as the member for Nhulunbuy just said, a lot to be thankful for. I am not alone in that regard and there are certain people I need to thank.
In relation to, in no particular order, the Country Liberals, I particularly acknowledge the support I have received from Rick Setter, the President of the party; Bob Johnson, the party secretary and Graeme Lewis, the party treasurer. These three fellows have been there for me and provided great support throughout the year; in fact, throughout the time I have been involved in politics in the Territory.
I thank the staff in the Leader of the Opposition’s office. James Lantry has been a good friend of mine now for some time and provided a great deal of support. Greg Charter and Camden Smith, the two media advisors, have also given me a great deal of support, with Kylie Silvey, Francine Tomsen, Millie Crowe, Bonnie Hageman, Leanne Britton and Michael Delosa. I am sure my Country Liberal colleagues will agree that they do us proud and do a fantastic job for us. It is a small office and we are under-resourced, as I am sure even government members will agree. We are doing better this term than we were last term, but it is very difficult to be in opposition. You rely very heavily on the staff in the Opposition Leader’s office. These guys have been absolutely first rate and I say thank you to all of them.
My electorate officer, Helen Bateman, has been with me in my previous role as the federal member for Solomon and in this role. Helen does a marvellous job. She is probably one of those people you would almost class as apolitical, has a very good understanding of the electorate and government departments, both Northern Territory and federal. That sort of understanding is worth its weight in gold for an electorate officer. Helen has been incredible in the way she deals with constituents by directing them and solving their concerns. She is also a very active person, as most people will know. She relates very well with the public, and I am very thankful that Helen agreed to come to work for me as the member for Fong Lim.
I pay particular thanks to the staff of the Legislative Assembly: Ian McNeill, Brian Cook, Graham Gadd, Hansard staff, the wonderful job that they do, Clifton, Stokesy, he is still sitting in there, well done and thanks mate for all your support in the Chamber throughout the year. Thanks to Greg Connors. I am a bit of a Luddite when it comes to information technology and computers. Greg, as much as I sometimes have a humorous dig at him, does a fantastic job. I would like him to know that his work has been appreciated.
I thank my Country Liberal colleagues, Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills and my other colleagues, for bearing with me through an election campaign and our time in this parliament. They have been towers of strength for me, great mates and colleagues. I have not been in such a wonderful position anywhere in my parliamentary career as I am now. I am very thankful that they put their hands up and managed to win their seats because their support and friendship is fantastic. They are a great bunch of people to be involved with.
I thank members of the government - they keep me on my toes. I hope in some ways I can keep them on their toes. I note the member for Johnston is still here, thank you very much for the lively debate you have provided during the year. It is good to see. It is good that we can punch it out on the floor of this Chamber but still have a laugh and a joke afterwards. It is a bit like a boxing match, where you see these fighters, going hammer and tongs at it for 15 rounds and at the end they shake hands and are best mates.
That is one of the great things about the Territory, politics and religion come a distant second to mateship at times. You do not judge a person by their religion, race or politics - you judge them by their character. Whilst we have our political disagreements, and at times it pains you to come into this place and belt up on the other side, belt blokes that you know are decent blokes at heart, but you have to do it for the good of the electorate, the people in the Territory. I thank them for their patience with me and the like.
I thank my wife, Alicia, and my two boys, William and Henry, for their patience and support. Parliamentary life is impossible without the support of your family. I am sure everyone in this Chamber would agree that you could not do this job without the support of your family and friends. My wife has been the bedrock of my political career, particularly my federal career. It is an appallingly dreadful job as far as the strain it places on marriages and family life. It is a great achievement when a family manages to stay together throughout a parliamentary career. In the federal parliament the average marriage lasts something like one-and-a-half terms. It is a dreadful life, I have to say. You spend six months of the year in Canberra, then you are back and when you are back in your electorate you are constantly worried.
I recall the story from the federal parliament about the class of 1996. Amongst those people who were elected in 1996, not one marriage lasted out the term. That speaks loads. I know John Howard, when he was asked by a journalist once: ‘What is your greatest achievement in your political career?’ he replied that he managed to maintain his marriage. Many people could scoff at that statement, but until you have experienced life as a parliamentarian, particularly a federal parliamentarian, you will not understand what a great achievement it is to spend 30 years in the parliament and retain a marriage.
From my point of view, I could not do this job without the support of my wife and my children. My children are now at an age where they know what I am up to. When I was first elected they were a little bigger than babies. They did not know what dad was doing with his time, but now they are old enough to understand what dad does. It is a great thing that they support me in my position.
It has been a good year. Not quite good enough, politically speaking. We could have won one more seat. It would have been a great year then! Irrespective of that, it has been a good year, and it has been a good year for me. I appreciate the year we have had and my new electorate. It is a fantastic electorate. It is a great cross-section of the Northern Territory. It is very diverse. I thank the constituents in my electorate for supporting me at the last election. I am very keen to repay that support over the next three and a bit years.
Once again, thank you to everyone. Thank you very much to the Legislative Assembly team and thank you, in particular, to my colleagues. It has been a great year. I look forward to getting back here next year and slugging it out again with the government. It should be a lot of fun.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will deal largely with many issues that have been covered tonight as far as recognising the people who have helped me and us to get to where we are and to pass on Christmas wishes.
Before I do that, on 14 November this year, I was asked to go to the MacFarlane Primary School in Katherine to watch the concert the students and teachers had prepared. It was an excellent day. There were some marvellous costumes and terrific singing and dancing. I noted at the time, and I made the comment, that these are only young primary school aged kids. I do not think I had the courage when I was their age to get up and do what they were doing. Kids of today have come a long way. I take my hat off to them for having the bollocks to get up and present themselves to a great crowd of about 120 people there – other students, staff and parents.
On that day also I was asked to present some awards. I would like to take the opportunity tonight to enter into Hansard the names of the people who received those awards and the awards they received. The Sommerville Award for high levels of scholastic work went to Muriel Sholtze. I was honoured to be able to present the Chief Minister’s Literacy Awards on that day as well. The following people were the recipients of the awards. For improved reading, Shantaria Raymond; for imaginative performance, Tyesha Benny-Hobbs; improved reading, Molly Craven; improved writing, Warren Rankine; improved writing, Gordean Winton-Hill; improved oral language, Princess Backhouse; improved writing, Kieren Hayley; improved writing, Benjamin Craven. Many of those were in different age groups, hence there seems to be some repeated.
Other awards that were presented on the day included the Quiet Achiever to Edna Boddington; Sporting and Class Effort to Steven Smetz; Caring and Cooperative Award to Rose Blacksmith; Sportsperson of the Year was Tamara Rankine, and particular congratulations to the Academic Dux of the School, Ben Craven. Well done to him. The Young Australian Citizenship Award was presented to Sheyenne Von Senden.
It has been an interesting year. Many of us are new in parliament. We have changed jobs. That is an enormous step in the life anyone. It has been interesting. I must say that I have, thus far, thoroughly enjoyed the challenges that have been presented to me as a new MLA. The challenges can be broken up into different areas. You have the parliamentary challenges with things that happen here; the challenges in your electorate that are linked to what happens in parliament; and then what happens, in my case, in the shadow portfolios. It has been an interesting time. It is a very steep learning curve.
The reception I have received from people within the industries for which I am a shadow minister has been wonderful. They are very supportive. They understand that, being new to the job, there is much to learn. They have taken me on as a pupil, as such, and imparted a great deal of information to me; for that I am extremely grateful.
What I should do so I do not forget them is to move on to thanking a number of people. I place on record, first, that I thank the constituents of the electorate of Katherine. They have bestowed in me a great deal of trust and faith, and I intend to reward them over many years of service as a member of this Legislative Assembly. First and foremost, I understand they are the people who deserve to be looked after. We need to advance the true welfare of Territorians, and the people of Katherine will be the recipients of all my efforts in that regard. I thank them and I pass on to everyone in Katherine my most sincere Christmas wishes and hope for a safe and happy New Year.
I particularly thank Fay Miller, the previous member for Katherine, who showed me an enormous amount of support in the time leading up to the election. I need not go into it too much, but thanks, Fay, for coming to see me about 12 months ago and suggesting this might a path I could take. That was terrific.
I thank my electorate officer, Pat Witte. Pat has been through a very difficult time this year. She was diagnosed with breast cancer, and she was very fortunate that the diagnosis came quite early. She had to have a mastectomy on one side, which completely removed the cancer. She was, subsequently, tested and had no residual cancer, so there was no requirement for radium or chemotherapy, which is absolutely wonderful. She is now in very good health. I am pleased to report she was only off work for three-and-a-half or four weeks. She is in Darwin at the moment with the other electorate officers doing the courses they are on. I thank Pat for her support. She is a wonderful electorate officer. There is nothing and virtually no one around Katherine whom Pat does not know. That is called, I guess, corporate knowledge. People who have corporate knowledge are held, and should be held, in very high esteem in our jobs because they are the glue that holds us together. When we need some advice, or we do not know something or someone, our electorate officers help us out. Thank you, Pat.
I pass on my thanks to my parliamentary colleagues from the other side of the House. Without you, of course, we do not have a job in a funny way. Regardless of the difficulties we might come up against on the floor of this House between each other, my feelings are that there is no personal intent, no personal offence is taken. I realise it is a part of the robust debate that must go on to ensure good government in the Northern Territory. I am pleased that we have an opposition that is much closer in number to the number in government because, regardless of which side of the political fence you sit, good government can only be achieved, I believe, through having a good opposition. I do thank the members from the Labor government. I know that I am learning things as I go along, and I am learning things from them, as well. Some of the things I am learning, of course, are the things to do, and then there are others I am learning are the things you do not do. I hope I can take those lessons forward with me.
I thank my Country Liberal Party colleagues as well. One of the most enjoyable things about being on this side, I guess, I have not experienced the other side, I do not know, is the sense of teamwork that we feel. We are a terrific team, we are united, we have a common goal, we are all very capable people and very keen and committed to working hard for the people of the Northern Territory. I did not enter the debate on the change to standing orders, but it does seem to be at this juncture that the changes to standing orders are not necessarily in the best interests of Territorians. I came here to work, but it seems like my attempts to work on the floor of this House are going to be stymied by changes to the standing orders that have been put through today.
Nonetheless, thanks to everyone in the House, to the support staff we have in the Leader of the Opposition’s office. To the Hansard staff, I particularly thank them. It must be a difficult job, I could not imagine sitting there listening to 15 or 20 minutes or so at a time of us yabbering along and having to get it all down, they must type at about 120 or 130 words a minute, and hats off to them.
Thank you to all the Legislative Assembly staff. As a new member, you come to a new workplace and there is an enormous amount you have to know. All the Legislative Assembly staff have been extremely helpful; there is nothing that the ‘Legies’ will not do for you. If you ask, it will be done. They are absolutely dedicated and committed people. I extend to them my very warmest thanks for all the help that they have provided me.
I take this opportunity to wish everyone, generally, a very merry Christmas. We are at the point where our road toll is devastating – it is 71 at the moment. It spurs me on to say please, please everyone, drive carefully on our roads in the Northern Territory. It may not be your life that is affected if you choose to drive while you are drinking, while you are drunk, or if you choose to behave in an irresponsible and stupid manner - it is the life of someone else who could be affected.
I know people do silly things under some circumstances, but it is high time that motorists start to take responsibility for their own behaviour. They cannot go around blaming the system, the legislation or anything else, they need to take responsibility for themselves and to decide that they are going to be responsible drivers who are in charge of a vehicle that weighs anything from a tonne and-a-half to three tonnes of potentially deadly metal. I encourage everyone to be very careful on the roads.
In that vein, I wish everybody a very safe new year. I am sure 2009 is going to be a wonderful year for everybody in the Northern Territory. We have a spirited parliament, there is a lot of work to do, and everyone here, regardless of what side of the parliamentary divide we may sit, I believe, has in their hearts the best interests of Territorians. The methods, of course, for delivering those feelings are probably different, but nonetheless, we are all different and that makes life interesting.
I thank the Speaker in this House, the Deputy Speaker, the Acting Deputy Speaker and yourself, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker for presiding over us. It must take a fair bit of patience to sit there and listen to what goes on in the House and try to keep a cool and calm head. I thank you.
I am looking forward to next year and I am looking forward to the break, so I can catch up with a bit of work. I am looking forward to being back here in 2009 to continue the good work I believe we are all doing for the people of the Northern Territory.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about the Motor Vehicle Enthusiast Club which does a remarkable job in the Territory. As patron of the Motor Vehicle Enthusiast Club, I attended the Annual General Meeting held on the 25 October this year. This club is a shining example of volunteers getting together to pursue their interest in vintage cars and, at the same time, devoting their energies to improving the social and historical fabric of the Northern Territory.
The club has a membership of 332, making it the largest of the incorporated motoring clubs in the Northern Territory. The club operates out of the heritage-listed Qantas Hangar in Parap, under government sponsorship. It is fantastic to note the hangar attracted in excess of 5000 visitors, over the last financial year, excluding open days, to view members’ vehicles on display and the antique machinery collection of Leo Izod.
There have been some notable events at the hangar during the last 12 months as mentioned by President Peet Menzies at the AGM. These events included, in December last year, the allocation of $500 of members’ funds for the repair and refurbishment of toys and furniture for preschools. The toys and furniture are remanufactured and repaired as an ongoing project. In February 2008 the hangar was open for the Bombing of Darwin Commemoration and again in September for Father’s Day. In May, Shell/BP Aviation donated the Mercedes Benz aircraft refueller to the MVEC, and in June, the Darwin Youth Orchestra performed at the hangar for free.
The MVEC continues to support Legacy and the Lions Club. The club sponsored five children to the children’s film festival, a film outing held for children who, through no fault of their own, cannot afford the usual joys of childhood. In June, the club donated $1000 to Legacy at the hangar, money raised by providing a sausage sizzle for the Aviation and Heritage Centre open day and topped up with club funds.
During the year club volunteers commenced refurbishing The Sandfly which was relocated to the hangar from the Wharf Precinct. The steam locomotive was gifted to the Territory by Great Southern Railway in August 2005 and was deteriorating badly due to the elements at its location on the wharf. It will be great to see the locomotive restored to its pristine condition.
Of great excitement for the MVEC members was the opportunity to make their motor vehicles available to the film makers during the filming of Balibo in Darwin this year and some of the members were even used as extras. Balibo looks at the death of five newsmen who were gunned down in the town of Balibo in East Timor in 1975. The club also provided military vehicles for the Dawn Service of the Bombing of Darwin and jeeps assisted carrying TPI veterans at the head of the Anzac Day parade through Darwin.
Not only did members lovingly restore and preserve their vehicles, but they lend the vehicles voluntarily to ensure the flavour of community events is enhanced. In keeping with the community-minded spirit of members of the club, a set of miniature metal road traffic signals were purchased for the Anula Preschool. There were many events held during the year, including a Christmas dinner at the Hub, which the Transport minister will fondly remember; an Australia Day barbecue; a club run to Livingstone Reserve, victory at the annual cricket match with the classic Holden Car Club; a Mother’s Day run to Adelaide River; a combined Shannons Club Day and National Heritage Day of Motoring, which started at Hidden Valley and ended at Mindil Beach; the Shannons Extravaganza at the Darwin Show Grounds in June; a town run in July to East Point; and the touring group had a run to Alice Springs and back to Darwin, to meet the arrival of the Talbot, which was in Darwin to celebrate that 100 years ago, Harry H Dutton and mechanic, Murray Aunger, set off to cross the Australian continent from south to north. The 1908, 25 horse power Talbot had repeated the journey in 1959 and 1998, but this time arrived on the back of a trailer.
In August, a very successful Rejex Rally was held with 60 vehicles attending. In late August, members with pre-1930 cars escorted the Talbot from Winnellie Post Office to Parliament House. This is a lot of activity for a club during any given year and I am sure the members have had a great time.
I congratulate the members of the Motor Vehicles Enthusiasts Club on their adventures and their community spirit. Their endeavours are enviable and really valued by the community.
At the Casuarina Senior College meeting this month, I learnt that a large number of students from the college will be competing in the Pacific School Games to be held in Canberra during the first week of December. The Pacific School Games is an international sporting event for primary and secondary school students aged 10 to 19 years. It is the flagship event of School Sport Australia, and its mission is, and I quote:
- To provide, through school sport, quality educational opportunities for Australian school communities.
The students competing this year from Casuarina Senior College are
In the Under 19s Swimming Squad:
Rachel Zagorskis Micaela Gerlach
Stacey Carvolth Jack Rochford
In the Under 16s Hockey Squad:
Katrina Trimble Jade Grace Lee
Jenny Boon Leah Barham
Hayden Clark Mitchell Lockley
Samuel Sommerville Adrian Quan
William Scott
In the Under 19s Track and Field Squad:
Jessica Tudor Daniel Tedcastle
In the Under 18s Bastketball Squad:
Liam Devine Jack Hose
Rhys Thomas Liam Maclachlan
Christian Williams Mitchell Tinley
Joseph Johnson Brianna Grazioli
Kate Hoschke Desiree Weetra
Unfortunately, as of yesterday, a few of the basketball players pulled out of the competition to go to another tournament which will be held in America around the same time. This is a fantastic effort and I wish these competitors all the best in Canberra. I am sure the House looks forward to hearing of their accomplishments.
It is Christmas and people are giving adjournment wrap-ups for the year. I wish the constituents of the Johnston electorate the very best for the festive season and the coming New Year. It has been an exciting and very busy year, with local government elections, electorate boundary changes and, of course, the Northern Territory election. Through these momentous occasions, together with doorknocking and community events, I have had the opportunity to meet with many of my constituents. I have enjoyed hearing their stories, taking up their issues and hearing about their triumphs in life. I have also been inspired by the tribulations that some have been through and the way they have endured and, indeed, persisted and succeeded.
I have four schools in my electorate plus a continuing interest in Wagaman Primary School, which just falls outside the new boundary. There are plenty of people in the section of Wagaman whose children go to Wagaman Primary School. I wish all the principals, Sue Healy, Jodie Green, Pam Erfurt, Michele Cody and Terry Quong, together with their teachers, a very relaxing holiday period, after the trials and tribulations of this year. Our teachers do a fantastic job.
I pray for the safety of our kids and families over the Christmas holiday season and I wish them a fantastic and exciting Christmas.
I continue to support the Wagaman Residents Committee. Unfortunately, I will miss their Christmas party this Thursday evening. This is a group that continues to watch out for their community and endeavour to make it as safe as possible for each other. The police always attend the meeting and do their best to ensure the concerns are listened to and acted upon and there are resources in place to deal with the antisocial behaviour that occurs.
I believe the police on our streets do an incredible job, made harder by increasing antisocial behaviour that we have debated in this parliament and problems with youth gangs we acknowledge. I commend the Northern Territory Police and the very difficult task they undertake and wish them a quiet and peaceful Christmas and safe New Year.
Of course there are too many people to thank individually for all the work they do. I thank all the people in my ministerial office for their support and patience, as well as those in the Australian Labor Party and the strong support I received in the election.
I thank all the people who have been commented on in the running of parliament – the Table Office, the Legislative Assembly, Hansard - you all do a fantastic job, often under difficult circumstances. I commend you and I am deeply appreciative, along with other members, for the fantastic job you do.
There are so many people working in government departments who do an extraordinary job. It is always a pleasure to go to the workplace and meet and greet people doing their everyday job. They are all very important in delivering services to the people of the Northern Territory. I know each one of them take pride in the great jobs they do. I know they will continue to do so. There are difficult times and hard situations, and I particularly commend the staff at Royal Darwin Hospital who work so diligently. There are difficult times. I was at a function there about a week-and-a-half ago, where we gave awards to people, some of whom had been serving up to 40 years. There is a great spirit amongst the people who work at Royal Darwin Hospital and, indeed, all our hospitals - Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, and Gove.
I hope the break over Christmas and New Year can refresh us all, so we can come back and do our jobs next year. Our jobs are difficult. I have heard what members have said. I have been heartened to hear new members say how much they are enjoying their role; how they are rising to the challenges of that role; and how they are enjoying a sense of camaraderie. It is a difficult game we are in. Often parliament is an adversarial place but, as someone commented - I think it was the member for Fong Lim - sometimes adversaries become the best of mates.
I think it was Jim Killen and Fred Daly who became very good mates over time. I suppose that was a bit of an odd couple. It is important, as the member for Fong Lim remarked – politics and religion should not be dividing factors. We are all part of the great fabric of Australian society, and both sides of politics, at every level, have made very significant and positive achievements with time. It is that weft and weave of politics that enriches the fabric of Australian society.
Of course, I thank my electorate officer, Judy Herring, for all her endeavours and for being such a wonderful reader of such an erratic mind. She is a great mind reader and she has been with me from the beginning - or I have been with her. She is one of the few who have been there all the way along. It does take a bit of patience and endurance, and I thank her for all her efforts.
Of course, I thank my family, and my wife, Elizabeth. There has been a lot of talk about family here tonight. I have remarked that my family sometimes gets along better when I am not there. I have always been a bit of an absentee, but I know I have great support. My wife, Elizabeth, is a real self-starter. She has her own life, her own interests, and her own mind. I enjoy her very incisive and reflective comments and appreciate her advice and, sometimes, her corrections. That is very important in our life, to have that balance.
I could not finish my last adjournment for the year without thanking Bruiser. When I get home tonight at about midnight, he will be there waiting for me. He will be happy and welcome me with his tail wagging, with his paramour, Bella, who is now his partner - although we will wait a while until she produces pups. I know there will be great demand for those pups. We are looking forward to the happy event.
It is a pleasure to be here tonight. It is the end of the year and we have one sitting day to go. As always, the last day is a bit of a roller coaster, but at the end of the sitting year, we can look back on the year. Of course, during this year I have lost a number of colleagues; that is sad and those friendships and memories remain. It is also an opportunity to get to know other people, with different points of view and contributions.
It is a funny game we are in. We all have a turn under the spotlight, and it can be uncomfortable at times. As Health Minister you probably have more turns than most, but it is a strange game. I will just say a bit of a motto, you come in here and basically, it is not exactly how you expect it. Sometimes you get to where you think you want to be, and there is an old saying that my wife says to me, ‘be very careful what you wish for’ and it is very true. That is something I think others have to find out for themselves, but I am glad of the opportunities I have had in this place and through being the member for Johnston.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I wish the minister well when he sends Bruiser a copy of his very kind comments in the Hansard. Bruiser is obviously a dog who can read, and I am sure he will be elated when he reads the adjournment speech.
I will be relatively brief. It has been a big year. An election is the obvious thing that sums up the year. I am being very grateful for being elected a third time and for having increased my vote. I thank all constituents in Araluen and wish each and every one of them a very happy and safe Christmas.
I also wish my colleagues a happy and safe Christmas. It has been very interesting and different - after three-and-a-half years as a one of a team member of four - to all of a sudden be part of a team of 11. The newer members, because I know how hard they work, will have some appreciation, of the almost indescribable workload we had over a three-and-a-half year period. I regarded that period, and will always regard that period, as very enriching. I do not think I have ever worked as hard in my life. I hope no opposition in this country, or others, is reduced to a team of four. It is not good for the running of the parliament, the people of the Northern Territory, or for the government, given the very important roles that oppositions have.
As members have said, we do not always see eye to eye in this Chamber, although often we do, but the role of the opposition can never be underestimated. I have said before and will say again, oppositions must hold governments’ accountable. No government is anywhere near perfect, and governments are famously bad at keeping themselves accountable. Therefore, the role of the opposition is very important. To have so many colleagues, in the last few months and the last couple of sittings, who have an enormous amount of energy and potential, has been very gratifying.
I take this opportunity to thank members of the Legislative Assembly, the Table Office, Hansard staff, and other members of the staff of the Legislative Assembly; they really provide great assistance. I will not name them all, for fear of leaving someone out, but they know who they are.
I would like to make special reference of the Parliamentary Library Service. It is a sensational service and I use them a lot. I pay particular tribute and thanks to Di Sinclair, whose assistance has been truly wonderful. I know that she has been short staffed. She has a colleague who has joined her in relatively recent times. The service the Parliamentary Library Service provides to members is sensational. The detail they can provide, the speed with which they provide it, and their courteous and efficient manner, I believe, is simply outstanding. I urge members on both sides to use the Parliamentary Library Service as often as they can. I have encouraged our newer colleagues to do so. It is endless in terms of what they can provide, and all of us make better politicians if we are well and widely read. Of course, everyone makes mistakes, in and out of this Chamber, but if you have the material, it is generally of great assistance. Thank you to Di Sinclair, in particular, for her efforts over the last year or so.
In conclusion, I cannot finish the last adjournment speech of the year without referring to the government members’ decidedly offensive, aggressive, rude, and hostile conduct. I am also concerned about the arrogance displayed by members opposite. I am deeply concerned that, three-and-a-half months after an election, the government is demonstrating it is lazy, tired, and arrogant. You would have thought that three-and-a-half months in, the government would have a spring in its step. Recently elected, I know it was a tight election, but what a wonderful position you are all in, as ministers of the Crown, to make decisions for the betterment of your fellow Territorians.
I came in with you, minister, and we have all seen things change and different patterns emerge over the seven year period. However, the way I have seen the government performing in the last three months has been the worst. Whilst I suppose that provides political opportunities, I am genuinely saddened by it, because the government and government ministers are the ones who are meant to be working hard for Territorians. I do not believe they are. I believe that, on balance, members opposite have behaved disgracefully, and I remain deeply concerned about that. It will be a long four years if the government continues carrying on the way it has been. It is a government out of ideas, out of talent, and three-and-a-half months after an election, it is a government out of energy. That should be a concern to members within government. It is a concern to my colleagues and I, and I believe it will increasingly become a concern to our fellow Territorians.
With those comments, I conclude. I wish members and parliamentary colleagues, a happy and safe Christmas.
Mr Acting DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the House do now adjourn.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 10
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Giles
Mr Henderson Mr Mills
Mr Knight Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The House is not adjourned yet. Resume your seats. The House stands adjourned until Thursday, 27 November at 10 am.
The Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016